Couple has $107k stolen by cops.

[Iceweasel]

Still waiting for weasel to show where it has been verified that this was drug money. No surprise that he has disappeared

Your head disappeared up your ass long ago. I don't have to prove anything, you retarded asshole! You say it was not legal, the onus is on you to prove it wasn't legal. I'm not the one saying they were wrong.

Of course you don't have to prove anything- and how could you since you were lying out your ass when you said

Wrong. They did prove it was drug money, that's why it was transferred into federal hands.

Yes, they proved it to the judge. Retard.

No, they didn't. You need to either quit while you are way behind or learn how to read and research and post responsibly

You asked for the link I mentioned so you didn't even read the thread. You don't know what up or down is besides forward or behind. So you think the judge didn't agree the scales, pot smell and cash pointed to drug money? OK, Sport. Why was it transfered then?

 

[JimBowie1958]

Yes, they proved it to the judge. Retard.

But what exactly did they prove?

They proved the guilt of the property, which has no rights including no right to the presumption of innosense, but they did not prove the guilt of the couple in question, just the property.

 

[Iceweasel]

Still waiting for weasel to show where it has been verified that this was drug money. No surprise that he has disappeared

Your head disappeared up your ass long ago. I don't have to prove anything, you retarded asshole! You say it was not legal, the onus is on you to prove it wasn't legal. I'm not the one saying they were wrong.

Of course you don't have to prove anything- and how could you since you were lying out your ass when you said

Wrong. They did prove it was drug money, that's why it was transferred into federal hands.

Yes, they proved it to the judge. Retard.

Not according to your own post and citation- here is what you posted before- not one word about proving anything to a judge- you just pulled that crap out of your ass.

Weasels post:
OK, I did a little snooping since agenda driven people couldn't give a **** less about researching the other side of the story they want cemented into our minds. First off, it's not just "the cops", there have been legal hearings and court rulings. Here's a few snippets that fill in some missing parts the internet "investigators" couldn't find. Took me two minutes.

Judge says couple must cite source of $107,000 seized in Henry County arrest

On May 8, 2013, federal prosecutors filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court in Rock Island, requesting the cash be permanently awarded to the government.

A new development in the case came Monday, when Judge Sara Darrow ruled that filings from the couple, including their claim to the funds and answer to the forfeiture complaint, would be stricken, due to the couple's failure to respond to interrogatories, a list of questions by prosecutors regarding the source of the seized funds.

The complaint says officers continued to search the vehicle and came upon a collapsible baton and a pistol, located in a removable plastic panel, in the center console.

A canine dog was called in and alerted to a smell near the rear passenger door. The complaint says the trooper found $102,000 in Ziploc bags in a suitcase. Two duffel bags -- one smelling of cannabis, according to the trooper -- plus, two vacuum sealers, two one-gallon ice cream tubs and an electronic scale were located in the bed of the truck, and approximately $5,520 was recovered from Mrs. Perry's wallet.

In civil forfeiture cases the property is charged, not the couple. In this case the money being hidden and smelling of drugs was used to convince the judge to allow the seizure. Judges still have to sign off on asset forfeitures, it isnt like the cops can just take your property without any due process at all. In this case the property gets the 'due process' which is minimal for property.

So in all likelihood Ice Weazel is right, the judge signed off on it in regard to charges against the property while the couple were not charged.

I posted an article that went into the whys. They don't like the law so they can't see the words apparently. Like it's my fault the law exists in the first place.

 

[JimBowie1958]

No, they didn't. You need to either quit while you are way behind or learn how to read and research and post responsibly

If the property was not convicted of being drug money and the judge sign off on it, then they could not have legally seized the money.

Ice Weazel is right, but about a point you dont seem to grasp; the property was 'proven' guilty, not the couple.

 

[Iceweasel]

Yes, they proved it to the judge. Retard.

But what exactly did they prove?

They proved the guilt of the property, which has no rights including no right to the presumption of innosense, but they did not prove the guilt of the couple in question, just the property.

The couple wasn't tried for a crime, that isn't what the hearings were.

 

[EverCurious]

hmmm think police could search and seize mosques for suspected terrorism?

 

[JimBowie1958]

I posted an article that went into the whys. They don't like the law so they can't see the words apparently. Like it's my fault the law exists in the first place.

Meh, axing Millenials to read a long article (over four paragraphs) is a bit demanding these days.

Maybe if you could find a cartoon to illustrate the point?

 

[JimBowie1958]

hmmm think police could search and seize mosques for suspected terrorism?

the cockroaches would just go to another site.

 

[JimBowie1958]

The couple wasn't tried for a crime, that isn't what the hearings were.

Which is why they were not proven guilty of anything.

 

[EverCurious]

Oh sure, but I mean with this law, the way it's being used... police can take pretty much everything they own and not have to prove jack... mosque's, houses, cars, cash, bank accounts... everything.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Oh sure, but I mean with this law, the way it's being used... police can take pretty much everything they own and not have to prove jack... mosque's, houses, cars, cash, bank accounts... everything.

They have to prove the property guilty of some nonsense, but that is a really low bar to hit.

 

[Iceweasel]

The couple wasn't tried for a crime, that isn't what the hearings were.

Which is why they were not proven guilty of anything.

I never said they were. I said they were lucky to have only lost the illegal money instead of their freedom.

 

[Iceweasel]

Oh sure, but I mean with this law, the way it's being used... police can take pretty much everything they own and not have to prove jack... mosque's, houses, cars, cash, bank accounts... everything.

Wrong. They have to convince a judge you got your shit ILLEGALLY. Maybe if the words are big enough they can see them?

 

[Syriusly]

Still waiting for weasel to show where it has been verified that this was drug money. No surprise that he has disappeared

Your head disappeared up your ass long ago. I don't have to prove anything, you retarded asshole! You say it was not legal, the onus is on you to prove it wasn't legal. I'm not the one saying they were wrong.

Of course you don't have to prove anything- and how could you since you were lying out your ass when you said

Wrong. They did prove it was drug money, that's why it was transferred into federal hands.

Yes, they proved it to the judge. Retard.

No, they didn't. You need to either quit while you are way behind or learn how to read and research and post responsibly

You asked for the link I mentioned so you didn't even read the thread. You don't know what up or down is besides forward or behind. So you think the judge didn't agree the scales, pot smell and cash pointed to drug money? OK, Sport. Why was it transfered then?

You claimed that it was 'proven' that the money was drug money- and you even said you had posted the citation in this thread.

But as I enjoy continuing to point out- that is just a lie- your article never claims that the money was ever proven to be 'drug money'- you just pulled that out of your ass

Weasels post:
OK, I did a little snooping since agenda driven people couldn't give a **** less about researching the other side of the story they want cemented into our minds. First off, it's not just "the cops", there have been legal hearings and court rulings. Here's a few snippets that fill in some missing parts the internet "investigators" couldn't find. Took me two minutes.

Judge says couple must cite source of $107,000 seized in Henry County arrest

On May 8, 2013, federal prosecutors filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court in Rock Island, requesting the cash be permanently awarded to the government.

A new development in the case came Monday, when Judge Sara Darrow ruled that filings from the couple, including their claim to the funds and answer to the forfeiture complaint, would be stricken, due to the couple's failure to respond to interrogatories, a list of questions by prosecutors regarding the source of the seized funds.

The complaint says officers continued to search the vehicle and came upon a collapsible baton and a pistol, located in a removable plastic panel, in the center console.

A canine dog was called in and alerted to a smell near the rear passenger door. The complaint says the trooper found $102,000 in Ziploc bags in a suitcase. Two duffel bags -- one smelling of cannabis, according to the trooper -- plus, two vacuum sealers, two one-gallon ice cream tubs and an electronic scale were located in the bed of the truck, and approximately $5,520 was recovered from Mrs. Perry's wallet.

 

[Syriusly]

The couple wasn't tried for a crime, that isn't what the hearings were.

Which is why they were not proven guilty of anything.

I never said they were. I said they were lucky to have only lost the illegal money instead of their freedom.

So you think that they are lucky they were put into prison without any evidence of a crime either?

 

[Syriusly]

No, they didn't. You need to either quit while you are way behind or learn how to read and research and post responsibly

If the property was not convicted of being drug money and the judge sign off on it, then they could not have legally seized the money.

Ice Weazel is right, but about a point you dont seem to grasp; the property was 'proven' guilty, not the couple.

No- Ice Weasel is not right.

According to the very article he researched and cited- there is not one word of 'the property was not convicted of being drug money'- the money was first seized- and then kept when the couple refused to answer questions.

Again- according to the information we have- rather than the crap Ice Weasel pulls out of his ass- the was never a determination that the money seized was 'illegal'- rather that the owners of the cash didn't properly fight to get their money back from the government.

 

[Syriusly]

Oh sure, but I mean with this law, the way it's being used... police can take pretty much everything they own and not have to prove jack... mosque's, houses, cars, cash, bank accounts... everything.

Wrong. They have to convince a judge you got your shit ILLEGALLY. Maybe if the words are big enough they can see them?

There is not a single piece of evidence in this thread that they have to convince a judge that the money or property was gotten illegally.

Again- you are just pulling this out of your ass.

 

[JimBowie1958]

So you think that they are lucky they were put into prison without any evidence of a crime either?

They were not imprisoned, only detained a few hours for questioning, and they could answer questions given them by the judge, but they cant hire an attorney and wont answer the questions without one. So the judged dismissed their filing for the property to be returned.

Judge says couple must cite source of $107,000 seized in Henry County arrest

 

[JimBowie1958]

No- Ice Weasel is not right.

According to the very article he researched and cited- there is not one word of 'the property was not convicted of being drug money'- the money was first seized- and then kept when the couple refused to answer questions.

Again- according to the information we have- rather than the crap Ice Weasel pulls out of his ass- the was never a determination that the money seized was 'illegal'- rather that the owners of the cash didn't properly fight to get their money back from the government.

No Ice Weazel is right. If you want a full detailed data dump of what went on you would have to go to the court documents, but this is how asset forfeiture cases are handled; the property is charged with the crime, not the owners. Property has no rights and so the police and prosecutors can do a lot of things without restrictions.

Judge says couple must cite source of $107,000 seized in Henry County arrest

 

[JimBowie1958]

Oh sure, but I mean with this law, the way it's being used... police can take pretty much everything they own and not have to prove jack... mosque's, houses, cars, cash, bank accounts... everything.

Wrong. They have to convince a judge you got your shit ILLEGALLY. Maybe if the words are big enough they can see them?

There is not a single piece of evidence in this thread that they have to convince a judge that the money or property was gotten illegally.

Again- you are just pulling this out of your ass.

Judge says couple must cite source of $107,000 seized in Henry County arrest

After being stopped by an Illinois State Police trooper for speeding, the couple's Toyota Tundra was searched. No drugs were found, but authorities seized thousands of dollars worth of cash from a suitcase based on the assumption the bills contained traces of drugs. The couple, although detained for several hours, was never charged and eventually allowed to continue on towards their original destination -- a doctor's appointment in Salt Lake City, Utah.

On May 8, 2013, federal prosecutors filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court in Rock Island, requesting the cash be permanently awarded to the government.

The couple, in an answer filed the same month, denied they had been speeding, claimed the vehicle search was unconstitutional and maintained that Mr. Perry had been subject to abusive treatment during hours of police questioning.

A new development in the case came Monday, when Judge Sara Darrow ruled that filings from the couple, including their claim to the funds and answer to the forfeiture complaint, would be stricken, due to the couple's failure to respond to interrogatories, a list of questions by prosecutors regarding the source of the seized funds.

The interrogatories were sent to the couple in June, 2013, and required answers within 20 days. Prosecutors filed a motion Sept. 11, 2013, claiming they had never received answers, which were necessary to prosecute the case. They claimed the couple's failure to answer the interrogatories should prompt their earlier filings to be thrown out.