Welcome home, fellow Gator.

The Gator Nation's oldest and most active insider community
Join today!

Man molests young girl. Police seize and keep his money. His victim gets nothing.

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by gator_lawyer, Oct 9, 2023.

  1. Oct 9, 2023 #1
    gator_lawyer

    gator_lawyer VIP Member

    19,751
    6,687
    3,213
    Oct 30, 2017
    I have ranted before on here about civil asset forfeiture. It's legalized theft. Here, a man molested a five year old girl. When police arrested him, they found weed in his house. They used the weed as a justification for civil asset forfeiture and took his money. Because he has no money, the little girl he molested is getting no compensation from the civil judgment. Instead, law enforcement is keeping all the money for themselves. Repulsive.
    Sex crime victim denied $69,000 settlement because cops seized her abuser's cash through civil forfeiture
    A North Carolina teenager was hoping to get her life back on track after a state judge ordered a man who sexually abused her to pay her $69,000. Instead, she got a nasty surprise.

    The local police department had already seized the cash through civil asset forfeiture, and it was already gone. Despite a judge's order, she will get nothing.
     
    • Informative Informative x 3
  2. Oct 9, 2023 #2
    ATLGATORFAN

    ATLGATORFAN Premium Member

    4,069
    1,066
    2,153
    Aug 10, 2015
    i would think local news would be all over that and shredding the police for spending that money and not making good. Truly Awful
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  3. Oct 9, 2023 #3
    gator_lawyer

    gator_lawyer VIP Member

    19,751
    6,687
    3,213
    Oct 30, 2017
  4. Oct 9, 2023 #4
    BLING

    BLING GC Hall of Fame

    9,676
    1,013
    2,843
    Apr 16, 2007
    Civil asset forfeiture is generally f-ed up when the assets are taken without due process.

    But i don’t get this. Here we had due process. What do they mean it’s “gone”. Can’t the judge order the municipality to turn it over? Or cut a check for the amount that was seized? It’s not like the police department fled the jurisdiction. If they absorbed it into their budget it should go right back out the door to the victim in the name of justice. Otherwise these cops aren’t much more than grifters/thieves.
     
    • Agree Agree x 4
    • Winner Winner x 1
  5. Oct 9, 2023 #5
    gator_lawyer

    gator_lawyer VIP Member

    19,751
    6,687
    3,213
    Oct 30, 2017
    Nope. The Police Department called in the feds, had the feds do the forfeiture, and then got roughly 65% of the money as a "gift" from the feds for their assistance. Since the money went through that separate process, the PD gets to claim that the money is actually gone. Basically, they laundered the money through the federal government.

    And no, the judge can't tell the police to cut a check because the police didn't violate the law.
     
    • Informative Informative x 3
    • Agree Agree x 1
  6. Oct 9, 2023 #6
    GatorFanCF

    GatorFanCF Premium Member

    5,477
    1,090
    1,968
    Apr 14, 2007
    Here is where I 100% agree with many of those on the Left. The civil asset forfeiture is theft with a pen - in this case they did some dancing and a "doe-cee-doe" with the Feds enough to make a Mafia member blush. Sorry - Feds do it, some locals do it; and, it's just wrong.
     
    Last edited: Oct 10, 2023
    • Agree Agree x 5
  7. Oct 9, 2023 #7
    BLING

    BLING GC Hall of Fame

    9,676
    1,013
    2,843
    Apr 16, 2007
    I see.

    If we are looking at these people as creditors in a bankruptcy - seems ridiculous the police would have a superior claim to… the victim. The victim should obviously come first.

    The victim should obviously have the superior claim. Police seizures need to be treated more like escrow. Where it’s held in a segregated account, and the police can have it only AFTER due process (in a criminal case) and claims/restitution are adjudicated. If there’s no criminal conviction, then all assets need to be returned to the defendant. Otherwise it really is difficult to describe it as anything but state sponsored theft.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  8. Oct 9, 2023 #8
    gator_lawyer

    gator_lawyer VIP Member

    19,751
    6,687
    3,213
    Oct 30, 2017
    It's all around ridiculous. We need to do away with civil asset forfeiture entirely and only have criminal forfeitures. The fact that the police ran to the feds because they knew that was the only way they could screw the victim out of the money and get some of it themselves is just so disgusting.
     
    • Agree Agree x 4
    • Winner Winner x 1
  9. Oct 10, 2023 #9
    Gator515151

    Gator515151 GC Hall of Fame

    23,004
    1,107
    1,763
    Apr 4, 2007
    Hopefully the lawyers got paid. I would hate to hear that they lost their fair share.
     
    • Funny Funny x 4
  10. Oct 10, 2023 #10
    defensewinschampionships

    defensewinschampionships GC Hall of Fame

    6,275
    2,400
    1,998
    Sep 16, 2018
    While we are at it we should get rid of imminent domain. Different thief, same results.
     
    • Disagree Bacon! Disagree Bacon! x 1
  11. Oct 10, 2023 #11
    GatorJMDZ

    GatorJMDZ gatorjack VIP Member

    25,734
    2,794
    1,868
    Apr 3, 2007
    I bet you most lawyers that participate on this board have donated more of their time in pro bono work value than you have ever earned in a year...starting with me.
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
  12. Oct 10, 2023 #12
    orangeblue_coop

    orangeblue_coop GC Hall of Fame

    4,628
    749
    2,968
    Nov 19, 2016
    Deflect to lawyers when your beloved police aren’t being the immoral corrupt assholes they are. Typical.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  13. Oct 10, 2023 #13
    Gator515151

    Gator515151 GC Hall of Fame

    23,004
    1,107
    1,763
    Apr 4, 2007
    pro bono......Yeah I have heard about that "For the people". Don't make me laugh.

    Excuse me while I go out and spray weed killer in my garden. I'll be back in a while.
     
    Last edited: Oct 10, 2023
  14. Oct 10, 2023 #14
    gator_lawyer

    gator_lawyer VIP Member

    19,751
    6,687
    3,213
    Oct 30, 2017
    In these sorts of situations, the lawyer is generally working on a contingency fee. So if the client gets nothing, the lawyer gets nothing. That's assuming the lawyer isn't doing it pro bono.
     
  15. Oct 10, 2023 #15
    gator_lawyer

    gator_lawyer VIP Member

    19,751
    6,687
    3,213
    Oct 30, 2017
    The government is at least required to compensate you under the Takings Clause for eminent domain. The democratic process is really your only recourse on eminent domain. The courts can't prevent the government from doing something specifically authorized by the Constitution.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  16. Oct 10, 2023 #16
    l_boy

    l_boy 5500

    13,383
    1,790
    3,268
    Jan 6, 2009
    I like U2 but I would not go as far as saying I’m “Pro Bono” to the point that I’d work on tour for them for free.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  17. Oct 10, 2023 #17
    G8trGr8t

    G8trGr8t Premium Member

    35,802
    12,612
    3,693
    Aug 26, 2008
    People are paid well above market rate in imminent domain cases. The two are nowhere near comparable
     
  18. Oct 10, 2023 #18
    G8trGr8t

    G8trGr8t Premium Member

    35,802
    12,612
    3,693
    Aug 26, 2008
    Hopefully the people either vote out the police chief or the council that would refuse to fire him