Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Deputies seize $88,000 in cash in traffic stop
Lexington Dispatch ^ | 9/27/06 | SEAN JAREM

Posted on 09/28/2006 5:44:38 PM PDT by elkfersupper

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-105 next last
To: jan in Colorado

"I must admit, I'm surprised to read that from a Marine."

Don't be. The oath I took numerous times over the span I served (1967-1993) told me I was protecting and defending the Constitution for the United States against ALL enemies, foreign and domestic. I took the time to find out what it was I was swearing to protect and defend and, guess what? The Constitution is a LIMIT on governmental authority at all levels, not just federal. One of those limits is that government cannot just willy-nilly take someone's property without either a search warrant or a judgement entered in open court. That being the case, ANY "LEO" who does what the cops in this case did are not acting under the ultimate authority of the Supreme Law of the Land, but are committing armed robbery UNDER COLOR OF LAW and are no better than any other armed robber, thus deserving of the same fate. Preferably at the hands of the intended victim.

FURTHER, when SOME cops do this sort of evil activity, they make it much harder for the GOOD cops, who are tarred with the same brush. It can also shorten their life spans when citizens finally get fed up and go off on them. (Google Vin Suprinowicz and the Ballad of Carl Drega for a good example.)


41 posted on 10/03/2006 11:52:54 PM PDT by dcwusmc (The government is supposed to fit the Constitution, NOT the Constitution fit the government!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: CSM
"Name one valid reason that money is confiscated without the victim being charged with a crime."

Because the prosecution believes he cannot get a conviction based on "beyond a reasonable doubt", but can based on "a preponderance of the evidence".

42 posted on 10/15/2006 5:59:22 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen

Do you think it is valid that criminal trial requirements are being lowered to civil trail standards?


43 posted on 10/16/2006 6:14:59 AM PDT by CSM ("When you stop lying about us, we'll stop telling the truth about you." No Truce With Kings)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: dcwusmc

I usually don't express my opinions on these types of topics because I know a lot of men with badges....However,
on this I have to agree with you all the way....


44 posted on 10/16/2006 6:32:30 AM PDT by OregonRancher (illigitimus non carborundun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: CSM
"Do you think it is valid that criminal trial requirements are being lowered to civil trail standards?"

In that there is no loss of liberty for the individual, yes.

Bear in mind that the prosecution must still convince a jury by a preponderance of the evidence that the property was acquired by other than legal means.

45 posted on 10/16/2006 4:36:26 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: elkfersupper
"The two men told officers they had flown from Texas to New Jersey and were driving south to Atlanta to buy a house with the money, Grice said."

And after that, they were going to fly from Atlanta to Minneapolis then drive to Phoenix to buy another house.

Uh-huh.

46 posted on 10/16/2006 4:45:10 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: USF
That case is even funnier.

"Associates of Gonzolez testified in court that they had pooled their life savings to purchase a refrigerated truck to start a produce business...."

Yeah, right. When Mr. Drug Dealer Gonzolez arrived (on a one-way air ticket from LA to Chicago) to purchase the truck, his unnamed friend told him the truck had already been sold by the unknown owner.

So, after staying in Chicago for three days, he then decided to ... drive all the way back to LA in a car rented by yet another unnamed individual. In the back seat was cooler containing a garbage bag containing $124,700 wrapped in aluminum foil -- (140) $100 bills, (999) $50 bills, (2,932) $20 bills, (208) $10 bills and (6) $5 bills.

Yep. Buy a truck and make the seller count 1000 $50 bills and 3000 $20 bills.

47 posted on 10/16/2006 5:10:33 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
And after that, they were going to fly from Atlanta to Minneapolis then drive to Phoenix to buy another house.

Why do you care?

48 posted on 10/16/2006 6:52:42 PM PDT by elkfersupper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Bear in mind that the prosecution must still convince a jury by a preponderance of the evidence that the property was acquired by other than legal means.

Or not, depending on the owner's ability to get a competent lawyer (maybe hard to do with no money), and get to trial. A smart prosecutor, a cooperative judge, and a defendant in poor health could easily die waiting for his day in court. Easy money, and a warning to the rest of us.

49 posted on 10/16/2006 7:56:48 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: elkfersupper
"Why do you care?"

I don't. And when the money hidden in that car is seized by the police, I won't care about that either.

I have no sympathy for criminals. Do you? Do you think these guys are NOT criminals?

50 posted on 10/17/2006 4:17:07 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
"get a competent lawyer (maybe hard to do with no money)"

Since this is a federal case, their lawyer is reimbursed by the federal government (under CAFRA 2000), assuming these drug dealers are not drug dealers.

Should be very easy to prove they were going to buy a house, don't you think?

"could easily die waiting for his day in court

Not familiar with the law, huh? The federal government has 90 days to take action.

51 posted on 10/17/2006 4:33:34 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Since this is a federal case, their lawyer is reimbursed by the federal government (under CAFRA 2000), assuming these drug dealers are not drug dealers.

It appears to have already been assumed they are.

Should be very easy to prove they were going to buy a house, don't you think?

Maybe. You can't really prove you were going to do something you never actually did.

"could easily die waiting for his day in court

Not familiar with the law, huh? The federal government has 90 days to take action.

Take action, or actually resolve the case?

These forfeiture laws were written by regulators and bureaucrats. What these people have done is to attempt to live their lives and conduct their affairs out from under the watchful eye of those bureaucrats and regulators, and for that they are going to have their money taken. The bureaucrats and regulators will accuse them of being drug dealers to mollify public concerns that they are not being treated fairly.

52 posted on 10/17/2006 5:21:36 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: DumpsterDiver; tacticalogic
-- drug-sniffing dog found a strong odor of narcotics inside the car
-- no drugs were found
-- the two men weren't charged with a crime
-- the officers kept the money

This country is beginning to resemble a banana republic.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Complete with sleazy 'law' spouting wannabe 'law enforcers', eager to get in on the forfeiture action.
53 posted on 10/17/2006 7:49:04 AM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Complete with sleazy 'law' spouting wannabe 'law enforcers', eager to get in on the forfeiture action.

And bureaucrats who are already in on it, if only indirectly. There's a distinct line between support and opposition to these forfeiture laws, according the direction the money's going.

54 posted on 10/17/2006 8:21:56 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen

When did Know your rights, aka, MrLeRoy get banned?


55 posted on 10/17/2006 9:00:02 AM PDT by AxelPaulsenJr (Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: elkfersupper

The dog hit on the cocaine residue on the money.

The seizure was illegal.


56 posted on 10/17/2006 9:02:29 AM PDT by bert (K.E. N.P. Slay Pinch)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: elkfersupper

So that's where Jefferson D-LA hides his money now.


57 posted on 10/17/2006 9:03:17 AM PDT by CougarGA7 (This tag line will be commercial free for the remainder of this thread.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen

Update: http://www.the-dispatch.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061003/NEWS/610030331/1006/news01

Sheriff's office assists with drug investigation

The Davidson County Sheriff's Office joined forces with numerous local, state and federal agencies during an ongoing five-month-long investigation that netted at least five kilograms of cocaine and more than 100 kilograms of marijuana.

Four men, Dennis Eugene Wilkinson, Jose Luis Santillan, Guillermo Corral and Adrian LeMarier, all of El Paso, Texas, were indicted Friday by a federal grand jury in Charlotte. The four men were each charged with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and marijuana and possession with intent to distribute cocaine.

The four men allegedly planned to move the drugs from Mexico to establish a hub of operation in Charlotte, according to a report from the U.S. Department of Justice.

If the men are convicted, the United States government will seize all property traceable to the alleged drug operation, including nearly $100,000 that was found inside a car in Gaston County on Sept. 4.

Davidson County Sheriff David Grice said his deputies participated in the investigation, which led to the arrests of the four men.


58 posted on 10/17/2006 9:07:54 AM PDT by RabidBartender (an ex-fan of the Dixie Chicks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: AxelPaulsenJr
"When did Know your rights, aka, MrLeRoy get banned?"

This is the first I knew of it. My guess is that the troll deserved it.

But if he's true to form, MrLeRoy aka Holy Spirit aka No King but Jesus aka onmyfeet aka the Kings dead aka Know your rights will be back under a new screen name.

If you spot him, give me a ping. I'll do the same.

59 posted on 10/17/2006 4:02:24 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: RabidBartender

Thanks for the update. Nice to have my suspicions confirmed.


60 posted on 10/17/2006 4:06:48 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-105 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson