Mark, I knew that you were right with your comments about court cases entitled things like "United States vs. Ferrari," but I have to admit, that I am a little surprised at how blatant the stealing has gotten:
A federal appeals court ruled yesterday that if a motorist is carrying large sums of money, it is automatically subject to confiscation. In the case entitled, "United States of America v. $124,700 in U.S. Currency," the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit took that amount of cash away from Emiliano Gomez Gonzolez, a man with a "lack of significant criminal history" neither accused nor convicted of any crime.
The facts of this case are pretty simple. You have a Hispanic guy who was traveling without any drugs or anything like that, who got pulled over and searched. Drug dog barks at the car and the money which has been sitting in the car. Problem is, it's not the guy's car--it's a rental, so there is absolutely no obvious proof that the drug residue was from him as opposed to the previous renter. The guy claimed that he wanted to buy a refridgerated truck with his friends and family so that they could start a business.
District court judge comes in and says the case is a bunch of crap, the state failed to provide sufficient evidence. Then the geniuses on the appeals court say that merely carrying around that much cash is ipso facto proof that he was a drug runner.
Thank you, Hollywood, for all of your years of providing these people with the propaganda that they needed to make people honestly believe that only criminals carry this much cash. Normal people don't buy houses or cars in cash, only criminals do. If they have nothing to hide, they have no reason to fear the loan shark or credit card processor!
And my only question is, does anyone actually think that a country that is run by jackasses this stupid is going to stand a snowball's chance in hell of winning the "War on Terror?" For more analysis, which puts it in even worse and more detailed terms, check out The Agitator.
My wife doesn't like it when I carry around 200.
I'd hate to think that the gov't has resorted to stealing, but I've already thought it anyway.
So, is this the end of Emiliano's appeals?
I don't know where he stands, but if he has lost on appeal, then he will need to go to the supreme court in his jurisdiction. This sort of "logic" is precisely the reason why I cannot stand so much of the legal profession.
Kelo was a wake-up call for a few more people, Mike.
(It was a different approach - eminent domain 'taking' vs politically-correct theft, but the principle is the same - "it's not your property".)
Unfortunately, this "civil forfeiture" has been going on for far too long -
it is now SOP to strip a criminal defendent (ESPECIALLY a political enemy!) of his bank accounts, house, and other liquid assets using the same "process" - so that the poor SOB can't even pay his legal bills.
It's a weapon for Big Brother to use against his enemies, and at the same time a cheap carrot for the sell-outs.
(I suspect Emiliano has already lost more than his original money in any event...)
Perchance those "drugs detected" might have been on the money itself, kind of like the way nearly every euro note printed has been "ridin' that train, high on cocaine"?
Kinda convenient, isn't it Abe, if you already know that almost ANY quantity of cash can be counted on to have enough residual cocaine to merit "seizure"?
Agent 005: License to steal?
For a long time, if you lived a "blameless life," you had little to fear from the police, but the Gonzalez case brings to mind a new fact that should scare a lot of people who try to lead good,...