The2ndAmendment
Gold Member
Both Democrats and Libertarians are firmly against this decision. Where do Republicans stand?
Kaley v. United States: Terrible Supreme Court decision lets the government take your assets before trial.
It's Time For The Supreme Court To Pull Us Back Into Reality - Forbes
Getting closer to revolution every day. A clear way to destroy a man without the approval of his Peers (more circumvention of Trial by Jury).
Kaley v. United States: Terrible Supreme Court decision lets the government take your assets before trial.
It's Time For The Supreme Court To Pull Us Back Into Reality - Forbes
"Like most small business owners who regularly handle cash transactions, the Dehkos routinely deposit less than $10,000 at a time. Not only is it a bad idea to let too much money accumulate onsite, the Dehkos insurance policy only covers cash losses up to $10,000.
Making deposits of less than $10,000 is perfectly legal and the Dekhos had a good business reason for doing so. Nevertheless, without any evidence that the money was obtained unlawfully or used for nefarious purposes, federal authorities seized the Dekhos money on the grounds that they were illegally structuring their deposits to avoid reporting requirements that would kick in if they deposited more than $10,000 at a time.
To this day, the Dehkos have never been charged with any crime, and they are not guilty of any crime. Yet, ten months later, the Dehkos are still waiting for a hearing before a judge to contest the seizure.
Why is the government so adamant about holding on to the Dehkos money? For its part, the government argues, as it does in Kaley, that its seize-first-ask-questions-later policy ensures that the assets are preserved for forfeiture. What the government glosses over is its direct financial stake in the forfeited assets. Under federal law, the Justice Department keeps proceeds of forfeited property to pad its budget. That financial incentive has led to an explosion in the amount of property seized by federal law enforcement. Today, the Justice Departments Assets Forfeiture Fund exceeds $4 billion.
But there is an even more fundamental reason why the government is holding on to the Dehkos money: It can. In another twist worthy of Lewis Carroll, under civil forfeiture laws, the Dehkos are considered guilty until they prove themselves innocent."
Justice for Kerri and Brian Kaley, the Supreme Court held Tuesday, is of the Alice in Wonderland variety: First comes the punishmentthe seizure of all their assetsthen the trial, and the crime last of all.* But suppose they never committed the crime? Alice asks. It doesnt matter, comes the courts answer, because a grand jury said so.
Writing for a six-justice majority in Kaley v. United States, thus concluded Justice Elena Kagan that a criminal defendant indicted by a grand jury has essentially no right to challenge the forfeiture of her assets, even if the defendant needs those very assets to pay lawyers to defend her at trial. In an odd ideological lineup, the dissenters were Chief Justice John Roberts and the more liberal Justices Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor.
Getting closer to revolution every day. A clear way to destroy a man without the approval of his Peers (more circumvention of Trial by Jury).