*********** BEGIN FORWARDED MESSAGE  ***********

On 3/26/2004 at 4:32 AM Judith Loring <jloring@cybernet1.com> wrote:

Organization: Forfeiture Endangers American Rights  http://www.fear.org/
FEAR also offers a low-volume announcements list and digests for all lists

3/26/04

Dear FEAR list:

I have a case, in Montana, where the gov't only named the dead guy (who had
$ in his pocket) and his father, only because dad had asked the cops to
notify him if/when forfeiture was filed.  But I filed a verified answer
including mom and argued the state had some duty of some sort to at least
inquire as to who potential claimants would have been, especially since the
true owner was dead, no criminal charges filed ever.  The gov't named the
dead guy as a respondent too instead of just state v. $4,800.  Anyway, if
anyone has any case cites as to what a state's duty is to notify or
identify potential claimants that'd help, I'd appreciate it.  I recently
lost my summary judgment motion, waiting now for the court presumably to
set a hearing to determine the entire forfeiture question.  The court
decided, despite the fact I had sworn affidavit after sworn affidavit all
to the effect as to the source of the $, not intended for illegal purposes,
etc., that the state had, simply by d!
 enying, raised an issue which meant intended use could be interpreted
either way and, therefore, should go to a full hearing.

Thanks.

Judith Loring
jloring@cybernet1.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment: http://mapinc.org/temp/part5139.html

Organization: Forfeiture Endangers American Rights  http://www.fear.org/
FEAR also offers a low-volume announcements list and digests for all lists
List update: mailto:owner-fear-talk@mapinc.org?Subject=FEAR-talk-update
List unsubscribe: mailto:fear-talk-request@mapinc.org?Body=unsubscribe


*********** END FORWARDED MESSAGE  ***********