To: LibWhacker
“They are saying I have to prove I made it,” he said. Shouldn't the FBI have to prove that he didn't?
-PJ
11 posted on
12/21/2007 12:38:52 AM PST by
Political Junkie Too
(Repeal the 17th amendment -- it's the "Fairness Doctrine" for Congress!)
To: Political Junkie Too
Its civil forfeiture. Apparently, its a crime to keep a large sum of money in your home even when you haven't done anything wrong.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
12 posted on
12/21/2007 12:48:35 AM PST by
goldstategop
(In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
To: Political Junkie Too
Shouldn't the FBI have to prove that he didn't? Nope. Property does not have civil rights or a presumption of innocence. This is the basis of all forfeiture laws and has been upheld by the USSC.
Is it right? Personally, I think it is a travesty.
This guy will never see one thin dime of this money again. He should have opened up a savings account.
16 posted on
12/21/2007 12:51:59 AM PST by
Drew68
To: Political Junkie Too
Shouldn't the FBI have to prove that he didn't? Because they found a joint in his house, the special drug Constitution applies. It doesn't have a Bill of Rights.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson