6 ms·

If the government doesn't like the way they're running their business, surely they should either charge them with an actual crime or buy them out.

by caf 14y ago

tptacek 14y ago
That's exactly what the government is doing: they're suing the property because it's the instrument of serious crimes. The owners of the property are defending it in court. There's a whole weird history of civil asset forfeiture being abused, such as when the one black guy in a rural Ohio town is pulled over on his way to buy a new truck with cash, and the cops seize the cash under CAF rules on suspicion that the guy's a drug dealer. I AM NOT ARGUING THAT CIVIL ASSET FORFEITURE IS OK. But you'd want to be careful (not "agree with me", just, careful) being knee-jerk about this stuff.
- mindslight 14y ago
  As I was trying to get across before, in a thread where you might have been a bit more receptive: The reason the Innocent Black Guy in rural Ohio ends up with an impossible battle and travesty of justice IS BECAUSE the system gets lazy and invents crap like "suing property" and "plea bargain poker" in search of expediency against numerous truly unsavory characters. You can't claim to be concerned about IBG's plight yet be unconcerned with the deterioration of the legal system that eventually causes IBG to end up at the complete mercy of one prosecutor.
  - tptacek 14y ago
    I think the US Attorney's office should absolutely be able to sue the owners of a property for operating it so negligently that it becomes a blight on the whole neighborhood. I think that the same way I think they should be able to sue factory owners who dump toxic sludge into the waterways.
    - mindslight 14y ago
      > I think the US Attorney's office should absolutely be able to sue the owners of a property for operating it so negligently So, given that this is not how civil asset forfeiture cases actually work, does this mean that you've changed your opinion?
      - tptacek 14y ago
        It is in fact how this case worked! Do you honestly think this case is a good model for the problems with civil asset forfeiture?
        mindslight 14y ago
        Well with a quick search I was unable to find the specifics, but the article hints at it, and usually in these cases, the hotel is the thing getting sued. We're not talking about the city or neighboring properties suing this guy in civil court, showing harm, and getting appropriate damages. We're talking a civil case burden of proof of property being associated with a crime, where the penalty has no relation to damages caused, with higher costs of defense as it's a federal case, and no ability retain the specific thing, etc. If you really don't know what I'm talking about, go read into the details of these kinds of cases, and ask yourself whether such legal shenanigans are necessary or just expedient. It's an acceptable model if one is willing to put aside the conduct of the guy on the receiving end and look at the mechanics of the process. It's not a case to rally around, but it does highlight some of the lurking problems that are primed to destroy the next unlucky innocent.
        tptacek 14y ago
        The docket on this case was posted downthread by 'thinkcomp.
        mindslight 14y ago
        Alright, as I had guessed, the case is against the real estate itself - not "the owners of the property". "United States v. 434 Main Street, Tewksbury, Massachusetts"

If the government doesn't like the way they're running their business, surely they should either charge them with an actual crime or buy them out.

by caf 14y ago

If the government doesn't like the way they're running their business, surely they should either charge them with an actual crime or buy them out.

tptacek 14y ago

That's exactly what the government is doing: they're suing the property because it's the instrument of serious crimes. The owners of the property are defending it in court. There's a whole weird history of civil asset forfeiture being abused, such as when the one black guy in a rural Ohio town is pulled over on his way to buy a new truck with cash, and the cops seize the cash under CAF rules on suspicion that the guy's a drug dealer. I AM NOT ARGUING THAT CIVIL ASSET FORFEITURE IS OK. But you'd want to be careful (not "agree with me", just, careful) being knee-jerk about this stuff.

mindslight 14y ago
As I was trying to get across before, in a thread where you might have been a bit more receptive: The reason the Innocent Black Guy in rural Ohio ends up with an impossible battle and travesty of justice IS BECAUSE the system gets lazy and invents crap like "suing property" and "plea bargain poker" in search of expediency against numerous truly unsavory characters. You can't claim to be concerned about IBG's plight yet be unconcerned with the deterioration of the legal system that eventually causes IBG to end up at the complete mercy of one prosecutor.
- tptacek 14y ago
  I think the US Attorney's office should absolutely be able to sue the owners of a property for operating it so negligently that it becomes a blight on the whole neighborhood. I think that the same way I think they should be able to sue factory owners who dump toxic sludge into the waterways.
  - mindslight 14y ago
    > I think the US Attorney's office should absolutely be able to sue the owners of a property for operating it so negligently So, given that this is not how civil asset forfeiture cases actually work, does this mean that you've changed your opinion?
    - tptacek 14y ago
      It is in fact how this case worked! Do you honestly think this case is a good model for the problems with civil asset forfeiture?
      - mindslight 14y ago
        Well with a quick search I was unable to find the specifics, but the article hints at it, and usually in these cases, the hotel is the thing getting sued. We're not talking about the city or neighboring properties suing this guy in civil court, showing harm, and getting appropriate damages. We're talking a civil case burden of proof of property being associated with a crime, where the penalty has no relation to damages caused, with higher costs of defense as it's a federal case, and no ability retain the specific thing, etc. If you really don't know what I'm talking about, go read into the details of these kinds of cases, and ask yourself whether such legal shenanigans are necessary or just expedient. It's an acceptable model if one is willing to put aside the conduct of the guy on the receiving end and look at the mechanics of the process. It's not a case to rally around, but it does highlight some of the lurking problems that are primed to destroy the next unlucky innocent.
        tptacek 14y ago
        The docket on this case was posted downthread by 'thinkcomp.
        mindslight 14y ago
        Alright, as I had guessed, the case is against the real estate itself - not "the owners of the property". "United States v. 434 Main Street, Tewksbury, Massachusetts"