out, this case is “[ujnlike so many of the reported forfeiture cases, mostly involving boats or automobiles, [in that] this case has involved the seizure of an operational, multi-million dollar Appaloosa horse ranch ... [which] the government has continued to operate ..., spending to date over two million dollars in the process.” 630 F.Supp. at 1547. Consequently, “[f]rom the hundreds of thousands of dollars spent feeding his horses to the eight thousand dollars spent fixing his pool, it [is] difficult to justify huge expenditures of government funds without thinking that Bruce Emery Griffin should be required to repay some of the money even if he prevailed.” Id. at 1568. In this irregular and unique set of circumstances, therefore, we find the distric ency, 808 F.2d 895 (1st Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>); United States v. $5,644,540.00 in United
holding that me const art 1  5 does not require the state to prove probable cause for a search beyond a reasonable doubt holding that the state must prove juvenile delinquency beyond a reasonable doubt holding that because of its civil nature section 881 does not require the government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a criminal violation occurred holding that the nature and occasion of prior offenses are facts inherent in the convictions which government is not required to allege in the indictment or prove beyond a reasonable doubt holding that because of its civil nature section 881 is not subject to the ex post facto clause