Property Seizure Avoidance

[mister_dog]

If I sold my house to my kids, and paid them rent, and then got busted for growing at my kids's house, where I live in the US, and the kids got no clue about the grow, would the gov. seize the property?

 

[Guest]

Answers vary

Answers vary

Are you asking about state seizure or federal seizure? Is the hypothetical project large enough, or for other reasons, tempting enough, to attract federal jurisdicstion or scrutiny?

State laws vary from state to state. You'd need to review yor state's specific statutes.

The feds cut loose with wild and crazy seizure and forfeiture in the 80s, and by roughly 1990-1992 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled that seizure and forfeiture was, in fact, 'double jeopardy,' and it was briefly slowed at least in the Ninth Circuit.

But the SCOTUS loves to contradict the Ninth (I think that they're bias about the Left Coast in general, frankly, 'cause some of their contradictions seem to lack any semblance of rational basis.... but, anyway...)

The SCOTUS, with Chief Justice Rehnquist at the helm (and yes, he seemed to be waking to karma when he neared his death bed, siding with the MMJ folks on the Raich decision), cited a prohibition-era ruling on this issue, referred to blatantly as a 'legal fiction,' stating that the double jeopardy ruling was incorrect, rationalizing that when property was seized, 'they' weren't punishing the owner or occupants; they were punishing the house or property for committing the crime of X, Y, or Z. (Leave it to ol' pill-swallowing Rehnquist to personify buildings and land! Kinda' makes one wonder what all of HIS drugs consisted of, doesn't it... Especially since, in his 'schematic' of reality as defined from the bench, rehabilitation of a 'criminal house' meant that it was sold to a new owner!!)

Not too many years later, with some minimal sentencing reform on the horizon, and with property rights being somewhat of a traditional conservative plank, the various federal agencies were neutered by Congress when the legislative reforms to seizure and forfeiture stated that there had to be some evidence that the property was the product of ill-gotten gains.

What happened to it after that, I can't say. I lost track.

Regards,

moose eater

 

[somoz]

there's some good info half way into this thread.

http://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=20138

 

[mister_dog]

Are you asking about state seizure or federal seizure? Is the hypothetical project large enough, or for other reasons, tempting enough, to attract federal jurisdicstion or scrutiny?

Currently, chances of federal attention are slim to none, due to the smallness of the op I am putting into correlatives. My state's courts tend to be mellow regarding cannabis. I am wondering what kinda hasslege they can cause should they so desire hasslege of my activities.

To give a better idea... let's say my state wanted to fuck with me... as in, suppose they had occasion to discover a 'perpetual' grow op in my basement and charge me with culpibility in the scenario, based on their belief (and fact) that no one else lives here. If I ever had a grow like that, it would be strictly for personal use, since I never would sell cannabis within-or-inside the Empire of the United States, due the immorality of theresuch.

But what if the state looked at this hypothetical (non-existant personal-use) grow and said, we'll show this fucker! We'll seize his house! There are such members of the pig race that gratify themselves on this sort of shit.

But then, let's say that due to the fact I had cancer, I had already given my house to my grown children, and was paying them rent (which I am thinking would be roughly exactly equal exactly to the mortgage and tax payments, and other expenses caused by the house, so in reality, it is a paper deal to make the house not be mine, so the pigs cannot seize it, even though I live here and think about growing marijuana (well, for this example I would in fact be growing).

Would they be able to go to the judge and say, obviously, this is part of a conspiracy to manufacture, the kids are in on it... so therefore, we can seize the house and this guy is fuct!?

I am thinking my lawyer could explain why the kids' owning the house had nothing to do with a manufacturing scheme. The kids have the house due to other considerations and contemplations. The house was procured through non-ill gains (50% down payment from equity in previous house)... however, the rent paid the kids (to pay the mortgage, etc.) actually could be articulated by certain forensic accounting procedures to be seen as coming from cannabis-related proceeds, which I assume in this context is considered disfortunately ill-gotten. So even though I never would sell, the pigs could say I did, based on how the money mysteriously became available for the aforesaid 'rent' payments to kids. It really would be a legality scam.

Still, the house would be my kids.

Would the pigs be shit outta luck getting my house, or would they be able to blow this scheme outta the water? Not that I want to test them, but if it were to go down this way, what do you think? Could my kids keep the house if I got busted growing 125 plants where I was paying the rent for which total monies paid could not be totally accounted for from the unemployment checks I get every week (that is temporary, but serves to facilitate the example)?

Assume 125 plants. I have seen my state prosecute grows of 100+ plants (160 was the max). From what I can tell, no one got into any serious trouble.

But if the state wanted to get harsh, and wanted to try bagging my house, would they be fuct by this scam I thought of?

That is my question. Would the cops be disabled from seizing my house?

Thanks.

Does that make more sense?

 

[Guest]

The wild and crazy roulette wheel of justice

The wild and crazy roulette wheel of justice

>>>Would they be able to go to the judge and say, obviously, this is part of a conspiracy to manufacture, the kids are in on it... so therefore, we can seize the house and this guy is fuct!?<<<

To this, I'd answer with a question; how many convictions have been based on plausible motive as presented to a jury by a vindictive or over-zealous prosecutor? Therein is your answer. In these times, a candid question from investigators to your kids will/might be, "How did your father pay the rent? Did it ever occur to you to ask where he got his income?"

'Cause you can bet various body parts that they WOULD be questioned in the event that such a dismal thing were to happen to this non-existent and hypothetical effort.

>>>But then, let's say that due to the fact I had cancer, I had already given my house to my grown children, and was paying them rent (which I am thinking would be roughly exactly equal exactly to the mortgage and tax payments<<<

They might conclude that you're one of those extremely generous papas, or that you're trying to avoid greed and jealousy-based conflicts that inevitably occur in settling estates (one of the times that you can potentially see the WORST come out in rival siblings and family mebers, I might add). You could certainly talk to an attorney about such a hypothetical situation and defense... bearing in mind that attorneys are officers of the court, and admitting felonies to them in advance of needing them is typically a no-no.

They might also assert to a jury or a judge that your attempts to distance the property from yourself on paper is exactly why you've done this.

And if they even mildly suspect that someone's blowing smoke up their ass, they will not hesitate to use the carrot and stick approach, and attempt to coerce testimony through threats (real or not), that could include a whole gamut of vile pressure points, from child custody to seizure of the house, to ..... whatever sick and twisted things occur to their dull but Hitlerian minds.

The bottom line is this; a medical defense, or a defense of 'I didn't know what he was doing in there...' or any of that will ultimately rely on the Judges discretion, specific statutes in your state, and precedents set by the judiciary in either federal or state court.

Seizure laws are different state-to-state, as are conspiracy laws.

There's also a standard referred to as 'the prudent person standard,' or something to that effect (more apt to be a part of a civil seizure than a criminal seizure), that in essence asks, in examining the validity of facts or suppositions, whether or not a prudent person would act (thus)?' The jury will ultimately weigh in on this in the end.
--------------
Where I live, in Alaska, anyone busted with over 100 plants typically has 'please ship to federal court' invisibly stamped on their forehead, with a 'Dear Mr. DEA Agent' note attached to their lapel. Some large(r) operations are still handled by the state, but not very damned many.

My last understanding of federal law (again, from close to ten years ago), as stated originally, is that there, in theory, needs to be evidence that the property was procured through ill-gotten gains (which is remarkably better than what it was during the late Ray-gun and GHW Bush years, BTW).

But take a look at the DEA's, Federal Marshall's and FBI's conviction rates, and ask yourself if those stats don't look like the winnings of someone who is accustomed to playing with loaded dice. The feds have scaled back exclusionary rules, scaled back the Fourth Amendment's protections against unwarranted search (and yes, they WILL and CAN use the USA PATRIOT Act provisions in any goddamned investigation they like!!), scaled back the protections against entrapment, and rarely if ever get prosecuted when they're busted red-handed lying under oath in their testimony (a felony for an officer to swear false info on a warrant application or in other court testimony, but though they do it day in and day out, they are almost NEVER busted for it!!)

It's a crap game (and a crappy game), and one which I intend to personally stay as far away from as possible for ever.

That's about all that I can tell you. If you know a law student or someone with a better than average understanding of your state's specific laws in this area, or who knows how to research the statutes and precedents, that oughta be your next inquiry.

Ask some law students who the real maverick attorneys are in your state where it conerns this particular set of laws. Precedents are set by attorneys and their clients pushing the proverbial envelope of concept and definition.

Regards,

moose eater

 

[Verite]

All I know is its easier for them to do it if the house is owned outright by any of the parties living there. If theres a loan to the bank still on the property then they would rather not F with it.

 

[Guest]

An additional valid perspective

An additional valid perspective

Verite wrote (and in all seriousness, too!! ;^>) :

>>>All I know is its easier for them to do it if the house is owned outright by any of the parties living there. If theres a loan to the bank still on the property then they would rather not F with it.<<<

That's been my observation as well, Verite; the greater the mortgage debt, the less likely the fascisti are to steal the property and short the bank. One of the few 'silver linings' within our brave new corporatist world.

(As Mussolini runs across the lawn screaming, "What ever you do, DON'T hurt those business owners!!!)

The new millenium has caused me to suffer auditory hallucinations. I keep hearing Leon Russell and the Shelter People singing 'Stranger in a Strange Land' really loudly in my head, like there's some sort of crisis or something..... ;^>)

Regards,

moose eater

 

[GoGreenGiant]

It really does depend state to state.
In Ohio for example, a landlord can be held liable for marijuana growing on HIS property. Having no idea is a good defense, and if legitiment he would be safe, but if there is any evidence the property owner knew what was going on he could be liable to some extent.
The instructor of the class I learned this in put it this way: Back in the day it was whatever, turn the other way, but would he report it today? Yes, because it's his ass that's on the line now.
We also learned that if you throw your plants out the window in an alley before the cops come in... you're good to go! lol
Anyway, if your kids knew what you were up to, it could come out and be worse for them as owners of the op.
But do as advised above and consult a lawyer about handing down your estate to avoid inheritence (sp) taxes
-GoGreen

 

[buckeye-leaf]

Back in the day here in Ohio I was busted for selling and also had a grow. I got bailed out and still lived at the house they never seized the property. I went on and just sold the house so I could get the hell out of that area. But the weird thing was they seized my vehicle because it was used to transport the mj. So i guess in differant cases it can be differant.

buckeye-leaf

 

[Verite]

A little extreme when all they really wanted was the fuzzy dice.