OH - Pike County: 8 people from one family dead as police hunt for killer(s) #12

[RAISINISBACK]

Honestly? The land is worth far more without trailers, the cars,the rooster huts....easier to get rid of down the road, if the state chooses to seize it, without the stuff on it.

That really doesn't apply to DR's place does it? It looked pretty good to me and after all CR1 just gave 120k for it so it had to be valued at or near that. Removing the trailer and separating it from the additions certainly did not increase the value of that property. It really didn't apply to KR's either since his was a fifth wheel. IMO removing the CR1 and FR trailer houses probably decreased the value since both possibly could have been used as storage or outbuildings for the new owner. Just sayin'

 

[Stippling]

Forfeiture in this case would be wrong for a lot of reasons. Who do you punish? The deceased? The surviving family? This is not what you would call even mildly desirable property. For 200 seedlings? Really? I hope Ohio has better things to do, like solving this grotesque crime. If this were some waterfront mansion with a Maserati and Aston Martin in the garage, and it was paid for with illicit trafficking, then seize away.

 

[Baach82]

How reliable is the "dailymail" when reporting a story? They say that KR's body was found with dollar bills and a single gunshot wound. One thing that I don't understand is that if the killer(s) left some kind of message such as dollar bills being left on the body and did not do that with the other victims then it implies to me that particular victim was an important target; however, that same victim only got shot once in the head... less than all other victims which then implies he was not an important target. I know there is alot of information missing and rightfully so, but that particular part of the story doesn't make sense to me.

That being said, I feel so terrible for this family and I hope they find comfort. This is any families worst nightmare.

 

[dstampfli]

They have to prove that it was purchased via illegal activity. The family the heirs etc can contest. Correct me if I'm wrong most of this land was inherited or owned by other family previously, other land was bought for just taxes owed. The only land that could even be in question is that of DR that was most recently purchased. Here is the exact laws:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/983

Interesting link. Thanks for posting it. You say "they have to prove", but remember, they only have to prove it to a judge with a "preponderance of evidence". Any judge that grants the initial forfeiture will have already reviewed the evidence and will have already agreed that they proved it. To contest it, the family will need to file a motion with the court. The judge reviewing the motion would have to disagree with the first judge and overrule the first ruling.

I'm not saying it's impossible, but the deck is stacked against the family here. Here is some language from the link you provided:

(c)Burden of Proof.—In a suit or action brought under any civil forfeiture statute for the civil forfeiture of any property—
(1) the burden of proof is on the Government to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the property is subject to forfeiture;
(2) the Government may use evidence gathered after the filing of a complaint for forfeiture to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that property is subject to forfeiture; and
(3) if the Government’s theory of forfeiture is that the property was used to commit or facilitate the commission of a criminal offense, or was involved in the commission of a criminal offense, the Government shall establish that there was a substantial connection between the property and the offense.

Number (3) states that the property was "used to commit or facilitate...". The property doesn't even need to be purchased with drug money. JMO

 

[dayna769]

They don't need a defendant, case, trial, or conviction. If an asset was purchased with money from any illegal activity, they can take it - and probably will.

See more here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States

While most of what you say is true, I cringe every time I see a Wikipedia link. They are not a reliable source or considered any authority. Anyone that wants can change what the page says and many times the pages aren't correct. I know of many examples. With that being said, here is a link for actual Ohio law but I want to note that it's actually before the House right now to be changed. It was proposed at the end of last year.

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2981

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2015/12/23/legislators-honing-reform-bill.html

 

[Mmaaix]

I think there are several answers to that. First, they took the vehicles, equipment, and trailers to preserve evidence (like they said). Anything they leave there unattended would have likely been stolen, tampered with, or destroyed. Removing all these assets will protect them as the investigation continues. The second purpose (and one which they aren't saying) is to preserve the value and maintain control of the assets if they do move to seize them. As someone already mentioned, the cleanup of the trailers would likely cost more than they are worth. I think the trailers are worth less than zero no matter where they sit.

It has also been mentioned that the land is probably worth more without the trailers (or cars and equipment) on it. If the State has any intention of seizing land (and I think they might), then it will be quicker and easier to sell it for more money this way as well.

I do not like civil forfeiture and I don't think the government should be able to take things as easily as they can. I am only pointing out what they can (and will likely try to) do.

The state's argument in this case will be the total cost of the investigation. They will claim it is only fair to the taxpayers to recover some of the cost - especially if there were any illegal activities involved.

They keep saying that everything will be turned back over to the family soon. I am skeptical that anything ever will be returned. JMO

I honestly think if anything they will not return the vehicles and or equipment. I'm not sure the family would even want the trailers but I'm sure they would like contents, which I believe will eventually be returned as in pictures etc... I do not see them seizing the land as I think heirs to this land which most likely would be the children are completely innocent.

I lean on the side that this family has already been through enough, and honestly unless they know more then "they could" I just don't believe it will happen.

For all we know these were the first batch of plants and they never even had any fighting that's just how they had the cages set up. The cars could be perfectly legal most of them seem to be fix uppers that could be purchased for very little at auction repaired flipped for a profit then take a portion of that profit purchase more at auction and do the same thing. The equipment seems to have been used at one of their side jobs at BBL it's not uncommon for families who have practically nothing to have equipment such as tractors etc and that's their most prized possession. FR was involved in derby and there's money there too which is not illegal he could of won quite a few prizes and saved some of that to purchase something there are just too many what ifs in this case. I really don't think putting the remaining members in this family through any further pain or suffering is in the best interest of anyone including the government. We are not talking a kingpin with hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of assets.

 

[Tillicum]

That really doesn't apply to DR's place does it? It looked pretty good to me and after all CR1 just gave 120k for it so it had to be valued at or near that. Removing the trailer and separating it from the additions certainly did not increase the value of that property. It really didn't apply to KR's either since his was a fifth wheel. IMO removing the CR1 and FR trailer houses probably decreased the value since both possibly could have been used as storage or outbuildings for the new owner. Just sayin'

If you ask any realtor, bank or insurance agent they will all tell you don't add on to a mobile home. Unless you want to spend the rest of your life there. The additions do not increase the value of the mobile and the mobile decreases the value of the additions. I can't remember but how much acreage went with Dana's trailer? Unless there was a whole lot I can't imagine why it sold for $120,000. Has anyone checked out the prices for older mobiles in the county on Zillow or Trula?

 

[NWLady]

That really doesn't apply to DR's place does it? It looked pretty good to me and after all CR1 just gave 120k for it so it had to be valued at or near that. Removing the trailer and separating it from the additions certainly did not increase the value of that property. It really didn't apply to KR's either since his was a fifth wheel. IMO removing the CR1 and FR trailer houses probably decreased the value since both possibly could have been used as storage or outbuildings for the new owner. Just sayin'

I wonder how much land was included and/or is land that expensive there? Just curious as to if any of these properties had land that was used for any farming purposes because it appears from what we have seen in MSM that a lot of it is wooded area....

IMO there would have to have been something worthwhile included to warrant a $120,000 price tag.....Again, JMO

 

[dayna769]

If they were intending to seize it for drugs why would they tow it? Why not leave it on the property where it would bring more money in an auction. Because if the trailers are fruits from illegal activity, wouldn't it follow that the land is also? IMO they wouldn't tow trailer houses already established on land for asset seizure. They would just auction them off where they stand.

They would have a difficult time showing that the actual trailers were purchased with any money from a crime committed because I'm pretty sure at least one of them was on the land when it was deeded to them from Clarence. That huge new barn though... Definitely was an addition and an expensive one. Those trailers are not considered an asset at this point.

 

[Lindadanette]

I don't understand what the property value and depreciation have to do with this - unless it's just something to talk about. I still want to know if there are any local people on the board who can say whether or not a certain person already charged with manslaughter is still in town and/or had his grand jury indictment (was supposed to happen on the 22nd...)

http://www.chillicothegazette.com/s...lie-reader-pike-county-mass-murders/83559628/

 

[dstampfli]

While most of what you say is true, I cringe every time I see a Wikipedia link. They are not a reliable source or considered any authority. Anyone that wants can change what the page says and many times the pages aren't correct. I know of many examples. With that being said, here is a link for actual Ohio law but I want to note that it's actually before the House right now to be changed. It was proposed at the end of last year.

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2981

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2015/12/23/legislators-honing-reform-bill.html

Thanks for pointing that out - and for better links. I was being lazy, but the Wikipedia info is accurate with my understanding of Civil Forfeiture from other sources - and I grabbed it. My understanding of how seizures can work comes also from LE I know (another town, but in Ohio). Our drug task force here brags about how easy they can take just about anything they want, if they can link it to something illegal. Many people don't care because they think criminals deserve to be stolen from.

I've read stories about some communities where LE is taking it to extremes and abusing the law. Some of the stories are gut wrenching, but it is happening. I'm particularly concerned about the stories where someone is caught with a large amount of cash. Often they seize it, and it's up to the owner to prove that it was earned legally. Often, even with pay stubs and bank records, the cash is never returned. Scary. JMO

 

[Tillicum]

I wonder how much land was included and/or is land that expensive there? Just curious as to if any of these properties had land that was used for any farming purposes because it appears from what we have seen in MSM that a lot of it is wooded area....

IMO there would have to have been something worthwhile included to warrant a $120,000 price tag.....Again, JMO

Bingo!

ETA I bought a mobile on 20 wooded acres for $45,000 eight years ago. Within 30 miles of the Rhoden properties.

 

[MVLM]

If you ask any realtor, bank or insurance agent they will all tell you don't add on to a mobile home. Unless you want to spend the rest of your life there. The additions do not increase the value of the mobile and the mobile decreases the value of the additions. I can't remember but how much acreage went with Dana's trailer? Unless there was a whole lot I can't imagine why it sold for $120,000. Has anyone checked out the prices for older mobiles in the county on Zillow or Trula?

6 acres. Sold for $60K on 3.21.16, according to assessor's site. Where is the 120K coming from? Every time I have seen her house mentioned, I have seen the 120, but that appears inaccurate.

Ah, never mind! Looked further.... The other 60 is from an adjacent parcel. I can see where the 120 came from, but if we are splitting hairs, the plot DR's house was on was only 60K.

 

[Mmaaix]

Interesting link. Thanks for posting it. You say "they have to prove", but remember, they only have to prove it to a judge with a "preponderance of evidence". Any judge that grants the initial forfeiture will have already reviewed the evidence and will have already agreed that they proved it. To contest it, the family will need to file a motion with the court. The judge reviewing the motion would have to disagree with the first judge and overrule the first ruling.

I'm not saying it's impossible, but the deck is stacked against the family here. Here is some language from the link you provided:

(c)Burden of Proof.—In a suit or action brought under any civil forfeiture statute for the civil forfeiture of any property—
(1) the burden of proof is on the Government to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the property is subject to forfeiture;
(2) the Government may use evidence gathered after the filing of a complaint for forfeiture to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that property is subject to forfeiture; and
(3) if the Government’s theory of forfeiture is that the property was used to commit or facilitate the commission of a criminal offense, or was involved in the commission of a criminal offense, the Government shall establish that there was a substantial connection between the property and the offense.

Number (3) states that the property was "used to commit or facilitate...". The property doesn't even need to be purchased with drug money. JMO

The point is they don't have a preponderance of evidence yes they have seedlings but do they have proof that they had been dealing or was this their first try, they have cages but no proof of fighting they have a lot of what ifs....I'm just going to agree to disagree with this subject. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and I accept yours but choose to believe this is not what's happening.

 

[dayna769]

Not in Ohio...not purchased, but involved.

"Civil-asset-forfeiture laws traditionally are used to fight large drug-trafficking organizations by seizing cash, vehicles and other assets that law-enforcement agencies and prosecutors believe were involved in a crime."

"The bill now would allow for asset forfeitures after 12 months if there is probable cause that the asset was used in the commission of a felony and the property owner is unavailable because he is dead, cannot be located, or is facing felony indictment and cannot be extradited. Property also can be seized if no one claims ownership." (BBM)


http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2015/12/23/legislators-honing-reform-bill.html

You are quoting a bill that has yet to be passed. The article is about a proposed House Bill.

 

[Adt1984]

I don't understand what the property value and depreciation have to do with this - unless it's just something to talk about. I still want to know if there are any local people on the board who can say whether or not a certain person already charged with manslaughter is still in town and/or had his grand jury indictment (was supposed to happen on the 22nd...)

http://www.chillicothegazette.com/s...lie-reader-pike-county-mass-murders/83559628/

I'm local but the link doesn't work?

 

[NWLady]

O/T but is interesting .....

http://www.golaurens.com/news/item/23683-traffic-stop-leads-to-arrest-on-drug-and-gun-charges

 

[RAISINISBACK]

If you ask any realtor, bank or insurance agent they will all tell you don't add on to a mobile home. Unless you want to spend the rest of your life there. The additions do not increase the value of the mobile and the mobile decreases the value of the additions. I can't remember but how much acreage went with Dana's trailer? Unless there was a whole lot I can't imagine why it sold for $120,000. Has anyone checked out the prices for older mobiles in the county on Zillow or Trula?

It has been well established on here, by many posters, through property records, how much he paid for the property. Dayna would you care to weigh in on this? Like I said it had to be valued at or near the selling price.

 

[dayna769]

Thanks for pointing that out - and for better links. I was being lazy, but the Wikipedia info is accurate with my understanding of Civil Forfeiture from other sources - and I grabbed it. My understanding of how seizures can work comes also from LE I know (another town, but in Ohio). Our drug task force here brags about how easy they can take just about anything they want, if they can link it to something illegal. Many people don't care because they think criminals deserve to be stolen from.

I've read stories about some communities where LE is taking it to extremes and abusing the law. Some of the stories are gut wrenching, but it is happening. I'm particularly concerned about the stories where someone is caught with a large amount of cash. Often they seize it, and it's up to the owner to prove that it was earned legally. Often, even with pay stubs and bank records, the cash is never returned. Scary. JMO

What you say is very true and that's why there is a push to reform it and why it's currently before the House.

I don't think these properties were "seized" yet though. At this point, I think it's more of a chain of custody and to preserve. In the future, they very well could be held onto depending on what the investigation shows. I also think the trailers themselves would be hard to show that they were involved in a crime... Unless they found actual evidence of a crime or them going marijuana actually inside them. Just because some one eats, sleeps and lives in a place doesn't mean that actual place was involved. All dealings and grow ops could have been out in a barn for all we know. I just don't think the moving of them right now is a forfeiture seizure.

 

[NWLady]

6 acres. Sold for $60K on 3.21.16, according to assessor's site. Where is the 120K coming from? Every time I have seen her house mentioned, I have seen the 120, but that appears inaccurate.

Ah, never mind! Looked further.... The other 60 is from an adjacent parcel. I can see where the 120 came from, but if we are splitting hairs, the plot DR's house was on was only 60K.

Wow! $60,000 for 6 acres? Does that land have buildings on it as well? I can't hardly imagine $10,000 an acre land...