6 ms·

I am very confused by this. First on Amazons claim: the key parts of the screenshots she herself provided are blacked out. So they show nothing?! Someone has

I am very confused by this. First on Amazons claim: the key parts of the screenshots she herself provided are blacked out. So they show nothing?! Someone has specifically removed only the parts relevant to her claim. Second, on the Civil Forfeiture: They have gotten most but not all of the cash back. If the DOJ actually admit there is no case why not insist on all of it (and lawyers fees and interest etc)? And also, the DOJ are VERY clear the only reason they didn't fight the return of the money is that there is an ongoing criminal investigation and they don't want to prejudice it. The DOJ having an open case AND secret sources seems like the opposite of proof you're innocent. Third, it seems entirely fair and reasonable for Amazon to have pressured the DOJ to seize/freeze assets. Isn't that very standard in any case of fraud (or whatever this is ultimately prosecuted as)? I don't know why Op talks about it like it is evidence of conspiracy... I don't know much about this case. Civil Forfeiture seems like bullshit to me. It's confusing to me how long US cases seem to take (both before and during court proceedings, ditto for the Jan 6th prosecutions that are only just getting going). But these claims seem suspicious as hell... Please do correct me if I am missing some key point here?

abigail95 4y ago
I find it shocking that's an allowable outcome, that you can have funds seized for 2 years, sue them to provide proof, and they can just return it back without showing what evidence they had. > ongoing criminal investigation and they don't want to prejudice it Too bad in my book. If you start arresting people and seizing property, just giving some of it back isn't good enough, you're going to have to explain yourself.
- LatteLazy 4y ago
  This is where I get even more confused. I basically agree with you. And if it were me, I would be demanding ALL the money back. I wouldn't let them keep them keep $108k (17%) of the money. I'd have wanted every cent AND interest, fees, an apology etc. It's not clear to me why they settled IF they are actually innocent and would win in an actual court case. And calling that a win is even weirder (doubly so when you add on lawyers fees etc). The whole thread is extra confusing because further down there is (what I think is) a judges order to place into escrow $25mil (3.8mil and 21.3mil). Is that still locked up or has it been released? Because getting the DOJ to release 525k seems like a small win compared to still having 50x that amount tied up... It's confusion all the way down as far as I can tell... To be clear, 2 years is a very long time to wait IMHO. Not sure why the US system seems so slow or why people are tolerant of it.
  - nhchris 4y ago
    > It's not clear to me why they settled IF they are actually innocent and would win in an actual court case. How would they pay lawyers to prosecute that case? All their money was seized.
  - mannykannot 4y ago
    The DOJ would not return all the money without a legal fight, and that costs money. In this situation, the pragmatic decision to take what they can get cannot be read as evidence of some sort of malfeasance. > ...why people are tolerant of it. There is a disturbing tendency to feel that if law enforcement did something, the target was probably up to something, and that's justification enough. This circular reasoning is by no means accepted by everyone, all the time, but widely enough to damp down any groundswell of concern. Due process is a fuzzy, abstract and remote concern for many people.
    - LatteLazy 4y ago
      This is why I hate settlements: Is she settling because it would cost more than it's worth to get the rest? Or because she knows the DOJ can publicly justify seizing that portion and doesn't want to lose? The whole "American rule" (everyone pays their own fees) just makes this worse. In most places she'd demand what is hers (or be admitting it was not hers) because she would get her fees back. But not the US. That creates a lot of uncertainty and (imho) injustice.
      - mannykannot 4y ago
        > The whole "American rule" (everyone pays their own fees) just makes this worse. It would hardly be less worse if the plaintiffs were also likely to be liable for the DOJ's costs in the event that they lost. Few people can be certain of the outcome, no matter how reasonable the case might seem to someone not thoroughly acquainted with the relevant law. Let's focus on the clear miscarriage of justice here, which is the use of forfeiture in the first place. Note that this issue is separable from the question of whether Carleton Nelson acted as Amazon alleges.
lazyier 4y ago
In a sane country you are innocent until proven guilty. That fact you exist as a human being is all the evidence you need to prove you are innocent. If you have to "prove you are innocent" the government is the one violating the law, not you. Seizing your family's wealth and denying you ability to make a living is punishment for a crime you are not convicted of. That itself alone is beyond violation of justice. And yes it is "standard" for the government to leverage administrative law to seize assets before a court case. The true purpose of this is to deny a person ability to defend themselves against the government. This is the very definition of evil and tyranny. There is no excuse. > Third, it seems entirely fair and reasonable for Amazon to have pressured the DOJ to seize/freeze assets. Isn't that very standard in any case of fraud (or whatever this is ultimately prosecuted as)? Well just wait until somebody decides to seize everything you own with no explanation, no crime, no evidence, and no ability to appeal and see how you "fair and reasonable" it feels after that.

abigail95 4y ago

I find it shocking that's an allowable outcome, that you can have funds seized for 2 years, sue them to provide proof, and they can just return it back without showing what evidence they had. > ongoing criminal investigation and they don't want to prejudice it Too bad in my book. If you start arresting people and seizing property, just giving some of it back isn't good enough, you're going to have to explain yourself.

LatteLazy 4y ago
This is where I get even more confused. I basically agree with you. And if it were me, I would be demanding ALL the money back. I wouldn't let them keep them keep $108k (17%) of the money. I'd have wanted every cent AND interest, fees, an apology etc. It's not clear to me why they settled IF they are actually innocent and would win in an actual court case. And calling that a win is even weirder (doubly so when you add on lawyers fees etc). The whole thread is extra confusing because further down there is (what I think is) a judges order to place into escrow $25mil (3.8mil and 21.3mil). Is that still locked up or has it been released? Because getting the DOJ to release 525k seems like a small win compared to still having 50x that amount tied up... It's confusion all the way down as far as I can tell... To be clear, 2 years is a very long time to wait IMHO. Not sure why the US system seems so slow or why people are tolerant of it.
- nhchris 4y ago
  > It's not clear to me why they settled IF they are actually innocent and would win in an actual court case. How would they pay lawyers to prosecute that case? All their money was seized.
- mannykannot 4y ago
  The DOJ would not return all the money without a legal fight, and that costs money. In this situation, the pragmatic decision to take what they can get cannot be read as evidence of some sort of malfeasance. > ...why people are tolerant of it. There is a disturbing tendency to feel that if law enforcement did something, the target was probably up to something, and that's justification enough. This circular reasoning is by no means accepted by everyone, all the time, but widely enough to damp down any groundswell of concern. Due process is a fuzzy, abstract and remote concern for many people.
  - LatteLazy 4y ago
    This is why I hate settlements: Is she settling because it would cost more than it's worth to get the rest? Or because she knows the DOJ can publicly justify seizing that portion and doesn't want to lose? The whole "American rule" (everyone pays their own fees) just makes this worse. In most places she'd demand what is hers (or be admitting it was not hers) because she would get her fees back. But not the US. That creates a lot of uncertainty and (imho) injustice.
    - mannykannot 4y ago
      > The whole "American rule" (everyone pays their own fees) just makes this worse. It would hardly be less worse if the plaintiffs were also likely to be liable for the DOJ's costs in the event that they lost. Few people can be certain of the outcome, no matter how reasonable the case might seem to someone not thoroughly acquainted with the relevant law. Let's focus on the clear miscarriage of justice here, which is the use of forfeiture in the first place. Note that this issue is separable from the question of whether Carleton Nelson acted as Amazon alleges.

lazyier 4y ago

In a sane country you are innocent until proven guilty. That fact you exist as a human being is all the evidence you need to prove you are innocent. If you have to "prove you are innocent" the government is the one violating the law, not you. Seizing your family's wealth and denying you ability to make a living is punishment for a crime you are not convicted of. That itself alone is beyond violation of justice. And yes it is "standard" for the government to leverage administrative law to seize assets before a court case. The true purpose of this is to deny a person ability to defend themselves against the government. This is the very definition of evil and tyranny. There is no excuse. > Third, it seems entirely fair and reasonable for Amazon to have pressured the DOJ to seize/freeze assets. Isn't that very standard in any case of fraud (or whatever this is ultimately prosecuted as)? Well just wait until somebody decides to seize everything you own with no explanation, no crime, no evidence, and no ability to appeal and see how you "fair and reasonable" it feels after that.