|
|
#21
08-24-2006, 04:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: The danger of carrying cash
[ QUOTE ]
You can actually appeal these forfeiture things. An attorney I graduated law school with just got the government to return $50K of alleging gambling monies. The Due Process is there, probably not as much as their could be, but it is there. [/ QUOTE ] You can lose on appeal too. This guy won at trial. The trial judge was convinced by his story. The appeals court decided to overrule his opinion about the credibility of the witnesses. 
|
|
#22
08-25-2006, 01:33 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The danger of carrying cash
I love how the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution as requiring school busing, prohibiting school prayer, legalizing abortion, and requiring certain procedures and endless appeals in death penalty cases.
Then when the Constitution specifically prohibits taking of "life, liberty, or property without due process of law" that doesn't keep them from seizing cash with no evidence or trial or seizing farms that have marajuana plants growing on them. I would have to make a probable assumption without evidence that authorities are seizing cash for dishonest purposes of their own.
|
|
#24
08-26-2006, 08:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The danger of carrying cash
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I think you are focusing too narrowly on this being a drug thing, so I will rephrase my question. In a statistically valid sample size of such similar situations, what percentage of same would those that involved no illegal activity at any stage of either acquiring the cash or for its intended purpose in a future transaction? [/ QUOTE ] If the statistical probability is not strong enough to convict him of something, then it shouldn't be enough to seize the money just because he was probably up to no good. [/ QUOTE ] the probability is irrelevant. he did nothing illegal. [/ QUOTE ] No, the probability is relevant. In our legal system probability can be enough to make someone guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That probability wasn't present in this case IMO, and I would be surpirsed if this doesn't get shot down for the same reason that the aggravating factors in the sentencing guidelines got shot down.
|
|
#25
08-26-2006, 09:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The danger of carrying cash
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I think you are focusing too narrowly on this being a drug thing, so I will rephrase my question. In a statistically valid sample size of such similar situations, what percentage of same would those that involved no illegal activity at any stage of either acquiring the cash or for its intended purpose in a future transaction? [/ QUOTE ] If the statistical probability is not strong enough to convict him of something, then it shouldn't be enough to seize the money just because he was probably up to no good. [/ QUOTE ] the probability is irrelevant. he did nothing illegal. [/ QUOTE ] No, the probability is relevant. In our legal system probability can be enough to make someone guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. [/ QUOTE ] WTF?
|
|
#26
08-27-2006, 04:54 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The danger of carrying cash
[ QUOTE ]
This guy won at trial. The trial judge was convinced by his story. The appeals court decided to overrule his opinion about the credibility of the witnesses. [/ QUOTE ] The guy is probably fine then. He'd have to brain dead to still have had this cash somewhere where big brother could lay his hands on it once he got it back after trial.
|
|
#27
08-27-2006, 09:22 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The danger of carrying cash
[ QUOTE ]
In our legal system probability can be enough to make someone guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. [/ QUOTE ] You've clearly misunderstood what 'beyond reasonable doubt' actually means.
|
|
#28
08-27-2006, 09:58 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The danger of carrying cash
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] This guy won at trial. The trial judge was convinced by his story. The appeals court decided to overrule his opinion about the credibility of the witnesses. [/ QUOTE ] The guy is probably fine then. He'd have to brain dead to still have had this cash somewhere where big brother could lay his hands on it once he got it back after trial. [/ QUOTE ] I doubt he ever got it back. The decision was appealed by the government, presumably immediately. I don't really know how this process works but it would surprise me if he got the money back in the meantime awaiting the appeal.
|
|
#29
08-27-2006, 07:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The danger of carrying cash
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] In our legal system probability can be enough to make someone guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. [/ QUOTE ] You've clearly misunderstood what 'beyond reasonable doubt' actually means. [/ QUOTE ] 'beyond reasonable doubt' != beyond all doubt (which would mean 0% chance of having committed the crime).
|
|
#30
08-27-2006, 07:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The danger of carrying cash
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I think you are focusing too narrowly on this being a drug thing, so I will rephrase my question. In a statistically valid sample size of such similar situations, what percentage of same would those that involved no illegal activity at any stage of either acquiring the cash or for its intended purpose in a future transaction? [/ QUOTE ] If the statistical probability is not strong enough to convict him of something, then it shouldn't be enough to seize the money just because he was probably up to no good. [/ QUOTE ] the probability is irrelevant. he did nothing illegal. [/ QUOTE ] No, the probability is relevant. In our legal system probability can be enough to make someone guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That probability wasn't present in this case IMO, and I would be surpirsed if this doesn't get shot down for the same reason that the aggravating factors in the sentencing guidelines got shot down. [/ QUOTE ] Are you saying you could/should punish him for carrying around money?
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
