[robertpaulsen]

Oh my. Haven't you turned into the little jack-booted thug!

Arrest robertpaulsen! He has an illegal plant and he's one of them pro-WODdies! "Ve vill make no exzeptions!"

BWAHAHAHAHA!

You really need to familiarize yourself with The Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 before commenting further.

"(1) The bill requires the Government to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the property is subject to forfeiture".

"Currently, when a property owner goes to Federal court to challenge a seizure of property, all the Government needs to do is make an initial showing of probable cause that the property is subject to civil forfeiture. The owner then must establish that the property is innocent."

Second, the fact that I know the sheriff and the sheriff knows me does not put me in a "different light" or make me above the Rule of Law. What it does do is establish with him the fact that I'm a solid citizen in the community, something I'm proud of.

Based on both The Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 and the fact that it is known that I would never grow pot on my property or elsewhere, I can envision us all having a good laugh about it.

[AxelPaulsenJr]

Say it's Monday, start of another work week. Ya think "No King but Jesus" will be back at his desk at NORML this morning?

[tacticalogic]

The owner then must establish that the property is innocent.

How would you suggest that the owner establish the innocence of "the property" in this case? Regardless of wheather the owner is involved or not, "the property" was growing marijuana.