Skip to comments.
Farmer found innocent of drug charge, now battles to save land
lubbockonline.com ^
| 11.20.03
| P. CHRISTINE SMITH
Posted on 11/23/2003 12:09:30 PM PST by freepatriot32
FARWELL After more than a two-year ordeal, a Parmer County jury Thursday found Ronnie Puckett, 47, innocent of possession of marijuana, a charge that came after police found an estimated 250 pounds of the drug on his Lazbuddie farm in October 2001.
His fight continues, however, to keep the state from seizing his land.
Puckett was arrested on June 14, 2002, after an investigation into the cultivation of marijuana plants on about 10 acres of cornfield. Police also seized marijuana from a barn on the property.
Pucketts then-74-year-old father, William Vernon Puckett, was arrested during a raid on the property on Oct. 18, 2001. He later entered a plea agreement and was sentenced to a 10-year probated sentence and a $5,000 fine.
During the three-day trial this week, the elder Puckett testified that his son had no knowledge of the marijuana-growing operation, said Dan Hurley, Ronnie Pucketts attorney.
At the time, Ronnie Puckett was grieving the death of his wife and was not spending much time in his fields, Hurley said.
Two outstanding arrest warrants remain for individuals allegedly involved in the marijuana operation.
Johnny Actkinson, 287th District Attorney, confirmed that Bill Fancher and his son, Jesse Fancher, are wanted on marijuana possession charges.
Kathy Fancher, Bill Fanchers wife, testified against Ronnie Puckett as part of an immunity deal.
In a June 2002 forfeiture hearing in Parmer County, Ronnie Puckett lost his 320-acre farm to the state. The property was valued at approximately $484,000. The state can move to seize property if it is used for illegal drug purposes, Hurley said.
Puckett, however, appealed the ruling to the Seventh District Court of Appeals in Amarillo and won back control of the property because the state did not make a proper filing for seizure, Hurley said.
At the states request, the state Supreme Court has agreed to hear the property forfeiture case, Hurley said.
Still, Hurley said, Ronnie Puckett looks forward to moving on with his life now that the threat of criminal prosecution is behind him.
He is incredibly relieved and happy, Hurley said.
p.christine.smith@lubbockonline.com t 766-8754
TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Editorial; Extended News; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Texas
KEYWORDS: addiction; assetforfieture; battles; charge; constitutionlist; donutwatch; drug; farmer; found; govwatch; innocent; land; libertarians; now; of; philosophytime; propertyrights; save; texas; to; wod; wodlist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 241-254 next last
but its still a free country and not a police state keep repeating that to yourselves over and over until you either believe it or get a bullet fired into the back of your head by your superiors
To: freepatriot32
Yeah, I think the state does not even require proof of drug involvement to seize assets. I think an official accusation gets it done.
2
posted on
11/23/2003 12:15:37 PM PST
by
Sam Cree
(democrats are herd animals)
To: **Texas; jmc813; *libertarians; *gov_watch; *Constitution List; *Donut watch; *Wod_list; ...
![](http://www.layouth.com/images/Sayno-x.jpg)
PING
3
posted on
11/23/2003 12:16:17 PM PST
by
freepatriot32
(today it was the victory act tomorrow its victory coffee, victory cigarettes...)
To: freepatriot32
Can we as conservatives at least join together and agree that it's complete and utter crap for the state to be able to seize property of people merely accused of a crime? It's become clear that the state doesn't like to relinquish what it's seized even if people are found not guilty. Can we at least agree that this is blatantly unConstitutional and flies in the face of everything our Founding Fathers believed? Please?
4
posted on
11/23/2003 12:18:49 PM PST
by
ellery
To: Sam Cree
"I think an official accusation gets it done."As does 10 acres of marijuana plants on one's property and 250 pounds of marijuana in one's barn.
But that shouldn't count because "he didn't know" (wink, wink, nudge, nudge).
To: ellery
You got my vote. The whole 'civil forfeiture' code is a Constitutional nightmare and does little more than turn police officers into thieves.
6
posted on
11/23/2003 12:22:33 PM PST
by
pierrem15
To: ellery
No, we can't, because some here will just call anyone who opposes the erosion of constitutional rights in the war on drugs 'loserdopians' or 'potheads' or other such idiotic names. Why? Because it's easier than arguing the facts that go against your supposed support for the constitution.
The WOD is now only about money and power my friends - money and power. And I'm not talking about the drug dealers, either.
To: robertpaulsen
Yeah, 10 acres on 320 acres that he wasn't working because he just lost his life. How many acres do you have and can you vouch that you know exactly what is on each and every square inch of that land?
To: ellery
"for the state to be able to seize property of people merely accused of a crime"Should the accused be allowed to sell the property (and hide the money) before a verdict?
To: Cathryn Crawford; Scenic Sounds
FARWELL After more than a two-year ordeal, a Parmer County jury Thursday found Ronnie Puckett, 47, innocent of possession of marijuana, a charge that came after police found an estimated 250 pounds of the drug on his Lazbuddie farm in October 2001.Ronnie Puckett named his farm after me.
Me, the only man allowed to vote in America now that we have established the proper rules.
10
posted on
11/23/2003 12:25:57 PM PST
by
Lazamataz
(I like my women as I like my coffee: Cold and bitter.)
To: robertpaulsen
"But that shouldn't count because "he didn't know" (wink, wink, nudge, nudge)." Yes, but are you OK with property confiscation before a man is found guilty by a court of law?
11
posted on
11/23/2003 12:26:26 PM PST
by
Sam Cree
(democrats are herd animals)
To: robertpaulsen
Should the accused be allowed to sell the property (and hide the money) before a verdict? Sell the property, yes.
Hide the money, get hit with a new charge.
12
posted on
11/23/2003 12:27:21 PM PST
by
Lazamataz
(I like my women as I like my coffee: Cold and bitter.)
To: robertpaulsen
But that shouldn't count because "he didn't know" (wink, wink, nudge, nudge).Dude, he was grieving his wife. He may not have walked his property in a year.
13
posted on
11/23/2003 12:28:37 PM PST
by
Lazamataz
(I like my women as I like my coffee: Cold and bitter.)
To: ellery
Can we as conservatives... The problem is, some 'conservatives' are insecure power junkies who get proxy fulfillment from the abuse of state power. Until these statists are chucked out of the movement, 'conservativism' will never be coherent.
14
posted on
11/23/2003 12:28:48 PM PST
by
Grut
To: Lazamataz
Ronnie Puckett named his farm after me. Saw that and thought immediately of you. Would have pinged, but you got here first. ;>)
15
posted on
11/23/2003 12:29:19 PM PST
by
budwiesest
("Mr. Franklin, that republic you spoke of, seems to have been misplaced.")
To: ellery
Can we as conservatives at least join together and agree that it's complete and utter crap for the state to be able to seize property of people merely accused of a crime? It's become clear that the state doesn't like to relinquish what it's seized even if people are found not guilty. Can we at least agree that this is blatantly unConstitutional and flies in the face of everything our Founding Fathers believed?Yes- I've always believed this.
16
posted on
11/23/2003 12:35:41 PM PST
by
backhoe
(--30--)
To: robertpaulsen
Should the accused be permitted to sell his property and hire representation before a verdict? and so on...
17
posted on
11/23/2003 12:35:48 PM PST
by
no-s
To: flashbunny
Yeah, 10 acres on 320 acres that he wasn't working because he just lost his life. You have to admit it's a damn good excuse. :)
18
posted on
11/23/2003 12:35:58 PM PST
by
Restorer
To: ellery
OK, I agree with you anyway. Henry Hyde was doing some good stuff against these abuses a while ago. A disgrace' and in NY they started doing it with cars and DUI, to which, as I'm sure many folks are aware, there is no defense. And even Ron Kuby supported this. Raising the issue, what's a left-wing for?
19
posted on
11/23/2003 12:36:07 PM PST
by
jocon307
(Irish grandma rolls in grave, yet again)
To: ellery
I really think you are asking way too much from some of the conseratives here.
20
posted on
11/23/2003 12:37:28 PM PST
by
muggs
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 241-254 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson