4 ms·

The title is a bit misleading and seems to imply she didn't get her savings back - she did, but the suit she filed saying it violated her rights lost. Edit: ti

The title is a bit misleading and seems to imply she didn't get her savings back - she did, but the suit she filed saying it violated her rights lost. Edit: title seems to have been edited since.

indigodaddy 1y ago
She was very lucky to get it back. Probably the only reason was they hoped she would drop the suit.
Etheryte 1y ago
The title doesn't say nor imply anything about her getting it back though? It says her assets were seized which is correct.
- peeters 1y ago
  The article itself has the title: > The FBI Seized Her $40,000 Without Explaining Why. She Fought Back Against That Practice—and Lost I think it's decent, but still a bit ambiguous. Less ambiguous than if it just said "She Fought Back and Lost". My initial assumption formed by the title was still that she didn't get her money back.
  - Etheryte 1y ago
    The submission title is "FBI seized $40k from Linda Martin without charging her with a crime" which doesn't have that issue.
    - JohnMakin 1y ago
      It was not that originally.
bandyaboot 1y ago
And to add, the lawsuit didn’t lose on its merits, but on lack of jurisdiction.
- Incipient 1y ago
  I feel like for lack of jurisdiction, the courts should refuse to hear the case, rather than have it count as a "lost" case?
  - ncallaway 1y ago
    I mean, that's basically what happens. The "lost her case" language is very much a public narrative around the court case, but from the legal perspective, her suit was dismissed for a lack of jurisdiction, which is pretty much the court refusing to consider the case.
IncreasePosts 1y ago
Not really. Dismissed isn't the same thing as losing. The suit couldn't go forward because they returned the money, so she has no damages to sue over. I wonder if you can sue for lawyer fees...they took her money and made her hire a lawyer to get it back "willingly", something she wouldn't have had to do if they didn't take the money in the first place.
- colechristensen 1y ago
  The next person to try might try to get standing by claiming the loss of $40k lost the opportunity to gain interest or something along those lines.
  - db48x 1y ago
    They paid her back with interest, exactly as they are required to do.
- qingcharles 1y ago
  It depends what her suit asked for in "relief." Sometimes you can get punitive damages, even if the money was returned. Or I've sometimes got the money I wanted but continued the part of the suit for declaratory judgment (e.g. to force the government to declare they violated my rights).

The title is a bit misleading and seems to imply she didn't get her savings back - she did, but the suit she filed saying it violated her rights lost. Edit: title seems to have been edited since.

indigodaddy 1y ago

She was very lucky to get it back. Probably the only reason was they hoped she would drop the suit.

Etheryte 1y ago

The title doesn't say nor imply anything about her getting it back though? It says her assets were seized which is correct.

peeters 1y ago
The article itself has the title: > The FBI Seized Her $40,000 Without Explaining Why. She Fought Back Against That Practice—and Lost I think it's decent, but still a bit ambiguous. Less ambiguous than if it just said "She Fought Back and Lost". My initial assumption formed by the title was still that she didn't get her money back.
- Etheryte 1y ago
  The submission title is "FBI seized $40k from Linda Martin without charging her with a crime" which doesn't have that issue.
  - JohnMakin 1y ago
    It was not that originally.

bandyaboot 1y ago

And to add, the lawsuit didn’t lose on its merits, but on lack of jurisdiction.

Incipient 1y ago
I feel like for lack of jurisdiction, the courts should refuse to hear the case, rather than have it count as a "lost" case?
- ncallaway 1y ago
  I mean, that's basically what happens. The "lost her case" language is very much a public narrative around the court case, but from the legal perspective, her suit was dismissed for a lack of jurisdiction, which is pretty much the court refusing to consider the case.

IncreasePosts 1y ago

Not really. Dismissed isn't the same thing as losing. The suit couldn't go forward because they returned the money, so she has no damages to sue over. I wonder if you can sue for lawyer fees...they took her money and made her hire a lawyer to get it back "willingly", something she wouldn't have had to do if they didn't take the money in the first place.

colechristensen 1y ago
The next person to try might try to get standing by claiming the loss of $40k lost the opportunity to gain interest or something along those lines.
- db48x 1y ago
  They paid her back with interest, exactly as they are required to do.
qingcharles 1y ago
It depends what her suit asked for in "relief." Sometimes you can get punitive damages, even if the money was returned. Or I've sometimes got the money I wanted but continued the part of the suit for declaratory judgment (e.g. to force the government to declare they violated my rights).