5 ms·

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

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.
      - LatteLazy 4y ago
        I think one key issue here is that no justice has happened yet. We cannot be sure whether it was a miscarriage of justice to take the funds until a court hears the case. Maybe it's a miscarriage to return them? It makes sense they are returned because at this point it should be a default win for the plantiff. But 17% are being kept (unjust) and no one has actually HAD their day in court either (so there is no innocent/guilty party here). Default wins are still wins but they tell us nothing. I think all of this could be solved by NOT taking 2 years (and counting) to file charges. C'est la vie.
        mannykannot 4y ago
        > We cannot be sure whether it was a miscarriage of justice to take the funds until a court hears the case. So it's OK to impose a sentence presumptively, so long as the prosecution will ultimately prevail? Putting aside the practical difficulties in implementing such a policy, it is just about diametrically opposite to the usual concept of due process. > I think all of this could be solved by NOT taking 2 years (and counting) to file charges. Response to the manifest injustice of kangaroo courts is largely responsible for that. Civil forfeiture is a sort of back-door kangaroo court, IMHO (or not even that, as there seems to be not even the appearance of due process.)
- labcomputer 4y ago
  > It's not clear to me why they settled IF they are actually innocent and would win in an actual court case Because you have to pay your lawyer. And you need at least some of your money back to do that. And you can then sue for actual damages later and get it all back.
- olliej 4y ago
  This is the profit model for civil forfeiture, repeatedly supported by courts: the US government is allowed to seize any assets that they want if they claim it has been involved in illegal activities. They don’t charge the person they’re stealing from so the person can’t defend the claims and prevent the seizure - instead they have to prove their innocence to get their own money back. But that’s expensive, and if the stolen money is less than the recovery costs (which the government has stated are not recoverable) there’s no reason to try.

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.
    - LatteLazy 4y ago
      I think one key issue here is that no justice has happened yet. We cannot be sure whether it was a miscarriage of justice to take the funds until a court hears the case. Maybe it's a miscarriage to return them? It makes sense they are returned because at this point it should be a default win for the plantiff. But 17% are being kept (unjust) and no one has actually HAD their day in court either (so there is no innocent/guilty party here). Default wins are still wins but they tell us nothing. I think all of this could be solved by NOT taking 2 years (and counting) to file charges. C'est la vie.
      - mannykannot 4y ago
        > We cannot be sure whether it was a miscarriage of justice to take the funds until a court hears the case. So it's OK to impose a sentence presumptively, so long as the prosecution will ultimately prevail? Putting aside the practical difficulties in implementing such a policy, it is just about diametrically opposite to the usual concept of due process. > I think all of this could be solved by NOT taking 2 years (and counting) to file charges. Response to the manifest injustice of kangaroo courts is largely responsible for that. Civil forfeiture is a sort of back-door kangaroo court, IMHO (or not even that, as there seems to be not even the appearance of due process.)
labcomputer 4y ago
> It's not clear to me why they settled IF they are actually innocent and would win in an actual court case Because you have to pay your lawyer. And you need at least some of your money back to do that. And you can then sue for actual damages later and get it all back.
olliej 4y ago
This is the profit model for civil forfeiture, repeatedly supported by courts: the US government is allowed to seize any assets that they want if they claim it has been involved in illegal activities. They don’t charge the person they’re stealing from so the person can’t defend the claims and prevent the seizure - instead they have to prove their innocence to get their own money back. But that’s expensive, and if the stolen money is less than the recovery costs (which the government has stated are not recoverable) there’s no reason to try.