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

lubbockonline.com ^ | 11.20.03 | P. CHRISTINE SMITH

[MontanaBeth]

"Should the accused be allowed to sell the land and hide the assests?"


It's HIS land.

[Sam Cree]

I wasn't exactly hyperventilating.

I understand the parallel (with the confinement of accused criminals) you draw very well. I don't see the validity in it for the reasons I advanced, that it allows the acquisition of even greater arbitrary decision making by the state. Because totalitarianism is based on arbitrary decision making.

Yes, I understand that an accused murderer must be confined, and why.

But what is your answer to #55?

[MontanaBeth]

"you could spot that from your front door"


You live in the city don't you? Corn doesn't come just on those little husks, they actually grow on really tall things, 6 to 8 feet high, with many green leaves, and row after row after row of them. Fun to play hide and seek in a corn field.

[ellery]

He has been found not guilty of all criminal charges. There are no other pending criminal charges against him. By what justification can the state continue to claim ownership of his property?

To use your example, when people held in jail are found not guilty of all charges, they are immediately released.

[robertpaulsen]

"Do you favor state seizure of assets in the case of other accusations of crimes, or just in drug cases?"

Well let's see. I favor asset forfeiture in robbery and burglary cases.

For example, if a bank or house or 7-11 has been robbed of $2000, and the "suspect" is caught with $2000 on him, I don't believe that money should be used by the "suspect" to fund his lawyer or used by him for any other reason.

Hmmmm. That makes sense, doesn't it? But, when you think about it, that's not much different than the drug cases, is it?

But asset forfeiture for prostitution? That's really Mickey Mouse. What else is there? Asset forfeiture in RICO cases. OK with me.

Look, google up The Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000. There've been a number of changes made that people aren't even aware of.

Also, each state has their own asset forfeiture laws. Some states don't even do it.

[Principled]

.. he was found not guilty of possession of marijuana. That's it.

Right, IMO, "that's it" - as you put it.

What charges remain? What charges are as yet unsettled?

If there are no charges outstanding, what is the gov't reason for siezing the property? Surely there must be a charge out there waiting to be litigated?

[IncPen]

Hmm...

I clicked on here expecting to find MrLeRoy, but a search says he's been suspended or banned.

I didn't much agree with him, but I enjoyed his lively threads. Any idea when/why it happened?

[Trickyguy]

But that shouldn't count because "he didn't know" (wink, wink, nudge, nudge)

I live in an apartment. I go into the basement once a year. Last time I went down there, there was a fridge, which, it turned out, had been hooked up to my power for a year. Of course, I'm lying and I knew all about it. Wink, wink, nudge, nudge.

[robertpaulsen]

"40% of the people whose assets are seized are never charged with a crime."

More like, "40% of the people whose assets are held end up not being charged". So?

When that happens, the property is returned.

[microgood]

Look, google up The Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000. There've been a number of changes made that people aren't even aware of.

I was not aware of this. This does make it better than it was.

[robertpaulsen]

"It's HIS land."

Yes, it is. Right up to the point where he is charged with growing ten acres of an illegal drug on it.

Then it's held until a court confirms this.

Then it's HIS no longer. He knew the rules. He rolled the dice and lost.

[robertpaulsen]

"It seems from this dialogue that you agree that if the owner did not know about it, then he shouldn't have his property siezed?"

That's the argument that's being made. No, I don't agree with that argument.

[microgood]

When that happens, the property is returned.

That is not the way it was, but maybe now. Before they just kept it. There was a huge hurdle and bar to get it back before even if they did not charge you with anything. I'm not sure what it is like now, as I have not read all of the changes yet. But thanks for that lnfo, I will read it thoroughly. The way it was originally written was quite bad.

[mtbopfuyn]

I've got a bridge for sale to anyone who believes he didn't know about 10 acres of weed in his field and more in his barn. He could look out his back door and see all of his little 320 acre farm and then some with nothing but a jack rabbit blocking the view. There's nothing for miles and miles and miles but flat land there. Yeah, right, he didn't know gramps plowed, seeded, cultivated, harvested, sold, and stored all that marijuana, buloney. Great, gramps takes all the heat and sonny boy gets of scot free. There's more than a few farmers who have a little side business going.

What's that song about smiling as they're sitting on sacks of seed?

[Sam Cree]

"But, when you think about it, that's not much different than the drug cases, is it?"

Yeah, it's different because the money found on the guy is clearly evidence. In drug cases the authorities go far beyond seizing evidence. A better example would be if the DA seized the thief's bank account, if he had one, or perhaps some of his furniture.

However, I think we are getting away from the basic issue, which, to me, is state power over the citizenry.

I don't disagree with you on the need to lock up drug dealers. I am not in favor of giving the feds such an awesome tool as asset forfeiture, though.

[Principled]

Just make sure I understand- your position is that
-the farmer knew about the pot
-his land should be siezed

[1ofmanyfree]

"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?"

Quite correct and I for one agree.

(though I fully expect to be flamed by the wod swallowers)

[microgood]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1027596/posts

[Principled]

"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?"

I'm with you.

This dude was accused and found NOT GUILTY of a crime. I do not understand why then is his property still in jeopardy? If there were another outstanding charge that involved the property I would like to know about it.

Asset seizure laws apply when no charge is made???? They can willy-nilly seize???

[robertpaulsen]

I don't live in the city.

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?