4 ms·

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 b

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.)
      - LatteLazy 4y ago
        This isn't about a sentence. It's about who get's to hold the money until we decide who it actually belongs to. There are downsides whatever we decide...
        mannykannot 4y ago
        > This isn't about a sentence. Civil forfeiture clearly has a punitive effect, and is therefore a de facto sentence, prior to conviction and regardless of whether a conviction is ultimately secured. In this case, "while the government can give us our money back, they can’t give us back the life we had before Amazon’s accusations. We had to leave a city and community we loved, sell our home, leave our daughters’ schools – and move away from the place where I built The Riveter, created 100 jobs, and worked with women starting businesses." For families on the edge of poverty, the consequences can be more devastating still. Just saying "there are downsides whatever we decide" does not even begin to make a case for civil forfeiture - you would need to expand that ellipsis into an actual argument.
        LatteLazy 4y ago
        So hold on, you and a police office come to your house and find someone inside stealing your TV and some cash. Does the thief get to keep the TV until he is tried? Can he keep and spend the cash since he's still technically innocent? That's the problem with just taking the extreme "nothing punitive until there's a guilty verdict" approach. The least bad answer is somewhere in between. Personally I think 2 years is too long to wait. But that doesn't mean the right amount of time is zero...
Supermancho 4y ago
> The DOJ would not return all the money without a legal fight, and that costs money Interesting to note, when the IRS makes a procedural mistake, they return improperly seized money, with interest. A very small interest rate, but nonetheless.

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.)
    - LatteLazy 4y ago
      This isn't about a sentence. It's about who get's to hold the money until we decide who it actually belongs to. There are downsides whatever we decide...
      - mannykannot 4y ago
        > This isn't about a sentence. Civil forfeiture clearly has a punitive effect, and is therefore a de facto sentence, prior to conviction and regardless of whether a conviction is ultimately secured. In this case, "while the government can give us our money back, they can’t give us back the life we had before Amazon’s accusations. We had to leave a city and community we loved, sell our home, leave our daughters’ schools – and move away from the place where I built The Riveter, created 100 jobs, and worked with women starting businesses." For families on the edge of poverty, the consequences can be more devastating still. Just saying "there are downsides whatever we decide" does not even begin to make a case for civil forfeiture - you would need to expand that ellipsis into an actual argument.
        LatteLazy 4y ago
        So hold on, you and a police office come to your house and find someone inside stealing your TV and some cash. Does the thief get to keep the TV until he is tried? Can he keep and spend the cash since he's still technically innocent? That's the problem with just taking the extreme "nothing punitive until there's a guilty verdict" approach. The least bad answer is somewhere in between. Personally I think 2 years is too long to wait. But that doesn't mean the right amount of time is zero...

Supermancho 4y ago

> The DOJ would not return all the money without a legal fight, and that costs money Interesting to note, when the IRS makes a procedural mistake, they return improperly seized money, with interest. A very small interest rate, but nonetheless.