isn't there a limit of what fines can be imposed for misdemeanor offenses? Isn't $400,000 over that limit? If they actually hit her with felony distribution charges it would be a different story, but a misdemeanor possesion charge is not a reason to take the house. She plead "no contest" because she didn't want to take the time and money to hire a lawyer to fight a $500 ticket. A lawyer would have cost more. She shouldn't have to prove it wasn't drug money, whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty"

Quoted: Quoted: This sounds kind of harsh, but... Warren was on disability and is living in a $400,000 house.  Perhaps she recieved a settlement(?) that was used to buy the house, but perhaps not.   No mention of how much she money recieved monthly or how she paid for the house.   Growing plants, small amounts of MJ AND traces of meth.... that leads me to suspect that she was dealing on a larger scale.  Perhaps she was only caught with a small amount, but it really makes me wonder.     If she can't show how legitimate funds were used for the mortgage payments, I don't have a problem with them seizing the property.  Sounds like there is more to this story than is being reported.   (Flame suit on!) Uuuh, pardon me, but isn't this attitude just a little closer to Nazi Germany than the US Constitution?  If you can't prove that every penny spent on your house (never mind the increase in property values) was legit then do I get to seize it?  Isn't your standard of "proof" just exactly backwards?

What is the problem with the homeowner documenting (fed tax return?) that they had enough income to make the the payments?  If they can't do this, then it becomes very easy to believe that illegal activities actually paid for the property.    FWIW, I do think the reprted case is pretty harsh, but like others here said, if it was some poor guy and a $10K trailer, nobody would care.    The ACLU must be drooling over this... a new poster child for their fine organization.  

Quoted: She shouldn't have to prove it wasn't drug money, whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty"

It still exists, but in order to prevent any guilty from 'going free' 'they' enact such draconian policies that inadvertently chew up the innocents you speak of.



so thinks me.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Our government scares me more than any terrorists ever could. Easy to say while that government protects you (as best they can). ETA: So go live in the mountains of Afghanistan or Pakistan with your buddies so you don't have to live in fear... Brave men and women protect us, not the government.

seems neither will, Looking at NO right now.

Quoted: afman and others, Get a dui in the city of New York and they do confiscate your car.  As for the ladies house I have no sympathy, I'm sure she was aware she was breaking the law. Once you break the law you become subject to the penalties.

no fucking shit!!! she's a goddam DRUG DEALER!!! some of you people need to stop drinking your bong water...

<You have a right to disagree, but please do so in a respectful manner.  edited by Defcon>

ETA: shoulda added the damn smiley face! i don't think i've ever insulted anyone directly here and didn't intend to this time so please don't take offense, it was meant as a kiddin' around poke...

Quoted: isn't there a limit of what fines can be imposed for misdemeanor offenses? Isn't $400,000 over that limit? If they actually hit her with felony distribution charges it would be a different story, but a misdemeanor possesion charge is not a reason to take the house. She plead "no contest" because she didn't want to take the time and money to hire a lawyer to fight a $500 ticket. A lawyer would have cost more. She shouldn't have to prove it wasn't drug money, whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty"

The fun part is that now she has to hire a lawyer to fight a team of taxpayer-funded government lawyers.  If she doesn't have the cash for that (which could also be seized, rendering her unable to hire anyone) then she automatically loses.

This is why people who have their cars seized rarely fight it -- by the time you get done paying for the lawyer you could have bought a new car, anyway. Therefore, anything seized by the cops is pretty much automatically theirs, whether the person was innocent or not.

A friend of mine is going through this with some cash they seized from him. He was in a cash business, and had receipts, testimony of customers, etc. to prove that it was legitimate. Theoretically, he could make a case for it and get his money back. But, just to keep things interesting, every time he calls the phone number they gave him to pursue the case he gets told that the phone number has been changed and he has to call someone new.  It has been a year and a half now and he still hasn't found the "right" person to talk to.

Outright theft and legal looting by law enforcement you say???? Naaaaah, couldn't be.

Quoted: What is the problem with the homeowner documenting (fed tax return?) that they had enough income to make the the payments?  If they can't do this, then it becomes very easy to believe that illegal activities actually paid for the property.    FWIW, I do think the reprted case is pretty harsh, but like others here said, if it was some poor guy and a $10K trailer, nobody would care.    The ACLU must be drooling over this... a new poster child for their fine organization.

They would not care enough about something that small to spend the time on it. By the time the locals do the work to confiscate it then give the FEDS and the state their cut it isn't usually worth their time to go after something so small.

Quoted: ... no fucking shit!!! she's a goddam DRUG DEALER!!! some of you fucktards need to stop drinking your bong water...

If she's only selling pot and only to adults I DON'T GIVE A SHIT.

Quoted: What is the problem with the homeowner documenting (fed tax return?) that they had enough income to make the the payments?  If they can't do this, then it becomes very easy to believe that illegal activities actually paid for the property.    FWIW, I do think the reprted case is pretty harsh, but like others here said, if it was some poor guy and a $10K trailer, nobody would care.    The ACLU must be drooling over this... a new poster child for their fine organization.

How does it become "very easy to believe that illegal activities paid for the property" if there is no proof of any illegal activities that would have provided that kind of income?

Let's see. I find it very easy to believe that you financed your house with money from drug dealing. We don't need any real proof, I just believe it. Therefore, I slap a government lien on your house.  I also think that the rest of your money was ill-gotten, too, so let's slap a lien on that so you can't run off to South America with it.

Now you get to hire an attorney. All he has to do is prove that the property is innocent. Not that you are innocent, mind you, because your guilt really has no bearing on the subject. It is whether the property was ever engaged in any crime.

Now property doesn't have the same presumption of innocence that you do, so you have to prove the property has never had any illegal activity on it. The burden of proof is on you, not the government.  Neither does the property have any guaranteed right to a fair trial, due process, or anything else. We can screw you around with every legal and bureaucratic trick until you finally decide that you are better off dumping it and moving into an apartment.

But, of course, we already put a lien on your property and took your cash under the same theory, so there is no way you are going to be able to hire a lawyer to defend your property. We can put as many lawyers as we want on the case, of course -- all funded by your tax dollars.

If you can't prove that the property was never used for any crime, you lose it. If you lost any of your financial records over the last several years, then you are sucking wind right there. Even if you have the financial records, we will run you around with so much bureacratic BS that you will get tired of the nonsense, anyway.  And, while all this is going on, you can't get a loan on your house, you can't sell it, and your credit rating will certainly go to hell in a hurry.

Of course, that's just what can happen if you are completely innocent. Just FYI, in eighty percent of all seizure cases, charges are never even filed against the person who lost the property. They have so much bureacratic bullshit and other problems they can cause you that they have faith that you will ultimately see that it is just best to give them anything they ask for.

And that all strikes you as being completely in spirit with the Constitution and our basic American ideals, I suppose.

Quoted: Quoted: afman and others, Get a dui in the city of New York and they do confiscate your car.  As for the ladies house I have no sympathy, I'm sure she was aware she was breaking the law. Once you break the law you become subject to the penalties. no fucking shit!!! she's a goddam DRUG DEALER!!! some of you fucktards need to stop drinking your bong water...

You at you running around, knees-bent-advanceing behaviour, you silly English cuh-nig-it!

Quoted: Quoted: What is the problem with the homeowner documenting (fed tax return?) that they had enough income to make the the payments?  If they can't do this, then it becomes very easy to believe that illegal activities actually paid for the property.    FWIW, I do think the reprted case is pretty harsh, but like others here said, if it was some poor guy and a $10K trailer, nobody would care.    The ACLU must be drooling over this... a new poster child for their fine organization.   They would not care enough about something that small to spend the time on it. By the time the locals do the work to confiscate it then give the FEDS and the state their cut it isn't usually worth their time to go after something so small.

No, actually, you should see the car auctions of seized autos they used to feature prominently in the want ads of the LA Times. Pages and pages of seized autos. The great majority of property seizures are under $50,000 (which rather proves that seizures aren't being used against major drug kingpins as those who supported the law originally claimed).  There is a big benefit in seizing smaller items such as cars and trailers.  They can be absolutely sure that the cost of hiring a lawyer to pursue the case is going to cost more than the item in question -- therefore smaller seizures automatically mean that no one is going to fight it. In short, they can just take anything they want.

That sheriff in Oklahoma I mentioned seized lots of cars on the highway using this exact method. All the cars were later sold at auction and -- this will really surprise you -- the great majority of them wound up in his own hands or the hands of his friends for a small fraction of their actual value.

All perfectly "legal" of course.

Quoted: Quoted: afman and others, Get a dui in the city of New York and they do confiscate your car.  As for the ladies house I have no sympathy, I'm sure she was aware she was breaking the law. Once you break the law you become subject to the penalties. no fucking shit!!! she's a goddam DRUG DEALER!!! some of you fucktards need to stop drinking your bong water...

Did you happen to read the part about where she was not convicted of dealing?

Quoted: no fucking shit!!! she's a goddam DRUG DEALER!!! some of you fucktards need to stop drinking your bong water...

This isan't very hard to understand.

She went through the legal system, the system decided a $500 fine was all that was needed.  The city saw she had alot of assets, and being the money grubbing bastards that all cities are, decided it didn't like the way the legal system worked.  So they imposed their own fine.

So who gets to punish people, a judge and jury, or politician who will make $400k if he wins?


Hows this one.

You get accused of murder, your case gets thrown out for whatever reason.  Though the city officials are mad because they put out alot of money to nail you.  They have you arrested and executed because it does not matter what the judge and the AG decided, they still want you to be punished.

Quoted: Quoted: What is the problem with the homeowner documenting (fed tax return?) that they had enough income to make the the payments?  If they can't do this, then it becomes very easy to believe that illegal activities actually paid for the property.    FWIW, I do think the reprted case is pretty harsh, but like others here said, if it was some poor guy and a $10K trailer, nobody would care.    The ACLU must be drooling over this... a new poster child for their fine organization.   How does it become "very easy to believe that illegal activities paid for the property" if there is no proof of any illegal activities that would have provided that kind of income? Let's see. I find it very easy to believe that you financed your house with money from drug dealing. We don't need any real proof, I just believe it. Therefore, I slap a government lien on your house.  I also think that the rest of your money was ill-gotten, too, so let's slap a lien on that so you can't run off to South America with it. Now you get to hire an attorney. All he has to do is prove that the property is innocent. Not that you are innocent, mind you, because your guilt really has no bearing on the subject. It is whether the property was ever engaged in any crime. Now property doesn't have the same presumption of innocence that you do, so you have to prove the property has never had any illegal activity on it. The burden of proof is on you, not the government.  Neither does the property have any guaranteed right to a fair trial, due process, or anything else. We can screw you around with every legal and bureaucratic trick until you finally decide that you are better off dumping it and moving into an apartment. But, of course, we already put a lien on your property and took your cash under the same theory, so there is no way you are going to be able to hire a lawyer to defend your property. We can put as many lawyers as we want on the case, of course -- all funded by your tax dollars. If you can't prove that the property was ever used for any crime, you lose it. If you lost any of your financial records over the last several years, then you are sucking wind right there. Even if you have the financial records, we will run you around with so much bureacratic BS that you will get tired of the nonsense, anyway.  And, while all this is going on, you can't get a loan on your house, you can't sell it, and your credit rating will certainly go to hell in a hurry. Of course, that's just what can happen if you are completely innocent. Just FYI, in eighty percent of all seizure cases, charges are never even filed against the person who lost the property. They have so much bureacratic bullshit and other problems they can cause you that they have faith that you will ultimately see that it is just best to give them anything they ask for. And that all strikes you as being completely in spirit with the Constitution and our basic American ideals, I suppose.

Wolfman,

I don't necessarily disagree with what you are saying... I agree the gov should be required to prove THEIR charges.  However, if the woman has/had no legitimate income, how does she prove she had the ability to make the mortgage payments except via illegal activities?    Like I said, I think there is more to this story than is being reported.  

Quoted: Quoted: afman and others, Get a dui in the city of New York and they do confiscate your car.  As for the ladies house I have no sympathy, I'm sure she was aware she was breaking the law. Once you break the law you become subject to the penalties. no fucking shit!!! she's a goddam DRUG DEALER!!! some of you fucktards need to stop drinking your bong water...

This isn't an issue of whether or not she should have her house taken away for selling pot, it's one of whether or not the city can impose its will on someone AFTER they've been tried, punished and had their fines paid for this misdemeanor offense.  

She had her day in court and so did the prosecution.  She paid her dues.  Now the city wants to sue to take away her house.

There is something fundementally wrong with a government agency that has the power to punish someone over and beyond the power of the courts.

There has to be some motivation for such actions.  It could be that the city wants to "send a message".  It could be the city sees an income opportunity.  Either way it's wrong.   Her punishment is for the courts to decide, not city officials.

Quoted: Wolfman, I don't necessarily disagree with what you are saying... I agree the gov should be required to prove THEIR charges.  However, if the woman has/had no legitimate income, how does she prove she had the ability to make the mortgage payments except via illegal activities?    Like I said, I think there is more to this story than is being reported.

Why does a citizen have to prove anything to keep their property from being seized?  I think you financed your house with illegal activities. Maybe I am a nut case DA, or just a cop with a hair up his ass. Therefore, it suddenly becomes your burden to prove that your property (not you, but the property) was never engaged in any illegal activity?  Can we throw you in jail if you can't prove that you never committed a crime?

BTW, if there was "more to this story than is being reported" then they should have gotten a conviction for something real.  If they didn't, then that is the end of the story.  

And I think you will appreciate those points better if you ever happen to drive through a particular county in Oklahoma and the Sheriff decides that a person like you obviously couldn't afford that kind of car -- therefore there must be more to the story, and he seizes it.

It's getting to the point now where you're more likely to have your property stolen by the police than by the criminals(who aren't cops).

I only know five people that have had their homes broken into the past decade or so.  I know many more than that that have had their cars taken by the police for traffic violations.  Since the huge towing fees and ridiculous storage fees were more than the cars were worth, they lost their cars.

Every Friday I go to the bank to get a large amount of cash for payroll, and the bank manager (my cousin's daughter) won't let me pick-up the cash or leave with it if there's a cop in the bank or the parking log.  She's seen too many of their customers that had their money stolen.  I don't think it would happen to me (77 year-old man driving a work van), but she still won't let me take the money.

you stand to loose everything you own.

No, the cops are taking her house.  They're not making the house not tight.z

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: afman and others, Get a dui in the city of New York and they do confiscate your car.  As for the ladies house I have no sympathy, I'm sure she was aware she was breaking the law. Once you break the law you become subject to the penalties. no fucking shit!!! she's a goddam DRUG DEALER!!! some of you fucktards need to stop drinking your bong water... Did you happen to read the part about where she was not convicted of dealing?

big +1

Quoted: It's getting to the point now where you're more likely to have your property stolen by the police than by the criminals(who aren't cops).

Welcome to the logical conclusion of civil forfeiture laws.  I've had my vehicle and contents "cased" a couple times, and it's not a good experience.

what just blows my mind here.

There is not one single person on here that posts to this site (probably) doesn't have enough stuff under the sink to be convicted of meth production. In Virginia anyway. check local laws of course.



Va. Code Section 18.2-248

Except as authorized in the Drug Control Act (§ 54.1-3400 et seq.), any person who possesses any two or more different substances listed below with the intent to manufacture methamphetamine, methcathinone or amphetamine is guilty of a Class 6 felony: liquified ammonia gas, ether, hypophosphorus acid solutions, hypophosphite salts, hydrochloric acid, iodine crystals or tincture of iodine, phenylacetone, phenylacetic acid, red phosphorus, methylamine, methyl formamide, lithium metal, sodium metal, sulfuric acid, sodium hydroxide, potassium dichromate, sodium dichromate, potassium permanganate, chromium trioxide, methylbenzene, methamphetamine precursor drugs, trichloroethane, or 2-propanone.


now, prove you had no intent.

What is your house worth again?

Quoted: what just blows my mind here. There is not one single person on here that posts to this site (probably) doesn't have enough stuff under the sink to be convicted of meth production. In Virginia anyway. check local laws of course. Va. Code Section 18.2-248 Except as authorized in the Drug Control Act (§ 54.1-3400 et seq.), any person who possesses any two or more different substances listed below with the intent to manufacture methamphetamine, methcathinone or amphetamine is guilty of a Class 6 felony: liquified ammonia gas, ether, hypophosphorus acid solutions, hypophosphite salts, hydrochloric acid, iodine crystals or tincture of iodine, phenylacetone, phenylacetic acid, red phosphorus, methylamine, methyl formamide, lithium metal, sodium metal, sulfuric acid, sodium hydroxide, potassium dichromate, sodium dichromate, potassium permanganate, chromium trioxide, methylbenzene, methamphetamine precursor drugs, trichloroethane, or 2-propanone. now, prove you had no intent. What is your house worth again?

So someone has sulfuric acid for etching concrete before applying a coating to their garage floor and iodine in the medicine cabinet.

They get busted because they're not liked and it goes down as a raid on a meth lab and they forfeit everything they own.

Nice.

Quoted: Quoted: what just blows my mind here. There is not one single person on here that posts to this site (probably) doesn't have enough stuff under the sink to be convicted of meth production. In Virginia anyway. check local laws of course. Va. Code Section 18.2-248 Except as authorized in the Drug Control Act (§ 54.1-3400 et seq.), any person who possesses any two or more different substances listed below with the intent to manufacture methamphetamine, methcathinone or amphetamine is guilty of a Class 6 felony: liquified ammonia gas, ether, hypophosphorus acid solutions, hypophosphite salts, hydrochloric acid, iodine crystals or tincture of iodine, phenylacetone, phenylacetic acid, red phosphorus, methylamine, methyl formamide, lithium metal, sodium metal, sulfuric acid, sodium hydroxide, potassium dichromate, sodium dichromate, potassium permanganate, chromium trioxide, methylbenzene, methamphetamine precursor drugs, trichloroethane, or 2-propanone. now, prove you had no intent. What is your house worth again? So someone has sulfuric acid for etching concrete before applying a coating to their garage floor and iodine in the medicine cabinet. They get busted because they're not liked and it goes down as a raid on a meth lab and they forfeit everything they own. Nice.

Pretty slick scam IMHO.


Almost MOB like.

ETA:

after that, they'll find your lithium batteries for your scope, your draino,your starting fluid and then they'll search the BOB and find that triox kit.

someone will never get outta jail .



sorry, can't help but to be the devils advocate on stuff like this. it's a curse I guess

if we give an inch and next thing you know, we the people can't own new machine guns.

Kleptocracy (sometimes Cleptocracy) (root: Klepto+cracy) literally means rule by thieves. It is a pejorative, informal term for a form of government which represents the culmination of political corruption and an extreme form of the use of government for rent seeking.

Quoted: Quoted: afman and others, Get a dui in the city of New York and they do confiscate your car.  As for the ladies house I have no sympathy, I'm sure she was aware she was breaking the law. Once you break the law you become subject to the penalties. no fucking shit!!! she's a goddam DRUG DEALER!!! some of you fucktards need to stop drinking your bong water...

Calling people here fucktards is not right , the other part thats not right is you having any opinion on OUR LAWS!
It's none of your God damned business , fix your own fucking country before you state your opinion on ours.

How's that gun grabbing thing working out for you over there?

Quoted: afman and others, Get a dui in the city of New York and they do confiscate your car.  As for the ladies house I have no sympathy, I'm sure she was aware she was breaking the law. Once you break the law you become subject to the penalties.

Even when the penalties are un-constitutional?
See what Aimless had to say.

It is not the business of government to make men virtuous or religious, or to preserve the fool from the consequences of his own folly. Government should be repressive no further than is necessary to secure liberty by protecting the equal rights of each from aggression on the part of others, and the moment governmental prohibitions extend beyond this line they are in danger of defeating the very ends they are intended to serve.    Henry George    Prohibition was introduced as a fraud; it has been nursed as a fraud.    It is wrapped in the livery of Heaven, but it comes to serve the devil.    It comes to regulate by law our appetites and our daily lives.    It comes to tear down liberty and build up fanaticism, hypocrisy, and intolerance. It comes to confiscate by legislative decree the property of many of our fellow citizens. It comes to send spies, detectives, and informers into our homes; to have us arrested and carried before courts and condemned to fines and imprisonments. It comes to dissipate the sunlight of happiness, peace, and prosperity in which we are now living and to fill our land with alienations, estrangements, and bitterness.    It comes to bring us evil-- only evil-- and that continually. Let us rise in our might as one and overwhelm it with such indignation that we shall never hear of it again as long as grass grows and water runs."    Roger Q. Mills, 1887

Sorry Henry.  Sorry, Roger.  Nobody listened.

Someone tell me how her possessing these plants harms anyone else...  

Seems like you guys are against any and all rules and laws until it affects you or your family personally.  Then you are pissed off that the government didn't do enough.  

I oppose asset forfieture laws. Doesnt matter to me if she was growing pot, cooking meth, or printing currancy.

To all who got their panites in a bunch over what I said and brought up jaywalking etc., I'll be the first to admit I break laws, we all do. It's all about weighing the cost to gain , if I get caught speeding on my motorcycle I will pay points on my license and fines. This is an acceptable risk to me , my insurance goes up and the world doesn't come to an end. In this ladies case she took what  she thought was an acceptable risk got caught and is now subject to the laws of the land, which include forfeiture, in this case. It's no secret that the government seizes property from drug dealers, most of the smart ones though don't buy $400,000 dollar houses to cultivate their product in.

Quoted: URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n1478/a03.html Pubdate: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 Source: Las Vegas Sun (NV) Copyright: 2005 Las Vegas Sun, Inc Contact: [email protected] Website: http://www.lasvegassun.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/234 Author: Brian Wargo POT PLANTS COULD CAUSE LOSS OF $400,000 HOUSE Boulder City's attempt to seize the $400,000 home of a woman convicted of misdemeanor drug possession after police found six marijuana plants there has sparked debate in the community over personal property rights versus a need to crack down on drugs.   Boulder City officials are defending their right to file a lawsuit to confiscate the Capri Drive home of 56-year-old Cynthia Warren, who police said was arrested April 13 as part of an undercover investigation.   Officials said the charges related to cultivating and selling marijuana out of her residence.

What a dumbass. Not only is she selling, she's was growing it in her own home and pled guilty.

Quoted: You guys don't understand. You aren't going to get your guns and pot. One or the other. You want weed, they are going to take the guns. You want guns, forget about the weed. Each of these items are objectified icons of opposing cultures.

+100

Quoted: Drugs are bad mkay?  Those 2 kids wouldnt have died if this lady had not sold them marijuana, which  in turn made them decide to speedball on heroin and meth.  I find this laughable considering alcohol is sold legally and DWI's alone kill over 15,000 people per year

DUI is a serious problem for sure.  but alcohol is not the only drug that results in DUI/DWI.  IME polydrug use is the norm.  Usually a combination of Alcohol, Rx drugs and the "street" drug of your choise.  Maybe 1:10 of my DUI arrests has alcohol alone in their system. Of course where i work possession of less than one ounce of marijuana is a $40.00 traffic ticket, so more people are using it and driving under the influence of it that in most states.

I can't see how society is to the point of almost hanging me for smoking but y'all are all for lighting up a joint.  Makes me wonder if you even know how you're being played by the hip-hop thug culture.  Next thing you know you'll be all for replacing the stars on Old Glory with a cannabis leaf and having Kanye West rap the Star Spangled Bizzle.

Quoted:    It is not the business of government to make men virtuous or religious, or to preserve the fool from the consequences of his own folly. Government should be repressive no further than is necessary to secure liberty by protecting the equal rights of each from aggression on the part of others, and the moment governmental prohibitions extend beyond this line they are in danger of defeating the very ends they are intended to serve.    Henry George    Prohibition was introduced as a fraud; it has been nursed as a fraud.    It is wrapped in the livery of Heaven, but it comes to serve the devil.    It comes to regulate by law our appetites and our daily lives.    It comes to tear down liberty and build up fanaticism, hypocrisy, and intolerance. It comes to confiscate by legislative decree the property of many of our fellow citizens. It comes to send spies, detectives, and informers into our homes; to have us arrested and carried before courts and condemned to fines and imprisonments. It comes to dissipate the sunlight of happiness, peace, and prosperity in which we are now living and to fill our land with alienations, estrangements, and bitterness.    It comes to bring us evil-- only evil-- and that continually. Let us rise in our might as one and overwhelm it with such indignation that we shall never hear of it again as long as grass grows and water runs."    Roger Q. Mills, 1887 Sorry Henry.  Sorry, Roger.  Nobody listened.

+1

So much for a Constitution and the idea of a sovereign individual.  

Quoted: To all who got their panites in a bunch over what I said and brought up jaywalking etc., I'll be the first to admit I break laws, we all do. It's all about weighing the cost to gain , if I get caught speeding on my motorcycle I will pay points on my license and fines. This is an acceptable risk to me , my insurance goes up and the world doesn't come to an end.

so what if the government decides to seize your car and/or house for the same crime? After all, if you jaywalked off your curb then your property was involved in a crime and subject to forfeiture. Is that a reasonable punishment for you?

In this ladies case she took what  she thought was an acceptable risk got caught and is now subject to the laws of the land, which include forfeiture, in this case. It's no secret that the government seizes property from drug dealers, most of the smart ones though don't buy $400,000 dollar houses to cultivate their product in.

It is also no secret that anyone growing six plants is not a major drug dealer. It is no secret that people buy houses for small amounts of money at one time and later they turn out to be worth $400,000 even when they aren't drug dealers.  And I guess you overlooked the fact that she wasn't convicted of dealing. If the DA thought he had a case for that, he should have made it. He obviously didn't, so he dropped it. Maybe you forgot about that "innocent until proven guilty" part -- even though I am sure somebody already mentioned it.

Bottom line, she gets her house seized for personal possession.

Quoted: What a dumbass. Not only is she selling, she's was growing it in her own home and pled guilty.

If she is selling then the DA should have made that case. He didn't.  End of story.

Quoted: To all who got their panites in a bunch over what I said and brought up jaywalking etc., I'll be the first to admit I break laws, we all do. It's all about weighing the cost to gain , if I get caught speeding on my motorcycle I will pay points on my license and fines. This is an acceptable risk to me , my insurance goes up and the world doesn't come to an end. In this ladies case she took what  she thought was an acceptable risk got caught and is now subject to the laws of the land, which include forfeiture, in this case. It's no secret that the government seizes property from drug dealers, most of the smart ones though don't buy $400,000 dollar houses to cultivate their product in.

So your ok with the government confiscating private property?

Just checking

Quoted: i'm smoking pot right now

That stuff will make you grow hair on your hands...Nevermind wrong stuff lol

Quoted: Quoted: The moral of the story seems to be, if you get busted with drugs....you stand to loose everything you own. Actually, I think the moral of the story is, "Buy your weed, don't grow it."

Funny how we can all read the same words but not read the same thing... the way I read it, the moral was simply "Don't break the law."

Quoted: I can't see how society is to the point of almost hanging me for smoking but y'all are all for lighting up a joint.  Makes me wonder if you even know how you're being played by the hip-hop thug culture.  Next thing you know you'll be all for replacing the stars on Old Glory with a cannabis leaf and having Kanye West rap the Star Spangled Bizzle.

You'r next man.  Smoking will be illegal within the next 20 years is my bet.   Then you drug addicts will get what you deserve...

Quoted: I can't see how society is to the point of almost hanging me for smoking but y'all are all for lighting up a joint.  Makes me wonder if you even know how you're being played by the hip-hop thug culture.  Next thing you know you'll be all for replacing the stars on Old Glory with a cannabis leaf and having Kanye West rap the Star Spangled Bizzle.

You must be inhaling that stuff a bit too deeply. Who said they were for anyone lighting up a joint?  

Personally, as long as you aren't harming anyone but yourself, I don't care what you smoke. I just don't think you ought to get your house seized over it, whatever it is.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The moral of the story seems to be, if you get busted with drugs....you stand to loose everything you own. Actually, I think the moral of the story is, "Buy your weed, don't grow it." Funny how we can all read the same words but not read the same thing... the way I read it, the moral was simply "Don't break the law."

How about a moral of "Don't give government officials the power to arbitrarily seize property over minor offenses"?  

See the Eighth Amendment, already mentioned above for the founding principles behind that idea. Or is that one obsolete just like the Second Amendment?

Quoted: To all who got their panites in a bunch over what I said and brought up jaywalking etc., I'll be the first to admit I break laws, we all do. It's all about weighing the cost to gain , if I get caught speeding on my motorcycle I will pay points on my license and fines. This is an acceptable risk to me , my insurance goes up and the world doesn't come to an end. In this ladies case she took what  she thought was an acceptable risk got caught and is now subject to the laws of the land, which include forfeiture, in this case. It's no secret that the government seizes property from drug dealers, most of the smart ones though don't buy $400,000 dollar houses to cultivate their product in.

you are right, the .gov does take property from drug dealers. She wasn't proven to be a drug dealer though, just posession. I have known a lot of people in my life to be arrested for misdemeanor possesion charges and not one lost a vehicle let alone a house.

I would like to find an example of just one person who died from a pot over dose.

The war on drugs is stupid, a waste of money, and is in violation of the Constitution.

Dino,
If you know the laws which most people do ,as seizing property from drug users, growers, and dealers isn't exactly a top secret you can't then complain when your subject to this penalty. At least once every couple of weeks I run into someone who should be beaten senseless, do I do it, NO because I'm aware that society doesn't condone this behavior and will have no qualms when it comes to handing out a punishment.  I'm not really into any mind altering substance except caffiene and adrenaline. So I find it pretty hard to find much sympathy for this lady

So, some of you think asset forfeiture laws are all fine and dandy in drug cases?

What about in firearms cases?  Ask Bruce Louis Bartos what he thinks.  He "surrendered" his boat because he was carrying an (apparently) fully-auto AR15 in it.  He was sentenced to two years probation.

And seizure of his boat.

It all trickles down, people.  

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The moral of the story seems to be, if you get busted with drugs....you stand to loose everything you own. Actually, I think the moral of the story is, "Buy your weed, don't grow it." Funny how we can all read the same words but not read the same thing... the way I read it, the moral was simply "Don't break the law." How about a moral of "Don't give government officials the power to arbitrarily seize property over minor offenses"?   See the Eighth Amendment, already mentioned above for the founding principles behind that idea. Or is that one obsolete just like the Second Amendment?

As much as certain laws suck, they do exist. The tooth fairy does not make them go away.

Quoted: Seems like you guys are against any and all rules and laws until it affects you or your family personally.  Then you are pissed off that the government didn't do enough.

I'm against anyone and everyone telling me what I can and can't do with myself.