Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
not really, at least not as easy as you would think.
say I have been saving money for years, just not in the bank. Should I be found with that money years later, i'll be suspected of drug trafficking and have no real way of showing that money rightfully belongs to me.
This is yet one more step in the slippery slope of the citizens becoming servants of the government instead of the other way around.
|
You have w-2 forms, right? Cancelled checks? Records showing that you're not just picking up thousands of dollars on the street? Something way to prove that you have an income that you're depositing in your National Bank of the Mattress instead of a more commonly recognized bank? Mr. Gonzales provided none of that when asked. This could certainly be a case of malpractice by his attorney, but let's start that there was no finding of guilt or innocence here. The government said "we're going to hold onto this money since it looks very suspicision (and pay you interest should you be able to prove that this isn't what it looks like) but show us how you came by it, and we'll give it back."
If you read the decision, you'll see that the court left the door open to further evidence that this is legitimately Mr. Gonzales' money. In fact, they've ordered exactly that. Currently, the court is, to again paraphrase, saying that "you know what, you and your two buddies just saying that this is money for a truck isn't good enough. Please show us some more proof." Critisize them for making a judgement decision, but saying that it's now illegal to walk around with large amounts of cash is a complete misstatement of the facts of the case. The court made no such decision, and you're welcome to walk around with any amount that you deem safe to carry. If you can prove how you got it (paycheck stubs, record of inheritance, receipts, etc.), you don't have a problem. If you can't, it is a very reasonable assumption that it's drug money. If it's not, you need more than just your two bonehead buddies to say otherwise. All Mr. Gonzales need do to get his money back is to produce more witnesses to back up his story. READ THE DECISION. This action is by no means over, and the appeals court is actually ordering that it continue so that they can get to the bottom of the matter.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
Silly me. I was taught that to get convicted, one had to have the government provide factual evidence instead of judges using 'common sense' to decide whether or not a person ought to be believed.
This ruling takes the rule of law away from justice to the defendant and places guilt or innocence in the hands of judges that use their 'gut instincts' instead of facts.
|
There is no conviction. There are no charges. The court (which has the power to do so, by the way) has said, to paraphrase yet a third time, "look, maybe your story is true, but you haven't proven it. Tell us more." And judges are ACTUALLY PAID TO DECIDE WHO IS LIEING AND WHO ISN'T. When it's a bench trial, like this one was, that is the role of the judge. If you serve on a jury, it's your job, but that wasn't the case here. The original judge felt that there was enough evidence to return the money, but apparently the prosecution disagreed and appealed. The appelate judges disagreed with the evidence presented. You have to admit that this was very sketchy and that Mr. Gonzales lied on multiple occassions and didn't have much to back up his story except for the two "business partners".
As far as the "gut instinct" comment, again, that is the basis of the judcial system. Both sides present their side of the case and someone, whether it is the jury or a judge, goes with their "gut instict" on which version is closest to the truth. Sorry if you don't agree - move to Cuba. I hear their judcial system is much more to your liking.