Civil Seizure push-back???

[Rutabaga]

I was clearly talking about a search request...

when i respond to you specifically, i will do it this way, quoting you...

other than that, no problem...

[kazenatsu]

Another example of civil forfeiture.

The government can take all of a person's money from their bank accounts, if that person is suspected of a crime. There is no trial, and that person is not even automatically entitled to a hearing about whether it is fair. They have to file a motion to petition for hearing.
The person might not even know, or sometimes might even never know, what the alleged evidence was against them that was used to justify the seizure of their money.

video here: Is it legal?: FBI seizes nearly $1 million from family without filing charges
(but this link is not going to last for long)

Fox News
Is it legal? FBI seizes nearly $1 million from family without filing charges
February 22, 2022
partial transcript:
"It's been devestating financially and emotionally. The government has seized not only Carl's money but also money that money that Amy independently earned."
She was an attorney, she started a workspace company and some of the money was taken from her.
This action was brought forth by ther United State's Attorney's Office and it's a civil action, so it's different from criminal, and criminal has a higher standard. It's proof beyond reasonable doubt in the criminal sector. And in the civil, it's preponderance of the evidence. So the United States Attorney files a complaint, and then the defendants have to file answers. And then there's discovery, much like a personal injury case where people have to be deposed and interrogatories and things like that - very very dangerous for somebody who the United State's Attorney says has criminal activity. Now it's different again. It tees them up, unfortunately for possible depositions under oath. And it's really against rule number one in criminal defense that you not give statements. So he's put in a really really tough spot there, when the United States Attorney tries to forfeit. And unfortunately for this individual and many out there, this action for forfeiture can come in the civil context before an indictment, after an indictment, or when no indictment is filed ever. Because it's a lower standard and it's preponderance of the evidence, unlike the higher standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, they could still bring forth forfeiture actions with the appropriate nexus (connection) to criminality.
So for a lot of people, when their assets are taken, they need money to have, you know, fight, to be able to fund an attorney, to be able to fight back. So this puts them in a very precarious position, whether they're innocent or guilty, and this is before any guilt has been proved in a court of law. The very assets they need to defend themselves, they may not be able to get their hands on. So there's a question of whether this is actually fair. You look at this poor family and how their whole world has been turned upside down just to end up in a settlement where they have gotten more than half of their assets back. And then also, when this happens, there is an active intimidation here where they take away all your assets, and then they tell you, oh, you have to defend yourself. Well, how do you defend yourself? You can't afford an attorney now.
Carl Nelson has denied the allegations against him. The allegations was a whistleblower stepped up and actually went to Jeff Bezos at Amazon, where Carl Nelson was apparently doing some real estate work with them, and said, "Het, this guy is ripping you off. He's scamming you." He denies all of it, but now this family is in limbo for two or three years at his point. What happens next?
This story is not over yet, because he's still within the statute of limitations for a criminal action to be brought. And these federal investigations they take time. This individual still could have charges brought. And often times when individuals defend these actions in the civil forfeiture or the civil actions for money, they take the stand, they do depositions, and those depositions, those transcripts, go right to the United States Attorney's Office and the prosecuting attorneys to review to determine whether they've opened their mouth and they've admitted to criminal conduct. So it's a very very difficult spot to be in, when you have forfeiture, civil actions, and also a target in a criminal investigation.
This is becoming an increasingly interesting conversation about cars, bank accounts, safety deposit boxes, all kinds of things being seized before a criminal indictment.​

There are several issues. One of them is the defendant almost has to give up their Fifth Amendment rights to be able to try to get their money back. (In the US there is a legal presumption that the defendant does not have to say anything, and cannot be forced to say anything that could then be used as evidence of some crime against them)
Maybe a prosecutor might decide to use this as a strategy to try to force a suspect to give testimony about what they did. That could be unfair.

Or a defendant might even be hesitant about trying to get their money back or making a complaint, for fear that the prosecutor file charges against them and have them arrested and try to send them to prison in retaliation. The Justice Department gets to keep the money that they seize, so there can be a perverse disincentive.

[Karl]

Another example of civil forfeiture.

The government can take all of a person's money from their bank accounts, if that person is suspected of a crime. There is no trial, and that person is not even automatically entitled to a hearing about whether it is fair. They have to file a motion to petition for hearing.
The person might not even know, or sometimes might even never know, what the alleged evidence was against them that was used to justify the seizure of their money.

video here: Is it legal?: FBI seizes nearly $1 million from family without filing charges
(but this link is not going to last for long)

Fox News
Is it legal? FBI seizes nearly $1 million from family without filing charges
February 22, 2022
partial transcript:
"It's been devestating financially and emotionally. The government has seized not only Carl's money but also money that money that Amy independently earned."
She was an attorney, she started a workspace company and some of the money was taken from her.
This action was brought forth by ther United State's Attorney's Office and it's a civil action, so it's different from criminal, and criminal has a higher standard. It's proof beyond reasonable doubt in the criminal sector. And in the civil, it's preponderance of the evidence. So the United States Attorney files a complaint, and then the defendants have to file answers. And then there's discovery, much like a personal injury case where people have to be deposed and interrogatories and things like that - very very dangerous for somebody who the United State's Attorney says has criminal activity. Now it's different again. It tees them up, unfortunately for possible depositions under oath. And it's really against rule number one in criminal defense that you not give statements. So he's put in a really really tough spot there, when the United States Attorney tries to forfeit. And unfortunately for this individual and many out there, this action for forfeiture can come in the civil context before an indictment, after an indictment, or when no indictment is filed ever. Because it's a lower standard and it's preponderance of the evidence, unlike the higher standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, they could still bring forth forfeiture actions with the appropriate nexus (connection) to criminality.
So for a lot of people, when their assets are taken, they need money to have, you know, fight, to be able to fund an attorney, to be able to fight back. So this puts them in a very precarious position, whether they're innocent or guilty, and this is before any guilt has been proved in a court of law. The very assets they need to defend themselves, they may not be able to get their hands on. So there's a question of whether this is actually fair. You look at this poor family and how their whole world has been turned upside down just to end up in a settlement where they have gotten more than half of their assets back. And then also, when this happens, there is an active intimidation here where they take away all your assets, and then they tell you, oh, you have to defend yourself. Well, how do you defend yourself? You can't afford an attorney now.
Carl Nelson has denied the allegations against him. The allegations was a whistleblower stepped up and actually went to Jeff Bezos at Amazon, where Carl Nelson was apparently doing some real estate work with them, and said, "Het, this guy is ripping you off. He's scamming you." He denies all of it, but now this family is in limbo for two or three years at his point. What happens next?
This story is not over yet, because he's still within the statute of limitations for a criminal action to be brought. And these federal investigations they take time. This individual still could have charges brought. And often times when individuals defend these actions in the civil forfeiture or the civil actions for money, they take the stand, they do depositions, and those depositions, those transcripts, go right to the United States Attorney's Office and the prosecuting attorneys to review to determine whether they've opened their mouth and they've admitted to criminal conduct. So it's a very very difficult spot to be in, when you have forfeiture, civil actions, and also a target in a criminal investigation.
This is becoming an increasingly interesting conversation about cars, bank accounts, safety deposit boxes, all kinds of things being seized before a criminal indictment.​

There are several issues. One of them is the defendant almost has to give up their Fifth Amendment rights to be able to try to get their money back. (In the US there is a legal presumption that the defendant does not have to say anything, and cannot be forced to say anything that could then be used as evidence of some crime against them)
Maybe a prosecutor might decide to use this as a strategy to try to force a suspect to give testimony about what they did. That could be unfair.

Or a defendant might even be hesitant about trying to get their money back or making a complaint, for fear that the prosecutor file charges against them and have them arrested and try to send them to prison in retaliation. The Justice Department gets to keep the money that they seize, so there can be a perverse disincentive.

That's why I never felt "Guilty" about Collecting back a "Government" Program..

They "Locked" me Up and "Bankrupt" Me..

Then "PRISON".. halfway house on Foodstamps..

This what I got "Back"..

[mr claws]

The ONLY thing to come of the "Cold War" and the "War on Drugs" was the deliberate and calculated shredding of Constitutional protections! Note that BOTH parties show NO INTEREST in walking any of 'em back.

[UKSmartypants]

In the UK, anyone sent to jail, if they are recieving a state pension, will have that pension suspended. Irrespective of why a person is in jail, this is outrageous.

The UK state pension is not a free handout. You only get one if you have paid 'National Insurance', and for a full pension you have to have paid it for 43 years. Note this is an insurance policy offered by the state to cover you for unemployment and an old age pension. You get neither is you havent paid.

So paying your pension is a contractual obligation of the governments, having taken your money, you paid the premiums, you're entitled to the payout. Withholding somones pension because they are i njail is basically breach of contract.

The point is, the thing someone needs most when they leave jail is money, especially a pensioner, who cant work. So by withholding a pensioners pension you are perversely making them penniless, and more likely to commit a crime to survive . Counter productive and entirely insane.

[Lone Gunman]

In the UK, anyone sent to jail, if they are recieving a state pension, will have that pension suspended. Irrespective of why a person is in jail, this is outrageous.

The UK state pension is not a free handout. You only get one if you have paid 'National Insurance', and for a full pension you have to have paid it for 43 years. Note this is an insurance policy offered by the state to cover you for unemployment and an old age pension. You get neither is you havent paid.

So paying your pension is a contractual obligation of the governments, having taken your money, you paid the premiums, you're entitled to the payout. Withholding somones pension because they are i njail is basically breach of contract.

The point is, the thing someone needs most when they leave jail is money, especially a pensioner, who cant work. So by withholding a pensioners pension you are perversely making them penniless, and more likely to commit a crime to survive . Counter productive and entirely insane.

seems to me if it's 'suspended' while a citizen in jail, when he's released he/she should get the full amount that was withheld in a lump sum.

[Foghorn]

When I read this story elsewhere the wife was saying the Feds returned part of the money, something like $600,000.

The other $400,000 they kept as "expenses".

[kazenatsu]

In the UK, anyone sent to jail, if they are recieving a state pension, will have that pension suspended. Irrespective of why a person is in jail, this is outrageous.

Well, let's be fair. A pension was never meant to be relied upon to pay back debt or pay a mortgage.

I can understand the logic on this one. It's socialism, and if you are in prison they are still paying for you to be there and "take care of you".

What you are describing is a valid issue we could discuss, but is a different conversation for another thread.

[Swedgin]

FBI, Stasi, KGB, Gestapo...all cut from the same cloth.

[Moonie]

.
biden-ukraine.jpg


.