Luther Ricks and his wife worked most of their lives at a steel foundry in Ohio. Not trusting of banks, they say they’ve lived frugally, and managed to save more than $400,000 over the years, which they kept in a safe in their home.
Last summer, two burglars broke into Ricks’ home. He shot and killed one of them. Police determined he acted in self-defense, and cleared him of any criminal wrongdoing. But local police did find a small amount of marijuana in Ricks’ home, which Ricks says he uses to manage the pain of his arthritis and a hip replacement surgery. Ricks was never charged for the marijuana. But finding it in his home was enough for city police to confiscate Ricks and his wife’s life savings under drug war asset forfeiture laws. Oddly enough, the FBI then stepped in, and claimed the money for itself.
Which is nice, eh? I believe that we now have a similar law in this country and, of course, NuLabour also wanted to extend this principle to anyone who was carrying £1,000 in cash. That's because NuLabour like to get into illiberality pissing contests with anyone they can. Fuckers.
Anyway, back to the story...
Consistent with asset forfeiture laws, the federal government now says Ricks has to prove he earned the money legitimately in order to get it back. Of course, he doesn’t have dated receipts going back thirty-plus years. And he can’t hire a lawyer—the government has of his money.
Also, under asset forfeiture laws, even if Ricks were able to prove in court that he earned the money legitimately, he, not the government, would have to absorb the court costs.
This is absolutely outrageous. As Timmy says, over at the ASI Blog...
Sadly, we in the UK are going this way too, reversing the burden of proof. It's not big, it's not clever and it doesn't advance freedom or liberty in any manner whatsoever. If the Government wants to take your property they should at least have the decency to convict you of something first.
But the state doesn't know what the fuck decency is. In this case, the state has directly stolen a couple's entire life savings of $400,000 without convicting them of anything. It's absolutely fucking outrageous.
But that doesn't stop Polly Toynbee spouting her poisonous claptrap.
The other morning, courtesy of the state broadcaster, I heard Pol telling us that "the state is our one instrument of civilisation". I nearly choked on my kedgeree.
Surely, I thought, surely Pol and the BBC must know something about world history. Surely they know that throughout the ages the state has been the enabling instrument of tyrants. That just in the last century, it was the state that allowed fascism and communism to impose death and destruction across the globe: millions slaughtered, and civilisation nearly dragged back into the abyss of a new Dark Age.
Surely they know that. Don't they?
And even if that's beyond them (after all, Pol failed her 11 plus and later dropped out of college), simply surveying the wreckage of Bottler's "government", ought to suggest that the state isn't quite what it's cracked up to be. How it's bloated and inefficient. How its commissars routinely lie about its achievements - not only to us, but to themselves. And how across a vast swathe of its activities, it actually ends up doing more harm than good.
Why can't they see that far from being our one instrument of civilisation, more often than not the state is the major roadblock to further progress?
More proof, if proof were needed, that Polly Toynbee is not only actively dangerous but she is also the scum of the fucking earth and should be viciously beaten to death with a great, big horse's cock.
The state is not your friend, people, and it is certainly not our one instrument of civilisation.