Government Land Grab
The grandmother's grandson sold drugs and then made a plea deal to give the government three houses she owns. She, not he! Thomasi McDonald writes for the Raleigh News & Observer:
HOLLY SPRINGS When Gaybbrell Shereise Cofield pleaded guilty last year to selling crack cocaine, he agreed to let the government take his grandmother's home as well as property that has been in the family for generations.But Ernestine Ward Cofield says her grandson was in no position to forfeit her property to the government and is fighting the move in court. Cofield says that until three federal marshals turned up on her front porch in August, she had no idea that she was the target of a federal law that allows the government to seize the property and assets of drug dealers.
"I just don't understand why they want to take my property. I'm 72 years old. I never sold drugs," she said. "I really don't want them to have my home. I need my home."
Gaybbrell Cofield, 34, was sentenced last month to 22 years in federal prison for what prosecutors say was his role in distributing more than 528 pounds of crack and powder cocaine over a 12-year period.
As part of his plea deal, he agreed to let the government take three houses in Holly Springs: Ernestine Cofield's home on Sand Dune Way and two other houses on a lot she owns near the center of town that has been in the Cofield family for more than 60 years.
"He consented to give up any rights or interest he had in the property, but the property wasn't his and it never has been his," Gaybbrell Cofield's attorney, Robert Nunley of Raleigh, said. "The property has been in the family for three generations, if not four."
Steve West, an assistant district attorney with the U.S. Attorney's Office who handles asset forfeitures, said he could not comment on the Cofield case.
But generally, West said, the federal government seizes property under two instances: if the defendant used the property to help facilitate the commission of a crime, or if it was purchased with proceeds from an illegal enterprise.
West noted that the law allows property owners to appeal if they did not know their property was being used for illegal activities.
"They can come in and file their claims to the property," West said. "They get their day in court."
Aww, well how sweet. They get to fight to keep their own property.
Cofield says that if her grandson did sell drugs out of her homes, she didn't know about it."I tell you what," she said before nodding toward the four-room home on Blalock Street. "If drug money bought that house, it wouldn't be looking like it look."
The government is getting scarier and scarier and so many people are just yawning.
via ifeminists
Senator Al Franken - not yawning.
Article on why he voted against the NDAA:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/al-franken/why-i-voted-against-the-n_b_1154327.html
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at December 19, 2011 12:36 AM
These laws have been in place for a while now.
Police can seize money and property based on the assumption of guilt, and the owners have to fight to get it back.
In some states (Ohio is one), say I have a friend whose license is suspended for DUI. He borrows my car without telling me, and gets pulled over for DUI. The cops can seize my car.
DrCos at December 19, 2011 3:41 AM
It's always interesting to see which issues one treats calmly and which issues make one's blood boil. Asset forfeiture, eminent domain, and no-knock drug raids make me extremely angry. The naked power of the government seems at its most blatant, I guess.
Astra at December 19, 2011 6:28 AM
Why is this even a question? If he doesn't have title to the properties, he can't transfer ownership. Otherwise scum bag drug dealers would be able to 'forfeit' anyone's property that that chose to.
Why isn't there any obligation for the authorities to confirm that the forfeiter actually owns what they're forfeiting?!?!?!?
noel at December 19, 2011 7:07 AM
If he doesn't have title to the properties, he can't transfer ownership.
His permission is not relevant for asset forfeiture, so I'm not sure why it was included in the sentencing deal. They can take the properties if they can show that the owner knew or "should have known" that the sites were being used for drug deals. And I'm sure some homeowner will be able to afford the lawyers to successfully go up against the government juggernaut--asset forfeiture is big business for the police these days.
Reason had an article last month about the feds trying to seize a man's motel because there are alleged drug deals taking place in the rooms. The fact that the owner had recently finished paying off his mortgage and now owned the place outright was entirely coincidental, I'm sure.
Astra at December 19, 2011 7:17 AM
Awww...
Grandma had no idea that her dear Grandbaby was selling drugs out of her house? No idea whatsoever? Bullshit. Utter bullshit.
A few years ago here in Washington a guy shot down cops who were simply sitting and having coffee. The whole family knew that he wanted to kill cops, knew that he was violent and mentally ill, and conspired to hide him after the fact.
I have people in my life who do drugs (I don't particularly care because I think self destruction shouldn't be illegal) and my one rule is to not get my assets involved. It's up to Grandma to know the law regarding her assets and put her little foot on the back of her drug dealing Grandson's neck.
deathbysnoosnoo at December 19, 2011 8:19 AM
Okay, government wrong and bad, old lady needs her house, I know,I know! And I agree. But why did she have to make it so damned easy for them? If we are supposed to stop being sheep where the government and it's bogus laws are concerned, we had better start being stronger people where our own families and our own personal ethics are concerned.
She buried her head in the sand about her grandson. The article says he and his girlfriend lived with her for five years, in what appears to be a fairly small house. Her other grandchildren live in the other homes. She says if he was selling drugs out of her homes, she didn't know about it. I call bullshit.
Also, she got a letter that should have helped open her eyes.
"In the letter, Gledhill told Ernestine Cofield that repeated drug activity on her property could result in forfeiture under federal law. She said she did not respond to the letter because the dirt path is two doors down from her homes on Blalock Street."
"I didn't respond because I don't own that property," she said."
Right. No inkling that there's a little problem here? Nope, just ignore it and hope it goes away.
I don't want any old grannies to lose their homes, but I gotta say this woman has got denial and enabling down to a fine art, and that makes it difficult for me to feel sorry for her.
I wish I could find a quote I read years ago, that I can't remember exactly. The gist was that if we can't govern ourselves, the powers that be will do it for us. That's what I see happening more and more, and this case is a great example.
Pricklypear at December 19, 2011 8:19 AM
Damn, Snoosnoo beat me. Took me too long to climb off my soapbox.
Pricklypear at December 19, 2011 8:21 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/12/19/government_land.html#comment-2862629">comment from PricklypearHaving it together shouldn't be a condition of not having property that you own be taken from you. And what's with the notion that the government can yank away land where crimes are committed?
Amy Alkon at December 19, 2011 8:33 AM
"And what's with the notion that the government can yank away land where crimes are committed?"
"Shocked! Shocked I am that there were crimes commmitted on my property!"
"Your share, Grandma."
The concept gives me pause, but it makes sense.
For much the same reason as apocryphally, drug dealers used to send kids out to do the deals. they wouldn't get much time, and they insulated the dealer from the law.
Or the sort of insulation that's seen in organized crime, the property is owned by someone higher up and when there's criminal mischief located there, the owner can claim complete and total surprise.
So, let's just presume here, for the sake of argument, that Grannie is actually the mastermind of a drug selling syndicate. If she's caught selling the drugs, big problem. But if she sends grandson out, well, he takes the hit and the time, she gets his brother/kid to take over, and back to the business.
That's the rationale on seizure of property, to give the owners a reason to pay attention to it. Also compare this to the concept of "adverse possession", there are some similarities. (If you don't know what's going on on your land, then you're too far removed, and you're just taking advantage.)
Unix-Jedi at December 19, 2011 9:09 AM
Part of the way government can extend its control is because the early victims are typically unappealing, being on or near the wrong side of the law. Hence, the beating up on granny above while ignoring the huge racket the government has created in its "War on Drugs":
http://reason.com/archives/2010/01/26/the-forfeiture-racket/singlepage
Astra at December 19, 2011 9:14 AM
-Having it together shouldn't be a condition of not having property that you own be taken from you. And what's with the notion that the government can yank away land where crimes are committed?-
Unfortunately, it's not a notion. And it's not right. But it's probably one of those laws that seemed like a good idea at the time. Like DrCos mentioned above, they've been around for a while.
I've written and erased this post several times, so I'll just say that from things this woman said it sounds like she does have it together, and decided to put it to one side and ignore it.
Pricklypear at December 19, 2011 10:24 AM
Beating up on granny. Ye gods.
Stupid, bad laws or not, stupid war on drugs or not (and yes it is stupid. I'd just as soon give people the shit and let them smoke, drink, shoot or snort themselves into oblivion, if that's what they want), but at the moment these laws do exist.
Grandson put Grandma in harm's way, and didn't give a damn. And Grandma let him do it. He was not hard-wired to respect his elders, or to care about hurting people, or even to not shit where he eats.
Pricklypear at December 19, 2011 12:00 PM
The question isn't whether Granny is an enabler, blind to the obvious, or dumb as a sack of hammers.
The question is whether the government can steal from you.
Yes, they can. Cops (American heroes, remember, everything changed on Nine Eleven) rape, rob, murder, steal, plant evidence, lose evidence, lie in court, deal drugs, rob the dead, ramrod the innocent into death sentences -- now why in the name of all that's holy would anyone think they would respect American rights to property?
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at December 19, 2011 1:10 PM
"Cops (American heroes, remember, everything changed on Nine Eleven) rape, rob, murder, steal, plant evidence, lose evidence, lie in court, deal drugs, rob the dead, ramrod the innocent into death sentences -- now why in the name of all that's holy would anyone think they would respect American rights to property?"
Not all cops.
Obviously. As a citizen, not just a resident, you have responsibilities commensurate with your rights.
I suggest that one of those is to distinguish between good and bad people and keep them from that sort of power.
Sitting back and spreading nastiness, as expressed here, just helps foment the idea that you, the American, from whose population all police are drawn, are not worth a damn and therefore must be controlled.
Radwaste at December 19, 2011 3:05 PM
You can not own property - you only rent. Al Franken wants old people to die broke - he is against oil drilling.
Dave B at December 19, 2011 4:45 PM
"That's the rationale on seizure of property, to give the owners a reason to pay attention to it. "
Actually, my recollection of the original motivation for the forfeiture laws, from back in the early '80s, was that the drug kingpins were using proceeds from their business to procure top-shelf legal help. As a lot of the prosecutors (in South Florida anyway) were frankly not very good, this pissed them off greatly. And the public wasn't fond of seeing high-level dealers walk, time after time, because their legal sharks pwned the prosecutors so often.
So they got the forfeiture laws passed so the gangsters couldn't afford A-list lawyers. But it started getting silly almost immediately, and that happened when the laws were written to allow police departments to obtain possession of the assets they seized. In fact, this was part of the backstory for "Miami Vice". Remember why Crockett and Tubbs were cruising up and down Collins Avenue in a Ferrari? It was a forfeiture. But by the time Vice became cool enough for Phil Collins to guest star in an episode, the South Florida newspapers were already printing stories about people being stopped on I-95, and if they had any significant amount of cash on them, this was seized immediately as possession of a large amount of cash was considered prima facie evidence of drug dealing. Neat little tautology, eh? In fact, they papers printed advice on how to drive on I-95 and not give off the signs that would cause the police to suspect you might be a drug dealer. (One I recall: "Don't drive right at the speed limit.")
It's nowhere near being a new problem, and it still surprises me that people haven't gotten riled up about it long ago.
Cousin Dave at December 19, 2011 5:42 PM
You can not own property - you only rent.
Does that include your kidneys?
doombuggy at December 19, 2011 5:43 PM
Only if you pay property taxes on your kidneys. I do not on mine. At least not yet.
Dave B at December 19, 2011 6:02 PM
Only if you pay property taxes on your kidneys.
How about the big wad of cash I have under my bed?
doombuggy at December 19, 2011 6:42 PM
"Not all cops."
My that's comforting.
"I suggest that one of those is to distinguish between good and bad people and keep them from that sort of power."
Funny thing is that I do not control the hiring of the police. Funny thing is that the sheeple are easily led, and I cannot match thier numbers. Funny thing is that as a citizen, it seems my rights are increasing becomming non-existent, subject to the will of my govenment overlords and their bulldog enforcers A.k.a the police.
"Sitting back and spreading nastiness, as expressed here, just helps foment the idea that you, the American, from whose population all police are drawn, are not worth a damn and therefore must be controlled."
I don't buy that argument. If I did, my only recourse would be to burn the whole damn thing to the ground and start over.
Matt at December 19, 2011 6:56 PM
I remember a case out of Philly in the early 90's. The guy was a landscaper. He was flying to from Philly to Dallas early in the day and returning the next day. He was paying cash for the flight and had $8,000 cash on him. His intent was to go see the trees and shrub dealers he knew in Dallas and pre-order trees for his spring business.
The airline agent pointed him out to the ATF/DEA and his money was confiscated. That was his working capital for the season. I don't know where the case ever ended up.
The way these laws are written is that it is collective responsibility. You had a little luck -- you picked up three decent houses in a neighborhood that people still want to rent. You rent them out directly, or through a rental agency. You legally can not go into the property arbitrarily because of renter laws, and other laws. The renter is popped for a domestic violence and having over an ounce of pot. Law enforcement can legally seize the house without you having knowledge of the renter's activities.
What if they came in and said that because the renter killed 10 women and buried them in the basement, you are now eligible for the death penalty?
Does that make a difference in how you view this?
Jim P. at December 19, 2011 9:58 PM
... you are now eligible for the death penalty?
These things come down to what is reasonable. The cops argue that it was reasonable for grandma to know what junior was doing. It is not reasonable for a landlord to know what a renter does in said renter's spare time.
Funny thing is that the sheeple are easily led (Matt)
I've tried my hand at being out front and guiding the flock. I didn't find it particularly easy. I bristle a bit at internetdom that announces they could casually fix things if they decided to close the laptop and turn their attention to such things.
I don't buy that argument. If I did, my only recourse would be to burn the whole damn thing to the ground and start over.
This strikes me as the sentiments of someone to whom we should not give any power.
doombuggy at December 20, 2011 4:22 AM
"This strikes me as the sentiments of someone to whom we should not give any power."
You're probably right. If I did have the power, I'd strip the federal government down to the bare bones, and muzzle the states with the constitution, which, these days, is treated like so much toilet paper.
Matt at December 20, 2011 8:18 AM
"Funny thing is that I do not control the hiring of the police."
That's right. Sit down, shut up, you can do NOTHING.
You completely missed any sort of civics classes, and you do not know the charter of your own incorporated area. Nice going.
You're a splendid example of self-fulfillment. I wish it were otherwise, which is why I posted as I did above.
Radwaste at December 20, 2011 3:57 PM
What makes a difference between a family member and a renter? What if the borrowed house was 100 miles away? What if the offender had gone through rehab and was relapsing? What if the grandson had been released from prison for murder?
Your argument fails on the it was reasonable for ??????? to know when it comes to drugs but not to murder. What if the grandson was the axe murderer? Would you leave her have her property?
Jim P. at December 20, 2011 7:23 PM
What makes a difference between a family member and a renter?
Maybe there is no difference in some cases. In this particular case, the police claim grandma was aiding and abetting. If she was or not is a judgement call.
What if...murder
People are often charged as accessories, or failing to report if they have knowledge, or face civil charges for such, if a reasonable person would conclude they were liable.
doombuggy at December 20, 2011 8:49 PM
"That's right. Sit down, shut up, you can do NOTHING."
Yeah, that's how I feel. Fuck you for your Condescending bullshit.
Matt at December 20, 2011 9:04 PM
The government is getting scarier and scarier and so many people are just yawning.
I will not stand up for you if you don't stand up for yourself. I am more than happy to stand with you or lend a hand.
She managed to buy and finance several properties over her lifetime. She's not some delicate flower, subject to the winds of fate. She has a head on her shoulders and is a capable woman.
ErikZ at December 21, 2011 11:26 AM
Leave a comment