Get It For A Song

Ah, the good old days when the maxim of “the law abhors a forfeiture” was still in vogue.  Then came in rem forfeiture, and the law started loving forfeitures.  It’s not like it’s  a big secret, and yet it still seems to take folks by surprise.

When Jimmy Tebeau bought the farm (no, in 2004, he actually bought a farm), it was only natural that it be the site of Schwagstock, a take-off of Woodstock for the member of the Grateful Dead tribute band Schwag.  It was also only natural that some fans might ingest substances with which the Drug Enforcement Administration would take issue.  From St. Louis Today :

[T]he U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency, the Missouri Highway Patrol and the U.S. Attorney’s Office filed a joint complaint in the Eastern District of Missouri asking to seize the 350-acre Zoe Farm, alleging rampant drug dealing and drug use at events.

According to its website, the farm, called Camp Zoe, is located 150 miles southwest of St. Louis near Salem and hosts a popular Grateful Dead festival call Schwagstock every year, as well as biker and pagan rallies and individual concerts. Once a popular summer camp for kids, the property was purchased in 2004 by Jimmy Tebeau, a member of the Schwag, a Grateful Dead tribute band.


Truckin’, got his chips cashed in.  Oddly, the investigation took more than four years to complete.  That’s a lot of investigation for the feds to figure out that people who go to hear the Grateful Dead tribute band get high.  Kinda like those prostitute busts that require the cops to go undercover a half dozen times, just to be sure.  The feds call it “interacting” with concertgoers, which in plan English likely involves the words, “don’t bogart that joint.”  Hey, a thorough investigation requires that the special agents be absolutely certain that the substantives involved are when they purport to be.  That’s just good police work.

But all good things come to an end, and the feds dropped the dime.


In the complaint, officials said investigators spent four years monitoring and interacting with concertgoers on the farm, witnessing drug use and completing open drug deals with participants during events. Officials allege that the owner and event operators were aware of the activity and “took no immediate action to prevent” the sale and use of cocaine, marijuana, LSD, ecstasy, psilocybin mushrooms, opium and marijuana-laced food.

I’m shocked.  Shocked!!!  No doubt true for all of us.  And Jimmy and the Feds too (hey, that would make a pretty cool name for a band, no?).

Of course, Jimmy wasn’t charged with a crime, because he committed no crime.  But that doesn’t stop the feds from seeking to seize the farm.  This is an in rem forfeiture.  The property itself was the instrumentality of the crime.  The farm offended the sovereign.  The farm must go.



Tebeau’s lawyer, Dan Viets, said the law is unfair and enables the government to bully innocent property owners and take land, money and homes nearly at will.


“One doesn’t even need to be accused of a crime, let alone convicted of one to be threatened with the loss of everything you own,” Viets said. “That’s the threat.”


No, it’s no threat.  It’s a free ride for the government.  The standard of proof is probable cause, not even preponderance of the evidence.  It doesn’t get any easier than this, especially when the agents hung around for four years toking on the evidence and soaking up the tunes.

Jimmy, unfortunately, found out about the double whammy as well.  Not only did the feds want his farm, but there’s also the money made from Schwagstock.  The income from the concerts offended the sovereign as well, but unlike real property which can’t go anywhere during the pendency of the forfeiture action, money in the bank can be taken out and spent.  You can’t have that, as it would deny the government it’s due.



Viets, who is representing his client pro bono, said Tebeau discovered this week that officials had cleaned out his bank account, yet he has not been served legal notice on that forfeiture.


“It’s pretty darn hard to hire legal counsel if you don’t have any money — and the government knows that,” Viets said. “It’s just heavy-handed and mean-spirited, and entirely uncalled for.”


That’s right, it’s hard to defend when the first thing they do is seize all the money.  It’s like going to war when the other side gets to take your weapons away before the battle.  It may be “entirely uncalled for,” but it’s how the feds roll.  And you wonder why they seem to get away with this all the time?  There’s no better play in town than asset forfeiture.

Keep truckin’, like the do-dah man. 

14 thoughts on “Get It For A Song

  1. Dan

    I had high hopes that the war on terror would give us a respite from this kind of stupidity. How disappointing.

  2. Shawn McManus

    I wonder if the Fed will now start confiscating public high schools and siezing the bank accounts of the school districts.

    (Or are the days of the security guards dealing dope in the parking lots gone?)

  3. Windypundit

    Let me see if I understand the full horror of this situation. Tebeau is effectively indigent because the feds took his money, however, because forfeiture is a civil proceeding, he’s not entitled to help from the federal defender, right? So if Viets wasn’t willing to help him pro bono, he’d pretty much just lose everything, perhaps after an attempted pro se fight?

  4. SHG

    Almost.  The procedural rules for in rem forfeitures are under the Supplemental Maritime Rules, so he would have to know, pro se, how to navigate those instead of the usual Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

  5. Bk PD

    I went to Schwagstock a few years ago. Really is a nice piece of property- good size stream running through the middle of it for swimming and rafting, decent shady spots for camping, nice amphitheatre for the actual concert.

    Pardon my ignorance of federal law, but how did the gov’t lay claim to the money? They’re not claiming that the owner was actually selling drugs- and clearly not ALL the profit from the shows was from entrance fees paid by drug dealers/buyers… why wouldn’t the owner be entitled to keep the profits from the legit aspects of his business?

  6. Justin T.

    And people wonder why I hate the government. When the government acts like a criminal, the people have no choice but to take their dealings underground. I’m not advocating anything illegal, but when the government thinks it has to power to do stuff like this, they shouldn’t be surprised when the people decide to revolt. Ask Marie Antoinette what her feelings are about the absolute power of the sovereign.

  7. SHG

    This is where perspective comes in handy.  Forfeitures are nothing new.  I remember when it came into vogue. People couldn’t believe it then, and they made all sorts of “tsking” sounds.  Then they sat down, had dinner and watched TV.

    No revolt, Justin.  Until it touches their lives, it’s just another horrible governmental atrocity.  Pass the mashed, please.

  8. David Smith

    Many years ago I attended a concert at the Oakland Colliseum. It’s possible I smelled something burning.

    If the feds DON’T try to seize the colliseum, I suggest it’s unequal application of the law. I suppose it might even be called bigotry (classism) since the commoners are getting the shaft and government agencies are getting a free ride.

  9. SHG

    I can’t recall a rock concert I ever attended where the odor of something burning didn’t immediately filter through the air as the lights went down.

Comments are closed.