Kaley v. United States

[AZRedhawk44]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/10/16/its-time-for-the-supreme-court-to-pull-us-back-into-reality/

May the DEA and FBI and any US district attorneys that use this technique be smitten into the ninth ring of Hell.


While the Kaley case may actually pertain to people who might be dealing in drugs medical devices (zomg so scary... yawn), here's another case:

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.

Sounds like the Dehkos should probably just invest in a $2000 heavy-duty safe, bolted to the concrete foundation.  To hell with the banks, and digitized money, and government back doors to seize money willy-nilly.

[AZRedhawk44]

http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/10/argument-analysis-asset-forfeiture-case-is-close-call/

Justice Alito – himself a former federal prosecutor – was clearly concerned about the additional efforts and risks that a pretrial hearing would impose, asking Srebnick whether a defendant could, for example, subpoena witnesses or require the government to disclose the names of its witnesses, while Justice Ginsburg expressed concern that, if the assets were released, the defendant could spend them on something else besides his defense.  And although Srebnick sought to reassure the Court by noting that some circuits have allowed such hearings for twenty-five years without any significant problems, that contention then led Justice Kagan to observe that virtually all of those hearings have resulted in a ruling for the government.  If the defendant’s prospects for success are so slim, she wondered, “what are we going through all this rigamorole for?”

Alito:  Up yours, buddy.  God forbid the stacked deck in favor of the government ever be slightly re-shuffled.

Ginsburg:  Your point is somewhat valid, but I rather doubt that most folks have enough funds that end up seized to be able to pay their lawyer, let alone mortgages or other bills.  The giant Al Capone enterprises that asset forfeiture is supposed to dismantle, do a better job of hiding their money.  AF hurts normal people.

Kagan... see you next tuesday.   

If the majority of criminal prosecutions result in convictions, why even bother with court at all?  Summary execution by the arresting officer is obviously what's called for.   Stupid bitch.

[roo_ster]

Dearl Lord in Heaven, the excuses given by the gov't are recursively mendacious.

Then there is this:

Moreover, although Dreeben asserted that the government needed to freeze the assets so that they can be used to pay restitution, Roberts countered that “there are no victims in this case,”

No victims.  Yet, gov't is exacting punishment before the admittedly victimless "crime" has been proved to been committed.

[Tallpine]

Somebody is going to have had enough of this someday.

[Sergeant Bob]

http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/10/argument-analysis-asset-forfeiture-case-is-close-call/

Alito:  Up yours, buddy.  God forbid the stacked deck in favor of the government ever be slightly re-shuffled.

Gee, I'm so glad I voted for the tool who appointed this tool to the court.

[tokugawa]

Ever notice how many of these prosecutions are on procedural grounds? The "crime" was they deposited their money in the bank, legally. Somehow , the allegation goes, they were trying to hide something by making repeated deposits under 10K. Well, if they were trying to hide something, why the hell did they deposit the money at all?
 Honestly, I can see the rational -big cash deposits could indicate some black market activity- so you gotta know the Feds tore this up one side and down the other LOOKING for a "real" crime-and obviously came up emptyhanded- so now they go full-bore chicken *expletive deleted*it, just to ruin someones life..

So many  felonies out there just waiting for folks who don't spend all their time poring over obscure laws to make sure they don't break one by signing on line 3, subsection A-1 instead of line 2 subsection A1.
 
How the hell do these federal thugs actually go home at night and look their wives in the eye?