FEAR's Brief Bank II
 
Motions, pleadings and briefs


Brief Bank II: indexed by issue

***************************************************************************************************

Attorney, release of funds for [ 29 ]

CLAIMANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM ON THEIR MOTION FOR THE RELEASE

OF SEIZED ASSETS TO PAY ATTORNEYS FEES

the Honorable Chief Judge ... ruled that Claimants had made their threshold showing under Farmer and that

they were therefore entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the motion and assigned to the Honorable …

Magistrate Judge, for further proceedings, and directed parties to file supplemental memoranda. Athough

these issues have been extensively briefed by both parties, Claimants will restate their arguments for the

convenience of this Court. -- The government argues that the two parcels of real property at issue were

not "seized" – but that a lis pendens was filed instead. The cases distinguishing between "seizure" of real

estate and the filing of a notice of lis pendens are concerned with whether the due process notice and hearing

requirements of United States v. James Daniel Good Real Property, 510 U.S. 43 (1993) are triggered. A

seizure of real estate triggers the Good hearing requirement, but a lis pendens does not. That is irrelevant to

the motion for release of assets. In Good the Supreme Court made it clear that a lis pendens interferes with

the property owner's ability to refinance the property. "Sale of the property can be prevented by filing a

notice of lis pendens as authorized by state law when the forfeiture proceedings commence." 510 U.S. at 58.

by Grantland, Brenda/Zeszotarski

U.S. v. $19,985.90 E.D.N.C 5:05-CV- ( 2006 )

browser view: BrowserView filed:

Word Perfect available WordPerfect

MS_Word version: MSWord

RTF version: RichTextFormat [ SuppMemRelA ]

PDF version: available PDF [ 560 ]

.

CLAIMANTS' SUPPLEMENT TO THEIR MOTION FOR RELEASE OF ASSETS TO PAY

ATTORNEYS FEES

On November 6, 2006, Carmen Badrian was arraigned on a superceding indictment in Criminal Case 06-41,

charging her with conspiring with her husband. Because of the financial straits which Claimants have

previously detailed, they have no money to retain counsel for Carmen. If assets are released to allow her to

hire counsel, undersigned counsel Brenda Grantland has agreed to represent her in the criminal case.

by Grantland, Brenda/Zeszotarski

U.S. v. $19,985.90 E.D.N.C 5:05-CV- ( 2006 )

browser view: BrowserView filed:

Word Perfect available WordPerfect

MS_Word version: MSWord

RTF version: RichTextFormat [ Supplement_re ]

PDF version: available PDF [ 559 ]

.

Sunday, May 20, 2007 Page 1 of 9



First Previous Next Last

Page 1.                    (c) 2006 Forfeiture Endangers American Rights Foundation