7 ms·

>the court will decide whether the government can freeze all of a defendant’s assets before trial, even those the government itself concedes aren’t tainted by a

>the court will decide whether the government can freeze all of a defendant’s assets before trial, even those the government itself concedes aren’t tainted by any connection to criminality, thus effectively preventing that defendant from paying for his own defense. The shadow issue of our time is equal access to the legal system. It will be interesting to see how this changes the dynamic of the court system if the Supreme Court really decides that defendants cannot hire their own counsel though it is a bit like solving the equal access to education problem by banning all private colleges -- more than a little absurd.

themartorana 11y ago
Isn't it oddly adversarial to say that on the one hand, the government can cripple your ability to mount a private defense, but on the other your defense will come from that same prosecuting and asset-freezing government? Haven't we time and again seen industry more willing to protect its benefactor?
- abfan1127 11y ago
  however, the person is considered innocent until proven guilty, therefore those assets shouldn't be seized until such proof.
  - eximius 11y ago
    Tell that to victims of civil forfeiture who are never even charged.
  - themartorana 11y ago
    Yes, thank you. I came back here to edit my previous comment to ask whether or not asset forfeiture is anything but the presumption of guilt. I get the argument about assets being contested and therefore should be frozen, but they're being frozen by the prosecuting party, and therefore isn't so unbiased.
  - Natsu 11y ago
    Two problems: the asserts are only frozen in this case. This is a fraud case, not a drug case, and they've not been subjected to civil asset forfeiture, so this doesn't touch on that. The other is that if they can never freeze the assets, someone can simply spend or transfer all of their money after stealing it. If a thief has $5,000 and they steal $5,000, they can spend the stolen money and then claim the $5,000 they originally had is untouchable because they only spent stolen money.
    - abfan1127 11y ago
      you are still assuming that the thief is guilty.
      - Natsu 11y ago
        Even you are calling that fictitious entity a "thief" rather than an "alleged thief." But it's just a character in a story, not a real person, nor does it represent anyone. It's normal to make that part of a story to see how the law would play out in various cases. The point of that has nothing to do with guilt or innocence, it's to point out that the outcome of the desired ruling is simply to reward people for spending stolen money. This is a perfectly normal thing that is often used when discussing laws. [1] This is different from saying that about the actual people being accused. This context is important. Otherwise one is failing to separate reality and fantasy. [1] Many examples can be found here: http://lawcomic.net/ http://lawcomic.net/ It's written by an actual lawyer: http://burneylawfirm.com/Firm/ http://burneylawfirm.com/Firm/
    - wavefunction 11y ago
      How about some sort of middle-ground? An individual is accused of $x fraud or theft, $x of assets are frozen? That seems perfectly reasonable.
      - lmm 11y ago
        Did you read the article? They're not fighting the freezing of the $45m of alleged proceeds of fraud, only the $15m of unrelated assets. The government argument is that those would be payable as a fine upon convicting so they don't want that money transferred out of the country.
- Natsu 11y ago
  That's a separate argument for a more robust and effective public defender's office. This is arguing that there's a right to obtain a counsel of choice, which is an argument that the justices said they have already rejected in oral argument [1]. The petitioner in this case is being represented by Howard Srebnick: http://www.royblack.com/attorneys/Howard/Srebnick/ http://www.royblack.com/attorneys/Howard/Srebnick/ and not a public defender. [1] http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/14-419_h3ci.pdf http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcri... "JUSTICE KAGAN: I might just be repeating myself, but [...] I thought that, again, that distinction was the one specifically rejected in Monsanto."
davidgay 11y ago
> though it is a bit like solving the equal access to education problem by banning all private colleges -- more than a little absurd. While one can definitely argue against this view, it's far from absurd: the basic argument is that the availability of private college/lawyers/your-favourite-resource favours the rich and powerful, and that you can only get actual equal access for all to education/trial-defense/something-else if you force the rich and powerful to have an equal playing field with everyone else (at which point they will then use their power to ensure a decent/good level of the service for everyone, including themselves). Two fairly different, and likely overly generalised and simplified, examples of this view: - the British left-wing view of private (known as "public" in Britain, to confuse us all) schools (vs state schools): they allow the rich&powerful to get away with underfunding/neglecting the state school system, as it doesn't actually affect them, their family or their friends' family - the Swiss view of public schools - paraphrasable as "Swiss private schools are for foreigners" - which more or less implies that using (or a society needing) a private school is a moral failing ;) (ie the rich&powerful will help fix the public schools rather than send their children to the private one)
- vinceguidry 11y ago
  > the basic argument is that the availability of private college/lawyers/your-favourite-resource favours the rich and powerful, and that you can only get actual equal access for all to education/trial-defense/something-else if you force the rich and powerful to have an equal playing field with everyone else (at which point they will then use their power to ensure a decent/good level of the service for everyone, including themselves). I don't get it. Can you actually argue in court that because a particular outcome would be "unequal" in terms of access, that the services in question shouldn't be available to anybody? As far as I know, that's never been a viable argument. You have to satisfy a much stronger criteria for this sort of thing, that it's an actual public ill. Inequality, as far as I know, has never, by itself been sufficient to prove that.
  - davidgay 11y ago
    Sorry if I wasn't clear. This is not a legal argument, but a political one.
rogeryu 11y ago
Get legal insurance. I don't know if this is available in the US, but over here in the Netherlands it's really affordable for about $150-200 a year, including things regarding your home and car. I've had this for years without using it, but it's worth the money. This year I had to use it for the first time and the service is quite good up til now.
limeyx 11y ago
Indeed. When only the rich and wealthy can afford legal services and everyone else is forced to plea-bargain to things they didnt even do in order to avoid the threat of decades behind bars ... something has gone wrong.

themartorana 11y ago

Isn't it oddly adversarial to say that on the one hand, the government can cripple your ability to mount a private defense, but on the other your defense will come from that same prosecuting and asset-freezing government? Haven't we time and again seen industry more willing to protect its benefactor?

abfan1127 11y ago
however, the person is considered innocent until proven guilty, therefore those assets shouldn't be seized until such proof.
- eximius 11y ago
  Tell that to victims of civil forfeiture who are never even charged.
- themartorana 11y ago
  Yes, thank you. I came back here to edit my previous comment to ask whether or not asset forfeiture is anything but the presumption of guilt. I get the argument about assets being contested and therefore should be frozen, but they're being frozen by the prosecuting party, and therefore isn't so unbiased.
- Natsu 11y ago
  Two problems: the asserts are only frozen in this case. This is a fraud case, not a drug case, and they've not been subjected to civil asset forfeiture, so this doesn't touch on that. The other is that if they can never freeze the assets, someone can simply spend or transfer all of their money after stealing it. If a thief has $5,000 and they steal $5,000, they can spend the stolen money and then claim the $5,000 they originally had is untouchable because they only spent stolen money.
  - abfan1127 11y ago
    you are still assuming that the thief is guilty.
    - Natsu 11y ago
      Even you are calling that fictitious entity a "thief" rather than an "alleged thief." But it's just a character in a story, not a real person, nor does it represent anyone. It's normal to make that part of a story to see how the law would play out in various cases. The point of that has nothing to do with guilt or innocence, it's to point out that the outcome of the desired ruling is simply to reward people for spending stolen money. This is a perfectly normal thing that is often used when discussing laws. [1] This is different from saying that about the actual people being accused. This context is important. Otherwise one is failing to separate reality and fantasy. [1] Many examples can be found here: http://lawcomic.net/ http://lawcomic.net/ It's written by an actual lawyer: http://burneylawfirm.com/Firm/ http://burneylawfirm.com/Firm/
  - wavefunction 11y ago
    How about some sort of middle-ground? An individual is accused of $x fraud or theft, $x of assets are frozen? That seems perfectly reasonable.
    - lmm 11y ago
      Did you read the article? They're not fighting the freezing of the $45m of alleged proceeds of fraud, only the $15m of unrelated assets. The government argument is that those would be payable as a fine upon convicting so they don't want that money transferred out of the country.
Natsu 11y ago
That's a separate argument for a more robust and effective public defender's office. This is arguing that there's a right to obtain a counsel of choice, which is an argument that the justices said they have already rejected in oral argument [1]. The petitioner in this case is being represented by Howard Srebnick: http://www.royblack.com/attorneys/Howard/Srebnick/ http://www.royblack.com/attorneys/Howard/Srebnick/ and not a public defender. [1] http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/14-419_h3ci.pdf http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcri... "JUSTICE KAGAN: I might just be repeating myself, but [...] I thought that, again, that distinction was the one specifically rejected in Monsanto."

davidgay 11y ago

> though it is a bit like solving the equal access to education problem by banning all private colleges -- more than a little absurd. While one can definitely argue against this view, it's far from absurd: the basic argument is that the availability of private college/lawyers/your-favourite-resource favours the rich and powerful, and that you can only get actual equal access for all to education/trial-defense/something-else if you force the rich and powerful to have an equal playing field with everyone else (at which point they will then use their power to ensure a decent/good level of the service for everyone, including themselves). Two fairly different, and likely overly generalised and simplified, examples of this view: - the British left-wing view of private (known as "public" in Britain, to confuse us all) schools (vs state schools): they allow the rich&powerful to get away with underfunding/neglecting the state school system, as it doesn't actually affect them, their family or their friends' family - the Swiss view of public schools - paraphrasable as "Swiss private schools are for foreigners" - which more or less implies that using (or a society needing) a private school is a moral failing ;) (ie the rich&powerful will help fix the public schools rather than send their children to the private one)

vinceguidry 11y ago
> the basic argument is that the availability of private college/lawyers/your-favourite-resource favours the rich and powerful, and that you can only get actual equal access for all to education/trial-defense/something-else if you force the rich and powerful to have an equal playing field with everyone else (at which point they will then use their power to ensure a decent/good level of the service for everyone, including themselves). I don't get it. Can you actually argue in court that because a particular outcome would be "unequal" in terms of access, that the services in question shouldn't be available to anybody? As far as I know, that's never been a viable argument. You have to satisfy a much stronger criteria for this sort of thing, that it's an actual public ill. Inequality, as far as I know, has never, by itself been sufficient to prove that.
- davidgay 11y ago
  Sorry if I wasn't clear. This is not a legal argument, but a political one.

rogeryu 11y ago

Get legal insurance. I don't know if this is available in the US, but over here in the Netherlands it's really affordable for about $150-200 a year, including things regarding your home and car. I've had this for years without using it, but it's worth the money. This year I had to use it for the first time and the service is quite good up til now.

limeyx 11y ago

Indeed. When only the rich and wealthy can afford legal services and everyone else is forced to plea-bargain to things they didnt even do in order to avoid the threat of decades behind bars ... something has gone wrong.