How can the defendant of a trial be money? U.S. vs. $333,520.00?

dockets.justia.com...:2010cv00703/568697/

Plaintiff: United States of America
Defendants: $333,520.00 in US Currency and Saturn Aura XE 2007, VIN 1G8ZS57N97F136757

Case Number: 4:2010cv00703
Filed: November 30, 2010

Court: Arizona District Court
Office: Tucson Division Office
County: Santa Cruz
Presiding Judge: John M Roll

Nature of Suit: Forfeiture / Penalty - Other
Cause: Bulk cash smuggling into or out of the United States
Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff
Jury Demanded By: None

I put this in the political madness section because I am going mad trying to figure this out.

Doesn't there have to be a criminal in order for there to be a crime?

someone said

"Sounds to me that someone tried to smuggle a ton of cash in a car across the border, and the government is going to court to gain possession of both."

but then the car would have to be abandoned, right? I mean if they had the suspect wouldn't the suspect be the defendant? And if the car was abandoned why do they need a court case? I guess since it is a lot of money it could afford a good lawyer yuk yuk but seriously what the heck is going on here?

Sounds completely bizarre to me. Maybe there are some lawyer-types around here who can provide some insight.

I guess if the car was abandoned they need some type of legal process to take the car and the money but wouldn't that just be a police matter, would it really need its own court case, one presided over by a federal judge?

If it was an abandoned car, but a federal judge is overseeing the case, then the federal government is trying to take what should belong to the state, right?

reply to post by filosophia


Well, I would have guessed that if the car was abandoned on state property, the car and it's contents can automatically become the possession of the state if no owner comes forward and claims or disputes it?

Sorry, the website isn't coming in completely,

dockets.justia.com...:2010cv00703/568697/,

I don't know why it is being cut off.

dockets.justia.com/docket/arizona/azdce/4:2010cv00703/568697/

Originally posted by filosophia
Sorry, the website isn't coming in completely,

dockets.justia.com...:2010cv00703/568697/,

I don't know why it is being cut off.

dockets.justia.com/docket/arizona/azdce/4:2010cv00703/568697/

edit on 20-1-2011 by filosophia because: (no reason given)

That might be because the Presiding Judge (Roll) was the judge that was killed in the Gabrielle Giffords shooting in Tucson....

reply to post by Riffrafter


I'm just trying to figure out more information on this, but don't know where to look. I'm not even sure the case completely went through or not. It may not have been fully resolved before the shooting.

Sounds crazy. I recall hearing about different countrys, owning the roads or freeways ect in the USA. So it may have been found on some one elses property. But I still cant get my head arround it being the defendant.

Isn't this the same judge who was killed in Tuscon?
Wonder if there's any significance to that?
It is still senseless to sue a car full of money - if it was impounded by the state, the case should titled as US v. State... maybe this is the "legal" maneuver for implementing "asset forfeiture" in federal court. Strange.

ganjoa

Originally posted by ganjoa
Isn't this the same judge who was killed in Tuscon?

Yes, it was , there was an article on the "EU Times" (never heard of it before) saying this somehow played into Obama's plan to confiscate 401k's, and that since Roll was the judge maybe it had a connection to the Arizona shooting, but this case doesn't say anything about 401ks, maybe it is the cover but then I just started to get mind boggled over how they could say cash and a car was a defendant in a federal case. Which is of course why I put this in the political madness section.

Originally posted by filosophia


Doesn't there have to be a criminal in order for there to be a crime?

edit on 20-1-2011 by filosophia because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-1-2011 by filosophia because: (no reason given)

Money, it's a crime
Share it fairly
But don't take a slice of my pie

Originally posted by jacktherer

Money, it's a crime
Share it fairly
But don't take a slice of my pie

Nice, Pink Floyd.

"Money, so they say
Is the root of all evil
Today

But if you ask for a rise
It's no surprise that they're
Giving none away"

Someone said the money was being held because no one claimed it. Well I'll claim 333,000 dollars. Although I don't know what I'd do with a Saturn.

I would like to offer my legal services to defend the rights of the money and the car. For a reasonable fee, of course. First, I would like a bail hearing. Although the car has the ability to flee the jurisdiction, the money is a fine, upstanding member of the community and has no criminal record. I seek to have the cash released on its own recognizance. Second, I demand a jury trial so that the cash and car can be judged by their piers. A homogenous mixture of currencies and cars would be fair. And I will be putting my clients on the stand to testify in their own defense. Also, I move to have any confessions ruled inadmissible on the grounds that they were coerced before my clients were read their Miranda rights. Further, since my clients did not consent to a search, any evidence seized as a result of those searches should also be thrown out.

That's right, I watch too much Law and Order.

Good post OP

My very close friend had a similar situation and here is how it played out.

His Jeep vehicle was used in committing a federal crime and the perp was caught along with his vehicle. In comes an official DOJ prosecutor and long time employee lawyer representing the Gov/t in this heinous of all crimes. First, the individual was charged, and stupid moron pleaded guilty-got 20 years in club fed. But the DOJ also instigated a separate lawsuit against the vehicle he used in the crime.

I personally saw the suit and pleadings. Asked why in world would the gov. sue a vehicle used for transportation of the individual only with no contraband other than a change of clothes? Turns out the gov. HAD to file a suit against the vehicle inorder to confiscate it and resell it for profit at auction, otherwise the individual owner would have gotten come of the proceeds.

I, being a half brained dumbed down product of the education system we call public schools, asked another DOJ attorney in the hallway of the courthouse, that if the car could not afford an attorney would the court appoint one?

Turns out the court would have to appoint one IF the vehicle was accused of a criminal offense, BUT...and here is the rub; the vehicle was being sued for a CIVIL breach and not a criminal breach of law and equity.

But I don't see how this squares with manufactures lawsuits for defective vehicles wherein the vehicle killed occupants...isn't that criminal? Like Ford and the Pinto gas tank stuff?

Anyone?

Seems to me the gov just needs the money and this was a safe way to get it...although it appears only the FEDs do this...unless anyone can site/cite a state court trying this bullsh**.

Originally posted by VictorVonDoom
I would like to offer my legal services to defend the rights of the money and the car. For a reasonable fee, of course. First, I would like a bail hearing. Although the car has the ability to flee the jurisdiction, the money is a fine, upstanding member of the community and has no criminal record. I seek to have the cash released on its own recognizance. Second, I demand a jury trial so that the cash and car can be judged by their piers. A homogenous mixture of currencies and cars would be fair. And I will be putting my clients on the stand to testify in their own defense. Also, I move to have any confessions ruled inadmissible on the grounds that they were coerced before my clients were read their Miranda rights. Further, since my clients did not consent to a search, any evidence seized as a result of those searches should also be thrown out.

That's right, I watch too much Law and Order.

I agree. Thanks for the humor.

If a corporation is a person, why can't a car be prosecuted? I just think it's funny that the case is basically the United States vs. it's own currency, is this a sort of unintentional or maybe intentional joke? The US vs. the dollar? I mean the US has some real problems if they are trying to sue their own currency.

Originally posted by EdWard54


Seems to me the gov just needs the money and this was a safe way to get it...although it appears only the FEDs do this...

well that's just the thing, there was an article trying to say that the Arizona Judge Roll that was one of the shooting victims did rule on this case in favor of the people (denying the government their money and car). However, I can't verify that claim, and maybe the case never even got resolved or won't because of the shooting. That's why I'm asking people if they have any more information on where I could find the case's ruling, to either prove the article right or wrong that it had something to do with confiscation of 401k's, which I am skeptical of at the moment until I see more proof.

reply to post by filosophia


Ok, I'm not a lawyer, but DO read a lot of Law.

In law, you can act against a person (which also means Corporation btw), or a thing (in this case, a sum of money)

With only reading the Style of Cause (US vs. 302,000), the US claims an interest in or title to the sum of money.

Obviously, the sum of money cannot defend itself at trial, nor can any other inanimate object...if I recall correctly, this is called a proceeding 'IN RE', which goes back to mercantilism back at the time when merchant law was essentially handed down by the British Admiralty...and is now a particularly arcane branch of our 'legal' system. (and rather fascinating).

So presume 302,000 or what ever was siezed by DHS from a shoebox in my trunk. Undoubtedly there would be a similar action, which if I didn't formally contest, would allow the US title to the money without any recourse.

Note to peoples, silence is an admission....so if you get a letter saying 'you owe xxxxx' or 'we claim xxxx', and don't respond within a reasonable time, you, through inaction, admit the debt.