FEAR's Brief Bank II
 
Motions, pleadings and briefs


Brief Bank II: indexed by issue

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

Money judgments [ 628 ]

SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM REGARDING HEARING ON MOTION FOR RELEASE OF

ASSITS TO PAY COUNSEL'S FEES

If Claimants cannot demonstrate a need to use the seized assets to pay their attorneys, there is no need to

have any hearing on whether the Government seized untainted, nonforfeitable assets. Thus Claimants should

first have to show a need to use the assets before the Court delves into any issues of probable cause. Even if

Claimants show need, the defendant real property was not seized, rather a lis pendens was filed. Because a lis

pendens is not a restraint, the Government may file a lis pendens on any real property including property

forfeitable only as substitute assets. Consequently, it is not necessary for the Court to delve into issues

regarding forfeitability of the real property because no seizure has occurred. Even if Claimants demonstrate a

need to use the seized bank accounts for attorney fees, these assets are still subject to pretrial seizure as

substitute assets.

by DOJ

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

browser view: BrowserView filed: 12/12/2006

Word Perfect WordPerfect

MS_Word version: MSWord

RTF version: RichTextFormat [ GovSuppMem ]

PDF version: available PDF [ 537 ]

.

CLAIMANTS' MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF THEIR

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER DENYING RELEASE OF ASSETS TO PAY

ATTORNEYS' FEES

Magistrate Judge ruled that Claimants had met their burden of proving they needed assets released to pay

attorneys fees. However, the court held that the named properties were potentially forfeitable as substitute

assets to satisfy a possible money judgment of up to $4,306,500, representing Agent Fannelly's calculations

of the allegedly lost California cigarette tax revenue. The court refused to credit Djeredjian's calculations,

deciding they were entitled to less weight because they were submitted after the hearing and not subject to

cross-examination.

by Grantland, Brenda/Zeszotarski,

U.S. v. $19,985.90 E.D.N.C 5:05-CV- ( 2007 )

browser view: available BrowserView filed:

Word Perfect available WordPerfect

MS_Word version: MSWord

RTF version: available RichTextFormat [ motiionforreco ]

PDF version: PDF [ 544 ]

.

Sunday, May 20, 2007 Page 1 of 6



First Previous Next Last

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