Replies to This Discussion

—–Reply by Chris on November 18, 2009 at 6:01pm

wow. i need to get in on these law enforcement auctions.

—–Reply by kathy chism on November 18, 2009 at 6:07pm

myself

—–Reply by Shelli Poole on November 18, 2009 at 6:17pm

I’m curious what they plan on doing with the land, since apparently the guy who owned it was pretty dangerous. I would tend to wonder if he’ll show up feeling jilted.

—–Reply by Cindy Corbitt on November 18, 2009 at 8:31pm

I wonder if the family members live nearby or just have land. Hopefully he won’t be moving in with them if they live there.

—–Reply by Duck Bill on November 19, 2009 at 10:14pm

I wonder the same thing myself, also wonder if there is any boobie traps on the land.

Shelli Russell said:

I’m curious what they plan on doing with the land, since apparently the guy who owned it was pretty dangerous. I would tend to wonder if he’ll show up feeling jilted.

—–Reply by Harper on November 22, 2009 at 7:25am

This might be a good time to review the process of Civil Asset Forfeiture where the government seizes property that has been used in the commission of a crime. The action is against the property, not a person. There is no requirement that any person be convicted of anything, only that there is probable cause that the property is guilty. And unlike the protection of the person that is presumed innocent until proven guilty, the owner must prove that the property was not used in a crime. Whether the owner participated in the crime is irrelevant. Totally innocent owners can and sometimes do loose their property by Civil Asset Forfeiture.

Concerning the seizure of 25 acres reported here, the news has it as 25 wooded acres adjoining the Arkansas Baptist Camp in Paron. There appears to be only one land parcel that meets this description and it is listed in the tax records as parcel 001-10401-000, owned by Pauline Ulmer Slade. So who owned the property; Kenneth Lee Slade, arrested three times for drug crimes, or Pauline Slade? And if Pauline was the owner, what if any complicity did she have in the crimes committed by Kenneth Lee Slade.

One should take care to see that their property is not being used for illegal purpose. So it is hard to find sympathy for Pauline considering the record of Kenneth Lee Slade. One would assume she was on notice. Even if the property was truly hers, maybe she deserved to lose it.

—–Reply by Brent Standridge on November 22, 2009 at 7:45am

His mother owns the adjacent track. I think that he was more of a I I Basically one tract of property was sold and one was left alone. I think he was more of a recividist pot grower than a dangerous or violent type person. My understanding was that the civil forfeiture process was utilized and that an agreement was reached wherein the tract that the home was on where the mother lived was left alone since she did not know of the pot growing. She was represented by her own counsel in the matter.

Harper said:

This might be a good time to review the process of Civil Asset Forfeiture where the government seizes property that has been used in the commission of a crime. The action is against the property, not a person. There is no requirement that any person be convicted of anything, only that there is probable cause that the property is guilty. And unlike the protection of the person that is presumed innocent until proven guilty, the owner must prove that the property was not used in a crime. Whether the owner participated in the crime is irrelevant. Totally innocent owners can and sometimes do loose their property by Civil Asset Forfeiture. Concerning the seizure of 25 acres reported here, the news has it as 25 wooded acres adjoining the Arkansas Baptist Camp in Paron. There appears to be only one land parcel that meets this description and it is listed in the tax records as parcel 001-10401-000, owned by Pauline Ulmer Slade. So who owned the property; Kenneth Lee Slade, arrested three times for drug crimes, or Pauline Slade? And if Pauline was the owner, what if any complicity did she have in the crimes committed by Kenneth Lee Slade.

One should take care to see that their property is not being used for illegal purpose. So it is hard to find sympathy for Pauline considering the record of Kenneth Lee Slade. One would assume she was on notice. Even if the property was truly hers, maybe she deserved to lose it.

—–Reply by Brent Standridge on November 22, 2009 at 7:58am

Sorry for the sentence fragment. This version on my PDA is not letting me edit.

Brent Standridge said:

His mother owns the adjacent track. I think that he was more of a I I Basically one tract of property was sold and one was left alone. I think he was more of a recividist pot grower than a dangerous or violent type person. My understanding was that the civil forfeiture process was utilized and that an agreement was reached wherein the tract that the home was on where the mother lived was left alone since she did not know of the pot growing. She was represented by her own counsel in the matter.

Harper said:

This might be a good time to review the process of Civil Asset Forfeiture where the government seizes property that has been used in the commission of a crime. The action is against the property, not a person. There is no requirement that any person be convicted of anything, only that there is probable cause that the property is guilty. And unlike the protection of the person that is presumed innocent until proven guilty, the owner must prove that the property was not used in a crime. Whether the owner participated in the crime is irrelevant. Totally innocent owners can and sometimes do loose their property by Civil Asset Forfeiture. Concerning the seizure of 25 acres reported here, the news has it as 25 wooded acres adjoining the Arkansas Baptist Camp in Paron. There appears to be only one land parcel that meets this description and it is listed in the tax records as parcel 001-10401-000, owned by Pauline Ulmer Slade. So who owned the property; Kenneth Lee Slade, arrested three times for drug crimes, or Pauline Slade? And if Pauline was the owner, what if any complicity did she have in the crimes committed by Kenneth Lee Slade.

One should take care to see that their property is not being used for illegal purpose. So it is hard to find sympathy for Pauline considering the record of Kenneth Lee Slade. One would assume she was on notice. Even if the property was truly hers, maybe she deserved to lose it.

—–Reply by Brent Standridge on November 22, 2009 at 8:09am

Technically she may have owned the whole parcel but it was that parcel or part of it that was more remote where the pot was growing that ended up being forfeited.

Brent Standridge said:

Sorry for the sentence fragment. This version on my PDA is not letting me edit.

Brent Standridge said:

His mother owns the adjacent track. I think that he was more of a I I Basically one tract of property was sold and one was left alone. I think he was more of a recividist pot grower than a dangerous or violent type person. My understanding was that the civil forfeiture process was utilized and that an agreement was reached wherein the tract that the home was on where the mother lived was left alone since she did not know of the pot growing. She was represented by her own counsel in the matter.

Harper said:

This might be a good time to review the process of Civil Asset Forfeiture where the government seizes property that has been used in the commission of a crime. The action is against the property, not a person. There is no requirement that any person be convicted of anything, only that there is probable cause that the property is guilty. And unlike the protection of the person that is presumed innocent until proven guilty, the owner must prove that the property was not used in a crime. Whether the owner participated in the crime is irrelevant. Totally innocent owners can and sometimes do loose their property by Civil Asset Forfeiture. Concerning the seizure of 25 acres reported here, the news has it as 25 wooded acres adjoining the Arkansas Baptist Camp in Paron. There appears to be only one land parcel that meets this description and it is listed in the tax records as parcel 001-10401-000, owned by Pauline Ulmer Slade. So who owned the property; Kenneth Lee Slade, arrested three times for drug crimes, or Pauline Slade? And if Pauline was the owner, what if any complicity did she have in the crimes committed by Kenneth Lee Slade. One should take care to see that their property is not being used for illegal purpose. So it is hard to find sympathy for Pauline considering the record of Kenneth Lee Slade. One would assume she was on notice. Even if the property was truly hers, maybe she deserved to lose it.

—–Reply by Harper on November 22, 2009 at 9:15am

Brent, I’m not sure I understand what you are saying. Let me say that I have no particular knowledge of this case. My information is limited to what was in the news and what is available from online records and maps.

Tax records indicate Pauline Slade owning 2 tracts as shown in the graphic below. The two tracts appear to touch at the corners.

The property seized is shown below. As per news accounts, it is an unimproved timber tract of 25 acres.

The other tract contains a house and other buildings.

The news gave Kenneth Lee Slade’s age as 56. If Pauline is his mother, she must surely be in her 70’s.

Brent said:

“I think he was more of a recividist pot grower than a dangerous or violent type person. My understanding was that the civil forfeiture process was utilized and that an agreement was reached wherein the tract that the home was on where the mother lived was left alone since she did not know of the pot growing.”

Emphis added

What am I to believe? A two bit pot grower used some of his mother’s land to grow pot?

Forfeiture was commenced against both of his elderly mother’s tracts, though she had no knowledge of the crimes involving her land? She agreed to give up the one tract in exchange for an agreement to keep the one with her home?

I’m not feeling real good about this seizure.

—–Reply by Pam Harcrow on November 22, 2009 at 9:51am

I think this is horrible. I’m sorry, but when I read the article regarding this I could not believe it.

Why punish the entire family because of the perpetrator?? To lose family land because of one member of that family is tough to swallow. I’m sure that family has already suffered because of his criminal activity. Now they lose their land??!! That’s just a shame and wrong in my opinion regardless of the “legality” of it.

—–Reply by Harper on November 22, 2009 at 10:19am

I don’t know what the truth is. All I have are questions I think need answers. But I am pretty certain there is a lot more to this story than appeared in the Benton Courier.

There is no place in law more susceptible to governmental abuse than that of Civil Asset Forfeiture. It deserves diligent scrutiny by the public.

============

Permalink —–Reply by Brent Standridge on November 22, 2009 at 1:59pm

Sorry that my last attempted post did not make it here–the price you pay for being in the wilderness. Can’t transmit well from my tower deer stand.

I’m posting the drug forfeiture statute that was used in the case as referenced in the Courier article and it is rather complex and lengthy. It is ACA 5-64-505 and it is in PDF format so you may have to scroll through a lot of stuff to find it. I have another format of the Code pursuant to a subscription service that I have but I don’t think the services provider would want me to use that one. The Code service on the Arkansas Legislature site is down.

The Code link: http://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/bureau/Publications/Arkansas%20Code/Title%205.pdf

I was not involved in the cases but spoke with some of the attorneys who handled both cases (criminal and forfeiture case). I know of the cases generally but do not know all of the specific details, so with that disclaimer here’s how I see it.

The lady is an older lady and is the mother of the man who was convicted. There are 2 parcels of property as Harper described it. What was forfeited was the more remote property and I do not know whether it had some type of a structure on it–if it did perhaps it was a shed or something of that nature. This is where the marijuana was growing. The other parcel contained a house and some outbuildings. That parcel did not end up being forfeited.

Under the forfeiture statute where real property is going to be forfeited a criminal conviction for a controlled substance offense (such as manufacturing marijuana) has to be obtained concerning someone who was using the property in conjunction with committing the offense. The owner of the property does not have to be convicted of anything. The state has up to 60 days following conviction to file a complaint for forfeiture and then the owner or other interested party gets to file an answer to the complaint.

The owner has the burden of proving that he or she had no knowledge that the property was being used in a violation or did not consent to the unlawful use of the property. The burden of proof for the state on a forfeiture action is less than that required in a criminal case as the state need only prove its case by a preponderance of the evidence. The owner has the burden of proving the no knowledge “defense” by a preponderance of the evidence.

My understanding is that both of the parcels were sought to be forfeited. It may very well have been a contested issue (and often is) whether the owner of the property had knowledge that the property was being used criminally. Proof on the issue may be conflicting with the resolution of that conflict being unclear. Of course either party may pursue it to the fullest and leave it in the hands of a judge, but rather than do that, in which case either party runs the risk of losing completely, it is not uncommon for an agreement to be reached where neither party gets exactly what they want but each ends up with something he or she can live with. I do not know for sure that is what happened here but that is often the way these cases get resolved. There were a couple of arrests concerning this property as noted in the Courier article and the arrests were separated in time so that may have entered into the equation as far as the knowledge issue of the owner was concerned.

These case files are public record at the Saline County Courthouse and they can be reviewed there by anyone but that is my take on it based on what I know.

I’m not trying to advocate for a particular side here but hopefully can shed a little light on the issue. I do know from personal experience that all attorneys involved in these cases are people whom I’ve dealt with frequently and I know them to be fine and capable lawyers representing the best interests of their respective party. If I find out anything else that illuminates the issue I’ll post it.

—–Reply by Harper on November 22, 2009 at 2:56pm

Thank you Brent for your post. I looked at the statute at the link. As you say it is long and complicated, making it difficult for the layman to sift an understanding of what it means to our way of life. Your synopsis was most helpful.

I have heard it said that the most powerful local office is that of County Prosecutor, simply because of the wide range of discretion held by the office of what charges, if any, he might choose. Surely in this case the letter of law was followed. But I have to ask myself if the actions of the prosecutor Ken Casady denote the discretion I would like to see from that office.

It will be a long time before Kenneth Lee Slade sees the light of day. He is a criminal. He got what he deserved. I feel safer with him behind bars. On the other hand, the penalty exacted against his elderly mother seems excessive. Moreover, taking his mothers land does not make me feel any safer. I wonder what the point to it was.

—–Reply by Brent Standridge on November 22, 2009 at 6:45pm

Here is the actual article which appeared in the Courier. http://www.bentoncourier.com/content/view/195307/1/

The Prosecuting Attorney’s Office filed the forfeiture action and Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Vince Shoptaw was assigned the case. He is quoted in the article. I do not know which judge was assigned to the forfeiture case but a forfeiture order would have been approved by the judge. Legally that order is what would have provided for the forfeiture of the property.

—–Reply by Pam Harcrow on November 22, 2009 at 7:25pm

I know two very well respected families in this community who have grown children/grandchildren who have been caught “cooking meth” in their homes. This, of course, was without the knowledge of the homeowner. Not only did the issue of seizing the home never even come into the picture, neither did the “hazmat” cleaning that usually accompaines a “meth lab.” Admittedly, I don’t know a thing about a meth lab, but I do know these two families.

There are MANY citizens who deal with family members engaged in illegal drug activities (often in the law-abiding citizen’s home) every day. I guess this is one way to stop someone from being an enabler! Just in the past year several young people I knew in our community have died as a result of their drug addiction. Their families did everything they knew to do to try to help these people… usually in their OWN homes.

That’s why I think utilizing this statute is a slippery slope indeed when it comes to real property.

Again… I think it is horrible…..

—–Reply by Chris on November 22, 2009 at 7:40pm

Property was used to facilitate a crime. Pure and simple. Mr. Standridge laid it out perfectly. It’s the same thing for vehicles, cell phones, etc. Look at Benton’s school resource vehicle…drug seized. Houses are different, why, don’t know but they are.

And Frank, you will not be charged with terroristic threatening for justifiably protecting your property. You sure as hell aren’t going to have your property taken by the govt for something along those lines either. That’s just stupid.

—–Reply by Pam Harcrow on November 22, 2009 at 8:33pm

But was it the criminal’s property????

—–Reply by kathy chism on November 22, 2009 at 8:53pm

I hope everyone keeps up with all thats been going on and remembers it well when Election Day comes and actually gets out and votes for a CHANGE!!!!

Yvonne Dougherty said:

Brent,

Thanks for the link to the Courier. I just read the article and found it to be short on specifics and lacking in good investigative journalism.

Does anyone know how to find out who the judge was that approved and signed the forfeiture order?

The action might have been legal under Arkansas code but that doesn’t make it just.

I cannot do anything about what has happened but I will vote in the election in November 2010.

Yvonne

—–Reply by Chris on November 22, 2009 at 8:54pm

Not only legal under Arkansas Code, but US Supreme Court case law as well. I don’t understand how it isn’t “just.” The man used his property to spread tons of drugs around our region.

Yvonne Dougherty said:

Brent,

Thanks for the link to the Courier. I just read the article and found it to be short on specifics and lacking in good investigative journalism.

Does anyone know how to find out who the judge was that approved and signed the forfeiture order?

The action might have been legal under Arkansas code but that doesn’t make it just.

I cannot do anything about what has happened but I will vote in the election in November 2010.

Yvonne

—–Reply by Harper on November 22, 2009 at 9:13pm

Yvonne, I don’t think we can fault the judge if he only approved an agreement between the owner and the prosecutor without hearing any evidence.

Brent said:

“It may very well have been a contested issue (and often is) whether the owner of the property had knowledge that the property was being used criminally. Proof on the issue may be conflicting with the resolution of that conflict being unclear. Of course either party may pursue it to the fullest and leave it in the hands of a judge, but rather than do that, in which case either party runs the risk of losing completely, it is not uncommon for an agreement to be reached where neither party gets exactly what they want but each ends up with something he or she can live with.”

That would be my best guess as how this deal went down. The threat of loosing every thing you have can be very intimidating.

Law enforcement may have lobbied the prosecutor for the forfeiture. There is no doubt extra money can cover unfunded niceties. And the case was assigned to a staff member. But one man made the decision to commence the forfeiture; Ken Casady. Whether you approve the action or not, it was his baby.

—–Reply by Brent Standridge on November 22, 2009 at 9:49pm

I’ll see if I can obtain a file-marked copy of the order to see exactly what it says. Sometimes you have to look at the pleadings and other documents in the case file to get the bigger picture regarding a case (and even then there may be a lot of material not in the court file) but the order is usually the last thing entered in a case, especially in a forfeiture action.

—–Reply by Chris on November 23, 2009 at 8:37am

What you’re wondering is something that can only be answered by reading the entire investigation then. There’s no telling why her land was taken and there can be numerous reasons why. Reasons can be anything from niceties given to her by her son that are obviously above is normal pay to giving total permission to him from growing. I haven’t got those answers, just speculating. The idea that “decent mother” allows son to grow marijuana on property isn’t new.

Yvonne Dougherty said:

Harper, I was referring to an earlier quote by Brent in which he wrote that a judge had to sign and approve a forfeiture order before it could be processed. It seems to me that it took a prosecuting attorney and a judge to use that law to deprive Mrs. Slade of her land. The judge had the choice to not approve or sign it.

Does anyone know who the judge was?

Chris, from what I have read, Mrs. Slade was unaware that her son was growing pot on her land. If she were aware, why wasn’t she prosecuted for criminal activity along with her son? Mr. Standridge stated in earlier posts that the burden of proof on proving that one is unaware is on the defendant but that plea bargaining is usually the easiest for both sides so that is what happened in this case. Mrs. Slade was not charged with criminal activity but she lost her land because of her son’s activities. He is the only one who should be held accountable for his actions – not the mother. He is not a minor. Mr. Slade is incarcerated for his criminal activities. I have no problem with that. I do have a problem with a mother losing her land for something she did not do. As I said, some things may be legal under man’s law, but that doesn’t make them just under God’s law. There are lots of little tidbits of advice about justice in the Bible such as not cheating the widow nor removing thy neighbor’s boundary stone.

I will remember and I will vote.

—–Reply by Chris on November 23, 2009 at 8:43am

The property was used to facilitate a crime. Just like i said. If you bought your son a car, registered in your name, insurance in your name, etc, etc and your son gets busted for selling high quantities of dope, then guess what, the car will be seized. If he has a cell phone that you bought and pay the bills on but he uses that cell phone to perform his deals, guess what, it will be seized. Now if it were just a small amount of personal use marijuana/crack/pills/etc, then no, your property isn’t getting seized. The distribution is key. Also, if it can be proven that items were purchased due to funds obtained from selling dope, those items get seized as well.

“Ya’ll get out of my yard now, you hear.” – If that is your terroristic threatening claim, then you re once again lying. It’s amazing what kind of details people will leave out of their stories to avoid showing any wrong doing by themselves. It’s ALWAYS the other persons fault. Oh well, glad to see you have come to realize you are delusional. Perhaps that’s a start towards your healing.

FRANK BAMA said:

If what Harper posted above is correct, It was not “His Property” it was his mothers, and yes Chris, If it comes down to anything more than ” Ya’ll get out of my yard now, you hear” the property owner will be the one who winds up in trouble. I know I’m dilusional and all but I know this from personal experience.

Chris said:

Not only legal under Arkansas Code, but US Supreme Court case law as well. I don’t understand how it isn’t “just.” The man used his property to spread tons of drugs around our region.

Yvonne Dougherty said:

Brent,

Thanks for the link to the Courier. I just read the article and found it to be short on specifics and lacking in good investigative journalism.

Does anyone know how to find out who the judge was that approved and signed the forfeiture order?

The action might have been legal under Arkansas code but that doesn’t make it just.

I cannot do anything about what has happened but I will vote in the election in November 2010.

Yvonne

=============

Permalink —–Reply by Harper on November 23, 2009 at 8:53am

Yvonne said:

Thanks for the link to the Courier. I just read the article and found it to be short on specifics and lacking in good investigative journalism.

Local newspapers don’t do investigative journalism. What they do is print what people are saying. In this case there was one significant error in the article; the property seized did not belong to Kenneth Slade. Surely there must be many in our community that knew that fact; members of law enforcement, court clerks and personnel, and attorneys. I wonder if any of them called the Courier to point out the error.

For me, it all started with that Courier article. Simplified, it is a story of a two bit pot grower, a civil forfeiture, and perhaps a politically ambitious prosecutor grandstanding as hard and effective on crime. I have read enough to know how ugly civil forfeiture can sometimes be. As I read the article giving Kenneth Slade’s criminal history, I wondered if such a character would likely still own a $100,000 dollar property considering his last few years of trouble with the law. Possible, yes. Probable, no. Using online resources it took me about 5 minutes to determine the owner of record was Pauline Slade, not Kenneth Slade. My life would be simpler if I didn’t poke my nose into things that don’t concern me.

This morning I see that a state senator is calling for a study that might lead to releasing marijuana criminals from prison. So we lock up the Kenneth Slade type violators, then we let them go. And in the process we take major assets of the family who were only marginally implicated, if at all? Has the world gone nuts?

—–Reply by Chris on November 23, 2009 at 10:20am

Really, this has little to do with our little local judges. It doesn’t matter which judge signed it, but I would guess Phillips. Arkansas Code has some to do with it, but nobody is mentioning that the law that spelled out the Arkansas Code is coming from the multiple US Supreme Court cases on this very matter. If you want something done about this, you will have to battle it out up there.

—–Reply by Harper on November 23, 2009 at 10:58am

For once Chris has something meaningful to say. Consider the BENNIS v. MICHIGAN decision of the U.S. Supreme Court:

“ …this Court has held that an owner’s interest in property may be forfeited by reason of the use to which the property is put even though the owner did not know that it was to be put to such use.”

emphasis added

The whole opinion can be found at:

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/516/442.html

Bennis allowed her estranged husband temporary possession of her car, which was registered in both her and her husband’s name. He was caught with a prostitute while in the car. The car was seized under state law and despite appeals all the way to the Supreme Court, the woman lost her car.

Over the last ten yeas there has been some reform of civil asset forfeiture law. More is needed to protect the innocent. Until that happens, it is important that the public closely monitor the application of these laws.

—–Reply by Wendy Friend on November 23, 2009 at 4:01pm

Didn’t it say that he ended up forfeiting and pleading guilty in exchange for her to be able to keep her house and a portion of the land??

I think there should be more drug seizures like this!

—–Reply by Chris on November 23, 2009 at 4:20pm

Wendy said:

I think there should be more drug seizures like this!

amen. the penalties right now are weak. the dealers get busted, do a couple years in prison (maybe), and then get released only to return to their past. This isn’t Slade’s first dealings with pot. In fact, it wasn’t his first time that year. he will do half his sentence and then be released. and frankly, i’m surprised he will even be doing 12 years.

i also just read the original article in the courier when he was arrested.

“He told [officers] that we arrived there earlier than he expected,” Dodson said. “He said that his intent was to take several [officers] out before we took him out.”

very considerate man.

—–Reply by Wendy Friend on November 23, 2009 at 4:53pm

Are you serious?? and I quote: ” Just because Arkansas code and the US Supreme Court allow the seizure of property from an innocent person does not make such seizure appropriate or just.” How many times was it he was busted?? Some people are too worried about if this was an illegal confiscation or how he was wronged, or who filed the charges… I say good for them for prosecuting him AND seizing his land. Guess he’ll have to buy more land to grow his pot on now. He doesn’t seem to innocent to me, he had his chance. How is it that this was an ‘ILLEGAL CONFISCATION’?

Yvonne Dougherty said:

Chris:

The only way to battle this is to battle it locally. Just because Arkansas code and the US Supreme Court allow the seizure of property from an innocent person does not make such seizure appropriate or just. No one in power had to choose this course of action. But they did. I can make my voice heard of my astonishment at this incident which I consider to be a miscarriage of justice and I can vote. Maybe if the people who chose this course of action are voted out of office, then maybe future office holders will not be so quick to do this again.

Yvonne

—–Reply by Brent Standridge on November 24, 2009 at 12:20am

I am attaching orders from the forfeiture case including the agreed order where Ms. Slade agreed to relinquish any legal claim which she may have had to the 25 acres of land which was forfeited. The 3 page agreed order appears below.

—–Reply by Brent Standridge on November 24, 2009 at 12:22am

2 more orders attached.

%3A170341&x=1#873760Comment170341″>

I am attaching orders from the forfeiture case including the agreed order where Ms. Slade agreed to relinquish any legal claim which she may have had to the 25 acres of land which was forfeited.

—–Reply by Brent Standridge on November 24, 2009 at 12:42am

Here is the 3 page agreed order.

—–Reply by kathy chism on November 24, 2009 at 7:27am

Very interesting.. surprises me that she had a lawyer and they didn’t file an answer, that doesn’t happen often. You never know the elderly lady may have been afraid of what would happen to her if she fought tio keep what was hers, why would she relinquish her right to it for any other reason? Do people just give up 25 acres of land that family has had for years, maybe in Saline County???

Brent Standridge said:

I am attaching orders from the forfeiture case including the agreed order where Ms. Slade agreed to relinquish any legal claim which she may have had to the 25 acres of land which was forfeited. The 3 page agreed order appears below.

—–Reply by Harper on November 24, 2009 at 10:38am

Thanks for posting the documents Brent. Now we know how it ended. It would be nice to know how it started.

Some questions have been answered; Gary Arnold was the judge handling the case. The property was held in a TRUST and raises the question of who the true owner was. Maybe the trust was for the benefit of Kenneth and the Prosecutor was correct in pursuing the forfeiture. However, it appears that a pivotal point of this case was a technical defect (see below) in an answer filed on behalf of Pauline Slade, which rendered her response to the forfeiture as void. It seems to me that the Office of the Prosecutor used this technical defect to cut off Pauline Slade’s chance to ever have her day in court. There is much to still be learned of this affair.

From the AGREED ORDER …

A.C.A. 5-64-505 (g) (4)

—–Reply by Harper on December 1, 2009 at 2:11pm

It’s been a few days since I have replied to this thread. I have not forgotten it. It takes time to gather all the documentation, on which I have been busy. There are all the court papers, a past history of land ownership, and a few other records. I think I have most of what is needed to understand the truth, the whole truth, but I will need some time to put it all in order.

There is a story here. One that should be told, though I’m not sure I am the one to write it, or capable of writing it. There are few times that I regret not getting a formal education. This is one of them.

=============

Permalink —–Reply by Pam Harcrow on December 1, 2009 at 2:20pm

WOW, Harper…. that generates some curiosity…… LOL

—–Reply by kathy chism on December 1, 2009 at 2:35pm

You’ve come this far Harper, spit it out just the way you see it or know it to be true! It doesn’t matter if you use all that fancy language! I understand that alot may be coming down the pipelines for some pretty high ups, all I can say is that they didn’t get it soon enough if they are guilty!!

Harper said:

It’s been a few days since I have replied to this thread. I have not forgotten it. It takes time to gather all the documentation, on which I have been busy. There are all the court papers, a past history of land ownership, and a few other records. I think I have most of what is needed to understand the truth, the whole truth, but I will need some time to put it all in order.

There is a story here. One that should be told, though I’m not sure I am the one to write it, or capable of writing it. There are few times that I regret not getting a formal education. This is one of them.

—–Reply by Brent Standridge on December 1, 2009 at 10:03pm

The opinion showing that the answer was defective was Solis v. State, which I’ve attached. Though it was an agreed order it would have been reversible error for the judge to have ruled against the State based on the Solis case–the trial judge was of course obliged to follow precedent of the Supreme Court. Again I think that the letter of the law was followed–you can always argue for change and take measures to get the law changed but I don’t think you can fault people when they follow the law. Seems to me they would be more openly criticized if they didn’t follow the law.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/arkansasstatecases/supreme/2007b/20071206/07-701.pdf—–Reply by Harper on December 2, 2009 at 9:26am

Brent said:

“Again I think that the letter of the law was followed …”

I agree and said as much back on page two of this thread:

“I have heard it said that the most powerful local office is that of County Prosecutor, simply because of the wide range of discretion held by the office of what charges, if any, he might choose. Surely in this case the letter of law was followed. But I have to ask myself if the actions of the prosecutor Ken Casady denote the discretion I would like to see from that office.”

The average person thinks of fairness and justice as synonymous. One of the first things I observed when I started reading law thirty years ago was that the court cares not one wit for fairness. Fairness is a subjective concept that is not a consideration of law. The courts basically hold to two concepts; (1) predictability, such that like circumstances always produce the same end, and (2) finality, where the end is the end.

Law provides a means to object to a forfeiture; a chance to show that the forfeiture would be a miscarriage of justice. Pauline Slade never had that opportunity. The reason can be found in the case Solis v. State. Unlike most court filings where an attorney may act alone as a representative of his client, on forfeiture matters there is the added idiosyncrasy that the client must provide a verification containing the client’s personal signature. The lack of this one scrap of paper was seized upon by the Prosecutor to void the objection to forfeiture. Left with little means of defense to the forfeiture, Ms. Slade agreed to give up the one tract of land in order to keep the tract with her home.

I reviewed Solis v. State via the link provided by Brent. For me it raises the question of why the legislature chose to add the provision to require a client’s personal signature in an objection to forfeiture. Was it to stop lawyers from automatically filing objections where the client might chose different, saving the state litigation? Loosing one’s land is a serious matter. Was the purpose of the provision to afford a greater protection to the landowner through assuring his attorney has all the facts correct? The answer to this question might be found in the legislative Act from which the statute was derived.

It is my understanding that an Act is superior to the Statute, though I might be wrong. If the signature provision was meant to protect the landowner, then it might have been argued in Solis v. State that the use of this provision by the state to void an otherwise proper answer would contravene the intent of the Act, regardless of the clear and unambiguous language of the statute. Whether this argument was available doesn’t matter because it wasn’t made. The Court considers only what is placed before it.

—–Reply by Pam Harcrow on December 2, 2009 at 12:14pm

Also bear in mind that the precedent deals with a used truck….. NOT 25 acres of land!!!

By the way, was the entire 25 acres planted in “pot”???

—–Reply by Harper on December 3, 2009 at 10:01am

Thanks for the link Yvonne. The Courier article contains information on two previous arrests as well as the latest. I think the bit about “marijuana that was being processed in his barn” was from a 2006 arrest. Information on the latest arrest on which the forfeiture was based seems limited to the following …

On Thursday, Saline County Sheriff deputies and SWAT officers once again raided Slade’s property and found 126 marijuana plants along with the numerous baggies of marijuana. Slade was found sleeping in a vehicle on the property.

And quotes from Lt. Mike Frost of the sheriff’s office …

“Slade has warrants for failure to appear in court on similar charges in 2006 and 2007.”

“This time we didn’t have any problems taking him into custody. There were no traps this time and we only found about three rattlesnakes in the freezer.”

There is a photo with the article that shows Deputy Nick Johnson holding a marijuana plant growing in a pot. I would guess that potted plants could be moved at will.

What is not clear from the article is whether Kenneth Slade was at the time a resident of the “home place” (found sleeping in the car). Or where, on which tract (home place or the later seized tract) the plants were found. If the potted plants were being moved around is the location less significant?

It is curious that Slade had outstanding warrants from the two previous arrests in 2006 and 2007 if he was openly living where he had for many years. It doesn’t look like he was hard to find. Compare the apparent lack of interest with bringing Slade to justice with the later aggressive tactics to seize his mother property.

—–Reply by Harper on December 3, 2009 at 10:14am

I should also like to point out that if law enforcement and the courts had done their job, it’s likely that Kenneth Slade would have been in prison and not carrying out criminal activity that led to his elderly mother loosing her property. Ironic, isn’t it?

—–Reply by Gabe Slade on December 4, 2009 at 10:31am

For what it’s worth, whether you’ll find it in any files or not, Pauline knew Kenneth grew weed. It would’ve been very hard for her not to know. Not that she encouraged him to grow weed, but she definitely knew it was going on and had been for quite some time. I think the real question is: why the civil forfeiture? Who did it benefit? Does anyone here feel more safe because Kenneth Slade (or Pauline) lost property? Can he not grow weed ANYWHERE if released? As Harper has already said, Kenneth did not move away after either previous arrest. The cops knew exactly where he was. However, their incompetency would require them to spend a few years devising a plan to profit from his arrest. Earlier arrests – no profit – no jail time. This arrest – $ – jail time. Weed will be legal in a few years, but that property will be bought and sold, the profits going to support the corruption that allows crime to happen.. unless they can benefit from it somehow.

p.s. the meth cooks live in trailers and don’t own their own land, if they do it’s small and worthless

p.p.s. Kenneth Slade never paid a dime in child support. So if his property so desperately had to be taken, why wasn’t the money used to pay the back child support? Seems more civil to me than buying more drug dogs (white dogs)…

Harper said:

I should also like to point out that if law enforcement and the courts had done their job, it’s likely that Kenneth Slade would have been in prison and not carrying out criminal activity that led to his elderly mother loosing her property. Ironic, isn’t it?