You asked how you prove a negative - first part would be to avoid illegal behavior, so you don't get into this mess. He's not a law abiding citizen, he's a participant in a criminal activity. The only question here is if the money came from drug income or from real income - pull out the last twenty years of tax returns, should be very easy to prove that money is legitimately earned savings.
But you know as well as I do, when someone breaks one law, they generally break many more. Likely under the table income fueled that pile of cash, and almost any drug user is more than willing to 'get a little for their friends', or show others 'how this really manages pain.' Providing evidence of income would be a good step in the process, a decade worth of tax returns would be nice, but I think you and I both know this guy won't be able to prove the income.
My only real disagreement with the forfeiture process is the lack of appeal by jury. Someone wants to fight having their money, their home or their car taken, they should be able to go before a jury of their peers. If the guy had a couple ounces, and the government can't demonstrate a drug history, a dealing history, and he's got some explanation that 12 people can accept, he should get his money back.
Where people do have a problem is when the government seizes money from people who have done nothing wrong and they happen to have a large amount of cash on hand in their safe. The burden of proof should be on the government to prove a person's property was the fruit of a crime before they can take it. It should never be the other way around - which would, like in the situation we've discussed be to the detriment of an innocent person.
"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
There's something missing from this story.
1) Were "the robbers" known to Luther Ricks, Sr.?
2) You have to report to the IRS money movements in those kinds of numbers.
3) What quantity of marijuana did police find? Usually, police don't search a victim's house—much less a safe's contents.
He should have kept the marijuana in his safe, and the cash in the freezer, where it would be returned, like Congressman William Jefferson, Democrat, Louisiana.
That’s illegal behavior.
So if you break the speed limit laws, are you inclined to break other laws as well - as you claim?
As far as having to prove his innocence to get his money back, you have it completely backwards. The government is required by the constitution to prove his guilt before punishing him. You know, that presumption of innocence thing...
This is wrong and there is no excuse for it.
Proof of innocence is an impossible burden. “I reckon he’s done sumpthin’, bring him in. Make him prove he aint done nuthin’. We got a society to protect.” See how that works?
But in the old days, he would have to be tried, convicted and a fine assessed. Sorry, but what the FBI just did is stealing. So far as I'm concerned they deserve whatever an old man with nothing to lose is willing to do to them.
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?
The government needs to prove in from of a jury that he obtained the money illegally. Innocent until proven guilty, anything else and the government can take whatever it wants without being held accountable.
People like you are one of the reasons I am voting for Ron Paul.