Thuggish District Attorney Refuses To Return Family's Life Savings Even After Dropping Forfeiture Case
Source: Institute for Justice
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Last January, the San Diego DA took $100,000 from the Slatic family's savings account based on the accusation of one officer that James Slatic, who runs a medical marijuana business called Med West Distribution, had engaged in unlawful chemical extraction of THC. Since January of last year, neither James Slatic nor anyone associated with his business has been charged with unlawful extraction or any other crime, and San Diego police have failed to conduct any additional investigations into the accusations or make formal criminal allegations against the Slatic family. The San Diego DA dropped the forfeiture case against the family's savings, but in a recent court filing, the DA alleged that the Slatic family's savings was evidence of money laundering, an allegation he pulled right out of his ass. In the same incident, the DA failed to make criminal allegations against James Slatic for supposedly engaging in money laundering, much less charge him with money laundering. He would have been able to at least do the former if the $100,000 itself was actually evidence of money laundering. In most first world countries you are not punished unless you are charged and convicted of a crime, but here in the
land of the free, you can be deprived of your property if any government thug arbitrarily says you have committed a crime, without having to back up his claim that you actually did commit a crime with you know evidence and a procedure for examining that evidence.
The highwayman takes solely upon himself the responsibility, danger, and crime of his own act. He does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to use it for your own benefit. He does not pretend to be anything but a robber. He has not acquired impudence enough to profess to be merely a “protector,” and that he takes men’s money against their will, merely to enable him to “protect” those infatuated travellers, who feel perfectly able to protect themselves, or do not appreciate his peculiar system of protection. He is too sensible a man to make such professions as these. Furthermore, having taken your money, he leaves you, as you wish him to do. He does not persist in following you on the road, against your will; assuming to be your rightful “sovereign,” on account of the “protection” he affords you. He does not keep “protecting” you, by commanding you to bow down and serve him; by requiring you to do this, and forbidding you to do that; by robbing you of more money as often as he finds it for his interest or pleasure to do so; and by branding you as a rebel, a traitor, and an enemy to your country, and shooting you down without mercy, if you dispute his authority, or resist his demands. He is too much of a gentleman to be guilty of such impostures, and insults, and villanies as these. In short, he does not, in addition to robbing you, attempt to make you either his dupe or his slave.
The proceedings of those robbers and murderers, who call themselves “the government,” are directly the opposite of these of the single highwayman