At 03:03 PM 12/27/02, Helen Graves wrote: >I have heard from one person (Sandy) that John and Elizabeth Proctor's >real estate was seized BEFORE they were tried and convicted. How could >Sheriff Corwin get away with that? > >Also, if Sheriff Corwin took the property, would the sales (conveyances) >be found in deed records and would they be listed on the Grantor Index >under "S" for Sheriff George Corwin to, or under "C" Corwin, George to ? > >Or, would the Grantor be the govt, as in "Massachusetts Bay" or "Colony of >Massachusetts Bay", or what? Let me take a shot at this. In modern times, it would be the name of the government unit which did the seizure -- State of Illinois, for example, or County of Fairfax. I think even back then it would be very fishy if the Sheriff put properties confiscated through his office in his personal name, so I think "Corwin, George C." properties can safely be assumed to be those which were his very own, not held by a governmental entity. Yes, the deeds OUGHT to show that the property was in the Sheriff's custody before going to the new owners; for the period between confiscation and re-sale, the government unit is the title holder, and should be shown like that. As to the Proctor seizure BEFORE trial, two things: 1. Since people were charged for their own costs of imprisonment even BEFORE trial, and even if NOT found guilty, perhaps the properties were seized to pay ongoing incarceration costs? Does this make sense in the Proctor situation? Were they imprisoned for long? 2. Even in modern times, and despite the U.S. Constitution's guarantees against unreasonable seizures without due process of law, properties are still routinely seized before trial. This usually works two ways: a. because the property itself is being sued -- sounds odd, but particularly in drug cases, you get cases such as "United States v. $400,000 in U.S. Currency." Also boats, mansions, etc.etc. In theory, under certain jurisdictions, anything "used" in the commission of certain crimes is subject to seizure; anything purchased with the proceeds of certain crimes is subject to seizure; etc. This is, IMHO (in my humble opinion) an appalling and unconstitutional bit of overkill due to the so-called "war on drugs," violating the 4th and 8th Amendments, just for starters. Courts nonetheless have upheld such statutes; as all of us on this list know, courts are scarcely immune to hysteria. People have lost million-dollar yachts because a crew member or unknown visitor left a marijuana joint aboard. b. there is reason to believe the property is a product of a crime and will be subject to confiscation after trial, so it is seized or frozen before trial to prevent the accused from making away with it. Think frozen bank accounts, etc. A modern legal problem with such pre-trial seizures is that seizing enough of the accused's assets may make it impossible for her or him to pay for a competent legal defense. So... perhaps the properties were seized prior to trial to prevent the Proctors from selling them or otherwise devising them over to their heirs, in order to remove them from potential confiscation? Lisa