From: owner-fear-list@mapinc.org on behalf of Brenda Grantland [bgrantland1@comcast.net] Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 11:56 AM To: fear-list@mapinc.org Subject: FEAR: IN: Latest in investigation of Muncie-Delaware County DTF McKinney can't withdraw from DTF forfeiture cases Muncie Star Press - Muncie,IN,USA McKinney also asked for more time to seek an attorney who is not a deputy prosecutor to handle forfeiture cases, given the court recently announced that ... See all stories on this topic Oversight over DTF seizure, forfeiture already in place Muncie Star Press - Muncie,IN,USA By RICK YENCER . ryencer@muncie.gannett.com . July 30, 2008 MUNCIE -- Some new rules governing the seizure and forfeiture of money and property from ... See all stories on this topic --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment: http://mapinc.org/temp/25N_c_3j2_9kE.html ****************************************************** FEAR also offers an unmoderated discussion list and digests for all lists List unsubscribe: mailto:fear-list-request@mapinc.org?Body=unsubscribe Swap to digest: mailto:owner-fear-list@mapinc.org?subject=digest ******************************************************From: owner-fear-list@mapinc.org on behalf of Judy Osburn [4beatgait@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 1:07 PM To: FEAR-list Subject: FEAR: Research Raises Questions About 'Policing for Profit' http://www.utdallas.edu/news/2008/07/29-001.php Research Raises Questions About 'Policing for Profit' Two UT Dallas Criminologists Study National Asset Forfeiture Trends ...[snip]... UT Dallas criminologists John Worrall and Tom Kovandzic have completed one of the only studies that looks at the application of asset forfeiture laws and whether the laws affect the goals and actions of police departments. The study titled, "Is Policing for Profit? Answers from Asset Forfeiture" is published in the most recent issue of Criminology and Public Policy. Worrall and Kovandzic, both criminology professors in the School of Economic, Political and Policy Sciences, analyzed 572 police departments around the country to look at the big picture of how asset forfeiture laws might influence policing. Their data came from the Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics survey and the U.S. Justice Department Asset Forfeiture Program. Worrall and Kovandzic found that money does matter. ...[snip]... Abstract: "Is Policing for Profilt? Answers from Asset Forfeiture" at: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/120750100/abstract JOHN L. WORRALL 1 TOMISLAV V. KOVANDZIC 1 1 Associate professor of criminology at the University of Texas at Dallas. Copyright © 2008 by the American Society of Criminology ABSTRACT Critics have argued that asset forfeiture encourages policing for profit, but their arguments have yet to transcend the anecdotal arena. We gathered data on asset forfeiture payments from a multistate sample of 572 law enforcement agencies and tested two hypotheses aimed at answering the question, is policing for profit? Although we found no clear evidence of more forfeiture in states that permit local agencies to receive the most proceeds, we did find that local law-enforcement agencies circumvent restrictive state laws (those placing limits on the proceeds they can receive) by teaming up with federal officials to participate in so-called adoptive forfeitures, which permit them to receive equitable sharing payments. This latter finding was robust to numerous specifications, not altered in models estimated on various subsamples, and not affected by extreme values. Policy Implications Our study lends a measure of support to the arguments espoused by forfeiture's critics, namely that forfeiture may be pursued for financial reasons. We cannot, however, assert that policing for profit is necessarily problematic, as it is difficult to fault financially strapped public agencies for seeking needed resources. Nor can we assert that forfeiture supersedes other criminal justice goals, such as enforcement of antidrug laws. "Is Policing for Profilt? Answers from Asset Forfeiture" available for purchase at: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/user/accessdenied?ID=120750100&Act=2138&Code=4719&Page=/cgi-bin/fulltext/120750100/PDFSTART --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment: http://mapinc.org/temp/18iM4t1tR3kT_.html ****************************************************** FEAR also offers an unmoderated discussion list and digests for all lists List unsubscribe: mailto:fear-list-request@mapinc.org?Body=unsubscribe Swap to digest: mailto:owner-fear-list@mapinc.org?subject=digest ******************************************************From: owner-fear-list@mapinc.org on behalf of Judy Osburn [4beatgait@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2008 2:34 PM To: FEAR-list Subject: FEAR: 11th Cir.: US v. De La Mata, No. 05-15793 corporate defendants not parties to individual defendants' crim forfeiture agreements and thus retained certain property interests U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, July 22, 2008 US v. De La Mata, No. 05-15793 In a case where the government obtained defendants' promises to convey certain interests in property to the United States, in lieu of a forfeiture trial and sentence, an order granting the government's motion for a "final order of forfeiture" is affirmed in part and vacated in part where: 1) individual defendants and corporate defendants were properly before the court of appeals; 2) the circuit court rejects individual defendants' argument that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the government's motion sought relief in a criminal case via amended sentences; but 3) corporate defendants were not parties to individual defendants' agreements and thus retained certain property interests. Read more... --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment: http://mapinc.org/temp/18ITJK79b38lk.html ****************************************************** FEAR also offers an unmoderated discussion list and digests for all lists List unsubscribe: mailto:fear-list-request@mapinc.org?Body=unsubscribe Swap to digest: mailto:owner-fear-list@mapinc.org?subject=digest ****************************************************** From: owner-fear-list@mapinc.org on behalf of Judy Osburn [4beatgait@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 10:50 AM To: FEAR-list Subject: FEAR: Fw: DownsizeDC: End Asset Forfeiture DownsizeDC.org, who promotes "Read the Bills [before voting] Act," "One Subject at a Time Act," "Enumerated Powers Act" and other campaigns aimed at individual liberty and limiting federal government, launched its "End Asset Forfeiture" campaign today (below). You can read about these and other DownsizeDC campaigns at www.downsizedc.org ----- Original Message ----- From: "Downsizer Dispatch" To: Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 8:45 AM Subject: End Asset Forfeiture >D o w n s i z e r - D i s p a t c h > > |*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*| > > Quote of the Day: > > "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise > infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury > . . . nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due > process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, > without just compensation." - Fifth Amendment to the Constitution > > Subject: End Asset Forfeiture! > > Civil asset forfeiture is government seizure of property or cash > owned by individuals not charged with any crime. Law enforcement > agents can seize a piece of property if they merely suspect it was > used in a crime, whereas its owner must prove innocence to get it > back. This is an inversion of justice and a gross violation of the > Bill of Rights. But if you think the federal courts will protect > innocent property owners, think again . . . > > * A police dog's sniff of bundles of cash totaling $124,700 was used > as sufficient evidence for the government to confiscate the money, > even though a large percentage of currency in circulation contains > traces of narcotics, and the government couldn't establish how or > when the money was used in criminal activity. > > > * An Ohio man who kept a small amount of medical marijuana and who > also kept his life savings in his own home saw the money taken by the > FBI  even though he was never charged with marijuana possession. > > > * Individuals who consent to police searches can lose money kept in > their vehicles  even where there is no trace of illegal drugs or > suspicion of illegal activity. > > > * A woman charged with illegally selling medical equipment saw her > assets frozen by the government, on the grounds that her wealth was > from ill-gotten gains - preventing her from hiring adequate council > to defend herself, as is her right under the 6th Amendment. > > > Civil asset forfeiture laws breed conflict-of-interest . . . > > * Federal law enforcement seized $1.6 billion last year  triple the > amount four years ago. > > > * The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives ordered > Leathermen toolkits for their agents, engraved with the motto "Always > Think Forfeiture." Fortunately, the program was halted thanks to the > objection of Rep. Bill Sali, but it expresses the attitude that > federal law enforcement agents should put plunder ahead of the > interests of justice. > > > * States seized $1.52 billion in 2007; the State of Texas by itself > collected $125 million, and many police department budgets are > reliant on forfeiture, or "addicted to drug money." This encourages > them to seize the money after drug sales have been made, rather than > keeping the drugs away from children  defeating the nominal purpose > of the War on Drugs. > > > Unfortunately, federal courts have used twisted logic to uphold civil > asset forfeitures. They have contended that since the property itself > is condemned, and not its owner, norms like "innocent until proven > guilty" do not apply. But if the government can seize your life > savings, or your house, or the car you need to get to work, the > effective punishment can be as bad or worse than the penalties > imposed upon conviction of a crime  yet the owner of the seized > property possesses no due process rights. > > Because the courts will not act to end civil asset forfeitures, > Congress must. A "compromise" asset forfeiture bill will only lead to > more abuses and outrages. Civil asset forfeiture must be abolished. > Tell Congress to . . . > > * Require full Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendment protection > for all federal proceedings against owners of personal property. > > * Permit seizures of criminal profits only upon criminal conviction > of its owner. > > * Permit seizures of legally-owned property only if its owner is > convicted of a crime, to pay for fines, court costs, or restitution. > > * Withhold federal funds to all state and local law enforcement > agencies that engage in civil asset forfeiture. > > * Enforce the 14th Amendment's requirement that "no person shall be > deprived of ... property, without due process of law" by allowing > victims of state and local seizures to contest forfeitures in federal > court. > > Please send Congress a message telling them you are outraged by civil > asset forfeiture and that it must be abolished. You can do so here. > > > > Thank you for being part of the growing Downsize DC army. > > James Wilson > > Assistant to the President > > DownsizeDC.org > > |*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*| > > D o w n s i z e r - D i s p a t c h > is the official email list of DownsizeDC.org, Inc. > http://www.DownsizeDC.org > & > Downsize DC Foundation > http://www.DownsizeDC.com > > CONTRIBUTE to the Electronic Lobbyist project at > http://www.downsizedc.org/contribute.shtml > > http://www.DownsizeDC.org is sponsored by DownsizeDC.org, Inc. -- a > non-profit educational organization promoting the ideas of individual > liberty, personal responsibility, free markets, and small government. > > You are encouraged to forward this message to friends and business > associates, and permission is hereby granted to reproduce any items herein > as long as attribution is provided for articles and the subscription > instructions above are included. > ****************************************************** FEAR also offers an unmoderated discussion list and digests for all lists List unsubscribe: mailto:fear-list-request@mapinc.org?Body=unsubscribe Swap to digest: mailto:owner-fear-list@mapinc.org?subject=digest ******************************************************From: owner-fear-list@mapinc.org on behalf of Brenda Grantland [bgrantland1@comcast.net] Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 10:03 AM To: fear-list@mapinc.org Subject: FEAR: IN: Judge expands probe of Muncie DTF forfeiture practices Judge to significantly broaden extent of DTF investigation Muncie Star Press - Muncie,IN,USA "We are going to open every case that has to do with forfeiture," said Dailey, explaining as many as 350 cases could ultimately exist. ... See all stories on this topic --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment: http://mapinc.org/temp/266f43NEzs5X6.html ****************************************************** FEAR also offers an unmoderated discussion list and digests for all lists List unsubscribe: mailto:fear-list-request@mapinc.org?Body=unsubscribe Swap to digest: mailto:owner-fear-list@mapinc.org?subject=digest ******************************************************From: owner-fear-list@mapinc.org on behalf of Judy Osburn [4beatgait@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 1:07 PM To: FEAR-list Subject: FEAR: law.com Commentary: Has a U.S. Attorney Knowingly Prosecuted Innocent People? http://www.law.com:80/jsp/ihc/PubArticleIHC.jsp?id=1202422971754&pos=ataglance Commentary: Has a U.S. Attorney Knowingly Prosecuted Innocent People? The government is investigating cases brought by Alice Martin, U.S. Attorney in Birmingham, Ala. Scott Horton The American Lawyer July 15, 2008 In March 2007 the U.S. government charged Axion Corp., a small business in Huntsville, Ala., with illegally giving technical drawings for a Blackhawk helicopter part to manufacturers in China. The prosecutors seized Axion's assets and took away its government contract business. The company won an acquittal at trial a year later, but by that time, it was out of business. ...[snip]... But she is best known for her crusade against former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman, a Democrat.... ...[snip]... She most recently gained notoriety for the failed prosecution of Axion, a company started by Alexander Nooredin Latifi, an intense and amiable entrepreneur who emigrated from Iran as a young man in the 1970s. He learned engineering and slowly built the company. At its peak, the business had 60 employees and was estimated by a federal court to be worth $50 million. In March 2007 the government charged the company and its owner with violating the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) by sending technical drawings for a Blackhawk helicopter part to a Chinese manufacturer. The prosecutors in Birmingham, led by Martin, sought forfeiture of Latifis assets and obtained an order that wrought havoc with the company's government contract business. After the government secured the asset freeze, no charges were brought against Latifi or the company until March 2007. ...[snip]... After the trial started in October, the government's case collapsed quickly. What Axion had attempted to have made in China was nothing more than a tungsten blank, from which Axion intended to mill the actual part. The government was forced to acknowledge that the drawings furnished to Axion by its contractor had not been labeled "restricted," but instead were given a legend of "noncritical" and "uncontrolled," meaning that Axion had no way of knowing that their use was restricted. Moreover, the drawings had long been accessible on the Internet. As the case progressed, the government's own witnesses were forced to concede that Blackhawk helicopters, equipped with the part in question, had actually been sold to China with U.S. government approval, demolishing the government's claim of a breach of secrecy. Not only that, but the prosecution was aware of these sales before the case was ever brought. Still, the prosecution would not withdraw the case. It was ultimately dismissed by Judge Inge Johnson of the federal district court in Birmingham, who wrote, "Evidence was received ... that at least raises the possibility in the eyes of the district court that the government continued to investigate and prosecute the defendants even after uncovering evidence demonstrating that the defendants were not guilty." ...read full article at: http://www.law.com:80/jsp/ihc/PubArticleIHC.jsp?id=1202422971754&pos=ataglance --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment: http://mapinc.org/temp/30A6GLRla3N2c.html ****************************************************** FEAR also offers an unmoderated discussion list and digests for all lists List unsubscribe: mailto:fear-list-request@mapinc.org?Body=unsubscribe Swap to digest: mailto:owner-fear-list@mapinc.org?subject=digest ******************************************************From: Jody Neal-Post [jodynealpost@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 7:29 AM To: 'Judy Osburn' Subject: Fear: prosecutorial fraud in civil forfeitures Attachments: image001.gif; image002.gif Supreme Court: Dailey can proceed with DTF hearings By RICK YENCER • ryencer@muncie.gannett.com • July 12, 2008 · Read Comments(44) · Recommend (9) · Print this page · E-mail this article · Share this article: · Del.icio.us · Facebook · Digg · Reddit · Newsvine · What’s this? MUNCIE -- The Indiana Supreme Court on Friday gave Delaware Circuit Court 2 Judge Richard Dailey the green light to proceed and act in drug forfeiture cases now being investigated for alleged fraud . Advertisement After a unanimous decision, Chief Justice Randall Shepard signed the order denying Delaware County Prosecutor Mark McKinney's motion to appoint a special judge to the forfeiture cases. McKinney had maintained Dailey was exceeding his authority presiding over the more-than-50 forfeiture cases, and that the judge and his court staff were biased against the prosecutor. Dailey in recent weeks began conducting hearings into allegations that some forfeiture cases had been settled without court orders or any adjudication of law enforcement costs, as required by law. There also were reports of cash and assets belonging to alleged drug dealers being disposed of through confidential settlements, without any in-court forfeiture action. In a brief -- prepared by Dailey's attorney, Peter Drumm, and city attorney Charles R. "Chic" Clark -- the judge argued he was not prohibited by trial rules from exercising jurisdiction in the cases, given that Delaware County has a unified court system that allows for transfer of cases among judges. And remarks that McKinney took out of context to suggest Dailey and his court staff had bias against the prosecutor were not sufficient to prove bias, the judge's attorneys argued. "The conduct of the hearing has been exceedingly fair and Judge Dailey has displayed an attitude of fair play and willingness to listen to all sides," according to the judge's brief. McKinney and his attorney, Kevin McGoff of Indianapolis, did not return telephone calls or e-mails Friday seeking comment on the Supreme Court's ruling. McKinney, who prepared his own brief, argued that Dailey had no jurisdiction in the cases after earlier recusing himself. The prosecutor also said Dailey had shown bias when the judge wrote -- in an e-mail to Meg Babcock, counsel for the Supreme Court's judicial qualifications commission -- that a few irregularities led him to believe the prosecutor committed fraud on the court in handling forfeiture cases. Comments made by Dailey during the hearings that described the forfeiture practices as "deeply troubling" and "disturbing" were noted by McKinney to argue the judge had abandoned his obligation to remain fair and independent in weighing the issues. "(Dailey) appears to be acting as a prosecutor in conducting investigations into pending cases," according to McKinney's brief. The Supreme Court vacated an emergency order issued last month that allowed Dailey to hear but not act in the forfeiture cases. The Superior Court 2 judge now has the authority to proceed with the cases. The Supreme Court's disciplinary commission also is investigating a complaint filed by Muncie Mayor Sharon McShurley that accuses McKinney of misleading the court by not filing proper court orders to disperse seized money and property. Those assets went into Muncie-Delaware County Drug Task Force bank and checking accounts and not to local government general funds or school common funds, as required by state law, McShurley alleges. City attorney Clark said he was not surprised by the Supreme Court's decision to give Dailey authority to continue investigating the prosecutor's handling of forfeiture cases. This week, Dailey ordered McKinney and DTF supervisor Greg Ellison, a county sheriff's sergeant, to deliver any and all confidential settlement agreements by next Friday after finding an agreement that distributed an alleged drug dealer's assets without a court order. The confidential settlement also was signed by McKinney, acting as DTF attorney while serving as prosecutor. Dailey is expected to conduct more hearings this month, reviewing contents of the DTF safe. An inventory this week showed the safe had nearly $80,000 in cash from both pending and closed drug cases. Also in the safe was more than two kilograms of cocaine seized from Christopher Bryant, a 24-year-old Muncie man expected to plead guilty this month to federal drug-related charges in U.S. District Court. Contact news reporter Rick Yencer at 213-5833. From: Jody Neal-Post [jodynealpost@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 7:30 AM To: 'Judy Osburn' Subject: FEAR: More Indiana prosecutorial fraud in forfeitures Attachments: image001.gif; image002.gif Another judge wants answers from DTF Judge John Feick orders Prosecutor Mark McKinney to submit a report within 10 days. By RICK YENCER • ryencer@muncie.gannett.com • July 13, 2008 · Read Comments(46) · Recommend (21) · Print this page · E-mail this article · Share this article: · Del.icio.us · Facebook · Digg · Reddit · Newsvine · What’s this? MUNCIE -- The Muncie-Delaware County Drug Task Force, through its attorney, county Prosecutor Mark McKinney, disposed of money and property from a high-profile drug dealer last year without a court order. Advertisement http://www.ivytech.edu/eastcentral/ The use of a confidential agreement that distributed over $50,000 in cash seized during the arrest of suspected drug dealer Adrian Kirtz, and his acquaintance, Lacie Williams, was done after Delaware Circuit Court 4 Judge John Feick ordered the assets frozen and not distributed. Feick assumed that order was still in place until informed of the confidential agreement by Delaware Circuit Court 2 Judge Richard Dailey, who is investigating whether the prosecutor committed fraud in handling forfeiture cases. "That causes me concern," said Feick, about the DTF distributing funds and property when the court ordered them frozen. On Friday, Feick ordered McKinney's office to file a status report on the forfeiture case within 10 days. The confidential settlement agreement between the DTF, Kirtz and Williams gave the DTF $35,774 in cash, a 2003 GMC Denali, a 1993 Kawasaki motorcycle and other personal property from the defendants' residence. Kritz and Williams got back $26,838 in cash, two other vehicles and some clothes. Records of two accounts at the Industria Centre Federal Credit Union that Feick froze show checks written to the DTF for $25,212 and to the defendants' attorney, Jake Dunnuck, for $26,838, both written on March 7, 2007. The agreement also allowed for distribution of other money and property to other defendants in the drug arrest that involved a federal sting operation and the arrest of eight other suspects, including Christopher Lampkins, 34, and Reginald Lipscomb, 26, who were part of an armed robbery conspiracy of local drug dealers. Lampkins and Lipscomb were recently sentenced in U.S. District Court on federal drug and gun charges. Kirtz, 29, faces an Aug. 19 trial on the drug charges and faces a Sept. 11 sentencing on his guilty plea for his role in a multi-million-dollar arson-for-insurance scheme orchestrated by Kenneth Allen, who was recently sentenced to four years in federal prison on arson and fraud convictions. The defendant also is a witness in the conspiracy to commit bribery trial involving former prosecutor Michael Alexander. Williams, 22, was initially charged with dealing cocaine and maintaining a common nuisance, but later pleaded guilty to the nuisance charge and was handed a suspended one-year jail term last January, and put on probation for a year. McKinney has insisted the prosecutor's office does not plead criminal cases with drug dealers based on how much money or property is forfeited. Feick, who faces re-election Nov. 4 and is challenged by deputy prosecutor Diane Frye, now waits until a criminal case is finished before deciding on civil forfeiture cases to avoid any appearance of impropriety. The latest confidential agreement caused Dailey to order McKinney and DTF supervisor Greg Ellison, a county sheriff's sergeant, to hand over all confidential settlement agreements used to distribute seized property and money for review. Testimony heard and evidence submitted during recent hearings indicated the DTF routinely distributed seized money and property without a court order. McKinney did not respond to questions this week about the latest confidential agreement or any conflict serving as DTF attorney while prosecutor. Elected, full-time prosecutors cannot engage in private law practice, according to state law. Don Lundberg, executive director of the Indiana Supreme Court's disciplinary commission, declined to offer an opinion on whether civil forfeiture represented a private practice of law. The Indiana Supreme Court continues to investigate a complaint against the prosecutor of whether he broke the law handling seizures and forfeitures. From: Jody Neal-Post [jodynealpost@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 7:25 AM To: 'Judy Osburn' Subject: Fear: Sample special verdict form incl in links Attachments: image001.png; image002.gif; image003.gif; image004.gif; image005.gif; image006.jpg; image007.jpg DALLAS ISD BLOG http://ads.belointeractive.com/RealMedia/ads/Creatives/default/empty.gif http://www.dallasnews.com/images/ice3/icons/newsletter.gifNewsletter sign-up http://www.dallasnews.com/images/ice3/icons/cellphone.gifGet News on your cell http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/img/standing/icons/rss-small .gif http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/img/standing/icons/yahoo-sma ll.gif July 2008 S M T W T F S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Previous entries Recent Posts Who thinks NCLB stinks? Texas Republicans, that's who. Dallas ISD Daily Dish Principals coming, principals going Boatgate forfeiture verdict: It wasn't easy. Dallas kids: Step away from the cheeseburgers Dallas ISD Daily Dish Dallas ISD Daily Dish 'The Plundering of Spruce' Does Ross Avenue hold you back? Dallas ISD Daily Dish Categories Administration Board of Trustees Bond Breaking News Crime Dallas Achieves / School Reform Documents Extracurriculars Finance and Budget Parental Involvement Student life Teaching and the Classroom The Daily Dish Waste and abuse dallasnews.com News Blogs Religion Metro Politics/Elections « Dallas kids: Step away from the cheeseburgers | Main | Principals coming, principals going » Boatgate forfeiture verdict: It wasn't easy. 1:14 PM Fri, Jul 11, 2008 | Permalink Kent Fischer http://www.dallasnews.com/blogs/images/email-icon.jpgE-mail http://www.dallasnews.com/blogs/images/email-icon.jpg News tips Thumbnail image for Thumbnail image for 0530boat.jpg The jury that recently convicted Ruben Bohuchot and Frankie Wong of bribery, money laundering and tax evasion took about eight hours to deliver the verdict. But they took nearly twice that long to determine how much money, if any, the two men should return the government. It wasn't easy, but jurors ultimately pegged the amount at slightly less than $1.2 million, about $1 million less than the prosecution wanted. Anyway, some newly filed court documents show the problems the jury had in reaching its decision. Apparently at least two jurors faced off with one refusing "to come up to a reasonable figure." You can read the juror's notes and questions to the judge about how to resolve the deadlock. The judge's reply (which amounted to, "keep trying") can be read here . Ultimately, the jury filed this paperwork regarding the amount. From: owner-fear-list@mapinc.org on behalf of Judy Osburn [4beatgait@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 12:13 PM To: FEAR-list Subject: FEAR: 9th Cir.: US v. Harrell, No. 07-10238, case involving unauthorized viewing of satellite television U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, June 30, 2008 US v. Harrell, No. 07-10238 In a case involving unauthorized viewing of satellite television and the government's seizure of certain digital satellite television receivers and other hardware and software, partial denial of defendant's motion for return of property filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g) is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) there must be a change to either the hardware or software of a telecommunications instrument that makes it more capable of obtaining unauthorized signals in order for it to be "modified or altered" under 18 U.S.C. section 1029(a)(7); 2) under such standard, certain receivers at issue were not modified or altered so as to constitute contraband per se; and 3) some other hardware and software was also not shown to constitute contraband per se. Read more... --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment: http://mapinc.org/temp/17v655Z2ajiiE.html ****************************************************** FEAR also offers an unmoderated discussion list and digests for all lists List unsubscribe: mailto:fear-list-request@mapinc.org?Body=unsubscribe Swap to digest: mailto:owner-fear-list@mapinc.org?subject=digest ******************************************************From: owner-fear-list@mapinc.org on behalf of Judy Osburn [4beatgait@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 11:56 AM To: FEAR-list Subject: FEAR: 7th Cir: Stevens v. US, No. 08-1283, denial of petitioner's motion to return property U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, July 01, 2008 Stevens v. US, No. 08-1283 In proceedings arising from a criminal prosecution, denial of petitioner's motion to return property is affirmed where: 1) the government met its burden of showing that it was no longer in possession of the items seized; 2) there is no presumption of untruthfulness in a Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(g) proceeding; and 3) defendant may not challenge his conviction by way of a Rule 41(g) motion. Read more... --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment: http://mapinc.org/temp/61NgjLJW4IgK2.html ****************************************************** FEAR also offers an unmoderated discussion list and digests for all lists List unsubscribe: mailto:fear-list-request@mapinc.org?Body=unsubscribe Swap to digest: mailto:owner-fear-list@mapinc.org?subject=digest ******************************************************From: owner-fear-list@mapinc.org on behalf of Judy Osburn [4beatgait@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2008 11:44 AM To: FEAR-list Subject: FEAR: Florida Times Union: Sheriff's drug fund spending revealed In addition to using asset forfeiture funds to pay his private attorney, help a boxing club owner pay her lease in Kingsland, fund his department's general operational costs and other violations of federal asset forfeiture sharing conditions, "[c]ommissioners repeatedly criticized his use of federal drug money to pay jail inmates to work on private property, including the sheriff's, and not just in Camden County but also at his ex-wife's house in South Carolina." Camden County Sheriff Bill Smith also used the asset forfeiture funds to purchase a 29 foot boat for questionable purposes, vehicles for 23 nonpatrol Sheriff's Office employees, college tuitons and related costs at colleges around the Southeast for favored deputies, and to establish college scholarships and donate to his favored Camden nonprofits. The Florida Times Union http://www.jacksonville.com:80/tu-online/stories/070608/geo_300450090.shtml Sheriff's drug fund spending revealed Smith used $615,000 in federal funds for tuition, a lease, private lawyer and more ST. MARYS - Camden County Sheriff Bill Smith stopped paying jail inmates from seized drug assets when state investigators began looking into the controversial practice last July, according to copies of checks he released to avoid a lawsuit last month. But Smith continued to use the federal forfeiture money for other questionable expenditures such as college tuition for favored deputies, a Kingsland boxing club's lease, and a retainer for a private lawyer, the checks show. And he used the federally regulated fund to pay routine expenses after county commissioners cut his operating budget last year. rest of story at http://www.jacksonville.com:80/tu-online/stories/070608/geo_300450090.shtml --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment: http://mapinc.org/temp/57ZV8bEWO7b5_.html ****************************************************** FEAR also offers an unmoderated discussion list and digests for all lists List unsubscribe: mailto:fear-list-request@mapinc.org?Body=unsubscribe Swap to digest: mailto:owner-fear-list@mapinc.org?subject=digest ******************************************************From: owner-fear-list@mapinc.org on behalf of Judy Osburn [4beatgait@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 2:04 PM To: FEAR-list Subject: FEAR: DOJ federal asset forfeiture statistics, fiscal year 2007 In Fiscal Year 2007 U. S. Attorneys filed asset forfeiture counts in 5,131 criminal cases and filed 2,105 civil asset forfeiture actions, obtaining a total appraised value of $1,323,035,714 ($1.3 billion) in civil and criminal forfeiture judgments. These figures do not include assets forfeited through federal administrative procedures (in which owners lost property without any litigation), nor state forfeitures. While the federal government obtained 92% of the criminal convictions it sought in Fiscal Year 2007, U.S. Attorneys vastly overreached for assets and money judgments - litigating over 3.8 billion dollars in assets - seeking nearly three times the value of the civil and criminal forfeiture judgments obtained. Source: United States Attorneys' Annual Statistical Report: Fiscal Year 2007. http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/reading_room/reports/asr2007/07statrpt.pdf During fiscal years 2005 and 2006, U.S. Attorneys obtained a 91% conviction rate, but pursued litigation of assets valued at over four times the value of forfeiture judgments obtained. Source: United States Attorneys' Annual Statistical Report: Fiscal Year 2005; United States Attorneys' Annual Statistical Report: Fiscal Year 2006. http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/reading_room/reports/asr2005/05statrpt.pdf and http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/reading_room/reports/asr2006/06statrpt.pdf The Southern District of New York led the pack: US District Attorney General Seizes $1.1Bn In 2007 Thursday, 31 January 2008, 10:23 am Press Release: LawFuel US District Attorney General Seizes Record $1.1 Billion In 2007 Year The Law Jobs and Legal NewsWire The Asset Forfeiture Unit of the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York has forfeited or reached agreements to forfeit more than $1.1 billion in calendar year 2007. The forfeitures stem from a variety of cases prosecuted by the Office, from corporate fraud cases to cases concerning public corruption, fraud in the United Nations Oil-for-Food program, international narcotics trafficking, art and antiquities thefts, and internet gambling. The Department of Justice uses the fiscal year to track forfeitures, and the Office's forfeitures also exceeded $1.1 billion for the 2007 fiscal year ("FY07"), which runs from October 1, 2006, to October 1, 2007. The Office collected approximately $717.8 million and reached agreements to forfeit an additional $450 million, bringing the Office's forfeiture total in FY 2007 to over $1.1 billion. For the third consecutive fiscal year, the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York has led the nation in deposits to the Government's various Asset Forfeiture Funds. In FY07, the nationwide total of deposits into the Asset Forfeiture Funds was approximately $1.3 billion, with the forfeited assets collected by the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York -- $717.8 million -- comprising 55% of the national total. The top districts and totals are as follows: Top Districts for Asset Forfeiture in FY07 District Amount Deposited into the AFFs Southern District of New York $717.8M Western District of Virginia $183.6M Eastern District of New York $49.2M Southern District of Florida $37.5M Southern District of Texas $29.2M District of Connecticut $19.7M District of New Jersey $17.5M District of Maryland $15.8M Southern District of California $15.6M Central District of California $15.3M ... full story at: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0801/S00311.htm ****************************************************** FEAR also offers an unmoderated discussion list and digests for all lists List unsubscribe: mailto:fear-list-request@mapinc.org?Body=unsubscribe Swap to digest: mailto:owner-fear-list@mapinc.org?subject=digest ******************************************************