It helps if you think of Governments, federal, state and local as crime syndicates or criminal organisations. And Police as a criminal gang with the government franchise on violence. Once you get your head around that it starts to make sense.
The Judge should simply tell the town “Yes, you gave the feds money, but not the money you seized. You gave them YOUR money. The court does not recognize that transaction as relevant to this case.”
the judge needs to issue warrants for the arrest of officers and city officials involved. as for the suit against the money, ho do they prove intent? because that is part of criminality.
Obviously, this whole case belongs in Family Court, where the best interests of the cash can be considered, and there are established procedures to see that the cash finds a good home.
O ya! Family Court were your constitutional rights end and the government gets to do whatever they want. No better place for Freedom! Lol maybe they should give the man weekend visits so he can see his money! 👍
This is a custody battle all right. Problem is the entity that wants to keep the money is closely related to the entity that will decide custody. A conflict of interest in all other cases.
The craziest part about this is that tax dollars are being used to fight this. Imagine if a bank error accidentally gave you $16,000 and you gave that money to a friend before the bank could call to ask for it back. You’d be hit with a civil suit and charges for wire fraud before that call ended
Solution: don't defund the police...just throw the entire PD in jail for contempt. Throw in the entire city council and the mayor in jail with them, too. Bunch of crooks.
I'm pretty sure, and I think anyone can infer that the Moorsville PD knew exactly what the outcome would be by moving the funds from state to federal via that method. It was their way of punishing this guy, and I think its probably a practice they've adopted. Never travel with large amounts of cash or assets like gold. Use a cashiers check or have the assets moved via bonded couriers.
Citizens of Mooresville should track all their officials political, lawyers, or law enforcement trying to get re-elected and put that to them they will not be re-elected for this crooked act whether they think it's legal or not. It's just not moral
Imagine what would happen if a regular citizen told a judge "sorry, I can't pay back that money I stole because I spent it already"? Bet that would fly like lead brick.
@@nctpti2073 how. If the cops seize let's say your car unlawfully. Do they have the right to give you some random car back. No. They have to give you your car. Same thing applies. They have to give back the exact property taken. Not a replacement. Unless the person whose property was stolen agrees to the substitution. Simple.
The more I hear about civil asset forfeiture the more angry it makes me, the fact that this is aloud in this country is insane and should be done away with.
It's allowed because whether by impotence or ignorance you allowed it. Ever consider arresting the cops for theft using your state's citizen's arrest statutes? Ever consider killing them and forcibly taking it back or not allowing it out of your custody in the first place? That's what the second ammendment is for; it's not for hunting deer.
Send in scrap merchants to remove scrap iron of a sufficient quantity. Traffic signs, street lamps, water mains etc. The state may not have the actual banknotes but the state government would wish it did have.
I was told by a very excellent attorney that when he takes FEDERAL cases, his retainer is $60,000. Although most would likely take less, we have to realize more than $16,000 is being spent to keep the $16,000. Makes no sense until we consider they stand to loose way more in a constitutional violating case.
Would be nice to see the judge just say 'screw it, the adopted cash can go and enjoy it's new home, but I find the police department in contempt of court and fine them $16,461 payable to the original plaintiff.'
This is why 3 years ago, my husband didn't want me to travel with much cash for a 1 month road trip (with children). You never know what will happen & you can't always trust who you should. What cash I did bring wasn't carried in 1 place or held by 1 person. Better safe than sorry. I used to consider him paranoid, now I consider him cautious.
Many years ago, our family traveled to a country that had an inadequate banking system. We were advised to carry enough U.S. currency for all our needs, then exchange it when we got there. It was scary carrying that much cash! Good thing the country was also inexpensive, so we didn't need as much cash as we would at U.S. prices. I think their banking system is better now, and if we went there again, we could use other methods of payment.
If you were talking about some less developed country, I wouldn't bat an eye. But you are talking about the USA, a pretty civilized country (apparently not). And, in my Eastern European country I would fear the thieves, but not that much the police. That the people of your country accept this and don't protest against this kind of theft, is beyond me. I pity you!
*NONE* of this would even be happening if there was *ANY* accountability of government personnel. Why would a government worker *NOT* commit atrocities, when they are never held responsible for their actions?
@@sammyhoy7838one of the *BIGGEST* problems with religion is: the anticipation that evil people will get their punishment in the afterlife fuels apathy to fix problems in *this* life. Stop putting faith in an absent god.
The state stole $16k. The state was ordered to repay $16k. The state owes $16k to the victim. If state so wishes, they can apply to the feds to recover the $16k. The issues are unrelated to each other.
So if someone sues me and wins, what happens if I tell the court "Well I disagree so I'm just not going to pay that judgment". A court order is issued to my bank to take the funds out of my account and pay the judgment. Why couldn't the state court in this case simply have gone to the city's bank and ordered them to issue the $16k to the victim?
Well, with all the cases when you hear how someone prevailed and got a large judgement, the one thing you don't hear is if, when and how much they actually managed to collect.
As a little person, who has been farbled by the legal system over and over, thank you for apologizing. And get this! Your simple and direct apology was more than most people ever get from anyone. Thank you.
Consider this: Person A steals money from person B. Person B sues person A for the return of the money. Person A gives the money to person C. Court orders person A to return money to person B. How is person A not responsible for paying the money back to person B? Just because they subsequently transferred the money to person C, does not remove their liability for the theft.
@@PrinciplesMatter why? Because if it's not in minecraft some Nazi might become afraid? Crazy idea: perhaps if cops didn't want none they wouldn't start none.
Does Mooreville police department have to return the commission to the original person it was seized from? PS - The entire process resembles layering. Layering is an element of the money laundering process. Its purpose is to create multiple financial transactions to conceal the original source and ownership of the illegal funds.
You got it... this is my comment The "war on drugs" is just a money racket for the gov't Think about it ,the goods are worth more on the black market than if they were legal... You hear people say "they should legalize at least cannabis because of the tax money" Why in the heck would they want to do that? They are siphoning more money out of the economy this way than they ever could taxing it. (at least that is my perception) (also when you take into consideration that they are seizing lots of money that is not actually criminally obtained)
The state would probably send a SWAT team to raid the citizens house in the early morning, kick in the door, detonate flash-bang grenades, tackle, handcuff, and drag family members from their beds into the front yard, shoot - kill the family dog, abd wreck the house.
This happened to a bank for real a guy sued them they dint pay and he got a warrent to seize the banks bank's property he showed up with the sherif and moving trucks and the bank wrote him a check on the spot.
@@adogsupreme1739 I was shorted several hundred dollars at a bank drive window cashing a payroll check and parked my car and went into the bank manager's office and asked to use his telephone to call the police over the theft of my money. He closed the window, audited the drawer money and found my shorted money as extra cash being held. I was given the cash on the spot.
"The money is a fugitive!" I love it! I hadn't realized the federal seizure law was such a warren of B.S. It seems to me, that if the property can only be forfeited if seized legally, that the property would have to remain in the area it was seized until the legality of the seizure can be determined. Otherwise, isn't this a "taking" by a government entity??
The point about the original cash having been converted to a check and no longer being available to be the defendant really proves that the only way to fight this insanity is to use it against them.
What confuses me is how they're supposed to "investigate" the cash without actually having the cash? Doesn't converting it to a check immediately invalidate any investigation they would do? At least it destroys any physical evidence.
@@perrylegal5782 Not to mention highly unlikely. I think the average voter doesn't give two figs about the concept of constitutional rights until a violation hits them personally, as long at the police and their oversight agencies are appearing to keep the undesirables away from their homes and property.
Confused. If I were to steal a dollar from Bob and give the dollar to Tom, that wouldn't exonerate me of owing the dollar back to Bob. Furthermore, technically Tom would be in possession of stolen property. Shouldn't law enforcement not only be held to the same standard, but, given their position, in fact a higher standard?
You'd think, but it's clearly not the case..... For your consideration: 1) If I employ a firearm in a self defence situation, I am personally responsible for every round I fire. A miss or a through and through that hits another person or person's property, I WILL be prosecuted. However, Police in a situation where they are "justified" in employing deadly force, any misses (which are frequently 2-3x the hits) it's just an accident, nothing to see here, move along! 2) If I get caught violating a law, and claim "I'm sorry, I didn't know that was a law" the judge will ALWAYS say "ignorance of the law is no excuse!" However, if a law enforcement officer makes a mistake in enforcing the law, "oh, it was an honest mistake" Understand, there are so many laws on the books, it is litterally impossible for any one person to know them all, but me, a communications technician who spent his life learning and becoming proficient in telecommunications is responsible to know and not violate any of those millions of laws, but a law enforcement officer who went to college to study the law and law enforcement has Zero responsibility to know those laws... 3) any law I break and get prosecuted for, I am required to go to court and prove my innocence (if you think, despite admonitions of the judge to the contrary, that innocent until proven quilty actually is what happens in court, you are delusional) but if a law enforcement officer actually knowingly and intentionally violates your rights, you can't even sue him/her 99% of the time because of "qualified immunity".
@@myhdcycle no, I'm not. Mooresville is where Dale jr and friends hung out and raised hell. He talks about it in his books. It's where his company, Dirty Mo Enterprises, located. It's where he lives. Mooresville is north of Charlotte, the home of many NASCAR teams. Morrisville is a suburb of Raleigh.
Seriously, how is ANYONE supposed to believe we live in a country governed by laws. The whole judicial system revolves around manipulating the law, not pursuing justice. The innocent are jailed and the guilty go free. The money is innocent and incarcerated and the thieves are still in law enforcement.
This entire thing shows how absurd and broken the legal system is. In many cases, laws and regulations are made in such a way to screw people as much and hard as possible.
Yeah... just let taxpayers foot the bill for this lunacy... That's the problem. Whenever they're actually found to be financially responsible for anything, they don't actually pay anything. But the rest of us do.
@@MrMagnaniman "Whenever they're actually found to be financially responsible for anything, they don't actually pay anything. But the rest of us do." Whether the city/state or feds ever figured out what to do with the money they confiscated or not the rest of us would still be paying no matter what. Get even with them later at the voting booth... if there's anything worthy of voting for in the first place.
@@chickey333 On one side, you can vote for corruption like CAF. On the other side, you can vote for corruption like CAF. This is one of the things that always stays the same, no matter who you vote for.
@@MrMagnaniman Yep... Our political structure as we see it is pretty much just a mirage perpetrated by a shadow government and propagated by a compliant media. Bon Appétit...
It's really sad that the federal government would treat their own adopted child like that--Who sues their own kid! That money will be permanently traumatized I'm sure.
there should be real consequences for false alarms. mandatory retraining at minimum to forced retirement of animal. multiple dogs under one handler that keeps false alarming, then the handler is relieved of duty. the problem is that the supreme court says the cops can lie, so its not that much of a stretch to think the cops can also false alarm to manufacture the probably cause
Australia did an *actual* study about drug canines (not the “police sponsored “ studies in the US) and found : “The report stated that prohibited drugs were found in only 26% of searches following an indication by a drug sniffer dog. Of these, 84% were for small amounts of cannabis deemed for personal use. The report also found that the legislation was ineffective at detecting persons in supply of prohibited drugs, with only 0.19% of indications ultimately leading to a successful prosecution for supply.” So basically you have better odds at the casinos. They, rightly, repealed the laws allowing warrantless searches due to canines, as it should be because I don’t trust humans.
Except that Alert is ILLEGAL Unless the Officers already had a Warrant prior to the dog starting to sniff the car - a Police Dog's sniffing the Car IS A SEARCH AND THUS ILLEGAL WITHOUT THE DRIVER'S CONSENT AND/OR A SEARCH WARRANT...
@@HappilyHomicidalHooligan Well, it's fine point, but as long as the dog doesn't reach his or her snout into an opened window or door, it's not a search, it's something else. . .You would want a dog search to be found illegitimate, but you would probably lose most of the time, sadly.
Multiple points to make: 1. Lehto ROCKS! He explains this complicated stuff in an easy to understand manner and understands exactly what's going on here despite the "verbal gymnastics." 2. The state case is still going on. It's on appeal. Sanders has received support in the state appeal from many civil rights orgs, including the ACLU of NC. The Town has also received support on appeal, from... the U.S. government (which is the same party trying to keep the money in federal court). 3. The federal judge ruled the state judges were wrong-the state court did not have power over the cash as they ruled. The federal judge held it was the only court with power over the cash and therefore denied Sanders' motion to dismiss the federal case. (Federal law is clear that a state court has the right to determine when it gained power over property. The state court said its power started before November 23rd, which means the federal adoption happened after the state court gained power over the cash, and which means the state court did have power first and that its orders should have been recognized in federal court.) 4. It is UNDISPUTED that the Mooresville police said they took Sanders' cash only for safekeeping, not as drug proceeds or in relation to ANY crime. It is also UNDISPUTED that a state court judge said the taking violated Sanders' constitutional rights when the case was heard on Sanders' motion. As to the criminal charges, the D.A. dismissed the minor marijuana charges so no police ever testified as to the lawfulness of the search and seizure and therefore could never be cross examined about it in the criminal case. The police never claimed they had probable cause to seize Sanders' property. Apparently, understanding this, and how it would not fly under NC law, they asked the feds to take, or adopt, the money-which money they simply found and kept under the guise of keeping it safe.
This whole thing just stinks and is taking WAY too much time and effort on everyone's part over $16k+. Even more than a classic civil asset forfeiture case smells bad. But then is this really that kind of case?
I just wish that, because of the fungible nature of money, that the state court should be allowed to ignore what the town did with the money because why should it matter that they did with it? If they had wrongfully (under state law) confiscated and destroyed his car, they'd owe him the cash value of the car. Here the city owes him the cash value of the cash that they took. Not that my opinion is worth 2 cents, but the city should be forced to pay out and fight the feds for reimbursement for their egregious behavior, especially since this transaction occurred after the initial finding that the money had been wrongfully taken. What's the point of having a co-equal branch of government if such contempt is allowed? They should be in jail, if not for giving the money to the feds, then certainly for failing to pay out as ordered. I see nothing wrong with the town being out of pocket if the feds keep the money.
Seems like we should at least pass a law allowing "attorney fee shifting" in these CAF cases whereby if the citizen claimant wins, the Gov't has to pay his attorney fees AND he gets all of his seized money back.
Another issue: Federal courts must use the state law to determine validity of the seizure in the first place. The state court has determined the seizure to be invalid.
Court rulings no longer matter in this country. Hell, the President won't even abide by rulings from the Federal Appeals Courts or even the SCOTUS. Rent holiday? "Probably illegal, but we're going to do it anyway." (quote from President Biden.) Vaccine mandate for employees of companies with more than 100 employees? Every time the courts rule against it, the Administration changes a few words or assigns it to a new agency and starts it up again. I see where OSHA actually broke with the President and has refused to enforce the order, based on the courts' rulings.
I have actually gotten rental vehicles that reeked of weed in California. I had to get a different car because I was driving cross country. Steve, you rock. Thank you for your videos.
Police departments that cover up their own illegal activity by adding layers of litigation as a means to discourage accountability, should be forced to cover these additional expenses from money in their own budget. These criminals use the treasury as a weapon and as a result the taxpayers are burdened with additional taxation. If this money came from the budget of the offending paramilitary organization they might think twice before blatantly violating their oath to the constitution. Less money equals less violations. Or they could follow the law. Their choice.
It seems pretty clear what this is to me, a way to avoid giving money back. The ruling seems to be in effect that the Feds adoption isn't seizure so the rules of seizure don't apply, but once it's adopted it becomes in rem for the federal court's jurisdiction where the seizure rules aren't applicable as it both was and wasn't a seizure at same time. This just highlights what civil asset forfeiture is intended to be, legal mumbo jumbo to avoid the 4th amendment protections granted by the constitution to people by denying them any recourse to seizure of their property.
With the whole Citizens United decision, I think there could be an argument made that the seizure is a 1st Amendment violation as money is speech and they took/abridged his speech.
Civil asset forfeiture should only come on the heels of a conviction proving rhe necessity of said forfeiture. They shouldn't have any access to the property or use of the property prior to a finalization of the court processes .
I know government agencies often extend legal proceedings trying to drive up legal costs for the citizen opposing them. But the government agency has legal costs too. They are consuming more than $14k in legal time to oppose the citizen, they are also losing money. Just because their attorneys work for the city full time doesn't mean they couldn't be working on something more productive, or maybe they city could reduce the number of attorneys on their payroll. The only ones that benefit from these tactics are the attorneys, not those they work for.
The true motive of the corrupt PD is to send a message to anyone they steal from. They will use their unlimited taxpayer funds to prevent return on a citizens illegally stolen limited funds.
Well, often governments deliberately drive their own legal costs higher by NOT using in-house legal staff but hiring an expensive outside law firm. They do this when they are "pretty sure" that they will ultimately prevail.
No, the government attorneys can't do something more productive. Governments are consumers, not producers. Their lawyers can only go consume something else.
This is a testament to how graceful and forgiving the average American is because many people would think, "well I'm getting my due from somebody, somehow."
@@eddarby469 yep. Best you return something where we agree on value. Since I find human flesh effectively worthless, I'd have to take a significant number of pounds of flesh before I'd be happy.
Hey! Money is fungible. Imagine if I owe taxes to the federal government regarding my 2019 taxes. I'm sure the government will be ok if I tell them I spent all my 2019 money and there simply isn't any 2019 money left. That's the way it works now, right?
The people in office allow this or even make this happen. They should be fired or charged with Stealing. Everyone knows they have done the guy wrong but no one will fix the issue. Sad
This whole thing sounds so absurd I can't give a properly outraged response. Something is definitely wrong with the system when an innocent citizen suffers from what appears to be a corrupt and cockeyed set of so-called laws.
No, this is the result of "tough on crime", "war on drugs", "hit the traffickers where it hurts" type of legislation we all cheered and that no politician wants to be seen to be in opposition of.
I'd just like to take a moment to note that this sort of in-depth discussion of the law is why I follow the channel. (Not the more run-of-mill reading of news articles.) This is great stuff for the non-lawyers to understand the system!
The real issue is that cities, countys, States, and the Feds have all these lawyers that they have to pay whether they are working asset forfeiture or playing solitaire, while all others have to go out and hire one special to the job at hand.
Well, there is the second amendment too. If it costs more to get it back through attorneys than it's worth, it may be useful to note that cops and judges and evidence clerks bleed like everyone else... and they've asked for it.
I see that the "Monty Python" school of "Trial Arts" is taught well. Specifically in the case of "Witch v. Rock & Duck." This legal fiction was created by Dan Lungren from CA. It's like a bad venereal disease as it's the gift that keeps on giving. Thank you, Dan. Your notorious legacy lives on... and on... and on...
Voters have allowed this for decades. I screamed from high heaven how wrong it was. No one listened, said I just wanted pot users to keep their money. Said they LOVED it when it was used against someone else. Now it's happening to them and I can't help but feel they deserve it now.
It's like the state is saying "We don't have the EXACT physical money we took, the feds do and since you're asking for the EXACT physical money back, go talk to the feds, you have no say over the state now." Sounds like his suit needs to change to "make me whole" instead of "give me THAT money back".
@@moxieman2452 -- Really? They still have the physical ca$h but wrote a check to the government? I don't "buy" this because that would leave them with less money.
That's part of the issue w civil forfeiture. If the cash were part of a crime *that* cash needs the be preserved as evidence. In the case of CF, they just "preserve" the transactional value of the confiscated cash or goods. It really does that's it's just about allowing legalized shakedowns from government agent
If, instead of giving the money to the feds, the city burned it in some unholy ceremony, would the man be entitled to his money under the initial court’s order? Let the feds keep the tribute and force the city to pay the man his money and court costs. The city can then fight the feds to get the money back. That ‘should’ be how it works here, but alas….
@@gavnonadoroge3092 Thanks. Honestly, if an example of using the process as punishment were ever needed, this would deserve its place on the front cover of that textbook.
If I were the state judge, I would order the seizure and sale of public property to pay the man whose money was stolen. Put the liability to recover that check right back on the city. Mooresville laundered the money. Gotta love it.
How are the feds "investigating the cash" when they got a check? I get that cash is fungible, but what can the feds be investigating besides a number, the way this was done?
He should create a Go Fund Me page, because this is a law that most level-headed Americans would want to get rid of. Apparently, the state and federal legal system don't think this law is too embarrassingly nonsensical and idiotic to use. When you adopt a dog, you commit to a contract where you are obligated to treat the dog well. I would have liked to see the feds document that they have fed, walked and groomed the money they "adopted", according to the contract they signed with the state... 🥴
In a case between the government and an object, does the object's owner even have standing? What rights do objects have in pursuit of their defense? I would make a Habeas Corpus motion for them to produce the accused bills.
Your title caught my eye because I worked as a communications engineer in Mooresville, NC for most of 1991. I don't know how it is now, but back then it was like being in the land that time forgot. Many backward people there. Their favorite phrase was, "Because we've always done it that way." Some of us outsiders used to joke that there was something in the water there. I was overjoyed when my work location changed to another town. I can see this situation happening there.
Your coverage of CAF is educating people every day and introducing them to something no one seems to talk about. Every politician running for office needs to be hit with questions about CAF when they hold their town halls and speeches. CAF needs to go, its probably the most unamerican process we have.
We the people: Eliminate civil asset forfeiture now! Democrats: 😂🤣😂🤣😂 "You will own nothing and be happy!" Republicans: 😂🤣😂🤣😂 "No way, Jose, it's for Law and Order!" We the people: 😡😡😡😡😡
Another thing, in 541 U.S. 600, SABRI v. UNITED STATES, the court held that money is fungible. Therefore, why is is not accurate to say that the PD made a donation of $16K to the feds, but is was not the claimant's money that they sent. The court that ordered them to return the money should say that the city's "donation" is irrelvant.
You hit it on the head! Mooresville, if it gave away anything, gave away THEIR money, not Sanders'. We are hoping the state appeals judges will agree with the state trial judges (who ordered the money returned) on this point.
So the city of Mooresville does still have the cash if they gave a check for the feds to adopt. Since the Feds don't have the actual cash, then the city can in fact return the cash, and the city now should have to recoupe the adopted Check or take the feds to court for it.
What an amazing outcome if the judge held the city in contempt, jailed the mayor or prosecutor, and required the city provide representation to retrieve the cash from the feds. If dreams came true...
Well, he's obviously not just doing it "for the money" because his legal expenses must be going through the room. I hope the federal judges "make him whole."
If there was any sort of justice in this country, the police, prosecutor, mayor, DoHS, and CBP would be imprisoned for grand theft, wrongful detention, and contempt of court. Then, they should have THEIR assets seized to cover the costs of all this nonsense instead of shifting the expense onto tax payers.
The only way to fight absurdity is to be more absurd. Fight the fact the cash wasn’t read it’s Miranda rights, was not offered a lawyer for court, was not giving a bail hearing, not told what crime it is being charged with. File for Habeas corpus on the cash. If the government wants to treat property as a person the property should be afforded all the rights of a person under the law.
Unfortunately, it's "Civil" Forfeiture, not Criminal. I too, was wondering how do you cross-examine money? How does it testify on its own behalf? How does it aid in its own defense? But again, I then realized it was a civil trial, not criminal.
I was glued to the screen on this one! One of your best legal overviews, to us mostly plain folks. I would have enjoyed a longer, pop-up, or down-below video, that included much more of the excluded unread pages, along with your invaluable, eloquent yet concise, explanations and like-examples of, to those not immersed in the legal system.
At what point will lawyers stand up to the government even pro bono to get this changed by striking down those who do wrong in the court of law. Striking them down by using the law to change this absurd system
Man I feel terrible for that guy. I don't know if this can ever be corrected because it profits the people that would need to vote it out of law. But thanks for talking and getting the world out to the public. Clearly you are doing everything you can to make as much noise about this as possible. 👍👏👏👏
The prosecutors and police who are maliciously persuing him have brought disrepute towards the administration of justice. Their respective superiors, constituents, universities, and BAR associations should be redress by any and all americans for impuning their names, communities, and the administration of justice.
There's a story from around 2013 about a guy from Manassas Virginia who was driving along 66 to DC to buy commercial kitchen equipment from a restaurant that was going out of business to renovate his own restaurant's kitchen. Of course, all cash and carry on liqudation sales, so he had about $15 or $20k in his pocket when a VSP trooper pulled him over in Fairfax. They took his money and sent him on his way.
Imagine how quickly this legal fraud would stop if BOTH PARTIES had to pay back the stolen cash AND ALL LEGAL FEES associated with the case. But, since justice today usually means justice for JUST US RICH OR POWERFUL CONNECTED FOLKS, not likely to happen at all.
Seems to me that the court has already decided that Mooresville must give the man $16k. If Mooresville wishes to recover $16k from the Feds, that should be Mooresville's responsibility. They can take it to court and ask for it back. I'm not a lawyer, so this is probably simplistic, but it would comply with the state court's ruling. Question: Under what conditions can the man ask for his money PLUS legal fees?
Legal frees are generally left to the discretion of the judge (with some exceptions) and have more requirements when being requested from a government source. Ultimately depends on how the case ends. This one seems neverending indeed....
Pretty much my take as well. Judge: "Okay, so it's my judgment you have to give this man his money back." Mooresville: "We can't, we uhhh... gave that exact money to someone else." Judge: "Fine then. You owe this man 16K of your money, and your next problem is how to reconcile your other money you decided to give to the feds. Good luck with that one."
Generally, everyone bears their own legal fees in a Civil case. That said, a judge could add the legal fees on top, if he finds gross negligence, bad faith acting and/or criminal or otherwise unlawful/frivolous behaviour in how the Police handled the case.
From my limited understanding, this would be the reality if the owner of the money was the person charged, but because in CAF they charge the money directly it skirts around that. CAF is a bizarre collection of rulings that enables state and federal theft while making it nearly impossible for the wronged civilian to recover their money. Remember we don't have a justice system in the US, we have a legal system.
Make the city pay for the legal fees and them make public how much this cost the city tax payers and see how much longer the police chief and Mayor stay in office...one would hope anyways.
So why didn't the judge have an officer hold the lawyer in contempt of court when they said the city won't return the money, and issue warrants for the relevant parties in the accounting department that refuse to obey the judgement?
I have a solution: The FEDs drive down to Mooresville, hand the MPD $16,751 USD(in cash) and then the MPD drives over the plaintiff's house and just give it back.
The problem I see with the Fed's stance is they claim they've Adopted the money so the State Court CAN'T tell them to give it back but the premise of Adoption is valid ONLY if the money was Legally Seized and the Court determined that it was NOT Legally Seized thus the Fed's CAN'T Adopt it in the first place... I REALLY hope this poor man is Suing for his Money + Court/Legal Costs...
You can not go after the Legal fees, that is at the root of the problem. You can only try and get the case against the money dismissed and you are not entitled for legal fees. They know this, this is why they often just offer you "half" if you admit that it was going to be used as part of a crime.
Why doesn't the state judge say "The fact you turned the cash over to the fed before the man's window to appeal the seizure is not the man's problem. Give him what he is owed, or state assets will be siezed and sold at auction to pay him his cash just like any other person. It is the local jurusdiction's job, not the man's job, to get the money improperly turned over to the fed back." In any legal "adoption" in the United States, there has to be a TPR hearing (Termination of Parental Rights) before a child can be adopted. If that hearing does not happen, the biological parents have recourse to invalidate the adoption. Maybe use this line of reasoning to get the money sent back to the state.
I used to really believe in our system. Slowly this country chiseled away at any confidence I once had. I have more faith in the mafia. At least you know where you stand dealing with them
Warning, search a rental before driving off the lot. My wife rented a car when she flew into Portland OR. She drove it for 3 days before returning it. When she stoped for gas right before returning it, she opened the center console and there was a baggy of pot along with rolling papers. If she would have been in a state that pot was illegal she would have been in big trouble if she was stopped by police.
I once found a spent gun cartridge in the center console of a rental car. . . not as serious as pot, but I'm sure if I had been in a situation where (less educated) I agreed to a search it could have been a dicey situation. This is why you never, ever consent to a search of you or your vehicle.
@@paulcrumley9756 _" never, ever consent to a search"_ AMEN! I once was stopped in Florida for speeding, the COP wanted to search, I refused. He called for a dog, but the K-9 unit had gone off-shift already, so he had to let me go. My nephew had borrowed my car the week before, and there was a roach in the ashtray. I'd have been screwed!
I understand there is a lot of issues in our government. I feel like this highlights the corruption of our government. If we don't abolish our government and start new, how many centuries will it take to cleanse the corruption within? A combination of weak, ignorant and corrupt people have lead us into this mess.
I don’t know why we ever got rid of tarring and feathering in the public square…? If that were a legitimate threat, the ones brave enough to run for office would tighten up their behinds and toe the line.
@@monstermcboo7282 Damn tooting. I vote we bring it back today. No need for the guillotine. Tar & feathers & seize their assets to be used to get our nation back into manufacturing , pay off debts, & alternative energy . Bam! So many problems solved.
@@jupitercyclops6521 tar and feathering became lynching after Lynch lynched enough black people that his name became the term for it. That's why western society does not do it anymore. People took it too far and it became mobs.
Wait, is suing an inanimate object purely a government power? Because I would like to sue to uncomfortable seats at the local DMV for pain and suffering. And maybe sue the windows at the local city building because it glares in my eyes while driving down the street.
One of the big problems with the law, courts, lawyers and judges is that they normally can't see the forest for the trees. They get lost in the technicalities to the detriment of the purpose of the law.
@@abrahamlincoln9758 I have a gun too. I'll call a spade a spade. If he doesn't like that and pulls the gun, I might just have to shoot him. Then, instead of a robber, I can call him dead.
Defendant has a right to face his prosecutor right? So wouldn't the actual bills (specific serial numbers) seized have to appear in court? What about chain of custody?
If Bob takes $1 from Tom illegally, and then Bob gives $1 to Dick, and then a judge orders Bob to return the $1 to Tom, Bob must do so, and then if Bob wishes, he can attempt to get the $1 back from Dick. Bob simply can't refuse the court order because he gave Tom's money away. This is common sense to anyone other than the senseless.
If the Fed' "adopts" fungible value (or seizes possession of criminally charged but not lawfully convicted bank notes) without a court order authorizing that adoption/confiscation, why isn't such a racket considered an institutionally administrative form of money laundering?
There are scam artist in nigeria trying to figure out how to work with police on this.
The police and Mooresville reached out to the Nigerians for advice.
It helps if you think of Governments, federal, state and local as crime syndicates or criminal organisations. And Police as a criminal gang with the government franchise on violence. Once you get your head around that it starts to make sense.
These government demons are far worse than any Nigerian "prince" scammers. BTW, Nigerian is nominally a republic, no princes allowed.
Maybe he migrated to the USA and now work at the police.
Laughing too hard to hear.
The Judge should simply tell the town “Yes, you gave the feds money, but not the money you seized. You gave them YOUR money. The court does not recognize that transaction as relevant to this case.”
I hope there is a lawyer willing to prosecute a civil rights violation for this man. The risk must outweigh the reward for this BS.
the judge needs to issue warrants for the arrest of officers and city officials involved. as for the suit against the money, ho do they prove intent? because that is part of criminality.
Obviously, this whole case belongs in Family Court, where the best interests of the cash can be considered, and there are established procedures to see that the cash finds a good home.
O ya! Family Court were your constitutional rights end and the government gets to do whatever they want. No better place for Freedom! Lol maybe they should give the man weekend visits so he can see his money! 👍
I move to adopt the funds 💵...
I'll give it a good home if it can't be reunited with the original custodian.
Lol
This is a custody battle all right. Problem is the entity that wants to keep the money is closely related to the entity that will decide custody. A conflict of interest in all other cases.
I'd like to see the pre-adoption report from the Child Protective Services investigation.
Insane the length that government and police will go to keep from just doing the right thing.
not really... asset forfeture is a multi billion dollar income for government agencies and state agencies....
The craziest part about this is that tax dollars are being used to fight this. Imagine if a bank error accidentally gave you $16,000 and you gave that money to a friend before the bank could call to ask for it back. You’d be hit with a civil suit and charges for wire fraud before that call ended
I want to see people in jail for this. As it is, the taxpayer is the only person who will feel any pain.
That would be criminal charges, not even civil.
Solution: don't defund the police...just throw the entire PD in jail for contempt. Throw in the entire city council and the mayor in jail with them, too. Bunch of crooks.
Not enough likes on TH-cam for this comment.
Lived not far from Mooresville. That’s all I’m going to say!
We could seize the assets of all these city officials and adopt them.
I'm pretty sure, and I think anyone can infer that the Moorsville PD knew exactly what the outcome would be by moving the funds from state to federal via that method. It was their way of punishing this guy, and I think its probably a practice they've adopted. Never travel with large amounts of cash or assets like gold. Use a cashiers check or have the assets moved via bonded couriers.
Citizens of Mooresville should track all their officials political, lawyers, or law enforcement trying to get re-elected and put that to them they will not be re-elected for this crooked act whether they think it's legal or not. It's just not moral
Imagine what would happen if a regular citizen told a judge "sorry, I can't pay back that money I stole because I spent it already"? Bet that would fly like lead brick.
Well, they didn't spend the money, they gave it to their friend to hold.
I hope I can
But remember, the government isn't your average scum bag criminal. The government is like the Mafia on steroids.
Or I turned into a check & gave it to my parents
@@nctpti2073 how. If the cops seize let's say your car unlawfully. Do they have the right to give you some random car back. No. They have to give you your car. Same thing applies. They have to give back the exact property taken. Not a replacement. Unless the person whose property was stolen agrees to the substitution. Simple.
The more I hear about civil asset forfeiture the more angry it makes me, the fact that this is aloud in this country is insane and should be done away with.
It's allowed because whether by impotence or ignorance you allowed it. Ever consider arresting the cops for theft using your state's citizen's arrest statutes? Ever consider killing them and forcibly taking it back or not allowing it out of your custody in the first place? That's what the second ammendment is for; it's not for hunting deer.
It will only stop once the people grow a spine and make it stop..... with force if it comes to that.
Maybe someone who has this happen to them with conceal carry will put a stop to it.
Arent taxes really just Civil Asset Forfeiture? Legal theft.....
it's the war on drugs, and the drugs are winning.
The Government's case (City, state, federal, whoever) is "We stole it fair and square, and were not giving it back!"
"You honor, we really like this man's rightful property, so we want to keep it!"
Send in scrap merchants to remove scrap iron of a sufficient quantity.
Traffic signs, street lamps, water mains etc.
The state may not have the actual banknotes but the state government would wish it did have.
I was told by a very excellent attorney that when he takes FEDERAL cases, his retainer is $60,000. Although most would likely take less, we have to realize more than $16,000 is being spent to keep the $16,000. Makes no sense until we consider they stand to loose way more in a constitutional violating case.
Spend $50,000 now, avoid precedent-setting decision that stops them taking $500,000 tomorrow.
thats why you sue for court costs, and punitive damages on top of getting your money back.
Cases like these make contempt of court a moral obligation rather than a criminal offense.
I prefer public execution of the government officials going against their oath by the citizens.
The US Federal government is the Antichrist. Deceit and murder are its way.
Anyone who doesn't have contempt for the US judicial system is mentally ill and incapable of standing trial. This applies to judges as well.
That needs to be a T-Shirt
Would be nice to see the judge just say 'screw it, the adopted cash can go and enjoy it's new home, but I find the police department in contempt of court and fine them $16,461 payable to the original plaintiff.'
This is why 3 years ago, my husband didn't want me to travel with much cash for a 1 month road trip (with children). You never know what will happen & you can't always trust who you should. What cash I did bring wasn't carried in 1 place or held by 1 person. Better safe than sorry. I used to consider him paranoid, now I consider him cautious.
Many years ago, our family traveled to a country that had an inadequate banking system. We were advised to carry enough U.S. currency for all our needs, then exchange it when we got there. It was scary carrying that much cash! Good thing the country was also inexpensive, so we didn't need as much cash as we would at U.S. prices. I think their banking system is better now, and if we went there again, we could use other methods of payment.
I knew people who distrusted and hated the police. I thought they were unreasonable and paranoid. I now think they were right.
If you were talking about some less developed country, I wouldn't bat an eye. But you are talking about the USA, a pretty civilized country (apparently not). And, in my Eastern European country I would fear the thieves, but not that much the police. That the people of your country accept this and don't protest against this kind of theft, is beyond me. I pity you!
WTF? Who goes on a 1 month road trip with children??? Insane.
I do the same on road trips. Money is never in just one place nor is it all the same denominations.
*NONE* of this would even be happening if there was *ANY* accountability of government personnel.
Why would a government worker *NOT* commit atrocities, when they are never held responsible for their actions?
People that act this way,need to pray to our Father In Heaven for forgiveness,+++,
@@sammyhoy7838one of the *BIGGEST* problems with religion is: the anticipation that evil people will get their punishment in the afterlife fuels apathy to fix problems in *this* life.
Stop putting faith in an absent god.
@@craigyoung8008 Thanks for saying what needed to be said.
Quite honestly, I do not know how you can remain sane while dealing with this crazy bullshit. It never ends.
the courts in the USA are whacky is there any fairness in them,any justice hard to under stand there reasoning
The state stole $16k.
The state was ordered to repay $16k.
The state owes $16k to the victim.
If state so wishes, they can apply to the feds to recover the $16k.
The issues are unrelated to each other.
So if someone sues me and wins, what happens if I tell the court "Well I disagree so I'm just not going to pay that judgment". A court order is issued to my bank to take the funds out of my account and pay the judgment. Why couldn't the state court in this case simply have gone to the city's bank and ordered them to issue the $16k to the victim?
Judge didn't have the balls. Likely he got a phone call from a United States Attorney.
One of the many reasons why police are no longer trusted
Well, with all the cases when you hear how someone prevailed and got a large judgement, the one thing you don't hear is if, when and how much they actually managed to collect.
I'd like to know how many tax dollars are being wasted in order to hang on to this 16k?
They want to retain the "right" to continue robbing people!
its way beyond 16k at this point
And at this point I think the aggrieved party deserves more than 16k.
@@eddarby469 16k in damages and probably 20k for the lawyer.
Punitive damages should exceed $250,000. That's the penalty for piracy.
"The money is innocent of all wrongdoing" might be one of the greatest sentence fragments I've ever heard in my life 😂
@Kraven James :
The money (being an inanimate object), cannot be "guilty" of anything whatsoever!!!!
🙂
As a little person, who has been farbled by the legal system over and over, thank you for apologizing.
And get this!
Your simple and direct apology was more than most people ever get from anyone.
Thank you.
Consider this:
Person A steals money from person B.
Person B sues person A for the return of the money.
Person A gives the money to person C.
Court orders person A to return money to person B.
How is person A not responsible for paying the money back to person B? Just because they subsequently transferred the money to person C, does not remove their liability for the theft.
@Aerrin Longheart qualified immunity doesn't make them immune to severe blood loss.
Because reasons, and legalease, and something something yadada.
@@EnthalpyAndEntropy you forgot to add *in Minecraft...
Because reasons. 🤔
@@PrinciplesMatter why? Because if it's not in minecraft some Nazi might become afraid? Crazy idea: perhaps if cops didn't want none they wouldn't start none.
Does Mooreville police department have to return the commission to the original person it was seized from?
PS - The entire process resembles layering. Layering is an element of the money laundering process. Its purpose is to create multiple financial transactions to conceal the original source and ownership of the illegal funds.
If it looks like money laundering and it quacks like money laundering, it's money laundering.
And it would seem falls under federal RICO conspiracy statuettes.
You are 110% correct it is!!
@@MrMagnaniman I wonder if the gentleman can enact municipal asset forfeiture. Probably not.
You got it... this is my comment
The "war on drugs" is just a money racket for the gov't
Think about it ,the goods are worth more on the black market than if they were legal...
You hear people say "they should legalize at least cannabis because of the tax money"
Why in the heck would they want to do that? They are siphoning more money out of the economy this way than they ever could taxing it. (at least that is my perception)
(also when you take into consideration that they are seizing lots of money that is not actually criminally obtained)
Just imagine if the roles were reversed and a citizen was seizing assets from the state, what would happen and how fast it would be remedied.
The state would probably send a SWAT team to raid the citizens house in the early morning, kick in the door, detonate flash-bang grenades, tackle, handcuff, and drag family members from their beds into the front yard, shoot - kill the family dog, abd wreck the house.
sounds like the police and the feds need to be charged under RICO for money laundering
This happened to a bank for real a guy sued them they dint pay and he got a warrent to seize the banks bank's property he showed up with the sherif and moving trucks and the bank wrote him a check on the spot.
@@adogsupreme1739 I was shorted several hundred dollars at a bank drive window cashing a payroll check and parked my car and went into the bank manager's office and asked to use his telephone to call the police over the theft of my money. He closed the window, audited the drawer money and found my shorted money as extra cash being held. I was given the cash on the spot.
@@davidbarnett9312 haha, we have a winner!!!!
"The money is a fugitive!" I love it! I hadn't realized the federal seizure law was such a warren of B.S. It seems to me, that if the property can only be forfeited if seized legally, that the property would have to remain in the area it was seized until the legality of the seizure can be determined. Otherwise, isn't this a "taking" by a government entity??
Your representatives allowed this because you were frightened of marijuanana drugs.
The point about the original cash having been converted to a check and no longer being available to be the defendant really proves that the only way to fight this insanity is to use it against them.
What confuses me is how they're supposed to "investigate" the cash without actually having the cash? Doesn't converting it to a check immediately invalidate any investigation they would do? At least it destroys any physical evidence.
It sounds like Mooresville needs 100,000 angry "citizens against civil asset forfiture" to descend on them for a protest.
That would be amazing....
@@perrylegal5782 Not to mention highly unlikely. I think the average voter doesn't give two figs about the concept of constitutional rights until a violation hits them personally, as long at the police and their oversight agencies are appearing to keep the undesirables away from their homes and property.
Or the establishment of Municipal Asset Forfeiture to be sistered to every Civil Asset Forfeiture law.
Confused. If I were to steal a dollar from Bob and give the dollar to Tom, that wouldn't exonerate me of owing the dollar back to Bob. Furthermore, technically Tom would be in possession of stolen property.
Shouldn't law enforcement not only be held to the same standard, but, given their position, in fact a higher standard?
You'd think, but it's clearly not the case.....
For your consideration:
1) If I employ a firearm in a self defence situation, I am personally responsible for every round I fire. A miss or a through and through that hits another person or person's property, I WILL be prosecuted. However, Police in a situation where they are "justified" in employing deadly force, any misses (which are frequently 2-3x the hits) it's just an accident, nothing to see here, move along!
2) If I get caught violating a law, and claim "I'm sorry, I didn't know that was a law" the judge will ALWAYS say "ignorance of the law is no excuse!" However, if a law enforcement officer makes a mistake in enforcing the law, "oh, it was an honest mistake" Understand, there are so many laws on the books, it is litterally impossible for any one person to know them all, but me, a communications technician who spent his life learning and becoming proficient in telecommunications is responsible to know and not violate any of those millions of laws, but a law enforcement officer who went to college to study the law and law enforcement has Zero responsibility to know those laws...
3) any law I break and get prosecuted for, I am required to go to court and prove my innocence (if you think, despite admonitions of the judge to the contrary, that innocent until proven quilty actually is what happens in court, you are delusional) but if a law enforcement officer actually knowingly and intentionally violates your rights, you can't even sue him/her 99% of the time because of "qualified immunity".
Right...I call that money laundering. Omg.
@davidjones8942 ignorance of the law is not an excuse, is a weak and ignorant statement by the judge. not everyone is a lawyer.
Dale Earnhardt Jr and his friends call Mooresville, NC "Dirty Mo" and it's living up to that nickname.
I didn't know that. Interesting
That’s Morrisville, N.C. You are thinking about, different city.
@@myhdcycle no, I'm not. Mooresville is where Dale jr and friends hung out and raised hell. He talks about it in his books. It's where his company, Dirty Mo Enterprises, located. It's where he lives. Mooresville is north of Charlotte, the home of many NASCAR teams. Morrisville is a suburb of Raleigh.
Isnt Mooresville also the town that tried to fine Camping world for their large Flag...
@@glennschlorf1285 yep. The biggest collection of commies in the south.
Seriously, how is ANYONE supposed to believe we live in a country governed by laws. The whole judicial system revolves around manipulating the law, not pursuing justice.
The innocent are jailed and the guilty go free. The money is innocent and incarcerated and the thieves are still in law enforcement.
This entire thing shows how absurd and broken the legal system is. In many cases, laws and regulations are made in such a way to screw people as much and hard as possible.
Civil Asset Forfeiture causes some really awful thoughts in my head. The concept of Provocation Beyond Endurance comes to mind.
Yep. Pray this doesn't ever happen to me, I'm not a patient person.
The city/state should give the money back to the man as the state court says and then let the city/state and the feds figure out and sue each other
Yeah... just let taxpayers foot the bill for this lunacy...
That's the problem. Whenever they're actually found to be financially responsible for anything, they don't actually pay anything. But the rest of us do.
If they wanted to sort it out they could.
@@MrMagnaniman "Whenever they're actually found to be financially responsible for anything, they don't actually pay anything. But the rest of us do."
Whether the city/state or feds ever figured out what to do with the money they confiscated or not the rest of us would still be paying no matter what. Get even with them later at the voting booth... if there's anything worthy of voting for in the first place.
@@chickey333 On one side, you can vote for corruption like CAF. On the other side, you can vote for corruption like CAF. This is one of the things that always stays the same, no matter who you vote for.
@@MrMagnaniman Yep...
Our political structure as we see it is pretty much just a mirage perpetrated by a shadow government and propagated by a compliant media. Bon Appétit...
It's really sad that the federal government would treat their own adopted child like that--Who sues their own kid! That money will be permanently traumatized I'm sure.
Adopted kid?
Nope... We are all PROPERTY.
Someone needs to call CPS.
"The person associated with the money"
We used to call this HIS MONEY when this used to be America.
No other nation's government has to work this hard to keep the money it steals.🎉
The Drug Canine, and the JOKE of them alerting whenever they just happen to need them too to get probable cause. This practice needs to be stopped.
there should be real consequences for false alarms. mandatory retraining at minimum to forced retirement of animal. multiple dogs under one handler that keeps false alarming, then the handler is relieved of duty. the problem is that the supreme court says the cops can lie, so its not that much of a stretch to think the cops can also false alarm to manufacture the probably cause
Australia did an *actual* study about drug canines (not the “police sponsored “ studies in the US) and found :
“The report stated that prohibited drugs were found in only 26% of searches following an indication by a drug sniffer dog. Of these, 84% were for small amounts of cannabis deemed for personal use. The report also found that the legislation was ineffective at detecting persons in supply of prohibited drugs, with only 0.19% of indications ultimately leading to a successful prosecution for supply.”
So basically you have better odds at the casinos. They, rightly, repealed the laws allowing warrantless searches due to canines, as it should be because I don’t trust humans.
Except that Alert is ILLEGAL Unless the Officers already had a Warrant prior to the dog starting to sniff the car - a Police Dog's sniffing the Car IS A SEARCH AND THUS ILLEGAL WITHOUT THE DRIVER'S CONSENT AND/OR A SEARCH WARRANT...
@@HappilyHomicidalHooligan Well, it's fine point, but as long as the dog doesn't reach his or her snout into an opened window or door, it's not a search, it's something else. . .You would want a dog search to be found illegitimate, but you would probably lose most of the time, sadly.
It ends when forfeiture ends
Multiple points to make: 1. Lehto ROCKS! He explains this complicated stuff in an easy to understand manner and understands exactly what's going on here despite the "verbal gymnastics." 2. The state case is still going on. It's on appeal. Sanders has received support in the state appeal from many civil rights orgs, including the ACLU of NC. The Town has also received support on appeal, from... the U.S. government (which is the same party trying to keep the money in federal court). 3. The federal judge ruled the state judges were wrong-the state court did not have power over the cash as they ruled. The federal judge held it was the only court with power over the cash and therefore denied Sanders' motion to dismiss the federal case. (Federal law is clear that a state court has the right to determine when it gained power over property. The state court said its power started before November 23rd, which means the federal adoption happened after the state court gained power over the cash, and which means the state court did have power first and that its orders should have been recognized in federal court.) 4. It is UNDISPUTED that the Mooresville police said they took Sanders' cash only for safekeeping, not as drug proceeds or in relation to ANY crime. It is also UNDISPUTED that a state court judge said the taking violated Sanders' constitutional rights when the case was heard on Sanders' motion. As to the criminal charges, the D.A. dismissed the minor marijuana charges so no police ever testified as to the lawfulness of the search and seizure and therefore could never be cross examined about it in the criminal case. The police never claimed they had probable cause to seize Sanders' property. Apparently, understanding this, and how it would not fly under NC law, they asked the feds to take, or adopt, the money-which money they simply found and kept under the guise of keeping it safe.
This whole thing just stinks and is taking WAY too much time and effort on everyone's part over $16k+. Even more than a classic civil asset forfeiture case smells bad. But then is this really that kind of case?
i think your view is correct
I just wish that, because of the fungible nature of money, that the state court should be allowed to ignore what the town did with the money because why should it matter that they did with it? If they had wrongfully (under state law) confiscated and destroyed his car, they'd owe him the cash value of the car. Here the city owes him the cash value of the cash that they took. Not that my opinion is worth 2 cents, but the city should be forced to pay out and fight the feds for reimbursement for their egregious behavior, especially since this transaction occurred after the initial finding that the money had been wrongfully taken. What's the point of having a co-equal branch of government if such contempt is allowed? They should be in jail, if not for giving the money to the feds, then certainly for failing to pay out as ordered. I see nothing wrong with the town being out of pocket if the feds keep the money.
The Mafia is more transparent.
Seems like we should at least pass a law allowing "attorney fee shifting" in these CAF cases whereby if the citizen claimant wins, the Gov't has to pay his attorney fees AND he gets all of his seized money back.
Another issue: Federal courts must use the state law to determine validity of the seizure in the first place. The state court has determined the seizure to be invalid.
Bingo!
AWW SNAP!!
13:44 Steve makes this point. He didn't miss this.
Court rulings no longer matter in this country. Hell, the President won't even abide by rulings from the Federal Appeals Courts or even the SCOTUS. Rent holiday? "Probably illegal, but we're going to do it anyway." (quote from President Biden.) Vaccine mandate for employees of companies with more than 100 employees? Every time the courts rule against it, the Administration changes a few words or assigns it to a new agency and starts it up again. I see where OSHA actually broke with the President and has refused to enforce the order, based on the courts' rulings.
According to one news story, state law does not allow state LEA to tur n over any seized money to the Feds
I have actually gotten rental vehicles that reeked of weed in California. I had to get a different car because I was driving cross country. Steve, you rock. Thank you for your videos.
ב''ה, this may be another intentional California strategy.
Must be great for rental company executives traveling interstate.
Police departments that cover up their own illegal activity by adding layers of litigation as a means to discourage accountability, should be forced to cover these additional expenses from money in their own budget. These criminals use the treasury as a weapon and as a result the taxpayers are burdened with additional taxation. If this money came from the budget of the offending paramilitary organization they might think twice before blatantly violating their oath to the constitution. Less money equals less violations. Or they could follow the law. Their choice.
The more complicated the plumbing is the easier it is to plug up the works.
Guess the city needs their prostate checked.
The pd that took the money should be forced to pay it back. They should, in turn be forced to petition the feds for the funds back.
It seems pretty clear what this is to me, a way to avoid giving money back.
The ruling seems to be in effect that the Feds adoption isn't seizure so the rules of seizure don't apply, but once it's adopted it becomes in rem for the federal court's jurisdiction where the seizure rules aren't applicable as it both was and wasn't a seizure at same time.
This just highlights what civil asset forfeiture is intended to be, legal mumbo jumbo to avoid the 4th amendment protections granted by the constitution to people by denying them any recourse to seizure of their property.
Rights are not granted by the Constitution.
The Constitution grants some powers to the government.
Rights are considered inherent.
With the whole Citizens United decision, I think there could be an argument made that the seizure is a 1st Amendment violation as money is speech and they took/abridged his speech.
@@1DwtEaUn woah that's interesting
Civil asset forfeiture should only come on the heels of a conviction proving rhe necessity of said forfeiture. They shouldn't have any access to the property or use of the property prior to a finalization of the court processes .
I love it when he says,
"I've only been practicing law for 31 years" @steve YOU ROCK!
I know government agencies often extend legal proceedings trying to drive up legal costs for the citizen opposing them. But the government agency has legal costs too. They are consuming more than $14k in legal time to oppose the citizen, they are also losing money. Just because their attorneys work for the city full time doesn't mean they couldn't be working on something more productive, or maybe they city could reduce the number of attorneys on their payroll. The only ones that benefit from these tactics are the attorneys, not those they work for.
The true motive of the corrupt PD is to send a message to anyone they steal from. They will use their unlimited taxpayer funds to prevent return on a citizens illegally stolen limited funds.
Well, often governments deliberately drive their own legal costs higher by NOT using in-house legal staff but hiring an expensive outside law firm. They do this when they are "pretty sure" that they will ultimately prevail.
Its your money they spend, the goal is to hurt you, and to them..thats priceless!
Unless of course if the state wins.
Then they can pillage the citizenry in perpetuity.
No, the government attorneys can't do something more productive. Governments are consumers, not producers. Their lawyers can only go consume something else.
I’m surprised that the people that these type of things happen do don’t go out and get revenge in one form or another.
This is how Killdozer happened
I'd wait to get the money back.
And _then_ certain people would be getting a visit...
At the very least, that's the last dime this man's government will ever see from him again.
This is a testament to how graceful and forgiving the average American is because many people would think, "well I'm getting my due from somebody, somehow."
@@eddarby469 yep. Best you return something where we agree on value. Since I find human flesh effectively worthless, I'd have to take a significant number of pounds of flesh before I'd be happy.
It's sad that many people are having their belongings and money stolen by police and airport security.
Hey! Money is fungible. Imagine if I owe taxes to the federal government regarding my 2019 taxes. I'm sure the government will be ok if I tell them I spent all my 2019 money and there simply isn't any 2019 money left. That's the way it works now, right?
The people in office allow this or even make this happen. They should be fired or charged with Stealing. Everyone knows they have done the guy wrong but no one will fix the issue. Sad
This whole thing sounds so absurd I can't give a properly outraged response. Something is definitely wrong with the system when an innocent citizen
suffers from what appears to be a corrupt and cockeyed set of so-called laws.
Oh but to the people in power the "system" is working exactly as intended.
No, this is the result of "tough on crime", "war on drugs", "hit the traffickers where it hurts" type of legislation we all cheered and that no politician wants to be seen to be in opposition of.
I'd just like to take a moment to note that this sort of in-depth discussion of the law is why I follow the channel. (Not the more run-of-mill reading of news articles.) This is great stuff for the non-lawyers to understand the system!
The real issue is that cities, countys, States, and the Feds have all these lawyers that they have to pay whether they are working asset forfeiture or playing solitaire, while all others have to go out and hire one special to the job at hand.
Well, there is the second amendment too. If it costs more to get it back through attorneys than it's worth, it may be useful to note that cops and judges and evidence clerks bleed like everyone else... and they've asked for it.
I see that the "Monty Python" school of "Trial Arts" is taught well. Specifically in the case of "Witch v. Rock & Duck."
This legal fiction was created by Dan Lungren from CA. It's like a bad venereal disease as it's the gift that keeps on giving. Thank you, Dan. Your notorious legacy lives on... and on... and on...
Voters have allowed this for decades. I screamed from high heaven how wrong it was. No one listened, said I just wanted pot users to keep their money. Said they LOVED it when it was used against someone else. Now it's happening to them and I can't help but feel they deserve it now.
It's like the state is saying "We don't have the EXACT physical money we took, the feds do and since you're asking for the EXACT physical money back, go talk to the feds, you have no say over the state now." Sounds like his suit needs to change to "make me whole" instead of "give me THAT money back".
Actually the opposite, the State does still have the EXACT physical money and instead wrote a cheque to the federal agency.
@@moxieman2452 -- Really? They still have the physical ca$h but wrote a check to the government?
I don't "buy" this because that would leave them with less money.
That's part of the issue w civil forfeiture. If the cash were part of a crime *that* cash needs the be preserved as evidence.
In the case of CF, they just "preserve" the transactional value of the confiscated cash or goods.
It really does that's it's just about allowing legalized shakedowns from government agent
If, instead of giving the money to the feds, the city burned it in some unholy ceremony, would the man be entitled to his money under the initial court’s order? Let the feds keep the tribute and force the city to pay the man his money and court costs. The city can then fight the feds to get the money back. That ‘should’ be how it works here, but alas….
"Give the man his money back." 'We can't. We gave it to the feds.' "That's your problem." - If only.
underrated comment
@@gavnonadoroge3092 Thanks. Honestly, if an example of using the process as punishment were ever needed, this would deserve its place on the front cover of that textbook.
If I were the state judge, I would order the seizure and sale of public property to pay the man whose money was stolen. Put the liability to recover that check right back on the city. Mooresville laundered the money. Gotta love it.
yup
Unbelievable. I'm so glad you're covering this
Thank you for the appology, in that moment you made the legal system seem almost human.
How are the feds "investigating the cash" when they got a check?
I get that cash is fungible, but what can the feds be investigating besides a number, the way this was done?
He should create a Go Fund Me page, because this is a law that most level-headed Americans would want to get rid of. Apparently, the state and federal legal system don't think this law is too embarrassingly nonsensical and idiotic to use. When you adopt a dog, you commit to a contract where you are obligated to treat the dog well. I would have liked to see the feds document that they have fed, walked and groomed the money they "adopted", according to the contract they signed with the state... 🥴
I think that a lot of people would contribute to that.
@Kari F
The Key Operative in your comment is 'level headed Americans'... Which apparently there aren't too many of.🙄
@@slicksnewonenow I think that there are more than we think, the hecklers are just louder and they hog the microphone.
In a case between the government and an object, does the object's owner even have standing? What rights do objects have in pursuit of their defense? I would make a Habeas Corpus motion for them to produce the accused bills.
Your title caught my eye because I worked as a communications engineer in Mooresville, NC for most of 1991. I don't know how it is now, but back then it was like being in the land that time forgot. Many backward people there. Their favorite phrase was, "Because we've always done it that way." Some of us outsiders used to joke that there was something in the water there. I was overjoyed when my work location changed to another town. I can see this situation happening there.
Shouldn't the Mooresville PD be charged with obstruction of justice by allowing (and helping) the cash to escape?
No
Your coverage of CAF is educating people every day and introducing them to something no one seems to talk about. Every politician running for office needs to be hit with questions about CAF when they hold their town halls and speeches. CAF needs to go, its probably the most unamerican process we have.
We the people: Eliminate civil asset forfeiture now!
Democrats: 😂🤣😂🤣😂 "You will own nothing and be happy!"
Republicans: 😂🤣😂🤣😂 "No way, Jose, it's for Law and Order!"
We the people: 😡😡😡😡😡
Another thing, in 541 U.S. 600, SABRI v. UNITED STATES, the court held that money is fungible. Therefore, why is is not accurate to say that the PD made a donation of $16K to the feds, but is was not the claimant's money that they sent. The court that ordered them to return the money should say that the city's "donation" is irrelvant.
You hit it on the head! Mooresville, if it gave away anything, gave away THEIR money, not Sanders'. We are hoping the state appeals judges will agree with the state trial judges (who ordered the money returned) on this point.
I am shocked that you got through this without using the word “fungible”!
I've been waiting for it. Defendant should NFT his money.
"any money" is not accused of a crime, those "exact bills" are accused of a crime, yet, those bills are no-where to be found.
No wonder that we don't trust lawyers.
Wasn't the 'adoption' itself illegal?
So the city of Mooresville does still have the cash if they gave a check for the feds to adopt. Since the Feds don't have the actual cash, then the city can in fact return the cash, and the city now should have to recoupe the adopted Check or take the feds to court for it.
What an amazing outcome if the judge held the city in contempt, jailed the mayor or prosecutor, and required the city provide representation to retrieve the cash from the feds. If dreams came true...
Well, he's obviously not just doing it "for the money" because his legal expenses must be going through the room. I hope the federal judges "make him whole."
If there was any sort of justice in this country, the police, prosecutor, mayor, DoHS, and CBP would be imprisoned for grand theft, wrongful detention, and contempt of court. Then, they should have THEIR assets seized to cover the costs of all this nonsense instead of shifting the expense onto tax payers.
The only way to fight absurdity is to be more absurd. Fight the fact the cash wasn’t read it’s Miranda rights, was not offered a lawyer for court, was not giving a bail hearing, not told what crime it is being charged with. File for Habeas corpus on the cash. If the government wants to treat property as a person the property should be afforded all the rights of a person under the law.
🤣
Well, in a civil suit none of that applies, so. . .
Unfortunately, it's "Civil" Forfeiture, not Criminal. I too, was wondering how do you cross-examine money? How does it testify on its own behalf? How does it aid in its own defense? But again, I then realized it was a civil trial, not criminal.
"The Case of the Fungible Fugitive" - quick, get a picture of the missing money on the FBI most wanted
Sorry, that's one of the cases that will forever remain locked away in Watson's dispatch box. ;-)
I was glued to the screen on this one! One of your best legal overviews, to us mostly plain folks. I would have enjoyed a longer, pop-up, or down-below video, that included much more of the excluded unread pages, along with your invaluable, eloquent yet concise, explanations and like-examples of, to those not immersed in the legal system.
At what point will lawyers stand up to the government even pro bono to get this changed by striking down those who do wrong in the court of law. Striking them down by using the law to change this absurd system
Who wants to risk losing their pitiful licence? 🤔
Man I feel terrible for that guy. I don't know if this can ever be corrected because it profits the people that would need to vote it out of law. But thanks for talking and getting the world out to the public. Clearly you are doing everything you can to make as much noise about this as possible. 👍👏👏👏
The prosecutors and police who are maliciously persuing him have brought disrepute towards the administration of justice. Their respective superiors, constituents, universities, and BAR associations should be redress by any and all americans for impuning their names, communities, and the administration of justice.
There's a story from around 2013 about a guy from Manassas Virginia who was driving along 66 to DC to buy commercial kitchen equipment from a restaurant that was going out of business to renovate his own restaurant's kitchen. Of course, all cash and carry on liqudation sales, so he had about $15 or $20k in his pocket when a VSP trooper pulled him over in Fairfax.
They took his money and sent him on his way.
I don't know how this man could ever care about money they want in the future after this.
@@jeffbergstrom Actually, no case ha been brought to SCOTUS for the Justices to consider.
That has to happen first.
don't feel bad for him...hes a drug dealer. where theres smoke, theres fire
Imagine how quickly this legal fraud would stop if BOTH PARTIES had to pay back the stolen cash AND ALL LEGAL FEES associated with the case.
But, since justice today usually means justice for JUST US RICH OR POWERFUL CONNECTED FOLKS, not likely to happen at all.
Seems to me that the court has already decided that Mooresville must give the man $16k. If Mooresville wishes to recover $16k from the Feds, that should be Mooresville's responsibility. They can take it to court and ask for it back.
I'm not a lawyer, so this is probably simplistic, but it would comply with the state court's ruling.
Question: Under what conditions can the man ask for his money PLUS legal fees?
Legal frees are generally left to the discretion of the judge (with some exceptions) and have more requirements when being requested from a government source. Ultimately depends on how the case ends. This one seems neverending indeed....
Pretty much my take as well.
Judge: "Okay, so it's my judgment you have to give this man his money back."
Mooresville: "We can't, we uhhh... gave that exact money to someone else."
Judge: "Fine then. You owe this man 16K of your money, and your next problem is how to reconcile your other money you decided to give to the feds. Good luck with that one."
There is federal law forbidding the recovery of legal fees in CAF cases. In most (probably all) States, too.
Generally, everyone bears their own legal fees in a Civil case.
That said, a judge could add the legal fees on top, if he finds gross negligence, bad faith acting and/or criminal or otherwise unlawful/frivolous behaviour in how the Police handled the case.
From my limited understanding, this would be the reality if the owner of the money was the person charged, but because in CAF they charge the money directly it skirts around that. CAF is a bizarre collection of rulings that enables state and federal theft while making it nearly impossible for the wronged civilian to recover their money. Remember we don't have a justice system in the US, we have a legal system.
Make the city pay for the legal fees and them make public how much this cost the city tax payers and see how much longer the police chief and Mayor stay in office...one would hope anyways.
So why didn't the judge have an officer hold the lawyer in contempt of court when they said the city won't return the money, and issue warrants for the relevant parties in the accounting department that refuse to obey the judgement?
I have a solution: The FEDs drive down to Mooresville, hand the MPD $16,751 USD(in cash) and then the MPD drives over the plaintiff's house and just give it back.
The problem I see with the Fed's stance is they claim they've Adopted the money so the State Court CAN'T tell them to give it back but the premise of Adoption is valid ONLY if the money was Legally Seized and the Court determined that it was NOT Legally Seized thus the Fed's CAN'T Adopt it in the first place...
I REALLY hope this poor man is Suing for his Money + Court/Legal Costs...
You can not go after the Legal fees, that is at the root of the problem. You can only try and get the case against the money dismissed and you are not entitled for legal fees. They know this, this is why they often just offer you "half" if you admit that it was going to be used as part of a crime.
@@dr.v645 can you elaborate on why it can't cover legal fees? Thanks!
@@pamlemm903 I will do a proper write up for you with the details when I get a chance in the next couple of days.
@@dr.v645 that's very generous of you to offer your time like that! Thank you!
How much has the town spent on legal fees to fight this? Imagine if they started seizing lottery winnings of people who have won millions?
The officials involved deserve the maximum penalty for corruption of office. Could be life in prison, could be death penalty depending on state.
Why doesn't the state judge say "The fact you turned the cash over to the fed before the man's window to appeal the seizure is not the man's problem. Give him what he is owed, or state assets will be siezed and sold at auction to pay him his cash just like any other person. It is the local jurusdiction's job, not the man's job, to get the money improperly turned over to the fed back."
In any legal "adoption" in the United States, there has to be a TPR hearing (Termination of Parental Rights) before a child can be adopted. If that hearing does not happen, the biological parents have recourse to invalidate the adoption.
Maybe use this line of reasoning to get the money sent back to the state.
I used to really believe in our system. Slowly this country chiseled away at any confidence I once had. I have more faith in the mafia. At least you know where you stand dealing with them
When Kafka stops being fiction
Warning, search a rental before driving off the lot.
My wife rented a car when she flew into Portland OR. She drove it for 3 days before returning it. When she stoped for gas right before returning it, she opened the center console and there was a baggy of pot along with rolling papers.
If she would have been in a state that pot was illegal she would have been in big trouble if she was stopped by police.
Why didn't the rental car company clean the car out before renting it again? Seems like negligence on there part.
thats what she said
I once found a spent gun cartridge in the center console of a rental car. . . not as serious as pot, but I'm sure if I had been in a situation where (less educated) I agreed to a search it could have been a dicey situation. This is why you never, ever consent to a search of you or your vehicle.
@@paulcrumley9756 _" never, ever consent to a search"_
AMEN! I once was stopped in Florida for speeding, the COP wanted to search, I refused. He called for a dog, but the K-9 unit had gone off-shift already, so he had to let me go. My nephew had borrowed my car the week before, and there was a roach in the ashtray. I'd have been screwed!
Now, in Oregon, it would be considered to be a gift.
He needs to demand for the cash, all court/legsl fees, and at least 25% interest starting on the day it was taken.
Excellent job Steve. You truly are a patriot.
I understand there is a lot of issues in our government. I feel like this highlights the corruption of our government.
If we don't abolish our government and start new, how many centuries will it take to cleanse the corruption within?
A combination of weak, ignorant and corrupt people have lead us into this mess.
I don’t know why we ever got rid of tarring and feathering in the public square…? If that were a legitimate threat, the ones brave enough to run for office would tighten up their behinds and toe the line.
@@monstermcboo7282
Damn tooting.
I vote we bring it back today.
No need for the guillotine. Tar & feathers & seize their assets to be used to get our nation back into manufacturing , pay off debts, & alternative energy .
Bam! So many problems solved.
@@jupitercyclops6521 tar and feathering became lynching after Lynch lynched enough black people that his name became the term for it. That's why western society does not do it anymore. People took it too far and it became mobs.
I see judges, lawyers and law enforcement laughing all the way to the bank. This makes my head hurt just trying to wrap my mind around this bs.
Wrap your finger around a trigger instead?
Wait, is suing an inanimate object purely a government power? Because I would like to sue to uncomfortable seats at the local DMV for pain and suffering. And maybe sue the windows at the local city building because it glares in my eyes while driving down the street.
Steve, I love your "I Can't Drive 55" sign.
One of the big problems with the law, courts, lawyers and judges is that they normally can't see the forest for the trees. They get lost in the technicalities to the detriment of the purpose of the law.
So the Mooresville police laundered the money?
After they literally stole it! They're the mob with a different name!
@@EnthalpyAndEntropy It's not stealing if they have the guns.
@@abrahamlincoln9758 robbery?
@@EnthalpyAndEntropy Do you call a man with a gun robber? Because I call him sir.😛
@@abrahamlincoln9758 I have a gun too. I'll call a spade a spade. If he doesn't like that and pulls the gun, I might just have to shoot him. Then, instead of a robber, I can call him dead.
Defendant has a right to face his prosecutor right? So wouldn't the actual bills (specific serial numbers) seized have to appear in court? What about chain of custody?
If Bob takes $1 from Tom illegally, and then Bob gives $1 to Dick, and then a judge orders Bob to return the $1 to Tom, Bob must do so, and then if Bob wishes, he can attempt to get the $1 back from Dick. Bob simply can't refuse the court order because he gave Tom's money away.
This is common sense to anyone other than the senseless.
If the Fed' "adopts" fungible value (or seizes possession of criminally charged but not lawfully convicted bank notes) without a court order authorizing that adoption/confiscation, why isn't such a racket considered an institutionally administrative form of money laundering?
Since 2000, they've taken in nearly $69 billion, according to a report by the Institute for Justice
Thx Steve for wrapping your head around that and explaining it as best you can.