Farmer found innocent of drug charge, now battles to save land

lubbockonline.com ^ | 11.20.03 | P. CHRISTINE SMITH

[headsonpikes]

rp is a Federal Triumphalist.

No matter how outrageous the usurpation, if the Feds have got away with it, it must be OK.

FDR's Commerce Clause depradations?

As far as rp is concerned, Constitutionally kosher as lox on a bagel.

[dc27]

Legacy of Edwin Meese.

[ridesthemiles]

Wonder when they'll go after Rush's Florida estate

Here in Nevada County, Calif, the judge releases meth lab perps on OR. I wonder if the inmates are in charge of the asylym.

[LittleJoe]

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?

Good point. I only have 180 acres and could only vouch for the five or so acres around the house. Have two barns, one of which I haven't been inside of in years. I'll bet there are many old farts who are drug lords and don't even know it!

[CDHart]

"Can we at least agree that this is blatantly unConstitutional and flies in the face of everything our Founding Fathers believed? Please?"

Yes, no problem here. There used to be a page in USA Today once a month listing all the properties that the ATF and FBI had seized. And there does not have to be a conviction. Just the charge of some criminal act, and they can take pretty much whatever they want. If there is a verdict of innocence, it doesn't do much good, because many times the property has been sold already. I'm sure the founding fathers are weary of spinning in their graves.

Carolyn

[pdunkin]

robertpaulsen wrote "Yes, corn grows to 6 to 8 feet high.
Marijuana grows to 10 to 12 feet high. Think you could spot that from your front door"

There's this nifty little trick called "topping", where one snips the top off of the plant cuasing it to stop its upward growth and become bushier. I learned that in Jr High. I'm sure the cultivator of the plants on this land, be it the farmer found not-guilty or someone else, probably knew of this trick too. I'm not saying that I know for a fact that they did this, but it's a possible scenario.

[TKDietz]

"Fine. The Texas Supreme Court has agreed to hear an asset forfeiture case where all charges in the case have been dropped against the owner.

And that makes perfect sense to you."

Robert, it should make perfect sense to you. Asset forfeiture cases are separate and distinct from criminal cases. They are often filed in different divisions of courts. They have different case numbers than the criminal case, if a criminal case is filed. The burden of proof is different. They can dismiss the criminal case but that does not stop the civil case from proceeding.

I've seen forfeitures in my state where no criminal case ever ended up being filed. I don't know about Texas, but it sure happens in other states. Sometimes, some prosecutors will work out sweet deals for criminal defendants/suspects who can come up with large cash or property forfeitures. I've seen these being made within a couple of days of a bust and I've seen people caught with large quantities of drugs walk free without charges ever actually being filed. That's just the way it works in some places. In my state, only 20% over a certain amount goes to the state fund, the rest is split up between the law enforcement agency that made the bust and the prosecutor's office. This can be a substantial part of the prosecutor's or law enforcement agency's budget.

There are several employees in our local prosecutor's office whose salaries are paid from the drug fund. They bring in hundreds of thousands a year in forfeitures and they really rely on this money. It pays several salaries. It pays for the vehicles (company cars) the prosecutors all drive. It pays for their memberships to the gym. It pays for their plush office furnishings and the TV/DVD/VCR combo's with cable that each of them have in their offices. It paid for the trip they all took to Florida for a week last month and so many other important things prosecutors need in order to do their jobs effectively.

[pageonetoo]

My understanding of history, and the Constitution, shows that he is wrong. But, the SCOTUS has long been accepted as Truth and Justice, and they decided that the Feds are Supreme... if not, they would not be!

The g'umt is best at coming up with ponzi schemes (social security), and sleight-of-hand tricks (Commerce Clause)... It maintains absolute power by fiat!

If I could do anything to make things better, I would give up all that I have. I have children and grandchildren who will never see a return on the money they are going to spend on my generation. The latest REPUBLICAN assault on our future continues to reward foreign-born aliens, living or coming here, by paying for their medical care. In the meantime, it costs me more than $500 a month for health insurance (I get most of my care at the VA hospital, but have a wife and child to care for. I have no union, Corporate, or g'umt policy, I am self-employed), on top of the heavy toll I pay in taxes.

I have spent thousands to support people like Jesse Helms, and Dan Quayle. I have worked hours and days to promote local people, wishing to rein in expansion of g'umt.

There is nothing kosher in Washington, except for a few Jews, who still keep their faith, and lots of dill pickles (just as sour as rp, et al)!

[pageonetoo]

"There's this nifty little trick called "topping", where one snips the top off of the plant cuasing it to stop its upward growth and become bushier."

Being a NC boy, I grew up around tobacco farms. One summer, I was asked to help "top" the plants. It was a nasty (the resins are really gummy), but necessary job. It caused the leaf volume to increase, and provide more surface area/weight to put into the barn.
It is common knowledge, that it is commonly used in hemp 'grow rooms', where ceiling height limits limit the plants. It also makes a fuller, more productive hemp plant.

(Gotta go, and watch the idiot Carville talk about the new Bush ads LOL)

[ellery]

The only issue that remains is the asset forfeiture case! The supreme court has agreed to hear it because the party who was found not guilty has not yet gotten his property returned. You seem to think the asset forfeiture is completely separate from the criminal charge.

[ellery]

The only issue that remains is the asset forfeiture case! The supreme court has agreed to hear it because the party who was found not guilty has not yet gotten his property returned. You seem to think the asset forfeiture is completely separate from the criminal charge.

[TKDietz]

"You seem to think the asset forfeiture is completely separate from the criminal charge."

It is completely separate from the criminal charge. At least that's the way it is in other states besides Texas. Asset forfeiture is a civil action, not a criminal case. It's filed separately and tried separately.

I don't believe it ought to be that way though because these cases are punitive in nature. It ought to be considered as part of the criminal case, with the heightened burdens of proof required in a criminal case and the same protections against double jeopardy.

[ellery]

How can it be completely separate if the justification for a forfeiture claim is suspicion of a criminal act? Or can the feds simply file a civil forfeiture case against you with no reason given?

[robertpaulsen]

"The supreme court has agreed to hear it because the party who was found not guilty has not yet gotten his property returned."

What??? Where do you come up with these wild-a$$ed claims. That's the second time you've done that to me. Don't do that any more.

The state didn't make a proper filing. The property has been returned. The state is trying to get it back.

The state filed the petition to the Texas Supreme Court, not Puckett. The Texas Supreme Court agreed to hear the case despite the fact that Puckett was found not guilty of possession of marijuana.

So, why oh why does the state of Texas think it has claim to that property? Hmmmm?

If the Texas Supreme Court refused to hear the case, then Puckett retains his property.

[ellery]

Not true -- now that Henry Hyde has mercifully pushed through some reform of forfeiture laws on a federal level, rp has accused those of us who question state forfeiture laws on a fourth, fifth and fourteenth amendment basis as tramplers of states' rights.

[ellery]

I went back and reread the article. You are correct to say the supreme court has agreed to hear the case on the state's request. However, you are incorrect to say the property has been "returned." The farmer has "control" of the property, but ownership is still in dispute since it is still being dealth with through the courts. So, to summarize, the farmer still has not gotten back ownership of his farm, even though he has been found not guilty of the criminal charge related to its original confiscation. Apparently, this case shows that no criminal charge is required for the government to confiscate your property -- do you support this?

Again, this is as if, in your analogy, someone was held in jail pending a trial, found not guilty, but then not released from jail. How is this possibly Constitutional?

[Lurking Libertarian]

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?

The Founding Fathers (the 1st Congress, seated in 1789, which included James Madison and many other signers of the Constitution) passed the first forfeiture law. It was limited to violations of the admiralty and customs laws, but it did not require a criminal conviction. If customs agents found that your ship had been used to smuggle in goods without paying the duty-- even if the smuggling was done, without your knowledge, by someone else (for example, someone who had chartered your ship for one voyage-- they could forfeit the ship. The drug forfeiture laws (enacted in the 1970s and 80s) were based on these laws.

[Lurking Libertarian]

Let me clarify my post just above: I agree that our present forfeiture laws are an abomination, and should be held unconstitutional. But if you study a little history, you will find that even in the Founders' days, America was never a libertarian Eden.

[EggsAckley]

I'm up on top of Redwood, next to the park. And thanks for validating that pot CAN be grown without the knowledge of the owner.
Sure I know the Med, Aptos Club, Windjammer........I used to be a musician here and played a lot of the local clubs. In fact, I've played all three of those, long ago.

Been here since 1968.

[ellery]

Thanks for the info. The problem, as far as I can tell, is this: property by definition requires an owner. If the state can take that property away without first having to prove (or even allege) wrongdoing by the owner, then the very concept of private property does not exist. This contradicts the basis of our Constitution and our Republic, no matter what the first Congress did as a matter of expedience. Slavery and the alien and sedition act were likewise completely at odds with our founding principles, IMHO. They have been abolished; I hope civil forfeiture prior to owner conviction will be as well.

You're right -- America was never a liberterian Eden, because such thing cannot exist any more than a Communist utopia can. Our founders were practical people, not idealogues...we would have never made it this far if they were not practical. Our Republic will never be perfect; my hope is that it will move in the right direction over the long term (toward individual liberty and rule of law rather than men).

BSunday, ping for your bonnie blue flag list consideration.