Alabama Widow Could Lose Home to Marijuana Charges
The federal law barring medical use of marijuana has already cost Mara Lynn Williams her husband, and may now cost her her home as well.
Williams, 56, said she had no idea her husband, Royce, was growing marijuana on their 40-acre property in Chilton County, Alabama until federal authorities raided their land and found 408 plants growing several hundred yards from their house.
Then in May, Royce Williams committed suicide, rather than serve a potentially lengthy prison sentence for the federal drug charges he was facing. His wife, who works as a nurse at a Montgomery hospital, said Royce smoked marijuana because it was the only medication that helped ease the chronic pain he suffered as a result of several surgeries.
Now the Montgomery Advertiser is reporting that the U.S. attorney’s office plans to seize the Williams’ property – including the house still occupied by Mara Lynn, who in 2003 was diagnosed with breast cancer that spread to her liver, lungs and bone, but is now in remission.
“It is not morally right,” the Advertiser quoted Mara Lynn Williams as saying. “My husband paid with his life. What else do they want?”
According to a spokesman for the U.S. attorney’s office, “[Royce Williams’] death, which ended the criminal case, had no effect on the ongoing civil case … The bottom line is, we don’t want people to benefit from criminal activity.”
Benefit? I suppose seeing her husband suffer a bit less because of the relief he got from medical marijuana might count as a benefit, but doesn’t driving him to suicide make up for that? Must she be made homeless, too – on top of losing more than $18,000 cash, vehicles, computers and other belongings the Advertiser says were seized by the Feds?
To help us change these cruel laws, go to MPP’s Federal Action Center.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
408 plants! At a pound per plant, you're talking nearly a quarter ton for crying out loud!!!
Is this half baked farce of an article seriously suggesting poor Mr. Williams needed to smoke over a pound of marijuana a day for health reasons? Anyone with half a brain can figure out poor Mr. Williams was just another scumbag drug pusher peddling dope to high school kids . Anyone with half a brain can also figure out that poor Mr. Williams knew exactly what he was doing and what would happen if he got caught. However, poor Mr. Williams figured a half million dollar marijuana crop was worth the risk.
Then there's poor Mrs. Williams who watched poor Mr. Willams smoke pot day in and day out, but didn't notice he was growing 408 marijuana plants a hundred yards from the house. Are we to believe poor Mrs. Williams thought poor Mr. Williams spent all that time in the marijuana fields growing tomatoes?
Hogwash.
When you claim:
"Anyone with half a brain can figure out poor Mr. Williams was just another scumbag drug pusher peddling dope to high school kids . Anyone with half a brain can also figure out that poor Mr. Williams knew exactly what he was doing and what would happen if he got caught."
However, may I point out that the rest of us, with 2 halves, can see that while Mr. Williams was growing a crop easily too large for personal use, he is no longer alive. His wife was not charged of any wrongdoing but still faces punishment.
I think you are over-reacting a bit here and missing the forest because of all the trees.
(Or in this case, pot plants.)
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
Mrs. Williams certainly stood to gain from the sale of the half million dollar marijuana plantation, the same as she would if her husband landed a job as CEO of IBM. On the other hand, if she had a husband who was CEO of IBM who was fired and committed suicide , she would likely lose the house when she couldn't make the mortgage payments.
Big surprise! What one's spouse does for a living has an impact on the community property. If a woman doesn't want to get kicked out of her home, perhaps she shouldn't marry a drug dealer or someone with otherwise poor income producing prospects. As annoying as the saying gets through mindless repetition, "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime .".
Personally, I kinda like my house. So, while the prospect of picking up a half mil in easy money has a certain allure, it's not worth it to me to risk losing my home. That being the case, I don't grow marijuana on my property or allow others to do so. You would be simply amazed at how little effort is involved in not growing marijuana.
Firstly, I know exactly how easy it is to not grow pot. This is because I neither grow, nor use, pot or any other drug.
I believe that the nurse in this story can likely pay the house payment and that the state has no compelling reason to demand property from the dead suspect or his surviving family.
The house is not "a fruit of the crime " as I understand the scenario. By this I mean they did not buy the house with proceeds garnered from the plantation in its back 40.
Furthermore, for you to suggest that she had to know what was going on, is a leap to a conclusion that is not supported by the facts presented in the story.
If you disagree, point out where it states that she was party to the crime and aided the now-dead suspect in furthering the criminal act.
Furthermore, the house is not community property the moment the husband is pronounced dead. At that point, she is the owner.
If you can follow my reasoning now, even if it differs from your line of reasoning, can you explain how her property is subject to seizure by the state for a crime she did not commit?
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
You can read the forfeiture code here:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode21/usc_sec_21_00000853----000-.html
If you manufacture drugs on your property, you lose the property. It's that simple. The Feds don't split it with your fellow gang members, co-conspirators, or heirs - they take it all. I think most folks are aware of the law , which is probably why most folks don't grow pot in the back 40.
Read the first 6 words of the code. She was not convicted, was she? From what i understand, she was not even charged.
"Any person convicted of a violation of this subchapter or subchapter II of this chapter punishable by imprisonment for more than one year shall forfeit to the United States, irrespective of any provision of State law —
(1) any property constituting, or derived from, any proceeds the person obtained, directly or indirectly, as the result of such violation;
(2) any of the person’s property used, or intended to be used, in any manner or part, to commit, or to facilitate the commission of, such violation;..."
You argued:
"If you manufacture drugs on your property, you lose the property. It's that simple."
I agree, Don. The bone of contention I have is equally simple: She did not manufacture drugs.
My point here is inescapable. If you don't do the crime (which she didn't), you shouldn't have to pay the consequences (which she is).
Do you understand my argument?
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
The guy was growing pot on his property. It doesn't make a speck of difference whether he kills himself or gets shot dead resisting arrest .
Next you'll be arguing Madoff's wife ought to get to keep the house.
I do not disagree that they could have taken his house. I won't argue whether they /should/ have or should not have.
I am saying that they should not take her house for something her late husband did.
You example is illogical because Mr. Madoff is still alive. Mrs. Madoff is plenty rich enough in her own right to pay off the house.
I think you are being absurd for demanding that the woman in this story should lose her house for breaking no laws... Do you think she should be guilty by association?
What crime did she commit which warrants her house being seized? Show me that and I'll concede the argument to you. Otherwise, you are posing an indefensible argument.
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
One more sign Prohibition most be stopped.