Posted on 12/21/2007 12:14:30 AM PST by 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.
Amen to that.
What "slight of hand"? I admit it proves nothing in of itself. However, it heavily, HEAVILY leans towards "ill gotten" money. That being said, you still seem to believe he has no recourse, that his money has been stolen, and he's powerless to stop it. Not only has a police officer, IN THIS THREAD, completely refuted that, the damn ACLU lawyer has as well. You are, like many others here, willfully twisting facts to vilify the Feds. It's shameful.
Absolute criminals, as are the Lima police. By what right can they break open a safe in a man's private home and confiscate the contents?
I understand your point, but I don't think the absence of marijuana would have stopped this illicit forfeiture.
If you have your bank withdrawl receipt on you, you can walk around with any amount you want. This shows that you haven’t been concealing the cash from anyone and that you did allow the government an opportunity to freeze it if they chose to do so.
Be sure to have a tracable stream back to where the money came from, ie. regular bank deposits, sale of stocks or a home or something with a serial number on it, automobile, airplane, gun collection, etc.
Uncle Sam gets real nervous when people do things that aren’t in the norm. Making money and not paying taxes on it gets him all upset. Bartering is considered criminal these days if you don’t pay all the taxes they think are due.
>Sure....take a look at post 4 “FBI are thieves with badges and guns..” Post 8; Post 56,59,60,64,67, and 124.<
Do any of those have my name attached to them?
“The Federals and the City should be reqiered to prove that the cash consficated.....was, in fact “made” through illegal activities.
You have hit the nail on the head! It’s worth repeating and
my Congressman Ron Paul would do better trying to prevent Constitutional abuses such as this than wasting his time in his hopeless Presidential race.
“What “slight of hand”?
You are ascribing the ACLU’s not jumping to his defense as proof the the system is fair, rather than to the actual reason that the ACLU knows the system is wrong but that it is a lost cause that they don’t want to waste time fighting.
“it heavily, HEAVILY leans towards “ill gotten” money.”
Fine. I agree. Charge him and take him to trial. Why is that so hard?
“...You don’t have to report saving your money in your home...”
Is a fact.
Don’t like it, change the law.
Accepted. Now to get back to the debate.
In your experience, would the FBI deposit this money in a bank for safekeeping? Would they insist that it be kept as a unit in the bank safe or simply as a cash deposit.
The reason I ask this is because if it was to be kept as a unit, then the owner would be able to show proof that this was saved over a time span of many years. This could be done by examining the serial numbers on the bills and the dates they were printed. A forty year span indicates, to me, that the savings took place over forty years. That, to me, indicates the money isn’t drug related or a bank robbery, or some other criminal act. I am certain that the IRS would be first in line with their greedy palms open though. The there would be another judge that needs convincing and another round of attornies to pay.
If the deposit was as a cash deposit, then that proof would disappear because the bank would use this cash for normal business.
Anyway I look at it, this guy is going to be screwed, blued and tatooed by our government, because he didn’t trust the banking system.
So what's the cutoff amount... can they seize "undocumented" cash amounts over $20K, $5K, $1K, $100?
Does the law that provides for this index the limit for inflation?
The system is simple...we are a nation of law. The ability to enforce the law is the role of the police, The role of the courts is to decide if the police have done their job properly and there exists no “reasonable doubt” for the defendant.
The increased role of the federal government has come as a result of the increased level of sophistication on the part of the criminal and the lack of resources at the local level. I saw many cases that crossed state lines that had I not had the assistance of the FBI or DEA we would have never been able to close. Look at the proliferation of identity theft these days. How can a local agency track, apprehend and prosecute an offender without federal participation.
I thank you for your understanding of my position. Although I retired after Broderick Crawford ended “Highway Patrol” and Effrem Zimbalist Jr. caught his last crook on “FBI” it disturbs me to see some of the comments listed on this thread.
We used to have a saying at the agency I worked: We are the only social service agency that is open 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, and makes house calls.
You and your family have a Blessid Christmas and a Very Happy New Year. I am now 10-42
And, hell, I may be entirely wrong. The guy can still get his money back if that's the case.
The constitution is a joke. It’s already gone.
Okay, to answer your points. the money is considered “EVIDENCE.” Our proceedure called for 1 detective to count the money and complete a form breaking down the money by denomination: “100-$100’s 300-$50’s so on. The money and form were signed, placed in a plastic bag which was then heat-sealed; signed again with a property tag and case number and then placed in the property room safe. The money STAYED in the safe until the court case and/or final disposition. There had to be a witness at the initial counting And also when the money was removed. Any discrepancy in the count triggered an internal affairs investigation.
Your point about the date of printing would be one way the cops could corroborate the persons story. Also, any receipts that show the subject regularly paid in cash or converted cash to a money order would also be looked at.
While a lot of the story isn’t being released, think about this. Everyone is making the assumption the money could have been saved BASED on today’s dollars. Someone posted they could see how someone could save 10K a year for 40 years and put that much cash away. Let me ask you, when you first started working 40 years ago....what was your gross wages? could you afford to save 10K a year from that? I think somethings have been overlooked. The gentleman has a son who is in his early thirties. The subject admits to the use of an illegal drug. He has amassed a tremendous amount of cash which he keeps in his home. What is the nexus between the perps and the victim? Or the victim’s son? Has the victim’s son every been in trouble? These are the first questions I’d ask if it were my case.
Oh, and by the way, tax returns are NOT available to local law enforcement. It’s against Federal law.
If your don’t get a return on the money, inflation eats it right up. Even with interest at bank rates, the money is still losing value to inflation but more slowly than without any interest. Also bank deposits are insured against the bank failing for crisis like you mentioned.
Assuming that he accumulated all this money legitimately over the course of his working life, imagine how much more he would have if he had just put it into a savings account. Confiscation like this is wrong and IMHO unconstitutional- the burden of proof should always rest with the government- but if he had put his money in the bank he would have been better off in so many ways.
I have no idea what the cutoff would be. Probably 10k
Plus the police found out about the cash after a robbery. Perhaps the surviving robber told them they believed there was drug dealing and large sums of cash at the house. Newspapers rarely report the whole story, or get it right if they try. Civil forfeiture laws are legal, and make life tougher for criminals.
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.