FBI takes old man's money

[Ardentfrost]

Man wants his $400K back from the FBI - LimaOhio.com

Man wants his $400K back from the FBI

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.

I hate to see stories like this. This poor old man was just living his life, some hooligans try to rob him, and in the end he gets robbed by the damn government.

And the fact that he's guilty until proven innocent in this case is the worst. I simply can't imagine how anyone can look at this and think it's ok

[WickedLou9]

If that story is right than it's total BS and the dude should get his money back.. but something doesn't sound right. NO one would keep that much money in a safe in thier bedroom. He also had a gun and illegal drugs in his house... It just doesn't sound right. Maybe I'm just being cynical though. There is probably more to the story. Even so the laws that they talk about are BS. You have to prove that it's legit money? Why does it work backwards in this case? Makes no sense to me. Even if he was selling dope out of his house to fund his retirement, they still should have to prove it.

[hsmith]

Government: Legalized stealing and murder.

[Ardentfrost]

Well, if what he's saying is true, the money itself would prove it because the mint dates would be spread throughout his life... but that money is long gone, probably destroyed by now. They're not going to keep 400k in cash sitting around, they'll put it in a bank, and the bank will take all old bills and send them for destruction.

But all that doesn't matter. I don't care if you found a room full of money in someone's house, unless it's counterfeit, the police should have to PROVE it was gotten illegally, not assume it was and force the owner to prove otherwise.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Well, if what he's saying is true, the money itself would prove it because the mint dates would be spread throughout his life... but that money is long gone, probably destroyed by now. They're not going to keep 400k in cash sitting around, they'll put it in a bank, and the bank will take all old bills and send them for destruction.

But all that doesn't matter. I don't care if you found a room full of money in someone's house, unless it's counterfeit, the police should have to PROVE it was gotten illegally, not assume it was and force the owner to prove otherwise.

Oh I agree. It's total BS.

[David Octavius]

Bullshit law - but why did the feds get involved in the first place? Because of the amount of money involved? This case should of stayed in the hands of the local authorities. This is what happens when power is not more balanced among the different levels of government.

[AVengeance]

War on Drugs

War on Terror

War on CITIZENS.

It's pretty easy to fight a war when the target won't fight back.

[kinggovernor]

there has to be more to the story, there has to be a reason that they FBI got involved. How much grass did they find in his house, a key detail the story leaves out.

[kinggovernor]

I did a little research about Federal Asset Forfeiture:

Types of Federal Forfeiture



Criminal forfeiture is an action brought as a part of the criminal prosecution of a defendant. It is an in personam (against the person) action and requires that the government indict (charge) the property used or derived from the crime along with the defendant. If the jury finds the property forfeitable, the court issues an order of forfeiture.

For forfeitures pursuant to the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO), as well as money laundering and obscenity statutes, there is an ancillary hearing for third parties to assert their interest in the property. Once the interests of third parties are addressed, the court issues a final forfeiture order.

Civil judicial forfeiture is an in rem (against the property) action brought in court against the property. The property is the defendant and no criminal charge against the owner is necessary.

Administrative forfeiture is an in rem action that permits the federal seizing agency to forfeit the property without judicial involvement. The authority for a seizing agency to start an administrative forfeiture action is found in the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. § 1607. Property that can be administratively forfeited is: merchandise the importation of which is prohibited; a conveyance used to import, transport, or store a controlled substance; a monetary instrument; or other property that does not exceed $500,000 in value.

Source: A Guide to Equitable Sharing of Federally Forfeited Property for State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies, U.S. Department of Justice, March 1994.

USDOJ: Asset Forfeiture Program: Types of Federal Forfeiture

Seeing that money was seized after his stash was found, it looks to be a criminal seize. Too many details are missing from this story

[Ardentfrost]

Any amount of marijuana is illegal according to the federal government. If you have a partial joint, they can come seize your shit according to them.

[hsmith]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

there has to be more to the story, there has to be a reason that they FBI got involved. How much grass did they find in his house, a key detail the story leaves out.

Lets say he was running drugs.

They should have to prove the money was gotten from illegal means, he shouldn't be proving the money was gotten from legal means.

These "drug laws" are violating our constitutional rights because they are assuming you are guilty and not innocent.

[7th Ninjai]

Armed robbery by the federal government that is somehow rationalized by the war against a substance one willingly puts in one's own body.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by hsmith

Lets say he was running drugs.

They should have to prove the money was gotten from illegal means, he shouldn't be proving the money was gotten from legal means.

These "drug laws" are violating our constitutional rights because they are assuming you are guilty and not innocent.

Did some more research:

The authority to seize property in this way is not inherent. Rather, it is established by statute. It is constrained by those authorizing laws and by the U.S. Constitution. The expansion of forfeiture activity has not gone on without Constitutional challenge. The U.S. Supreme Court has heard at least half a dozen forfeiture cases during the nineties, but its rulings have not done much to rein in the practice. This short survey of the law of forfeiture draws upon these Court decisions. Its introduction to the essential statutory provisions focuses on the Federal statutes. State and local provisions tend to be quite similar.

Forfeiture takes two distinct forms -- criminal and civil. Nearly all contemporary forfeiture involves the civil variety. Criminal forfeiture operates as punishment for a crime. It, therefore, requires a conviction, following which the state takes the assets in question from the criminal. Civil forfeiture rests on the idea (a legal fiction) that the property itself, not the owner, has violated the law. Thus, the proceeding is directed against the res, or the thing involved in some illegal activity specified by statute. Unlike criminal forfeiture, in rem forfeiture does not require a conviction or even an official criminal charge against the owner. This is the source of its attractiveness to law enforcement, and its threat to those concerned about abuse or circumvention of Constitutional protections.

Civil Forfeiture (In Rem)

What is it?
Unlike criminal forfeiture, civil forfeiture proceeds against the property, not the person. In theory, civil actions are remedial, not punitive like criminal proceedings. By acting civilly, the government seeks to remedy a harm, through the fiction of the property's "guilt."
The same statutes apply--18 U.S.C. §981 (parallels 18 U.S.C. §982) and 21 U.S.C. §881. To complicate matters, these statutes incorporate by reference Customs procedures from 19 U.S.C. §1602 involving searches, seizures, administrative procedure, holding, and disposal. When the government learns of a crime, establishes probable cause of the property's involvement (usually as an instrumentality), it may seize the property by executing a warrant. A criminal charge or conviction is not required to seize. Notice occurs through presentation of the warrant and publication in a newspaper. If a party files a claim within the answer period, a civil hearing commences. In uncontested situations, the forfeiture may be handled administratively.

Due to its civil nature, the roles of the parties change. Instead of prosecutor versus defendant, the hearing concerns a plaintiff, the United States in the case of Federal forfeitures, and a defendant, the property in question. The owner is effectively put in the position of being a third party claimant. Furthermore, civil hearings involve a more lenient burden of proof than "beyond a reasonable doubt." Once the government establishes probable cause that the property is subject to forfeiture, the owner must prove by "preponderance of the evidence" that it is not.

Since the government determines which form of forfeiture to use, it is not surprising that most are carried out using the civil (in rem) procedure.

What defenses exist?

Unless provided in statute (as in 18 U.S.C. §981(a)(2)), innocence of the owner is typically not a defense. Furthermore, courts interpret the statutory defenses stringently. For instance, courts may apply an objective standard to determine if the owner should have had knowledge of the property's illegal use, rather require proof of actual knowledge. The owner may argue that no crime ever occurred, that the government lacked probable cause, or that the property is not closely enough connected to the crime to be considered an instrumentality or proceeds.
Should any of these defenses succeed, the government need simply return the property to the owner. It is not liable to the owner damages caused by the property's detention, including damages resulting during the original seizure or a failure to look after the property while in government custody.

LII Backgrounder on Forfeiture

it has links to the several Court cases that have upheld the forfeiture laws. I see it is from 1999, so their may be updated cases

[RMNIXON]

I don't get it. If the couple were not involved in any criminal activity there is no good cause or evidence that the money is not rightfully theirs. That is not the same as an individual who you can prove supports themself on an illegal activity like drug dealing or organized crime. In such cases you have probable cause to suspect where any assets came from. I don't see that at all in this case. Is it now a crime just to have large amounts of cash?

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

I don't get it. If the couple were not involved in any criminal activity there is no good cause or evidence that the money is not rightfully theirs. That is not the same as an individual who you can prove supports themself on an illegal activity like drug dealing or organized crime. In such cases you have probable cause to suspect where any assets came from. I don't see that at all in this case. Is it now a crime just to have large amounts of cash?

the article makes it appear that way, I think there is more to the story.

[7960]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

If that story is right than it's total BS and the dude should get his money back.. but something doesn't sound right. NO one would keep that much money in a safe in thier bedroom. He also had a gun and illegal drugs in his house...

My dad doesn't have *that* much, but he has a significant amount in a safe in his basement and he has *plenty* of guns. No illegal drugs though (that I know of).

I'd take the story at face value until proven otherwise.

[7960]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

I don't get it. If the couple were not involved in any criminal activity there is no good cause or evidence that the money is not rightfully theirs. That is not the same as an individual who you can prove supports themself on an illegal activity like drug dealing or organized crime. In such cases you have probable cause to suspect where any assets came from. I don't see that at all in this case. Is it now a crime just to have large amounts of cash?

Not a crime per se, but if you can't prove where it came from then they assume the worst until you prove otherwise.

police seized money - Google Search

Read the first few descriptions, especially #2 (Federal Appeals Court: Driving With Money is a Crime). It happens too often.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by 7960

My dad doesn't have *that* much, but he has a significant amount in a safe in his basement and he has *plenty* of guns. No illegal drugs though (that I know of).

I'd take the story at face value until proven otherwise.

WHy would he keep cash in a safe? There is this thing called inflation. Not to mention the fact that money in a safe is not FDIC insured. It is completely irrational to hoard cash in a safe. If you have alot of money and it's not somewhere earning atleast 3%, you are literally pissing away thousands of dollars every year for no reason and with no benefit. The only reason to keep cash in a safe is so that the government doesn't know that you have it.

[bheld]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

WHy would he keep cash in a safe? There is this thing called inflation. Not to mention the fact that money in a safe is not FDIC insured. It is completely irrational to hoard cash in a safe. If you have alot of money and it's not somewhere earning atleast 3%, you are literally pissing away thousands of dollars every year for no reason and with no benefit. The only reason to keep cash in a safe is so that the government doesn't know that you have it.

If bad judgement were a crime we'd have a different president and vice-president right now.

[7th Ninjai]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9