Camp Zoe Seized By The Feds

[troutfiend1985]

That's the just of it all as far as I'm concerned. There's no charges, no evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt that he broke the law. And whether or not the seizure of his assets becomes a reality, the fees he will be forced to pay to defend himself won't be reimbursed.

Since he has not been convicted of any crime I wonder if this "damage" can be pawned off on his insurance company ?

Now look guys, I'm going to get back to the whole idea that we don't know what the evidence is or isn't. What evidence do we have? Not much besides one journalists account on what happened. I would have to assume that for the government to take this kind of action there needed to be something more than just this. As for drug laws, if you don't like them then start some petitions. I'll sign, because I am still waiting for a war on poverty(good ol' LBJ). The only thing that I could think is that maybe this guy was skimming money off the dealers, I have no proof and this is mere speculation so don't get your panties in a twist if I offended you.

Look, he still has his lands(right now) and I'm sure that if his bank accounts were closed without a trial then the ACLU will be all over this. If not, then this guy should contact a law school with a clinic(I'm assuming that SLU has one). Also, there might have been a grand jury already held. That is a scary thing to think about. We could a have a process going on about me or you right now that may be indicting us without our knowledge. Scary stuff.

As far as justifying drug use, you're not going to win that battle. No one here can honestly say that using drugs does not have health effects. However there can be no logical argument that our war on drugs is working. We are the worlds largest consumers of: Marijuana, Cocaine, Ecstasy, Heroin and Methamphetamine(as of 2004). We are the drug capital of the world. Where am I getting this information from?? Three research articles that I written, countless research articles I have read and comparative analysis of my own.

However, with saying this I hesitate to buy the argument that alcohol is more dangerous than say, cocaine. Yes, there might not be as many deaths in direct relations to cocaine as there are from alcohol. But what do you think causes all of this inner-city violence? Cocaine wars. There's a war on the streets guys, and the war is over drug dealing turf. The only reasons that I support ending the war on drugs is: 1. To take that money and begin a war on poverty, and 2. To end needless violence in inner city US. That’s it. I don't want to associate with drugs, I've seen what they have done to my friends. At the age of 17, I lost two friends to OD's on heroin and cocaine. Good guys, but it takes superman to kick that stuff. I have three people I know of that were either friends or people I knew well who are in jail for possession, and one more friend in jail for shooting a kid over drug money. So to that extent, I cannot say that drug use is a victimless crime. Sure, do what you want as long as it doesn't affect me, but you can't tell my friends parents (brandon and ryan) that their deaths were victimless.

[jdmidwest]

Interesting thread on another website with an actual link to the document filed in the court, looks like there was some pretty serious drug action going on, even with the owner Tableau present. I am sure Zoe's side of the story is a little more innocent in order to try to prove innocence. It looks like the land grab should be a little harsh, why not just file charges against ownership or actual dealers? Maybe because it was incorporated.

Of course, this comes off of a devil worship website....

The Wild Hunt Article

[Chief Grey Bear]

Of course, this comes off of a devil worship website....

The Wild Hunt Article

What is a stuanch republican conservitive like you doing on site like that???

[jdmidwest]

What is a stuanch republican conservitive like you doing on site like that???

My Google foo is better than your spell checker....

I typed in Camp Zoe in my Google Search bar in Firefox and it popped up this article which actually had the link to the court document filed. Pretty ominous if you take the time to read it, "The United States of America vs ", lets you know right off the bat you are pretty well in deep sh. The whole US of A is going to court against you.

Then I looked at the Homepage for the Wild Hunt thinking it may be an outdoors site with a name like that and find out it is a Pagan Worship Website. Same misunderstanding when I paid to see the "Girls Gone Wild", some names are misleading.....

[jdmidwest]

Just my 2 cents. I camp many nights a year in both public and private campsites. Private owned and managed are far stricter and are patrolled more than public.

State Parks tend to make sure they collect the money, they let dog owners have barking dogs, don't enforce quiet hours, and have no security in sight if you would need it after the fee collection times end.

Private camps usually don't allow dogs, have security patrolling or accessible at a guard shack all night, controlled access to the park, and are usually more suited to catering to individual campers with a more relaxed atmosphere.

Neither should be held liable for what happens at the location that is out of their control. Unless they or their agents are the ones instigating the illicit activities. We really need to see "the rest of the story".

[eric1978]

As far as justifying drug use, you're not going to win that battle. No one here can honestly say that using drugs does not have health effects. However there can be no logical argument that our war on drugs is working. We are the worlds largest consumers of: Marijuana, Cocaine, Ecstasy, Heroin and Methamphetamine(as of 2004). We are the drug capital of the world. Where am I getting this information from?? Three research articles that I written, countless research articles I have read and comparative analysis of my own.

Allow me to make two conflicting points...

I'll believe the government is concerned about my health when they outlaw cigarettes. More people are addicted to cigarettes in this country than all other drugs combined, and more people die each year from cigarette-related illnesses than all other drugs combined. And while we're at it, outlaw high-fructose corn syrup, too, because more Americans die from being FAT each year than ANY other cause.

On the other hand, people aren't shooting each other over cigarettes or Skittles, because they are legal and easily and (relatively) cheaply obtained.

So they need to choose one or the other...either legalize every poison that a person might want to consume and leave it up to the individual to stay away from it or not, or make ALL drugs illegal, including nicotine, alcohol and prescription narcotics. To say that legal drugs don't ruin as many lives as illegal drugs is a farce.

Anyway, that doesn't have anything to do with Zoe except it fits into the overall theme of hypocrisy in the American justice system and our ignorant society in general. At this point, drugs are still illegal and this guy's life might well be ruined because he held some concerts and turned a blind eye on humans being humans.

[KCRIVERRAT]

Yeah, I'm sure Verizon is greasing the palms of The Man so he'll look the other way. They probably narced on that upstanding, law-abiding, musician/small business owner down there too.

Look guys -- this ain't a conspiracy, and the government isn't running amok. The guy hasn't lost a thing yet, except the use of his money. It's healthy to question, but it's nuts when you throw common sense out and start seeing the boogie man around every corner.

Smallie, I'm not naive. Carefully read my post -- the parts about 'right under the nose of management/security' and repeated 'drug sales to undercover agents' have a great deal of importance in all this.

For forfeiture opponents -- does that opposition extend to planes, boats or cars used to smuggle drugs or illegal aliens? Or to weapons used in crimes? Or fishing tackle used illegally*? Drug paraphernalia?

Who of you would stand idly by and let drug dealers sell out of your driveway? You'd call the cops because it's illegal, and you don't want the risk. That's what this guy shoulda done too.

More realistically,if he would have at least made an honest effort to prevent it, he wouldn't be in trouble right now. He screwed up, and now it's outta his hands.

* see, it's still fishing related. Barely.

IMO... you ARE naive you... ah, never mind. A huge venue in the city creates, as you know almighty Ness, dollars towards the city coffers. "Management/Security" sees the same as "Undercover Agents" do from a private landowner along an Ozark stream, whether it's a crowd of 18,000 or a crowd of 2,000. Big arena concerts as you know Ness (you really come off as the concert goer') have city cops everywhere as well. They mostly turn their heads. Whereas the small guy on his piece of property gets harrassed because he's an easy target. So... did some local citizens complain? Probably. Did the local law enforcement see an easy mark? darn straight.Government hasn't run amok? Are you kidding me? I'm thinking you'd prosecute the fans who stormed the field after the Mizzou/Oklahoma game. You're probably a darn Jayhawk anyway.

Go away Ness (I know you won't) Get back in Al's canoe,suck up some more, sit on his lap in the back seat, let him teach you how to cast and tell fairytales, and don't forget to always post... "Good point Al".

If you can't do that... post a fishin' report you no fishi... ah... never mind.

[stlfisher]

Depends upon your definition of "effective". If effective means getting the most arrests for the least amount of effort and shutting down a place where drug use and drug selling was rampant, sure, it was the most effective thing they could do. But...if "effective" means actually protecting the public--and that is what laws are for, essentially--was it more effective to shut down a place where all the use was contained in a single venue and not spilling out into the countryside all that much and causing major problems for the public, or would it be more effective to actually do some serious law enforcement on drug abuse and alcohol abuse out on the float streams where the obnoxious party-heads ARE impacting a lot of people who want no part of it?

All too often, in my opinion, law enforcement takes the easy way out. Having a problem with parties at an access? Don't bother to go and arrest a bunch of party heads a few weekends in a row, just shut down the access and ruin it for everybody. Want to make a big splash in the local newspapers and show how on top of things you are when it comes to drug enforcement? Shut down this campground and keep ignoring the rampant drug and alcohol abuse on the float streams.

Not saying the place didn't deserve to be shut down...nor that it shouldn't have been done the way it was, because I don't know much at all about the place or the facts. Just wanted to point out that "effectiveness" may be in the eye of the beholder.

I would agree what is "effective" could certainly be subjective and what seems right to me may be different for someone else. I don't think I would agree the law took the easy way out on this one though. It was a four year investigation with cooperation from 3 different agencies. It seems more of a methodical investigation than a quick and easy one. That is not a defense of all law enforcement agencies in every situation as certainly there are times the easy way is taken. Is it better to have all the "druggies" isolated to one area or have them dispersed? I guess that would probably depend on what everyone thinks is the larger problem. Is it the venue and dealers or is it users? It isn't an easy question to answer, but probably one law enforcement has to make almost daily. It seem like a catch 22 to me and a no win situation for these agencies. Either way they lose.

So how do we apply the "War on Drugs" in the most fair and effective manner considering all the variables? I don't have that answer, but fair or not fair you have to pick your battles to send a message. The law is pretty clear that drugs are illegal and the feds can seize your land. There is not much ambiguity and if a venue chooses to allow it or doesn't attempt to control it then as an owner you are taking a risk.

To answer a question posed by Eric earlier I can say from personal experience that I have been carded at Riverport ( or whatever it is called these days)when I buy a beer...same at Mardi Gras. I have seen drug use at them as well. I have also been patted down (usually some dude that seems to enjoy his job way to much) and checked before I enter Riverport. You will never be able to completely control everyone, but in my experience there has been an effort. I am not sure there was much of an effort at Camp ZOE and that has come back to hurt them.

Ness, I agree with you.

[troutfiend1985]

IMO... you ARE naive you... ah, never mind. A huge venue in the city creates, as you know almighty Ness, dollars towards the city coffers. "Management/Security" sees the same dung as "Undercover Agents" do from a private landowner along an Ozark stream, whether it's a crowd of 18,000 or a crowd of 2,000. Big arena concerts as you know Ness (you really come off as the concert goer') have city cops everywhere as well. They mostly turn their heads. Whereas the small guy on his piece of property gets harrassed because he's an easy target. So... did some local citizens complain? Probably. Did the local law enforcement see an easy mark? darn straight.Government hasn't run amok? Are you kidding me? I'm thinking you'd prosecute the fans who stormed the field after the Mizzou/Oklahoma game. You're probably a darn Jayhawk (Gayjock) anyway.

Go away Ness (I know you won't) Get back in Al's canoe,suck up some more, sit on his lap in the back seat, let him teach you how to cast and tell fairytales, and don't forget to always post... "Good point Al".

If you can't do that... post a fishin' report you no fishi... ah... never mind.

KC we have to get back to the idea that WE DON'T KNOW WHAT IS REALLY GOING ON HERE. You're entitled to your opinions, but do you know what was going on at this camp zoe? Do you have personal knowledge of the extent of these drug deals or lack there of? Do we know that camp zoe was either ignorant or not condoning drug sells or skimming money? Unless you're a Fed or entangled in this mess then you really don't. Your using someone else’s facts and representing them as the whole truth or you have a limited amount of knowledge that is based on personal experiences. Either way the knife cuts, there simply isn't a lot of information on this subject. Even if you went to these parties, do you really know the behind the scenes details? If so, then I would be impressed and back down from my position of let’s wait and see.

I truly doubt this is a black and white issue, I think this whole issue is a color of gray. Is the Gov. acting in the publics best interest here? Hard to tell as I don't have enough information to base a sound opinion on it. I think right now the best thing to do is to take a critically neutral standpoint. In that I mean that you can be critical of the Gov. but not be able to base a sound and logical opinion that the government was 100% wrong or that Camp Zoe was 100% innocent. Do you see what I mean?

This information will trickle down, and within a couple of months(hopefully) there will be more info on this situation. Yeah it sucks to see this happen, but right now we don't know why it happened. Attacking Ness, or anyone else for that matter, doesn't make sense. Yes, drug deals go on at major concert venues, but this isn't a major concert venue and we really don't know what was truly going on here. That is why we have a legal system, so that we can sort out these things. Is camp zoe innocent? Only time will tell. One thing is for sure, I think we can do away with the ad hominem attacks.

[Chief Grey Bear]

My Google foo is better than your spell checker....

Oh now, hvae you never misplaced a couple of letter???

What the heck is Google foo????