3 ms·

>I'm not reading about the massive backlog of forfeiture cases, mostly it seems like people don't even try. For two reasons. One, you can't afford a lawyer be

by tsotha 11y ago

>I'm not reading about the massive backlog of forfeiture cases, mostly it seems like people don't even try. For two reasons. One, you can't afford a lawyer because the government took your money. And two, there's not a lot of point in spending $300k to get $12.5k back from the government. The DEA is using tax dollars - they can stretch out the proceedings until you run out of money.

pbhjpbhj 11y ago
>And two, there's not a lot of point in spending $300k to get $12.5k back from the government. // Don't injured parties receive costs from the perpetrators in USA courts? The risk may not be worth it but provided you have reasonable legal costs they get paid, surely? Also if the action is without due process or is malicious then you'd get punitive damages as well wouldn't you [which would have to be high to discourage the behaviour in the future]? At least in a democracy you'd have these things ...
- wmil 11y ago
  In general, not unless the judge rules the claim was made in bad faith. There are some specific exceptions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorney%27s_fee#Who_pays http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorney%27s_fee#Who_pays
- zaroth 11y ago
  The Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act (CAFRA) ammended the law specifically in civil forfeiture cases so that you should be awarded attorney fees if you "substantially prevail". Unfortunately, the courts have decided to interpret this as meaning something mystical other than simply winning the case on the merits. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/2465 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/2465 -- See (b)(1)
  - pbhjpbhj 11y ago
    ... and attorneys that do win seem to find it hard to get their money, http://brendagrantland.com/truthjustice/tag/english-rule/ http://brendagrantland.com/truthjustice/tag/english-rule/. Personally I think the American Rule is terrible in general, now I understand more why USA has [an appearance of having] so much litigation.

by tsotha 11y ago

pbhjpbhj 11y ago

>And two, there's not a lot of point in spending $300k to get $12.5k back from the government. // Don't injured parties receive costs from the perpetrators in USA courts? The risk may not be worth it but provided you have reasonable legal costs they get paid, surely? Also if the action is without due process or is malicious then you'd get punitive damages as well wouldn't you [which would have to be high to discourage the behaviour in the future]? At least in a democracy you'd have these things ...

wmil 11y ago
In general, not unless the judge rules the claim was made in bad faith. There are some specific exceptions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorney%27s_fee#Who_pays http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorney%27s_fee#Who_pays
zaroth 11y ago
The Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act (CAFRA) ammended the law specifically in civil forfeiture cases so that you should be awarded attorney fees if you "substantially prevail". Unfortunately, the courts have decided to interpret this as meaning something mystical other than simply winning the case on the merits. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/2465 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/2465 -- See (b)(1)
- pbhjpbhj 11y ago
  ... and attorneys that do win seem to find it hard to get their money, http://brendagrantland.com/truthjustice/tag/english-rule/ http://brendagrantland.com/truthjustice/tag/english-rule/. Personally I think the American Rule is terrible in general, now I understand more why USA has [an appearance of having] so much litigation.