Government Theft

[Keith Hamburger]

Man wants his $400K back from the FBI (http://www.limaohio.com/story.php?IDnum=47047j)

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.

This is what our government has come to. Stealing the life savings from an honest man.

Keith

[Shintao]

Man wants his $400K back from the FBI (http://www.limaohio.com/story.php?IDnum=47047j)

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.

This is what our government has come to. Stealing the life savings from an honest man.

Keith


'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.'

"Anytime you allow anyone to take away another's rights, you have just limited you own." Shintao

I have been saying that since the sixties. Soon there won't be a 4th Amendment.

[ViolaLee]

Wow that's nasty. And they want receipts to prove he earned it? If the man didn't keep a bank account, I doubt he would keep receipts.

The FBI should have to prove he got it from ill gotten gains instead of he having to prove he earned it honestly, before they take it away.

That's crap.

This is a case for the ACLU!

[AnnEsthesia]

You left out the reason why they originally seized the money, not to mention the fact that you only posted part of the article...

Police originally took the money after finding marijuana inside Ricks’ home, which Ricks said he had to help manage pain.

[preservanation]

Oh, I thought this was a taxation thread...
My bad

[Keith Hamburger]

You left out the reason why they originally seized the money, not to mention the fact that you only posted part of the article...

Police originally took the money after finding marijuana inside Ricks’ home, which Ricks said he had to help manage pain.


Which, of course, is a completely valid reason to take the life savings from a hard-working retired man who scrimped and saved his entire life to provide for his own retirement and not become dependent on the government. He smoked some joints because it helped him with severe arthritis pain.

Perhaps the real issue is that he put himself into a position where he wasn't dependent on the government. We know that our government wishes to control us from cradle to grave and having your own savings might just make you independent of their edicts.

Nah. That can't be it. Our government exists to help us in any way they can.

Keith

[AnnEsthesia]

No, but since he was doing drugs without a prescription, he opened himself up to this. He should get his money back, of course, but if they had wanted to, they also could have seized his house.

[Kamehameha34]

No, but since he was doing drugs without a prescription, he opened himself up to this. He should get his money back, of course, but if they had wanted to, they also could have seized his house.


I know this forum frowns upon unnecessary profanity, but this is complete and utter bullsh*t, and especially depressing coming from a US citizen.

First of all, the government is limited by the constitution in the posting of fines.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

A $400,000 fine for smoking some joints for arthritis pain is indeed excessive. Small crimes don't open you up to any penalty that an executive agency feels like handing out - that's why we have due process.

Second of all, marijuana laws create victimless crimes of consumption. They are a bastardization of our lawmaking process.

Thirdly, if you read up on the structure of our government and you'll find that the FBI has no authority to act as judge or jury. They are in charge of federal investigations, and are not even an extension of the judicial branch.

[AnnEsthesia]

Um... I guess you have never heard of the laws that allow the police to seize your house or your car if they find you are dealing drugs from them. If you have a large enough quantity of drugs, even if they do not have you on dealing, they can still take your possessions.

And it was the police that took the money... the FBI took it from the police.

You can dislike the laws all you want. However, the facts remain that by possessing drugs, he opened himself up to the money being taken.

I did not say that I thought he should lose his house... just that in many places he could have and probably would have.

[Lazarus]

Until it is determined exactly how much this individual had @ his residence, one should refrain from advocating for or against seizing this mans' assets.

It would also be beneficial to know the history of the would-be robbers.

This couple had to buy their weed from someone, and I would not be surprised if the robber and the dealer turned out to be one and the same.

I am also curious as to how the FBI could assert jurisdiction over this ca$e.

I do believe that they saw some easy money to be made here.

So many questions - so few answers.

< moving on >

[Buck Laser]

Man wants his $400K back from the FBI (http://www.limaohio.com/story.php?IDnum=47047j)

This is what our government has come to. Stealing the life savings from an honest man.

Keith

Actually Keith, what we're talking about here is a clear abuse of gummint power. This kind of thing happens all the time, not because of the nature of gummint, but because of people's unerring ability to fuck up. The public attention this story gets will solve the problem. That's one of the things independent news media are good at. When the media and the gummint get in bed with each other, bad things happen.

But I'd be willing to make a small wager that the Rickses will get their money.

BONUS QUESTION: How would you feel if they'd accumulated their money operating an abortion clinic?

[Mark L Hamburger]

BONUS QUESTION: How would you feel if they'd accumulated their money operating an abortion clinic?


Good for them, they found a need and filled it.

[Kamehameha34]

Um... I guess you have never heard of the laws that allow the police to seize your house or your car if they find you are dealing drugs from them.The fact that something is a law doesn't make it constitutional. "Legal" just means that the justice system isn't willing to prosecute you for it, so it's established that this whole seizure is "legal."

What's being argued is the constitutionality. We are going through the motions of how the justice system would decide legality - the only difference is that our conclusions don't give weight to any side. That's called online debate.

And it was the police that took the money... the FBI took it from the police.

It's the FBI that refuses to return it. No substantial difference.

You can dislike the laws all you want. However, the facts remain that by possessing drugs, he opened himself up to the money being taken.

I do much more than "dislike" said laws. I gave you a point - by - point reasoning for just why I find these laws to be excessive and unconstitutional. So yes, I dislike the laws, but only because it would be impossible to 'like' them and 'like' the constitution at the same time.

I did not say that I thought he should lose his house... just that in many places he could have and probably would have.

In many places, people can be tasered for just acting like brats. That doesn't make it right or constitutional, unless you want to argue that all things that occur in this world are both right and constitutional.

[Keith Hamburger]

Man wants his $400K back from the FBI (http://www.limaohio.com/story.php?IDnum=47047j)

This is what our government has come to. Stealing the life savings from an honest man.

Keith

Actually Keith, what we're talking about here is a clear abuse of gummint power. This kind of thing happens all the time, not because of the nature of gummint, but because of people's unerring ability to fuck up. The public attention this story gets will solve the problem. That's one of the things independent news media are good at. When the media and the gummint get in bed with each other, bad things happen.

But I'd be willing to make a small wager that the Rickses will get their money.

BONUS QUESTION: How would you feel if they'd accumulated their money operating an abortion clinic?


No, it's not an abuse, it's the way the law was designed, to steal money from citizens. The way the law is used is to declare the property as "guilty" and require proof that the property is "not guilty" before it being returned to the rightful owners. It is a clear violation of the BOR by using an ancient principle of holding that objects can have volition.

As to the abortion clinic claim, why do you think I would care? If they're forcing abortions on unwilling women, it might be an issue.

You obviously seem to think that I don't actually stand behind my stated principles. If you believe so, you would be drastically mistaken.

Keith