What is Digg?811 Comments
- inlovingmemory, on 12/21/2007, -1/+349shouldn't they prove he made the money illegally?
innocent until proven guilty. - ThirstyJon, on 12/21/2007, -7/+292Other than the information presented in this article, I am unfamiliar with this mans case. The principle is clear though. It is WRONG for the government to take his money without proving him guilty of a crime for which a $400,000.00+ fine is an appropriate punishment, and then the fine needs to be sentenced by a judge.
EditorResponse, you have missed the point on this one. Even if your opinion (or the government's opinion) is that he should be able to prove where he got the money, he shouldn't have to. The government has no right to know where anyone has gotten any of their money unless they have a warrant - as specified in the Constitution.
ThirstyJon
http://freedomthirst.com - inactive, on 12/21/2007, -17/+185"You cant possibly have $400k because you look like a poor ass black man"
America the big joke. - inactive, on 12/21/2007, -7/+151So guilty until proven innocent?
Yep, there's that right wing stupidity.
Does it ever even occur to you that the policies you advocate are the opposite of what our nation was founded on? - bigdirtymoose, on 12/21/2007, -1/+117i can see where it would be difficult to show that you managed to save $10,000 dollars a year for 40 years, especially because this money was just sitting in a safe. it's a shame that all those decades of saving and living modestly would get flushed down the toilet so quickly.
- DangerCollie, on 12/21/2007, -1/+114It's more than just forfeiture of assets, it's the assumption of guilt in their seizure. Guilty until proven innocent. And to what standard and whose satisfaction?
Seizure without some evidence of wrongdoing is theft. And the lame old justification of finding "drug residue" on cash is a crock of *****. You can find drug residue in almost any amount of cash.
And don't get me started on freezing someone's assets, that's a whole 'nuther level of abuse. Once you sell out rights they're hard to get back. - wpi97, on 12/21/2007, -2/+98What?!?! Never mind the presumption of innocence, the guy is not even charged with any crime, and the money is not used as evidence of anything! So if I have a gold-plated toilet in my house, the FBI can confiscate it and demand full accounting on how I payed for it, without even charging me with anything? And if I can't furnish the documents, they will sell it and use the money for "law enforcement purposes"?!?! Sorry, dude, but I must unfriend you now.
- 10goto10, on 12/21/2007, -9/+105Only in corrupt, third world countries.
- NeverOffside, on 12/21/2007, -11/+101Just when are you US citizens going to say enough is enough? Talkback is cheap.
- Scrappy1850, on 12/21/2007, -2/+91It is smart to keep your money in a bank. but it shouldnt be required. if i want to keep my cash in a box of lucky charms i should be allowed to do so.
- MonkeyOverlord, on 12/21/2007, -7/+69This is why people need to be raised to understand that morality precedes the law. The fact that the law allows this, does not take away the moral issue that it is armed robbery. The police are armed men, and when they tell you to just hand over your wealth "just because" that is not really any different than a man with a mask telling you to hand over your wallet if you know what is good for you. Either way, you've done nothing wrong. You're a law-abiding citizen that has been forced at gun point to give up your money.
- DangerCollie, on 12/21/2007, -0/+60"The FBI can't break in."
Oh, but you're wrong. The cops can freeze your bank accounts too. - inactive, on 12/21/2007, -1/+57FBI Federal ***** institution...
How can you forfeit something based on an assumption...what happened to DUE PROCESS Mofo's? - MerryMortician, on 12/21/2007, -6/+59I don't quite understand here.. there are details missing. First, if you had it in a safe.. why would the fbi have to look in a safe? Just based on the article's facts here.. two robbers, you shoot and kill one.. why are the fbi involved? why are they searching your home? How much mary jane did they find? I mean.. if they find an entire room full that makes a difference on my opinion. If they find a dime bag another story.
- bosssmiley, on 12/21/2007, -0/+51The FBI should either press criminal charges, or return this (as yet innocent) man's money. They shouldn't be able to have it both ways. That way tyranny lies.
- maeon3, on 12/21/2007, -3/+53Bypassing the rule of law is Step 4 of the 10 steps a tyrant needs to do to create a single leader control over all citizens.
Naomi Wolf: Letter of Warning To A Young Patriot"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjALf12PAWc - inactive, on 12/21/2007, -12/+58Ruby Ridge, Waco . . . JBTs . . . .
- norman619, on 12/21/2007, -1/+47Really? You miss the part where he broke no laws? He was the VICTIM and now the FBI is trying to rob him. Why not take his home and ask him to prove he paid for it using money he earned? This is 100% *****.
- inactive, on 12/21/2007, -4/+49Without regard to the other problems I have with you sentiment there, do the words, "It's none of your damn business" mean anything to you?
- Fallout911, on 12/21/2007, -8/+52Land of the free my ***** ass.
- 6502programmer, on 12/21/2007, -0/+42Watch carefully folks.. Asset forfeiture, not illegal wiretapping, shameless executive branch power grabs, or congressional inaction will be the unbalancing of the US. If you're not familiar with it, I suggest you read up on it. Essentially, your property can be put up in a civil trial to determine whether you get to keep it or not. In this trial, it is up to YOU to prove, through a preponderance of evidence, that it was legally obtained.
Don't think not being charged with a crime is anything unusual that Mr. Ricks is facing. IIRC, some 75% of folks subjected to civil asset forfeiture are not charged criminally. - chocolateblunt, on 12/21/2007, -0/+40dude, you have issues
why would anyone save things like that for 40 years ?
i work in the medical field and we're only required to keep records for 3
i wouldn't be able to pull receipts to show what i've made in the past year, let alone the past 40 - maeon3, on 12/21/2007, -1/+38Website down, here is content:
Man wants his $400K back from the FBI
Greg Sowinski | gsowinski@limanews.com - 12.18.2007
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. - altgeeky1, on 12/21/2007, -6/+42If I go by what you say here, and ignore my suspicions (unproven) of the man's income generation, it sounds like you are saying "You have stashed more money at home than is legally permissible.".
VERY interesting... so what's the threshhold -- $400k as you say? So if you were a DA, we would be OK with $300K? What if all the money is in gold because you don't trust paper? What about old relatives who reportedly kept TENS of thousands in boxes over the years (which I think is crazy, I don't keep more than $200 lying about, but who am I to judge someone who lived through the Depression?).
I really think what you are saying is, if you BELIEVE someone is guilty, it's OK to make them guilty even if (right or wrong) you don't have the facts to prove it, and therefore THEY should prove their innocence.
I don't deny that it's unlikely he earned it, any more than I can judge people guilty of crimes from a newspaper report. But a just process is based on laws, not personal viewpoints, as personality doesn't mix with justice.
The legally fair thing to do in my view is have the IRS audit the man, and at the end of it be possibly charged with tax evasion. That's a hell of a lot better than you advocating a slippery slope of "I know guilty when I see it. Prove otherwise.". Are you from Russia or something? - inactive, on 12/21/2007, -14/+49no no, in the NEW america you are guilty until proven innocent. get used to it. the terrorists attacked us "cuz of our freedom" and the government decided to obey the terrorists i guess. i guess you could vote for ron paul and get your news from www.infowars.com but nah, lets just worship tyranny while speaking out against it so that we feel good about the tyranny. DOWN WITH THE CONSTITUTION! THE NEW WORLD ORDER IS THE ONLY GOD!
- bumcheekcity, on 12/21/2007, -7/+42But remember America, the terrorists hate you because of your freedom.
- blackinthmiddle, on 12/21/2007, -0/+35EditorResponse, think of what the FBI is asking this guy to do. I've graduated college in '96 and have been working since. Two of the eight companies I've worked for have gone belly up in that short span of time. Another one has changed drastically. So if your thought would be, "Well just call the company you worked for", that won't fly.
This man is over sixty years old and has been working longer than I've been alive! Do you think he's got pay stubs? Even if you hold your stubs for seven years like you're supposed to, he still couldn't account for how he has over 3/4 of his money. - circleback2, on 12/21/2007, -22/+52Give the old guy his money back for heavens sake. This is where we find our country now... a tyrannical police state!
Vote for Ron Paul and give us Americans our right to privacy back, as well as our dignity. - phazon88, on 12/21/2007, -11/+40People never have 2 titles in their name it's either Mr. or Dr. Not both.
- inactive, on 12/21/2007, -20/+49I would disagree, as the Republicans are largely neocon/fascists. However, Ron Paul is a true, libertarian, conservative, and he obviously, and absolutely, respects "personal rights".
This is a crime. Hopefully this man can recover his money. - inactive, on 12/21/2007, -5/+33I believe that if you have cash that can be in anyway connected to a crime (though, I believe there was a study done that concluded that 98% of all bills have drug residue on them), or if you have cash totaling over $10,000.00 (though I've heard of less), they can steal it from you.
A friend of mine was taking a flight somewhere, and was asked if he had a substantial amount of cash on him. He asked what "substantial" was and they said $3,000.00.
As good little slaves, we're expected to make it easy on our owners by using the most simply traced money possible. - tao52nyc, on 12/21/2007, -11/+38Ya know...I'm a BIG Ron Paul supporter, and even I am beginning to get annoyed by posts like this, especially over links that aren't even related to electoral politics. We can tone it down, folks...save it for the stories that matter. Ron Paul may be the best candidate around, but he isn't the Second Coming, and to end civil asset forfeiture would require an act of Congress.
- DangerCollie, on 12/21/2007, -2/+29Okay, we're going to freeze your bank accounts and seize your car, cash and property until you can prove you earned it. Shouldn't be a problem, right? We can probably get your accounts unfrozen at the preliminary hearing...in three months. In the meantime you have no money, no car, no credit cards and nowhere to live. You can't make your mortgage or utility payments and you can't pay your lawyer.
These right wing ***** think it's all so easy until it's their assets in the evidence locker. - Aitese, on 12/21/2007, -1/+27The point is this man should not HAVE to prove anything in the first place.
I want you to PROVE you've never murdered anyone...you're not being accused of a murder mind, like this guy is not being accused of theft, fraud or drug dealing etc...but you just need to go around and sort of count yourself out of the unsolved murders over the last 20 years using your own resources...sound fair? - ellecon, on 12/21/2007, -1/+27Sorry, Mr.Kennedy, apparently most of your family fortune comes from illegal bootlegging,so I'm afraid we'll have to seize all your assets...
- teh_techie, on 12/21/2007, -0/+26If he made the money throughout his lifetime, he was already taxed. You can't double tax!
- baalzebub, on 12/21/2007, -4/+29he should have never reported it to the cops, instead he should have buried the dead one out in the woods somewhere with quicklime, i dont trust the cops and especially not the three letter acronyms of the federal government, bastards every last one of em...
- SaxxonPike, on 12/21/2007, -21/+46Think if the FBI just wanted the money, so they staged the robbery as an excuse to be able to check the place out "legitimately"...
- odigity, on 12/21/2007, -4/+27For *****'s sake, mightydavefish, stop thinking in terms of mother ***** parties. Look at the god damn ***** individual, you son of a bitch.
- inactive, on 12/21/2007, -4/+27So now your a criminal if you don't put your savings in a bank account? Does that mean i need to show receipts for my piggy bank money??
- DangerMouse9, on 12/21/2007, -2/+25He just doesn't care. I'm sure he would have no problem being strip searched for running a red light, after all he has nothing to hide.
- BlacklabelSAR, on 12/21/2007, -0/+23Why would you assume that he didn't pay taxes on that money? You have zero information yet you make an assumption. So there's a logic problem. Add to that the fact that under the law, we are innocent until proven guilty. This is a great example of why we need to regain our freedoms in the country.
- ScottyMcBaggs, on 12/21/2007, -0/+22You think he's an idiot? He's 100% correct. Any cash or goods you have on site with drugs will be taken and you will never see it again. That principle extends to all sorts of unimaginable *****. I am intimate with drug laws. I've had a car seized from me that was paid for with legal money by a RELATIVE, I had a full time job making good money... but they found some drugs on me. They instantly said "this car is ours" and I never saw it again, or the 2 grand in music and electronics that was in the trunk and backseat (I had just moved AND had borrowed a bunch of music and videos off of one of my buddies). I went through all the ***** to get it back, and guess what? You don't get it back. Last I heard from my lawyer it's still rotting in some state lot. This happened years ago. They tried to do it a second time but couldn't find any drugs in the car and I was still paying this one off. They made sure to try to break off some panels and ***** on the inside too.
What happened to me is jack ***** compared to what happened to this guy. Even if he made the money selling drugs, they can only prove tax evasion, because the article doesn't say anything about scales/baggies/weight. I hope this guy gets all his money back and then some. But, we all know that won't happen... - Minarchian, on 12/21/2007, -5/+27Paul is a Conservative Republican. Therefore he is a staunch supporter of the Constitution. Whereas the other candidates are neo-cons who believe in the power of the State to do as it pleases.
- inactive, on 12/21/2007, -1/+23Actually that kind of stupidity is "wingless". When the democrats ran Lousyanna they had a similar law there where people where people were getting their cars confiscated right and left (no pun intended). The cops were selling them at auction and taking ski trips to Aspen. It got so bad that people actually started to DRIVE AROUND THE STATE instead of risk loss of their vehicle for no reason whatever.
Thankfully they finally had to repeal the law....but believe me this is not a left/right issue. - flickboy, on 12/21/2007, -0/+22He can't AFFORD a lawyer -- the FBI took all his money.
- geodescent, on 12/21/2007, -4/+25YES
- inactive, on 12/21/2007, -1/+22It's a shame. It's a crime, too. Hopefully he gets restitution asap.
- oslointhesummer, on 12/21/2007, -0/+21Who's to say he never invested any of the money? Over a period of 40 years, even at a rate just above inflation, a family could easily put away 400k. It is not the government's business where the money came from, at least in this case. The sad thing is, thanks to loopholes and offshore accounts, corporate executives and government officials get away with concealing cash all the time. The victim in this case can't even defend himself from the accusation of being a rich drug-criminal, because they took his entire life savings. That's not ironic, it's just depressing.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 819 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is