Camp Zoe Seized By The Feds

[ness]

Meanwhile, Goldman Sachs and BP continue to report record profits...wake up, man.

Wrong and wrong, and it's got nothing to do with nothing anyway.

[Outside Bend]

It seems that the guy allowed the sale and use of hard drugs on his property.

If that's the case, it should be an easy case for the feds to prove in court. I'm not saying illegal activities didn't go on at Zoe, I'm not saying the owner wasn't privy to those activities. I'm saying everyone ought to have the right to respond to those charges in court. There are more democratic ways of going about this guy's prosecution than arbitrarily seizing his assets.

[Fly_Guy]

It's bizzare - a large intrusive government is perfectly ok, until it starts interfering with our illegal drug sales...

It doesn't seem right to take the guys land w/out charges filed, though I'm sure they're on the way. He is legally liable if he observed drug use/sale on his property, and did nothing about it. Rest assured, those who sold/bought the drugs to undercover agents have already been taken care of in the standard no-fanfare way.

As for the poster who pointed out the hypocricy of targeting some drugs, but not cigarettes and alcohol, I agree completely. Cigs and alcohol provide too much cash that the large intrusive government needs to operate... and catch all the other 'illegal' drug users with... indeed it is odd.

Where's Trav's dead horse?

[fishinwrench]

And you also have to remember that people are driving out of that place high as a kite, onto a curvy, already dangerous Highway 19. Sounds like a recipe to get some innocent people killed.

So you think that the frequency of accidents will decreases along that stretch of roadway now ?

I'll take that bet.

[Smalliebigs]

I'd say you're full of it.

It seems that the guy allowed the sale and use of hard drugs on his property. He made all kinds of money off that atmosphere. And now he is losing his money and his land. That seems like a pretty predictable and just result in my mind. I'm not sure I like the process in which it was done, but it is still the right result.

Frankly, I'd rather see them clean up the Riverways before they worry about a private campground and concert venue. But the idea that some people actually seem to feel sorry for the property owner in this case, and sympathize with him is unimaginable to me. I know people who have died as a result of these drugs. This is not some victimless offense.

And you also have to remember that people are driving out of that place high as a kite, onto a curvy, already dangerous Highway 19. Sounds like a recipe to get some innocent people killed.

Ozark, are you kidding me??? Joe's analysis of this is dead on, saying Eric is full of it, by agreeing with Joe's analysis shows some of your pathetic ignorance to what the feds can and will do to you if you don't have the right last name or contribute to the right person.This landowner may have been allegedly breaking the law and I'm not advocating that and I don't think anyone else is.I think we just don't like the feds siezing land.If I remember carefully you fully advocate and practice in fishing thru Landowners private property and say it's your right to do so.You break the law allegedly by your statements.Should the feds sieze your Sage rod and your waders???

[Fly_Guy]

Ozark, are you kidding me??? Joe's analysis of this is dead on, saying Eric is full of it, by agreeing with Joe's analysis shows some of your pathetic ignorance to what the feds can and will do to you if you don't have the right last name or contribute to the right person.This landowner may have been allegedly breaking the law and I'm not advocating that and I don't think anyone else is.I think we just don't like the feds siezing land.If I remember carefully you fully advocate and practice in fishing thru Landowners private property and say it's your right to do so.You break the law allegedly by your statements.Should the feds sieze your Sage rod and your waders???

Can't you stay in the water and technically be within the law? (I'm a bit fuzzy on it)

Interesing section in this article http://reason.com/archives/2010/01/26/the-forfeiture-racket , called Guilty property, innocent owners. There is legal precident for siezing property if it has been shown to be related to a crime. It seems it started in the seventies, as a means of siezing the profits of organized crime. Not saying it's right however. Our country was founded on the principles of (among others)John Locke, who believed in the right of 'life, liberty, and pursuit of property.' (changed to 'happiness' for us, because we thought slaves and servants didn't have the same rights as their masters). Property rights for individuals has always been central to America being a free society.

[Wayne SW/MO]

This is probably the first time this has been done, I mean seize property. No wait, I believe the IRS might have done it. Come to think of it I believe the DEA has also. Didn't they kill some women and her son in Idaho some years back? If I remember right they were guilty as hell of associating with a guy who was alleged to have an illegal firearm. He was found not guilty, they were buried.

[ozark trout fisher]

Meanwhile, Goldman Sachs and BP continue to report record profits...wake up, man.

As near as I can tell that has no relevence to this topic.

[ozark trout fisher]

Ozark, are you kidding me??? Joe's analysis of this is dead on, saying Eric is full of it, by agreeing with Joe's analysis shows some of your pathetic ignorance to what the feds can and will do to you if you don't have the right last name or contribute to the right person.This landowner may have been allegedly breaking the law and I'm not advocating that and I don't think anyone else is.I think we just don't like the feds siezing land.If I remember carefully you fully advocate and practice in fishing thru Landowners private property and say it's your right to do so.You break the law allegedly by your statements.Should the feds sieze your Sage rod and your waders???

Comparing me wade-fishing in questionable waters with someone condoning the use and sale of hard drugs on his property is a ridiculous comparison. It is not even worth arguing. (and I don't have a Sage rod)

If I hear of the feds taking people's land away that are unaware of drug activity on their property, and do not condone/promote it, then I'll be all up in arms as well. As of now, I haven't ever heard of that happening. Not even once.

We are talking about really hard drugs that can easily ruin people's lives. And people more than likely being introduced to those things at these events. Downplay it all you want, but that is the situation here.

[Trout Commander]

Our country was founded on the principles of (among others)John Locke, who believed in the right of 'life, liberty, and pursuit of property.' (changed to 'happiness' for us, because we thought slaves and servants didn't have the same rights as their masters). Property rights for individuals has always been central to America being a free society.

And when you break the law you forfeit those rights, no??

I am not for unwarranted "land grabs" by the government, or many of their interventions for that matter, but the issue being discussed isn't an unwarranted land grab, it isn't the feds flexing their muscle, it isn't a conspiracy or anything other than a crack camp being seized - just the same as house X on the corner that was trafficking drugs. Many posts in this thread seem to ignore that fact. Hell, even Dopey's attorney didn't shoot down the allegations of activity involving illicit drugs. The attorney has monetary incentive to ignore that fact. Why do so many posters in this thread ignore it?