and unsafe streets,” it could divest Mrs. Bennis, an innocent owner, of her property interest without compensation. Id. at 453, 116 S.Ct. 994. Bennis suggests that so long as the government’s exercise of authority was pursuant to some power other than eminent domain, then the plaintiff has failed to state a claim for compensation under the Fifth Amendment. Id. The innocence of the property owner does not factor into the determination. Id.; see also United States v. One 1979 Cadillac Coupe De Ville, 833 F.2d 994, 1000 (Fed.Cir.1987) (noting that an acquittal “did not make the government seizure and possession [of property related to the crime with which the defendant was charged but ultimately acquitted] any less proper, or convert that seizure into a taking”); Seay, 61 Fed.Cl. at 33-35 (<HOLDING>). As unfair as it may seem, under Acadia and
holding that the plaintiff filed suit within the statute of limitations even though he could not prove the time at which he mailed his petition holding that sufficient evidence supported a federal conviction for aiding and abetting the unlawful possession of a firearm when there was evidence that the defendant had driven the ultimate possessors of the pipe bomb to a store had purchased gunpowder for them with the understanding that they planned to use it to build pipe bombs had observed the possessors build the pipe bombs in his garage using his tools had seen the finished product and had told the possessors to go light the pipe bombs somewhere else holding that the subject of a criminal investigation did not state a takings claim even though a ruptured pipe at a government storage facility had rendered his property nearly worthless and despite the fact that he was never indicted holding that the appellant had not changed his residence from his registered address despite the fact that the house had never had electricity service during the time that he had lived there holding that a defendant did not otherwise defend even though he had appeared before the court