civil forfiture case
FBI=thieves
http://www.limaohio.com/story.php?IDnum=47047
quote:Man wants his $400K back from the FBI
Greg Sowinski | gsowinski@limanews.com - 12.18.2007
Luther Ricks Sr. sits in the living room of his Greenlawn Avenue home where authorities took more than $400,000 from him earlier this year following a fatal self-defense shooting in his house. The FBI now has his money and is refusing to give it back. (Photo by Matthew Hashiguchi)
LIMA ?_" Two robbers who broke into Luther Ricks Sr.?_Ts 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.
?_oThey 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?_T home, which Ricks said he had to help manage pain.
?_oI 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.
?_oThe law of forfeiture basically says you have to prove you?_Tre innocent. It?_Ts 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.
?_oThe 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?_Tt work, he said.
?_oThe 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.
http://www.limaohio.com/story.php?IDnum=47047
quote:Man wants his $400K back from the FBI
Greg Sowinski | gsowinski@limanews.com - 12.18.2007
Luther Ricks Sr. sits in the living room of his Greenlawn Avenue home where authorities took more than $400,000 from him earlier this year following a fatal self-defense shooting in his house. The FBI now has his money and is refusing to give it back. (Photo by Matthew Hashiguchi)
LIMA ?_" Two robbers who broke into Luther Ricks Sr.?_Ts 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.
?_oThey 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?_T home, which Ricks said he had to help manage pain.
?_oI 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.
?_oThe law of forfeiture basically says you have to prove you?_Tre innocent. It?_Ts 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.
?_oThe 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?_Tt work, he said.
?_oThe 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.
0
-
"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."
There in lies the problem. He took upon himself to interpret Ohio's marijuana laws to allow for "medical" use.0 -
Another case of our government running amok.
If they keep the money, they will frivolously spend it.
Ain't that a shame, a man's life's savings taken from him for no good reason other than just because the government can.
Hate it the course our great country is headed in.0 -
quote:Originally posted by A J Christ
Another case of our government running amok.
If they keep the money, they will frivolously spend it.
Ain't that a shame, a man's life's savings taken from him for no good reason other than just because the government can.
Hate it the course our great country is headed in.
Or did he break the law by possessing and using the illegal drug?
Thats part of the problem in this country, people think that the laws don't apply to them.0 -
how does one relate to another? 0 -
I would look at this way, when he decided that he needed marijuana for "medical reasons" I'm sure he did his research on the drug laws and the potential penalties. Which obviously does include forfeiture of cash money on the premises. He knew the risk involved in using the illegal drug and chose to take that risk. In reality if the guy really needed this weed, that was so strong it made him numb to the point that he couldn't feel pain, then he should have taken some of that cash and moved to California where medical pot is easily obtainable. He chose to break the law, day after day for years I assume, and now he is paying the consequences that he was aware of at the time that he was comitting the crime. 0 -
doesn't Ohio have medical marijuana laws, i know the feds won't and don't recognize state laws but its his only shot and especially if he had a prescription 0 -
I wonder why nobody has taken this law to the Supremes yet.
Fourth Amendment
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Fifth Amendment
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.0 -
Oh come on Jamesrk,......lets not get all technical.
I am sure the guy was a 63 year old drug dealer.
They surely had warrants, right?[;)]0 -
"nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
Well perhaps I was a little near sighted in my previous posts. I assumed that he did receive due process of law. After going back and rereading I see that this has not gone to court. [:I]0 -
And they wonder why people go "postal". Actually it would take FAR
less than that for me to.0 -
SAV99, it's people like you I sure as hell don't want on any jury that I may be before. Tom 0 -
I hope at least 10 federal agents die a horrible death! let the goodwill spread 
0 -
quote:Originally posted by JamesRK
I wonder why nobody has taken this law to the Supremes yet.
Fourth Amendment
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Fifth Amendment
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
He DID receive due process. The law was validly enacted and he had every opportunity to contact his lawmakers to express his disagreement with the law before it went into effect. At his trial, he was given every procedural safeguard our system allows. Thus, he was never deprived of due process.
Also, it's my understanding that the takings clause of the 5th Amendment doesn't apply to civil or criminal forefeiture cases.
All that being said, I still disagree with the substance and effect of those laws, but that still becomes more of a POLITICAL issue for Congress, the President etc. than a LEGAL issue for judges.0 -
quote:Originally posted by tccox
SAV99, it's people like you I sure as hell don't want on any jury that I may be before. Tom
TCCOX, This is an internet forum, not a court room. I admitted my mistake in not reading the article thoroughly enough. I missed the part about it not going to court.0 -
Unfortunately for the gentleman, he has a very tough road ahead because the Feds will just keep using the same line over and over...it is profit from illegal activities.
They dont have to prove it...on the contrary it is now up to the lowly citizen to "prove" where the money came from.
Dont know about you, but I dont have all my paystubs from my 30 years of working. Not to mention that there are times we have all been paid cash for doing some jobs for people.
Did he break the law for using marijuana? Appears so. But what needs to be looked at is how much was in his possession.
Sitting on a jury, I would probably have to say he was guilty of misdemeanor possession and make him pay a fine, but if he has less than what would be considered "trafficing", then he would be getting his money back...living as he does I have the gut feeling that he merely refused to use banks and kept money in the safe in the house.
Did they bother to ask if he had an insurance settlement from his wifes death or a settlement from his job for injuries???0 -
I'm a member of a shrinking minority, but to me the point is not whether the man broke the law. It is obvious he at least committed a misdemeanor. He may even be a drug dealer, which wouldn't surprise me. If that can be proved in court, he should pay the price.
To me it is important that all law, especially federal law, should comply with the Constitution of the United States of America. The law which was used to confiscate this mans cash is unconstitutional on its face. If this law is ever upheld by the Supreme Court that means the Constitution is dead. We should have a funeral for it and bury it.
The Constitutional way to do this would be to charge the man with a crime, take him to court, let a judge or a jury of his peers if he elects to have one, decide if a crime was committed and if he is the person who committed it. If the man is found not guilty he keeps his money, less most of it for legal fees. If found guilty he forfeits the money as profits from criminal activity and does the penalty for whatever crime he is convicted of. The burden of proof should be on the accuser (the government).
The way it works now is the government (local cop or an FBI agent) assumes a crime, confiscates the cash and the burden of proof is on the accused.
As far as I know the only outfit who has the authority to ignore and bypass the Constitution is the IRS. That's a subject for another thread.0 -
Many years ago people used to hide thier money in the walls. Especially, the ones who lived thru the depression. But today, having that much cash at home, makes one wonder where it may have come from. I'm sure that will come out in court and by the way, 1000 lawyers would take the case just to have a shot of getting some of that 400,000 dollars. [:(] 0 -
where is there a $400,000 fine for possession of MJ? this ain't right! filthy no good fbi scum![:(!] 0 -
Another pot head whining to the ACLU.
Good riddance.
As to "medical marijuana", a doctor who has seen and treated thousands of people for pain and addiction has said that not one person who asked for "medical marijuana" wasn't already a user.0 -
quote:Originally posted by BT3
Many years ago people used to hide thier money in the walls. Especially, the ones who lived thru the depression. But today, having that much cash at home, makes one wonder where it may have come from. I'm sure that will come out in court and by the way, 1000 lawyers would take the case just to have a shot of getting some of that 400,000 dollars. [:(]
Therein lies the problem. It will never go to court unless the 63 year old man (robbery victim) sues the FBI for taking his property. If he does sue the FBI the burden of proof is on him to show he came by the money legally. I think I have twenty-three dollars in my wallet, and I can't prove where it came from.
The man was a victim of robbery. I expect he objected to the local police taking his money. That would make it robbery under threat or possible strong-arm or armed robbery.
Any way you figure it, even if the man runs a drug cartel, his property was taken without "due process of law". He was robbed by the police and it's legal until this unrighteous law is overturned.0 -
quote:Originally posted by MrOrange
Another pot head whining to the ACLU.
Good riddance.
As to "medical marijuana", a doctor who has seen and treated thousands of people for pain and addiction has said that not one person who asked for "medical marijuana" wasn't already a user.
And we all know how infallible doctors are..[;)]0 -
There was a case a few years back where a guy named Westerfield kidnaped a little girl raped and killed her. During the trial it came out that the mother, who was into wife swapping, was smoking pot in the garage shortly before the little girl was kidnapped. The authorities didn't conficiate her property. I guess it is better to be a young blonde female into wife swapping than a 63 year old man that saved his money. 0 -
quote:
Or did he break the law by possessing and using the illegal drug?
Thats part of the problem in this country, people think that the laws don't apply to them.
Last i knew, simple possession of pot will get dropped in court, or a small fine. $400,000 dollars is a little bit overboard, don't you think?0 -
quote:Originally posted by LKB3rd
quote:
Or did he break the law by possessing and using the illegal drug?
Thats part of the problem in this country, people think that the laws don't apply to them.
Last i knew, simple possession of pot will get dropped in court, or a small fine. $400,000 dollars is a little bit overboard, don't you think?
The $400k was not his fine for the possession. But if it were his fine it certainly would be excessive. I was not aware that the case had not gone to court when I made that post.0 -
Yea. It seems that the simple possession case was dropped in this case. Very common. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by JamesRK
I'm a member of a shrinking minority, but to me the point is not whether the man broke the law. It is obvious he at least committed a misdemeanor. He may even be a drug dealer, which wouldn't surprise me. If that can be proved in court, he should pay the price.
To me it is important that all law, especially federal law, should comply with the Constitution of the United States of America. The law which was used to confiscate this mans cash is unconstitutional on its face. If this law is ever upheld by the Supreme Court that means the Constitution is dead. We should have a funeral for it and bury it.
The Constitutional way to do this would be to charge the man with a crime, take him to court, let a judge or a jury of his peers if he elects to have one, decide if a crime was committed and if he is the person who committed it. If the man is found not guilty he keeps his money, less most of it for legal fees. If found guilty he forfeits the money as profits from criminal activity and does the penalty for whatever crime he is convicted of. The burden of proof should be on the accuser (the government).
The way it works now is the government (local cop or an FBI agent) assumes a crime, confiscates the cash and the burden of proof is on the accused.
As far as I know the only outfit who has the authority to ignore and bypass the Constitution is the IRS. That's a subject for another thread.
the point of forefeiture laws is to help remove any incentive to commit crimes, especially profitable ones like drug trafficking. Like I said, I don't agree with them in practice most of the time, but I'm not so sure they are unconstitutional on their face. The clear import of the 5th Amendment's use of the term "property" is real estate or land property. It was never the intent of the Framers to demand that illicit or corrupt or dirty money (or any other property) could not be confiscated without giving just compensation. If that were the case, the govt. could seize the drug money but then be forced to turn around and pay him the "just compensation" for his money: for every dollar they took, they'd have to pay out a dollar in return. That's only just, right?
Just remember: just because a particular policy is stupid, counter-productive, inane, asinine, or downright goofy DOESN'T mean it's unconstitutional.0 -
quote:Originally posted by nemesisenforcer
the point of forefeiture laws is to help remove any incentive to commit crimes, especially profitable ones like drug trafficking. Like I said, I don't agree with them in practice most of the time, but I'm not so sure they are unconstitutional on their face. The clear import of the 5th Amendment's use of the term "property" is real estate or land property. It was never the intent of the Framers to demand that illicit or corrupt or dirty money (or any other property) could not be confiscated without giving just compensation. If that were the case, the govt. could seize the drug money but then be forced to turn around and pay him the "just compensation" for his money: for every dollar they took, they'd have to pay out a dollar in return. That's only just, right?
Just remember: just because a particular policy is stupid, counter-productive, inane, asinine, or downright goofy DOESN'T mean it's unconstitutional.
I think the point you are missing here is "without due process of law". The government can take everything you have, including your life, and do it legally as long as it is done with "due process of law". Due process of law means you are "innocent until proven guilty". Due process of law includes a trial before a judge and if elected, a jury of your peers.
That is absolutely what the founders meant in the Fifth Amendment. The founders had lived under the government of the King, his Governors and officers. They did anything and everything they thought necessary to accomplish their goals including taking property and boarding soldiers in private homes, and they did it on their own authority. The Fifth Amendment was intended to insure that the same thing didn't happen under their new government.
Nowhere in the Constitution is authority given to the Congress or the President to delegate the authority and responsibility of the Judiciary to FBI agents or local law enforcement.0 -
Not to hijack this thread, but half of the people here say "This needs to go to court". Half of the people say "The guy brought it on himself". I know that most of the people on GB hate the ACLU. Yet who is standing up for this guy? Who is bringing the legal challenge to the law? THE ACLU.
What we need to keep in mind is that it isn't the Pure of Heart and Spirit that usually gets into a situation with the Government. Even if the guy is 100% legit, and only had a little reefer, maybe even just a joint, he will be painted as a dope fiend, and the FBI can use that as a pretext in this case.
If I was you, I'd think again about the ACLU....0 -
Jgreen, the only information I have about this case is the article posted by Gotteskrieger. I saw in the article that the ACLU said "Ricks has a tough road ahead, not impossible, but tough to get back his money." I didn't see where the ACLU had any plans to help Mister Ricks. If you are correct about the ACLU going to court on his behalf that will raise them a notch in my estimation, but still leaves them lower than whale poop.
Luther Ricks Sr. is at best a little suspicious, but that isn't really the point, is it? The point is law enforcement officials, including the FBI should be given all the authority necessary to do their jobs, and NO MORE. Some traffic offences can carry a penalty of thirty days in jail. That doesn't mean Deputy Dog can just lock my ass up for thirty days.
If Mister Ricks had sold a kilo of cocaine to Robert S. Mueller, III in the middle of the town square in front of a thousand witnesses, he is still entitled to his "day in court". Even if he doesn't want to contest the charges, he still gets to stand before the judge, plead guilty, and hear the judge pronounce his sentence.
From what American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio Legal Director Jeff Gamso had to say, it appears he is thinking about playing the FBI's game by the FBI's rules. He didn't have anything to say about the constitutionality of the law. It appears to me that this case would be a "gimme" if it ever gets to the Supreme Court. The constitutionalist would overturn it because it is obviously unconstitutional and the liberals would overturn it because it's an easy opportunity to slam-dunk the FBI. This could be your chance to make a national name for yourself. [;)] [:)]0 -
try and picture if you will a pile of cash that was accumilated over the past say 30 years. I'm just curious what denomination were these bills? Were there any dated from back in the day when he earned them or started hording them? What did the guy do for a living? Does it appear that he is living within his means or live high on the hog somthing that might not seem tipical for others with the same employment or economic class? I dont know It sound to me like the guy was the victim and who cares if he smokes pot or not. The police were brought in to investigate the robbery and shootings Not because the man was suspected of getting high. They had no probable cause or warrents to search for drugs or any money etc...But who knows maybe the money belonged to the dead robbers and the pot smoker thought they were there to steel his weed so he shot em dead!!! 0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
32 comments