• lagilogi 8 days ago

    This allows for the legal argument to seize the house of corrupt politicians and police officers. It also allows for the seizing of businesses from their owners and boards when their practices lead to economic crises.

    It will however not going to be interpreted by lawyers and regulators as such. Because a politician, police officer, businessman, corporation all are more of a person in the eyes of law, compared to a simpleton woman charged with distribution.

    The rule of the law does not exist.

    • jmpman 7 days ago

      This was a jury decision. Yes, a jury can be persuaded by a good lawyer, and the “simpleton woman” may not have had a good lawyer, but it’s not like the decision was made by an arbitrary judge.

      • hurricanetc 7 days ago

        Prosecutors were able to show that the only way she was able to keep and maintain the house was through profits from selling meth.

        And it was a jury of her peers that voted to allow the forfeiture. If a politician accepts bribes and buys property with those bribes it is not unreasonable at all to expect that property to be seized.

        • bitminer 7 days ago

          At least she was convicted.

          Up here in the monarchy of Canada unconvicted persons can lose millions


          It is common for the civil forfeiture office to attack accused persons prior to trial, denying them access to their own funds for paying a defence attorney. They can remain in pre-trial custody without legal representation for years.

          They are currently litigating for seizure of three hells angels clubhouses on the theory they could be used in the future to engage in unlawful activity. 2019 BCSC 1421.

      • lonelappde 7 days ago

        The background of the story:

        Woman crushed by her government and society driven to crime to survive, then taken for all she's worth.

        Meanwhile the Sackler's opiate corporation hasn't been seized.

        Also, what happens to the mortgage? Does the state pay it off? I doubt the house was paid off. Is the mortgage secured by the house?


        • hurricanetc 7 days ago

          She should have taken the plea deal. She wouldn’t have been able to afford to keep this property were it not for her illegal activities. Prosecutors offered to allow her to sell the house and keep most of the proceeds but she declined. She could have thrown all the proceeds into an investment account and let it grow for six years while she was in prison. She could have left prison with several hundred thousand and restarted her life.

          Instead she’ll keep racking up attorney fees fighting this forfeiture and likely lose in the end anyway.

          • WarOnPrivacy 7 days ago