FEAR's Brief Bank II
  Motions, pleadings and briefs


Brief Bank II: indexed by issue

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

Collateral estoppel [ 64 ]

OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Government asserts that claimant is precluded from contesting “the matters disposed of by his guilty plea” and

that the admissions contained in the factual basis for the plea prove forfeitability. Claimant does not dispute that

he entered a guilty plea and that the plea contains the factual basis set forth in the government’s moving papers.

However, neither the plea, nor the factual basis contained in the plea resolve the issue of whether the evidence

obtained in the criminal case was obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment and thus inadmissible in these

proceedings.

by Perez, Shawn

U.S. v. Real Property Located in Garden Grove (Ryan) C.D.Cal CV 06-383 SGL ( 2008 )

browser view: BrowserView filed:

Word Perfect version: available WordPerfect

MS_Word version: MSWord

RTF version: RichTextFormat [ OppSumJudg_R ]

PDF version: PDF [ 609 ]

.

CLAIMANT KERRY SCOTT LANE, M.D.’S POST-TRIAL MEMORANDUM

In civil forfeiture “proceeds” cases “the government is required to trace the seized property directly to the

offense giving rise to the forfeiture.” … “[T]he term ‘traceable to’ means exactly what it says.” ... Where the

tainted drug money becomes commingled in an account or other container with untainted property, “the

government's burden of showing that money in the account or an item purchased with cash withdrawn

therefrom is ‘traceable to’ illegal activity will be difficult, if not impossible, to satisfy.” Id. However, that is

the government’s burden.

... "[T]he presence of one illegal dollar in an account does not taint the rest - as if the dollar obtained from

fraud were like a drop of ink falling into a glass of water." … The government cannot trace proceeds that have

already been forfeited as substitute assets because substitute property “by its very nature is not connected to

the underlying crime.” … Having obtained an order subjecting substitute assets up to an amount covering all of

Milo’s drug proceeds, it certainly follows that the government cannot now claim an alternative theory that some

portion of those same drug proceeds are traceable to defendant property in this in rem proceeding. Collateral

estoppel applies to Judge Gertner’s finding that Milo’s drug proceeds were untraceable. Allowing the

government to pursue this civil forfeiture now under a traceable proceeds theory gives the government a

forbidden second bite of the apple. … Unsecured creditors lack standing to defend or taint property.

by Grantland, Brenda

U.S. v. ONE STAR CLASS SLOOP SAILBOAT NAMED “FLASH II” D.Mass. 05-10192 RWZ ( 2007 )

browser view: BrowserView filed:

Word Perfect version: available WordPerfect

MS_Word version: MSWord

RTF version: RichTextFormat [ LanePostTrial ]

PDF version: available PDF [ 579 ]

.

Thursday, October 23, 2008 Page 1 of 2



First Previous Next Last

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