Rental car + cash = no cash for you - Page 2

Kytro · 08-22-2006, 11:20 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

The guy can't even prove himself that the money is his...how is the government supposed to prove it is his or anyone elses?

If they can't prove it belongs to someone else, he should be able to keep it.

Why should he have to prove anything? If they assert he does not own the money, they should have some evidence to back it up.

Ardentfrost · 08-22-2006, 11:21 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

The guy can't even prove himself that the money is his...how is the government supposed to prove it is his or anyone elses?

do you not understand "burden of proof?" Srsly, I'm not making fun of you or anything, but you keep asking the same question, and thomez keeps answering you. It's like watching tennis or ping pong.

How about this: Innocent until proven guilty.

That means that no matter what he is charged with, if none of those charges deal directly with the money, then how can they legally keep it? They have not proven that the money is stolen or that it was gotten illegally... and if they can't prove that, then the money IS his legally.

It is not his responsibility to prove that the money is his. That is to say, the burden of proof does not fall on him, it falls to the state.

I don't see how this is hard to understand.

thomez · 08-22-2006, 11:26 PM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

do you not understand "burden of proof?" Srsly, I'm not making fun of you or anything, but you keep asking the same question, and thomez keeps answering you. It's like watching tennis or ping pong.

this made me lol

Donkey® · 08-22-2006, 11:31 PM

Originally Posted by Kytro

If they can't prove it belongs to someone else, he should be able to keep it.

Why should he have to prove anything? If they assert he does not own the money, they should have some evidence to back it up.

They asserted, based on the facts that presented themselves at the time, that the money was NOT his and was part of a drug conspiracy. At that point, it was his job to prove it wasn't...which he couldn't do.

Ardentfrost · 08-22-2006, 11:33 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

They asserted, based on the facts that presented themselves at the time, that the money was NOT his and was part of a drug conspiracy. At that point, it was his job to prove it wasn't...which he couldn't do.

No, that's not how it works... They can't just say it is and pass the burden. The burden is 100% theirs.

Donkey® · 08-22-2006, 11:36 PM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

do you not understand "burden of proof?" Srsly, I'm not making fun of you or anything, but you keep asking the same question, and thomez keeps answering you. It's like watching tennis or ping pong.

How about this: Innocent until proven guilty.

That means that no matter what he is charged with, if none of those charges deal directly with the money, then how can they legally keep it? They have not proven that the money is stolen or that it was gotten illegally... and if they can't prove that, then the money IS his legally.

It is not his responsibility to prove that the money is his. That is to say, the burden of proof does not fall on him, it falls to the state.

I don't see how this is hard to understand.

Oh talk down to me oh mighty one. Seems funny that those bad judges agree with this idiot. Go figure. Anyway, burden of proof does not apply to drug money. The drug money can't prove itself innocent of guilty. BASED ON THE FACTS AT THE TIME, THE MONEY WAS DEEMED TO BE ASSOCIATED WITH THE DRUG TRADE. If he was just a mule for the money, the money isn't even his. That's how the drug trade works. The guy wasn't charged with anything concerning the money so nobody was required to throw "burden of proof" at him. At the time he was ARRESTED...he was given a chance to explain the money and prove where it came from? He failed. He was given a second chance to prove it in 8th circuit appeals court...he again failed. Seems like the cops did the right thing to me?

Donkey® · 08-22-2006, 11:38 PM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

No, that's not how it works... They can't just say it is and pass the burden. The burden is 100% theirs.

They did prove it. The drug dog proved it and the guy who couldn't provide any coherent and legal reason for the money proved it.

Ardentfrost · 08-22-2006, 11:45 PM

Drug dog is circumstantial man... it only means that something had been in contact with drugs at some point. Nothing links that to the money... it doesn't PROVE anything.

Judges aren't always right, that's why there are levels of judiciary.

And I really wasn't talking down to you.

Donkey® · 08-22-2006, 11:46 PM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Drug dog is circumstantial man... it only means that something had been in contact with drugs at some point. Nothing links that to the money... it doesn't PROVE anything.

Judges aren't always right, that's why there are levels of judiciary.

And I really wasn't talking down to you.

Circumstantial evidence + more circumstantial evidence + more circumstantial evidence = money seized.

Ardentfrost · 08-22-2006, 11:46 PM

I gotta rotate back out to Thomez or the next person. It's time for bed.

thomez · 08-22-2006, 11:48 PM

Ardentfrost · 08-22-2006, 11:48 PM

One last thing: How can they seize money for drugs without a drugs charge?

thomez · 08-22-2006, 11:50 PM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

I gotta rotate back out to Thomez or the next person. It's time for bed.

rotate out

I'm not repeating myself again.

Ardentfrost · 08-22-2006, 11:57 PM

US CODE: Title 18,982. Criminal forfeiture

(1) The court, in imposing sentence on a person convicted of an offense in violation of section 1956, 1957, or 1960 of this title, shall order that the person forfeit to the United States any property, real or personal, involved in such offense, or any property traceable to such property.

Gotta be convicted of the offense for forfeiture to be legal.

Ok, srsly, I gotta go to bed

Kytro · 08-23-2006, 12:15 AM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

One last thing: How can they seize money for drugs without a drugs charge?

.

If there is not enough evidence to charge and convict in relation to drugs, there isn't enough to take away money for the same reason.

Donkey® · 08-23-2006, 12:26 AM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

One last thing: How can they seize money for drugs without a drugs charge?

Because you can't be charged with "possession of money." That guy could have not known where the money came from. He could have not known the money came from drugs. The police couldn't establish the fact it really was his money...shit, neither could he. The only thing they know is that it came from illegal activity (drugs).

Donkey® · 08-23-2006, 12:27 AM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

US CODE: Title 18,982. Criminal forfeiture

Gotta be convicted of the offense for forfeiture to be legal.

Ok, srsly, I gotta go to bed

How is it considered forfeiture if you can't even prove the money was yours? And again, he wasn't charged with anything relating to the money...and he doesn't have to be if the cops can't establish WHOSE money it is.

Kytro · 08-23-2006, 12:29 AM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

The only thing they know is that it came from illegal activity (drugs).

I don't think they had any hard evidence - they should need hard evidence to take the money.

As has been mentioned, lots of money could have the scent of drugs for a variety of reasons.

Overzealous war on drugs BS. Taking peoples houses, money and stuff based on suspcision is total crap

thomez · 08-23-2006, 12:34 AM

Kytro · 08-23-2006, 12:49 AM

Needs a scooter and stupid girls