5 ms·

US Attorney Carmen Ortiz could end up with big legal bill from motel case

78 points by i4i 14y ago

gamblor956 14y ago
The U.S. Attorney's office could end up with a million dollar legal bill, but this would not affect Carmen Ortiz's finances.
- RexRollman 14y ago
  True, although I wish it would. This was a stupid case to take and shows a lack of thoughtfulness.
- sc00ter 14y ago
  The U.S. Attorney's office could end up with a million dollar legal bill Don't you mean the tax payer? Don't tax payers have a say in who gets to waste valuable tax dollars on frivolous cases?
  - greenyoda 14y ago
    "Don't tax payers have a say in who gets to waste valuable tax dollars on frivolous cases?" Only very indirectly. We tax payers (voters) elected President Obama, who appointed Carmen Ortiz as a federal prosecutor in 2009.[1] Since Obama can't run for president again, we've lost our chance to show our displeasure in the only way he'd really care about (losing an election). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carmen_Ortiz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carmen_Ortiz
    - fennecfoxen 14y ago
      Now, don't get me wrong. I'm all for dissing Obama and his party at almost any defensible juncture. But, as the Libertarians would be glad to tell you, asset forfeiture and overzealous prosecutions are a larger problem than the Obama administration, and come from both sides (a "tough on white-collar criminals" policy push from the left, because businesspeople and executives are evil dontchaknow, and a "war on drugs" policy push from the right, because drug use is a threat to society and immoral dontchaknow.) See? Bipartisanship in action! (Disclaimer about how I don't roll with the Libertarians and have my own mockery for certain Libertarian policy positions which are not relevant to this conversation.)
- inetsee 14y ago
  In the best of all possible worlds, this could affect Carmen Ortiz's career going forward, which could affect her finances. Of course, it's been a long time since I've thought that we live in the best of all possible worlds.
  - i4i 14y ago
    I can't remember where I read it but someone in the legal profession pointed out that she'd simply move over to the defense side and capitalize on all that insider experience she gleaned from being a prosecutor. otoh She probably won't ever be the governor of anything.
AJ007 14y ago
I thought that case sounded familiar, the WSJ had a very good article back in 2011 on it and asset forfeiture: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204450804576623404141904000.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297020445080457662... This story is more than one about a rogue prosecutor, "the government is overstepping its bounds in a practice that has swelled in the past decade to encompass some 400 federal statutes, covering crimes from drug trafficking to racketeering to halibut poaching." If you don't read the article, take a look at this infographic: http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/P1-BD015_FORFEI_G_20111017183008.jpg http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/P1-BD015_FORFEI_G_... In NY and CO, asset forfeitures have increased 1,000% since 2003. Think there might be a problem here?
- AnthonyMouse 14y ago
  >In NY and CO, asset forfeitures have increased 1,000% since 2003. Based on the graphic it was actually three states that increased by more than 1000%. The third, naturally, was Massachusetts.
gesman 14y ago
Don't worry, taxpayers will take care of the tab.
hexonexxon 14y ago
Same psycho freedom stealing prosecutor also had to grovel to the courts a few days ago that her office arrested the wrong guy in a high profile gang case because he kind of looked like who they were after. Innocent guy enjoyed almost a month in prison and legal bills http://reason.com/24-7/2013/01/30/carmen-ortiz-blew-a-gang-arrest-by-nabbi http://reason.com/24-7/2013/01/30/carmen-ortiz-blew-a-gang-a...
el_cuadrado 14y ago
I though this was a pretty much standard legal procedure in this circumstances. How is that news?
- a5seo 14y ago
  Loser pay is the exception, not the rule, unfortunately.
  - rayiner 14y ago
    You only think it's unfortunate because you're thinking about a sympathetic defendant. Consider the opposite hypothetical: all those people suing mortgage lenders for predatory loans. A lot of those people are going to lose those cases. Should they get stuck with the mortgage lenders' legal bills? Losing a (civil) case does not mean the plaintiff was in the wrong for having brought the case. Very often, people legitimately think they've been wronged, they submit the conflict to the courts for resolution, and the courts decide against them. That's why loser pays is the exception, not the rule. It's reserved for when people use the legal system simply to harass someone else, instead of submitting a legitimate grievance the resolution of which just happens to not come out in their favor.
    - el_cuadrado 14y ago
      Excellent explanation, thank you.
- i4i 14y ago
  What's exceptional is that the Institute for Justice http://www.ij.org http://www.ij.org took up Mr. Caswell's case pro-bono (after Caswell had spent $100k he'd borrowed to fight the case on his own). Standard legal procedure has the motel being taken possession of by the Govt., sold, and the proceeds being divided up amongst State and Federal law enforcement agencies. "Should the government win its case, it will sell off Caswell’s property and give the Tewksbury Police 80 percent of the take." http://www.wbur.org/2012/11/14/tewksbury-motel-owner-fights-property-seizure http://www.wbur.org/2012/11/14/tewksbury-motel-owner-fights-...
hannibalhorn 14y ago
I wouldn't have any problem with the government going after what is basically a drug den, but the article says "Law enforcement officials cited 15 incidents over a similar number of years"... That's one incident a year. If I owned ANY hotel, particularly in a bad part of town, I'd be rather proud that the police only came out to visit once a year. That's simply a business where some things are out of your control.
mcherm 14y ago
So the lesson here is that if a federal prosecutor wants to take something, like your house or a $1,000,000 hotel you own free-and-clear, then even if their case is SO weak that they will go on to lose on nearly every point, it will still take you about $500,000 of legal bills to defend yourself, and that's BEFORE the appeals, plus some of his lawyers were free.
linuxhansl 14y ago
Not if I should laugh or cry. It's nice that government overreach is (potentially) punished. On the other hand it's an embarrassment for the entire legal system that defending against such overreach costs upwards of $500k.
philwelch 14y ago
So I have an interesting proposal. Carmen Ortiz is the US Attorney for the District of Massachusetts. We get all kinds of stories about her along this vein, but really she's the only US Attorney we're giving this much scrutiny for. I propose we randomly select three other US Attorneys and subject them to the same scrutiny, illustrating whether it's just that Carmen Ortiz is an awful human being, or whether it's the entire system that's broken.
- veidr 14y ago
  I really hope somebody takes you up on your proposal, but I have a hunch that rather than being "either/or" it's probably more of a "yes, and yes" in this case.
  - philwelch 14y ago
    Never in my life have I been impressed with the US Department of Justice. If anything, I'm slightly relieved they aren't stomping kittens to death and capturing little kids at gunpoint like they did during the Janet Reno years.
- i4i 14y ago
  I wonder if this could be an opportunity for a non-profit. It seems like it would be reasonably simple to collect the number of forfeitures initiated by prosecutors and the amounts of money they 'collect'. FEAR.org (Forfeiture Endangers American Rights) might be a good place to start. What about a Kickstarter to fund it? Imagine getting an auto-tweet every time a prosecutor made a forfeiture. What I loathe about forfeiture is that the Govt. does not need to get a conviction. They'charge' the property directly and if you can't afford to fight it they win.
i4i 14y ago
Institute for Justice (who represented the Motel Caswell) posted a wrap-up of the case. http://www.ij.org/massachusetts-civil-forfeiture-release-1-24-2013 http://www.ij.org/massachusetts-civil-forfeiture-release-1-2...

78 points by i4i 14y ago

The U.S. Attorney's office could end up with a million dollar legal bill, but this would not affect Carmen Ortiz's finances.

RexRollman 14y ago
True, although I wish it would. This was a stupid case to take and shows a lack of thoughtfulness.
sc00ter 14y ago
The U.S. Attorney's office could end up with a million dollar legal bill Don't you mean the tax payer? Don't tax payers have a say in who gets to waste valuable tax dollars on frivolous cases?
- greenyoda 14y ago
  "Don't tax payers have a say in who gets to waste valuable tax dollars on frivolous cases?" Only very indirectly. We tax payers (voters) elected President Obama, who appointed Carmen Ortiz as a federal prosecutor in 2009.[1] Since Obama can't run for president again, we've lost our chance to show our displeasure in the only way he'd really care about (losing an election). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carmen_Ortiz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carmen_Ortiz
  - fennecfoxen 14y ago
    Now, don't get me wrong. I'm all for dissing Obama and his party at almost any defensible juncture. But, as the Libertarians would be glad to tell you, asset forfeiture and overzealous prosecutions are a larger problem than the Obama administration, and come from both sides (a "tough on white-collar criminals" policy push from the left, because businesspeople and executives are evil dontchaknow, and a "war on drugs" policy push from the right, because drug use is a threat to society and immoral dontchaknow.) See? Bipartisanship in action! (Disclaimer about how I don't roll with the Libertarians and have my own mockery for certain Libertarian policy positions which are not relevant to this conversation.)
inetsee 14y ago
In the best of all possible worlds, this could affect Carmen Ortiz's career going forward, which could affect her finances. Of course, it's been a long time since I've thought that we live in the best of all possible worlds.
- i4i 14y ago
  I can't remember where I read it but someone in the legal profession pointed out that she'd simply move over to the defense side and capitalize on all that insider experience she gleaned from being a prosecutor. otoh She probably won't ever be the governor of anything.

AJ007 14y ago

I thought that case sounded familiar, the WSJ had a very good article back in 2011 on it and asset forfeiture: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204450804576623404141904000.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297020445080457662... This story is more than one about a rogue prosecutor, "the government is overstepping its bounds in a practice that has swelled in the past decade to encompass some 400 federal statutes, covering crimes from drug trafficking to racketeering to halibut poaching." If you don't read the article, take a look at this infographic: http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/P1-BD015_FORFEI_G_20111017183008.jpg http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/P1-BD015_FORFEI_G_... In NY and CO, asset forfeitures have increased 1,000% since 2003. Think there might be a problem here?

AnthonyMouse 14y ago
>In NY and CO, asset forfeitures have increased 1,000% since 2003. Based on the graphic it was actually three states that increased by more than 1000%. The third, naturally, was Massachusetts.

gesman 14y ago

Don't worry, taxpayers will take care of the tab.

hexonexxon 14y ago

Same psycho freedom stealing prosecutor also had to grovel to the courts a few days ago that her office arrested the wrong guy in a high profile gang case because he kind of looked like who they were after. Innocent guy enjoyed almost a month in prison and legal bills http://reason.com/24-7/2013/01/30/carmen-ortiz-blew-a-gang-arrest-by-nabbi http://reason.com/24-7/2013/01/30/carmen-ortiz-blew-a-gang-a...

el_cuadrado 14y ago

I though this was a pretty much standard legal procedure in this circumstances. How is that news?

a5seo 14y ago
Loser pay is the exception, not the rule, unfortunately.
- rayiner 14y ago
  You only think it's unfortunate because you're thinking about a sympathetic defendant. Consider the opposite hypothetical: all those people suing mortgage lenders for predatory loans. A lot of those people are going to lose those cases. Should they get stuck with the mortgage lenders' legal bills? Losing a (civil) case does not mean the plaintiff was in the wrong for having brought the case. Very often, people legitimately think they've been wronged, they submit the conflict to the courts for resolution, and the courts decide against them. That's why loser pays is the exception, not the rule. It's reserved for when people use the legal system simply to harass someone else, instead of submitting a legitimate grievance the resolution of which just happens to not come out in their favor.
  - el_cuadrado 14y ago
    Excellent explanation, thank you.
i4i 14y ago
What's exceptional is that the Institute for Justice http://www.ij.org http://www.ij.org took up Mr. Caswell's case pro-bono (after Caswell had spent $100k he'd borrowed to fight the case on his own). Standard legal procedure has the motel being taken possession of by the Govt., sold, and the proceeds being divided up amongst State and Federal law enforcement agencies. "Should the government win its case, it will sell off Caswell’s property and give the Tewksbury Police 80 percent of the take." http://www.wbur.org/2012/11/14/tewksbury-motel-owner-fights-property-seizure http://www.wbur.org/2012/11/14/tewksbury-motel-owner-fights-...

hannibalhorn 14y ago

I wouldn't have any problem with the government going after what is basically a drug den, but the article says "Law enforcement officials cited 15 incidents over a similar number of years"... That's one incident a year. If I owned ANY hotel, particularly in a bad part of town, I'd be rather proud that the police only came out to visit once a year. That's simply a business where some things are out of your control.

mcherm 14y ago

So the lesson here is that if a federal prosecutor wants to take something, like your house or a $1,000,000 hotel you own free-and-clear, then even if their case is SO weak that they will go on to lose on nearly every point, it will still take you about $500,000 of legal bills to defend yourself, and that's BEFORE the appeals, plus some of his lawyers were free.

linuxhansl 14y ago

Not if I should laugh or cry. It's nice that government overreach is (potentially) punished. On the other hand it's an embarrassment for the entire legal system that defending against such overreach costs upwards of $500k.

philwelch 14y ago

So I have an interesting proposal. Carmen Ortiz is the US Attorney for the District of Massachusetts. We get all kinds of stories about her along this vein, but really she's the only US Attorney we're giving this much scrutiny for. I propose we randomly select three other US Attorneys and subject them to the same scrutiny, illustrating whether it's just that Carmen Ortiz is an awful human being, or whether it's the entire system that's broken.

veidr 14y ago
I really hope somebody takes you up on your proposal, but I have a hunch that rather than being "either/or" it's probably more of a "yes, and yes" in this case.
- philwelch 14y ago
  Never in my life have I been impressed with the US Department of Justice. If anything, I'm slightly relieved they aren't stomping kittens to death and capturing little kids at gunpoint like they did during the Janet Reno years.
i4i 14y ago
I wonder if this could be an opportunity for a non-profit. It seems like it would be reasonably simple to collect the number of forfeitures initiated by prosecutors and the amounts of money they 'collect'. FEAR.org (Forfeiture Endangers American Rights) might be a good place to start. What about a Kickstarter to fund it? Imagine getting an auto-tweet every time a prosecutor made a forfeiture. What I loathe about forfeiture is that the Govt. does not need to get a conviction. They'charge' the property directly and if you can't afford to fight it they win.

i4i 14y ago

Institute for Justice (who represented the Motel Caswell) posted a wrap-up of the case. http://www.ij.org/massachusetts-civil-forfeiture-release-1-24-2013 http://www.ij.org/massachusetts-civil-forfeiture-release-1-2...