Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

From Steve Lehto

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45B3wJgyABs

Police alleged woman's boyfried was involved in drug sales during a drug >trafficking investigation. They got a warrant to search HER home, and
seized all sorts of stuff including prescription drugs and thousands of >dollars in cash. The money was found in her bureau and the pocket of her >clothing.

The monies were "guilty" of being proceeds of drug dealings.

Now, the boyfried must have lived there at least part of the time as
they found mail addressed to him.

The monies were turned over to DEA since it's advantageous to turn it
over to the feds, which then in turn give it back to the local cops, at
least half of it.

She's been fighting on her own because there's no way to justify legal
fees for a relatively small amount of money. She missed a filing
deadline because the government got cute, claiming they served notice on
her at her apartment by FedEx. She said she was out of town.

If she wasn't in town, then the driver left a slip of paper. How is that >giving notice? At least if it were sent by certified mail, the letter
carrier can put it in her mailbox but there's no where for FedEx to
leave a package that can't be stolen.

2nd circuit didn't rule on the merits, just allowed her to take
advantage of showing cause for missing the filing deadline and
contesting the default, technically two separate motions. She's written
a series of letters which the appelate court leniently interpreted as
proper motions. The appelate court ruled that the trial court was in
error by refusing to allow her to present good cause for the late
motions,

Nonprofit Institute for Justice, which raises money to fight civil asset >forfeture cases on principle, is now representing her.

The government offered to give her back half the money. Lehto pointed
out how ridiculous it is. It's binary. Either the money is proceeds of
drug sales, or it isn't. Why would the government be allowed to keep
half?

The boyfried was ACQUITTED, yet her money is still guilty property. >Apparently currency can traffic drugs entirely on its own without any
human intervention.

I knew we'd discussed this one. After well over three years, she got her
money back. Now she wants interest. She said being without her cash kept
her from expanding her food truck business.

I can't emphasize how the police knew her cash wasn't proceeds of a
crime. The warrant was against her boyfriend, who was acquitted. There
was no underlying crime at all and they still wouldn't return the cash.

Steve Lehto reports on the Institute for Justice win on her behalf.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rPsPFpxBXo

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)