Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 31st May 2012 15:19 UTC
Permalink for comment 520250
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 11:29 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:33 UTC
Linked by David Adams on 05/16/13 4:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/11/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/08/13 14:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/02/13 15:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/29/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/24/13 22:24 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/18/13 11:21 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2012-03-29
The government generally files very specific charges and provides the defense with substantial evidence for poachers, drug dealers, tax evaders, and securities criminals. I think his argument is that the government has failed to allege any crime for which property may be seized before being found guilty, and that many of the alleged crimes are not, in fact, even crimes. Further, he makes the argument that the prosecution has not turned over any evidence that substantiates much of what was charged.
A better question might be why the USA, which prides itself on the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, allows the government to seize property and liberty without proof of guilt.