Posted on 08/20/2006 8:57:44 PM PDT by FreedomCalls
I'm late into this, for the time being I'm cube bound; but I also took time to read the link...
Tancred not only needs some support here, but he (she?)'s also right.
I filled an 8.5 by 11 with reasons Senor what's it's name is guilty:
Mostly because he is a lying SOB from the start...The rental, his record, and probably his immigration status (oddly not mentioned).
One court determined his lines to be "consistent" but ignored "stupid", or "unlikely", or "trading on a stereotype", or a dozen other rational responses to the idea of three illiterate (might I suggest illegal?) immigrants pooling $127 grand, to buy a blind truck from a 'friend of a friend' who'd already sold it, who also bought a one way airline ticket (cash?) - but returned by (probably more expensive) rental car that was rented by a third party no one could name, and who traded a small carry on bag full of tin foil wrapped cash (that got through security) for an ice chest full of said cash on the back seat....and alerted a drug sniffing dog that ignored a control sample drawn from several sources(!)
Sorry folks, I oppose forfeiture under many conditions, I especially oppose 'imminent domain' for frivolous purposes:
this clown is guilty, the money is dirty, and I wonder where his body is going to be found after this all cools down.
Why wasn't he charged with anything?
Read up - the whole issue is based on trial procedings: Trial = "charged with something".
Fair enough, I'm just tired of everyone blaming bush for everything...and I thought you were making a snide comparison since so many DUer types call bush king george.
And I'm hardly a bushbot...I only voted for him to vote against Kerry.
Hey, Bob, do you stil believe we can "ensure" law enforcement's honesty with a simple test when a handful of money is in their fist and "no questions will be asked" is the predominate thought?
Your final recourse is simply "to have them arrested". That ends it all, in your book, doesn't it.
Most would label that as reactive, not proactive. The root of the problem still exists and an arrest or two when someone is finally caught with their hand in the cookie jar is not taking care of the problems of police corruption.
I'm amazed that you think the burden of proof is on the citizen rather than the government. It is generally very difficult to prove a negative. Prove you didn't drive recklessly yesterday. Prove you didn't steal the $10 in your wallet from an unnamed elementary school child at an unspecified date.
Lovely. So why isn't he in jail?
Of what?
Is it illegal to possess US currency in amounts larger than some set limit? How much cash can one have before it becomes criminal?
Well, you drive or walk around with 120K cash with no bank records, 1099, etc. Police officer: Now where did that cash come from? Suspect: It is mine? Officer, any proof? Suspect: Take my word. Yep.
You got it. Some have to travel back to a casino 5 plus times to cash in chips to avoid that crap.
Now just having money is a crime? What is the limit of money you are allowed to carry without it being subject to confiscation? Did the judge rule on that? Another wonderful "unintended consequence" of the War on Drugs (i.e. war on citizens rights). I'm sure taking this money away will keep some kid from od'ing tonight, eh???
I thought we were supposed to be innocent till proven guilty...
He had sworn testimony of his friends who pooled the money to purchase the truck.
And did they provide details of where the money came from?
Irrelevant. You don't have to prove you did not commit a crime. The government must prove that you did commit a crime.
With funds being used for drugs and terror, I would think anyone walking or much less riding around with 120 plus K would be a suspect. Now prove that cash is yours. I believe that is reasonable. I have been in that spot with 1/3 the cash. If it is honest cash it is easy to trace. I had no problems on the scene. Did they ever hear of cashiers checks or electronic funds transfers?
With funds being used for drugs and terror, I would think anyone walking or much less riding around with 120 plus K would be a suspect. Now prove that cash is yours. I believe that is reasonable. I have been in that spot with 1/3 the cash. If it is honest cash it is easy to trace.
In a criminal trial, yes. This wasn't a criminal trial. He wasn't being charged with a crime. His freedom wasn't at stake.
This was a civil asset forfeiture case against the money, not against Mr. Drug Dealer. You kind of get a hint of that by the title of the case: ""United States of America v. $124,700 in U.S. Currency".
In civil asset forfeiture cases, all that's needed for a guilt verdict is "preponderance of the evidence".
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.