Asset Forfeiture Case Dropped By Government Thugs Thanks To OC Weekly, Institute For Justice
When people sneer that journalism isn't worth much, it's stories like this that they need to look at. The OC Weekly's Nick Schou exposed a disgusting asset forfeiture case against an Anaheim landlord. The great people at the Institute for Justice took on the case, and the Feds dropped this and similar asset theft, uh, forfeiture cases against other landlords.
Schou writes in the OC Weekly:
The U.S. Attorney's office has formally dropped its case against the Anaheim landlord who stood to lose his $1.5 million retirement property over a $37 pot sale in a dispensary he'd already evicted, a case first exposed by the Weekly in February of this year. The feds had been seeking to drop the case for months, but had insisted that the landlord, Tony Jalali, a software engineer, agree to surprise inspections and to never rent to another marijuana dispensary.Jalali, who is represented by both Matthew Pappas and the Washington D.C.-based lnstitute for Justice, had refused to agree to those terms. In the deal reached today, the feds have dropped all conditions except one: that Jalali not demand that the U.S. government pay his attorneys fees. Even more importantly, the feds have dropped the case with prejudice, meaning that they cannot threaten to seize his property again.
Today, the feds also dropped similar cases against three other landlords, Dr. Mark Burcaw, who owns two properties in Santa Ana, including one that currently houses a dispensary, as well as Tom Woo and finally, Walter and Diane Botsch, who stood to lose a property that had been renting to a dispensary in the Eagle Rock neighborhood of Los Angeles.
It's kind of disgusting that they can try to crush you and when that doesn't work force you to promise not to hold them accountable. So two cheers.
phunctor at October 13, 2013 10:48 PM
AboveTheLaw has a great video showing the 9th Circuit "bench-slapping" federal prosecutors based on misconduct. Judge Pregerson's comments are quite startling coming from a senior federal judge.
http://abovethelaw.com/2013/09/who-wants-to-watch-a-prosecutor-get-benchslapped-en-banc/
With the wins in the marijuana wars and some direction from the high bench, we may have some chance to reclaim our liberties. I'd rather have the cops as friends, but it really is their choice.
Canvasback at October 13, 2013 11:19 PM
It's a crime the feds don't have to pay lawyers costs. That's part of the disincentive for filing stupid cases. And it probably means the lawyers will end up owning the property.
jerry at October 13, 2013 11:53 PM
Asset forfeitures are simple theft. They should be unconstitutional. The government should always bear the burden of proof, and should be required to pay the defendant's costs, win or lose.
MarkD at October 14, 2013 5:57 AM
Asset forfeitures are simple theft. They should be unconstitutional.
--------------------------------------------------
Yes and they already are un-constitutional.
The fedgov inc. (aka worldwide as the "evil empire") veered off of the US Constitution on these particular years: 1861; 1913 and 1933.
The martial law declaration signed by F.D.R. in 1933 has never been rescinded. That's why you heard that US Rep. congresscritter stating something like, "I was told that if the TARP was not passed, they would declare OPEN-martial law..."
In other words, the elite have threatened to be open about. All thanks to the "new" deal in 1933.
SM777 at October 14, 2013 9:57 AM
What about the Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution in 1912 and the Apportionment Act of 1911?
The Apportionment Act is what really fucked us all. If there was representation per 100K or 150K then the House would be large and a lot of these laws would not have been passed as they are. The parties couldn't gerrymander. Some 10-20K people could affect their district reps votes but the rep would need another 12-1500 reps voting their way.
Even if you look at WWII, Vietnam, Korea, and other wars, would they have come off the same way? If the tax rates went high, why?
Once you think that there would be 100 senators and about 2066 representatives (at 150K per) means that GE, GM, the unions, and all the rest would have to compete against the individual voices the answer is simple. Because the organization has "one vote" versus the 10K voices telling the organization to go get screwed, what would happen?
Just my $0.02.
Jim P. at October 14, 2013 9:52 PM
Leave a comment