January 03, 2019
Judge Steals Delaware Man's Money
Timothy Birdnow
Welcome to post-America. In this land of the unfree, governments can seize your property and money on mere accusations.
Here is a case in point:
End excerpt.
So now government can keep money that they seize from you even if you are acquitted. If you can't prove HOW you made the money you have no right to it.
This presupposes there is no private property, but only government indulgence. If you own something, be it personal property, real property, or cash - property that can be exchanged for other property - your possession is subject to the whims of the State. This is Marxist thinking, or at least Hitlerian; all property belongs to the State and the "owner" is merely a caretaker. This shows how far we have fallen as a nation.
Yes, Crippen was convicted of a weapons charge, but that had nothing to do with the money, or at least the State couldn't prove it did. That should have made this out-of-bounds. We started a very bad thing when we allowed the Bush 41 Administration to start this forfeiture program for drug dealers; it always starts out as a reasonable thing but quickly metastasizes. Hard cases make bad law.
And while we may not have much sympathy for this fellow, the fact is the State has no right to seize his money without being able to prove it was ill-gotten. You don't take something solely on suspicion. That is a horrendous due-process violation. And how long before the State starts grabbing other things based on dubious assertions? It's how it started for the Jews in Nazi Germany.
We should all be very concerned about this.
Welcome to post-America. In this land of the unfree, governments can seize your property and money on mere accusations.
Here is a case in point:
A Dover man acquitted of drug charges and convicted of weapons offenses was denied in an attempt to regain $13,584 seized during a search warrant execution at his home in 2015, according to a Superior Court ruling issued last week.
Jeffrey Crippen was not entitled to three bundles of cash seized by Dover Police due to lack of documentation and proof that the money was legitimately earned, President Judge William L. Witham Jr. asserted in a 16-page order, .
While Crippen claimed in a 2017 petition that he received all the funds two years earlier, he testified at trial that some of the money was received as early as 2012 through work and personal loans, according to the Court.
The petitioner could not document a supposed $5,000 personal loan allegedly received, the court said, nor a business it was purportedly intended for, the judge determined. There was no evidence to support an alleged second $5,000 personal loan as well, the order stated.
Jeffrey Crippen was not entitled to three bundles of cash seized by Dover Police due to lack of documentation and proof that the money was legitimately earned, President Judge William L. Witham Jr. asserted in a 16-page order, .
While Crippen claimed in a 2017 petition that he received all the funds two years earlier, he testified at trial that some of the money was received as early as 2012 through work and personal loans, according to the Court.
The petitioner could not document a supposed $5,000 personal loan allegedly received, the court said, nor a business it was purportedly intended for, the judge determined. There was no evidence to support an alleged second $5,000 personal loan as well, the order stated.
End excerpt.
So now government can keep money that they seize from you even if you are acquitted. If you can't prove HOW you made the money you have no right to it.
This presupposes there is no private property, but only government indulgence. If you own something, be it personal property, real property, or cash - property that can be exchanged for other property - your possession is subject to the whims of the State. This is Marxist thinking, or at least Hitlerian; all property belongs to the State and the "owner" is merely a caretaker. This shows how far we have fallen as a nation.
Yes, Crippen was convicted of a weapons charge, but that had nothing to do with the money, or at least the State couldn't prove it did. That should have made this out-of-bounds. We started a very bad thing when we allowed the Bush 41 Administration to start this forfeiture program for drug dealers; it always starts out as a reasonable thing but quickly metastasizes. Hard cases make bad law.
And while we may not have much sympathy for this fellow, the fact is the State has no right to seize his money without being able to prove it was ill-gotten. You don't take something solely on suspicion. That is a horrendous due-process violation. And how long before the State starts grabbing other things based on dubious assertions? It's how it started for the Jews in Nazi Germany.
We should all be very concerned about this.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
09:46 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 446 words, total size 3 kb.
23kb generated in CPU 0.165, elapsed 0.2378 seconds.
35 queries taking 0.2244 seconds, 182 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
35 queries taking 0.2244 seconds, 182 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
