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

lubbockonline.com ^ | 11.20.03 | P. CHRISTINE SMITH

[Lazamataz]

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.

Conservatism will never be coherent until everyone is chucked out of the movement except me.

And voting will never make sense until I am the only person allowed to vote.

Then I will ban Spanish in taglines.

[Wolfie]

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

[hoot2]

"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). "

purely circumstantial evidence, my friend....
now, if you, personally, saw him smoke 250 pounds of....

[EggsAckley]

I can, most certainly. The seizure scam is a real black eye to the US. Total rip-off. And totally unconstitutional, I'm sure.

It's time to end this madness.

[EggsAckley]

I live in a mountainous area of 10 to 100 parcels. On a regular basis owners discover that pot growers have sneaked onto their land and planted in places that are rarely seen. I personally don't know what's going on on every inch of my real estate 24/7.

[EggsAckley]

oops; I meant 10 to 100 ACRE parcels.

[robertpaulsen]

Farmers know what is on each and every square inch of that land because they plant it and harvest it.

In addition, the land is sprayed with weed killer before planting and once during the growing season. The weed killer will prevent the marijuana from growing, and will kill any marijuana that emerges.

Also, corn grows to 7-8 ft; marijuana 10-12 feet. I think you'd spot it if you were looking.

The bottom line? You'd know it.

And it seems like everyone else knew there was marijuana except the owner. His father knew, Bill Fancher knew, his son Jesse knew, his wife Kathy knew, but poor Ronnie Puckett didn't know he had 10 acres of 12 foot marijuana plants growing in an area that was not sprayed for weeds and which produced 250 pounds sitting in his barn.

[microgood]

Yeah, I think the state does not even require proof of drug involvement to seize assets. I think an official accusation gets it done.

This is true. And only about 40% of the people whose assets are seized are even charged with a crime. It is a totally corrupt law and makes the governments into even bigger crooks than they already are. This is one thing Reagan totally screwed up and it tarnishes his legacy.

[hoot2]

"Then I will ban Spanish in taglines. "

que pasta' homebrew!
could you es'plain that???
but, a lot slower, por favor...

[Lazamataz]

I think Eggsactly effectively refutes your premise.

[Lazamataz]

que pasta' homebrew!

Google translates this as "What spaghetti homebrew!".

Let me say, in response, that I agree. What spaghetti homebrew!

[Grut]

Conservatism will never be coherent until everyone is chucked out of the movement except me.

Wot, you're claiming you're coherent? ;^)

[honeygrl]

In my town the cops took the home away from and 80something year old lady because her grandson was dealing drugs. I don't think they should be allowed to take property that doesn't even belong to the dealer. (although i don't like the WOD in general anyway)

[hoot2]

"I personally don't know what's going on on every inch of my real estate 24/7. "

oh c'mon...
you don't find 250 pounds of weed in a glovebox or old cigar box...
thats a huge stash;
it was in the barn...did the druggies that grew it
on "his 10 acres", give him a % of the crop for the use of the land?
actually; it looks like the ol' guy is takin' the fall for the kid...

[SSN558]

Yeah, I think the state does not even require proof of drug involvement to seize assets. I think an official accusation gets it done.

Public awareness of the seizure laws has curbed the abuses to a degree but they still continue. I knew of people in the early 90's that had bought land as an investment or vacation property and spent more than the land was worth on lawyers trying to keep it. One guy I knew had a single marijauana plant found on the edge of his 40 acre piece of the woods. It was not his and he did not use marijuana but that was not good enough for the DA. In cost him a small fortune in lawyer fees.

The real marijauna growers don't take the risk in most cases and use federal land or someone elses private property for their activities.

[hoot2]

"Let me say, in response, that I agree. What spaghetti homebrew! "

with cheese n lots of moose sauce

[robertpaulsen]

You call it property confiscation. ellery calls it seizure. I don't know what you're saying.

If there are assets which may have been involved in the criminal activity itself -- a vehicle to transport, a warehouse to store, land to grow, a laboratory to manufacture -- or if there are assets gained by the illegal activity -- cash, paintings, houses, clothes -- I believe it is lawful to hold and freeze those assets until a verdict has been reached.

If that's whats meant by "confiscation" or "seizure", then yes. I don't believe that the government has the power to take possession and/or dispose of the assets until a guilty verdict has been reached.

Bear in mind that we imprison people "before they're found guilty by a court of law", so let's not get ourselves all worked up about a little temporary asset holding.

[Oztrich Boy]

Should the accused be allowed to sell the property (and hide the money) before a verdict?

Well, the State can, and often does.

[Jack Black]

"Should the accused be allowed to sell the property (and hide the money) before a verdict? "

Is that your final answer? Because it's pretty pathetic. The trial took place, the owner was found not guilty. Why are they even considering taking his property? Did a jury in a civil trail find him guilty of something. NO. Does the 7th Ammendment mean anything to you? You know the one that gives you a right to a jury trial in civil matters where the "value in the controversy shall exceed $20" Apparently not. How about the 8th, you know "nor excessive fines imposed". Given that it is real property there is NO RISK that it could be sold out from under the government. A simple lein could assure that, but again I don't even see why it is an issue at this point.

[ellery]

He was found not guilty. The government still hasn't given his property back. You don't have a problem with that?