Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The_Jazz
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."
|
I didn't see where they said "please." They said "We're keeping your money until you prove you don't sell drugs." Proving a negative ...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The_Jazz
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.
|
So anyone who has what you call a large sum of money is automatically a drug suspect, unless they can provide a story that satisfies everyone? No evidence of drug activity necessary?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The_Jazz
There is no conviction. There are no charges.
|
There is no EVIDENCE.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The_Jazz
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.
|
Actually, it seems to resemble YOUR preference much more. No messy charges, convictions, or any of that other nonsense.