>>Judges throw out cases on non-obvious reasoning all the time. > And is that what happened in this case? I don't know, I haven't checked the details of the ru

>>Judges throw out cases on non-obvious reasoning all the time. > And is that what happened in this case? I don't know, I haven't checked the details of the ruling. > Because it seems like in this case it was "obvious" that the government was trying to take this man's hotel because it had no mortgage, they expected him to have insufficient liquid assets to successfully contest a seizure and when law enforcement seizes assets they get the resale value added to their budgets. Oh sure, real obvious. I'm sure all $1 they'd be able to get for that property would really help boost their training budget...