Man wants his $400K back from the FBI

LimaOhio.com ^ | 12/18/07 | Greg Sowinski

[LibWhacker]

LIMA — Two robbers who broke into Luther Ricks Sr.’s house this summer may have not gotten his life savings he had in a safe, but after the FBI confiscated it he may not get it back.

Ricks has tried to get an attorney to fight for the $402,767 but he has no money. Lima Police Department officers originally took the money from his house but the FBI stepped in and took it from the Police Department. Ricks has not been charged with a crime and was cleared in a fatal shooting of one of the robbers but still the FBI has refused to return the money, he said.

“They are saying I have to prove I made it,” he said.

The 63-year-old Ricks said he and his wife, Meredith, saved the money during their lifetime in which both worked while living a modest life.

A representative of the FBI could not be reached for comment.

During the fatal shooting incident inside the house June 30, Ricks and his son were being attacked by two men and his son was stabbed. Ricks broke free, grabbed a gun and shot to death 32-year-old Jyhno Rock inside his home at 939 Greenlawn Ave.

Police originally took the money after finding marijuana inside Ricks’ home, which Ricks said he had to help manage pain.

“I smoke marijuana. I have arthritis. I have shingles, a hip replacement,” he said.

Ricks, who is retired from Ohio Steel Foundry, said he always had a safe at home and never had a bank account.

American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio Legal Director Jeff Gamso said Ricks has a tough road ahead, not impossible, but tough to get back his money.

“The law of forfeiture basically says you have to prove you’re innocent. It’s terrible, terrible law,” he said.

The law is tilted in favor of the FBI in that Ricks need not be charged with a crime and the FBI stands a good chance at keeping the money, Gamso said.

“The law will presume it is the result of ill-gotten gains,” he said.

Still Ricks can pursue it and possibly convince a judge he had the money through a lifetime of savings. Asking the FBI usually doesn’t work, he said.

“The FBI, before they would give it up, would want dated receipts,” he said.

If the FBI does keep the money, it would be put toward a law enforcement use, if the city of Lima does not fight for it because the city discovered it, Gamso said.

Lima Law Director Tony Geiger said he has not been asked to stake a legal claim for the money.

[mad_as_he$$]

How about their idiot brothers - the IRS?

[Squeako]

He had drugs.

Well, it apparently wasn't enough to get him arrested, and there apparently was no evidence of selling, which would explain having a large amount of cash.

But, your statement is exactly what is wrong with the "War on Drugs"; it's a justification for everything.

[DaGman]

The actions of a police state.

[fungoking]

My point wasn’t to defend the seizure, justing pointing out that the poster I was quoting left out the fact that the guy broke the law.

[fungoking]

Elizabeth I’m coming to meet you...its the big one!

It was Rollo’s stash.

[Diana in Wisconsin]

I feel for the guy. I’d like the $400K or so I’ve paid in taxes over my lifetime so far back from the Government, too!

So much money for so little return... :(

[VeniVidiVici]

On its face this is just wrong.

However, the Feds just don’t “step-in” to a case unless they participated in it. It’s not like Big Brother swoops in and steals money, they were there for a reason. What I want to know is, what is the rest of the story?

[Squeako]

My point wasn’t to defend the seizure, justing pointing out that the poster I was quoting left out the fact that the guy broke the law.

Right, but my point was that the "authorities" made no connection with the money and whatever amount of marijuana was found on the premises.

They just found it and kept it.

[Shryke]

They just found it and kept it.

Nearly everyone in this thread keeps stating this. It's absurd.

Here's a hint: when you are a dope dealer that clearly keeps a lot of cash at his house, and then shoot another crook who tries to steal it, and the FBI was watching at least one of you before all of this happened, guess what? You might experience some issues during the investigation.

[AD from SpringBay]

"No person shall be....deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." (The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution)

Come on! You know this one hasn't counted for a while now.

[Larry Lucido]

"If the FBI does keep the money, it would be put toward a law enforcement use" buying more armored vehicles and ninja equipment to use on future such fund-raisers.

[Eye of Unk]

Stories like this is just bait to draw in “concerned” posters and discord of those that oppose the governmental control of the citizens. I can just imagine this huge room full of NSA people (The Simpsons Movie) that read every posting of of all political forums.

[mkjessup]

Well, well, well, looks like I snagged a live one.

Let's begin...

Assault an FBI (or any LE) Office? Are you smoking the weedy stuff too?

Don't kid yourself. The fact that an FBI office or any law enforcement facility is among the most improbable targets works in favor of someone actually exploiting the belief of those in such a facility that they are impervious to such an assault.

After all, who would have thought a bunch of Muslims from the 'religion of peace', armed only with box cutters would have managed to bring down the World Trade Center and seriously damage the Pentagon?

Fruit loops attack where there is a low probability of resistance,or haven’t you really thought about it?

Someone like Mr. Ricks wouldn't qualify as a 'fruit loop'. He would qualify as a citizen who had his civil rights trampled, his property stolen by thieves hiding behind their authority and a tin badge, and that plus some weapons handling ability and skill could go a long way to at least 'making them pay', if not recovering what was stolen from him.

Or haven't YOU really thought this all the way through?

I intially would think that controlled substances+cash= trafficking, maybe it’s just me....

It is just you. No crime was proven. No charges were filed. No justification for seizing a man and wife's lifetime savings, no matter WHERE they chose to save it (their safe, their mattress, a freezer, whatever)

The concept that these folks never had a bank acount is rather un believeable-most employers for the last 25 years or so require direct deposit, yes?

It doesn't matter. There is no law requiring ANYone to have a bank account or any other kind of account. The means by which Mr. Ricks chose to save his money is not and was not on trial, nor should it be an issue. If hypothetically Mr. Ricks had placed his money in a bank, neither the cops or the FBI would have found it quite so easy to steal that which was not theirs to have.

Thanks for playing.

[Squeako]

The local police took it, not the Feds. Why wasn't he charged with anything or even arrested? That's what I would like to know in addition to how the Feds became involved, whether it was from reporting the seizure, or that they actually were watching the guy, or whatever. It doesn't appear to have even been labeled "a drug deal gone wrong".

It would be one thing if this never happened to people uninvolved with drug trafficking, but it has, which makes it more important to have it proven in court, at least to me anyway.

[Shryke]

I know where you guys are coming from on this, but you must realize that this article is clearly leaving out very critical details. Look, the ACLU won’t take the case. The ACLU!

[driftdiver]

“now why was he up in Ohio breaking into a guy’s house who just happened to have 400k sitting in the safe? “

I honestly don’t care if it was drug money. Our government should not be confiscating peoples property and forcing people to prove their innocence to get it back.

Drugs are evil. Is the War on Drugs any less evil?

[mkjessup]

I know where you guys are coming from on this, but you must realize that this article is clearly leaving out very critical details. Look, the ACLU won’t take the case. The ACLU!

How many cases of homeowners defending their lives and property with a FIREARM has the ACLU taken up?

Even if they stepped in on the singular issue of the crooked cops and feds stealing money from the victim, it would be seen as defending gun owners who blast away home invaders, and the ACLU wouldn't be caught dead doing that.

[Shryke]

Sorry, MK, the article states that he was cleared of the shooting. There is *no* gun issue in this case, nor can there be. The only issue is the confiscated money - which the president of the ACLU cited specifically. Now, please tell me why the ACLU won’t take the case of a retired black man having his money “stolen” from the Feds.

[Ghengis]

If the police took a tour of your residence, they'd be able to confiscate a boatload of items for which you have no record or receipt. At least I'm guessing so. How about the clothes you're wearing?

You place enough circumstantial evidence and speculation on the table to begin an investigation. If the police could charge him, then they would. This way they can take the lazy path. A few years ago there was substantial evidence of police in Louisiana seizing expensive vehicles because they could.

This ain't how our system is supposed to work. Unless you want our government literally empowered to take the clothes off of your back on a whim.

You just drove through a neighborhood with a high crime rate. Got your receipt for them jeans?

[Squeako]

Look, the ACLU won’t take the case. The ACLU!

I have to admit, you got me there. Nicely played hand, FRiend!