Obama Administration Told It Should Return The Crystal-Covered Michael Jackson Glove It Illegally Seized
from the seriously? dept
We've talked repeatedly about the federal governments' overly-aggressive nature in seizing and forfeiting things like domain names, but the government's abuse of forfeiture and seizure laws goes way beyond just seizing digital assets. Basically, law enforcement often sees seizure and forfeiture laws as an excuse to steal from the public with little to no recrimination.Thankfully, it looks like the courts may be starting to push back a bit. The Obama administration appears to be losing its case in which it seized millions of dollars worth of assets from the son of the president/dictator of Equatorial Guinea. Included in the haul is an original Michael Jackson crystal covered "glove" from the Bad tour. The feds are claiming that these were ill-gotten gains from corruption. That may be true, but the guy, Teodoro Nguema Obiang Mangue, hasn't been convicted of any crimes either at home or in the US, so the courts are wondering why it should let the US just take his stuff. The feds have a chance to amend their argument, but it's good to see that the judge is quite skeptical that such seizures are legal.
This kind of thing seems all too common with such in cases, where law enforcement goes after the stuff, but never goes after the actual people involved. And, of course, sometimes they make big mistakes. Either way, hopefully cases like this lead to fixing (or getting rid) of the ridiculous process of asset seizures without due process or without any charges being filed. It's not just that it's open to abuse, but that it is, clearly, regularly abused to either enrich law enforcement or just to hassle people the government doesn't like. That shouldn't be allowed.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: assets, equatorial guinea, forfeiture, michael jackson, obama administration, seizure
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Don't rock the boat!
Seriously, your TV or your life?
Yes, it's unjust, but maybe we should just let this one go for now...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: :'(
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Forfeiture actions are not actions against individuals. They're civil actions against property. Property has no rights.
It sort of makes sense if the property is heroin. Heroin is illegal, so if the government finds it, it can take it.
However, it turns grey very quickly when the government determines, "Well, this house might have been paid for by the sales of heroin. So let's take the house too."
All the "claimant" can do is file a claim in the civil proceeding against the property and hope he can get some of it back.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: !
Utter cocknbull nonsense. Of course property doesn't have rights, but the owner of said property allegedly has rights! *Grrr*
_sigh_
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: the new Meme
this is the 21st Century after all
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It's a common error made by most people trying to defame the President. WTG Mike, your Tea bagger buddies will be proud!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
That's only because you have a reading comprehension problem.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
It's a common error made by most people trying to defame the President. WTG Mike, your Tea bagger buddies will be proud!
Hmmm. Let check out what Wikipedia has to say about the DOJ:
The United States Department of Justice (often referred to as the Justice Department or DOJ), is the United States federal executive department responsible for the enforcement of the law and administration of justice, equivalent to the justice or interior ministries of other countries.
The Department is led by the Attorney General, who is nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate and is a member of the Cabinet. The current Attorney General is Eric Holder.
Let's recap: Part of the Executive Branch, AG nominated by President and member of President's Cabinet.
Looks to me like the buck stops with the President, so using the phrase "Obama Administration" would be correct.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Don't rock the boat!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
When did it happen?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Don't rock the boat!
Then they started stealing from people that they merely claimed were criminals, and I didn't speak out because the government and law enforcement would never make a mistake about guilt.
Then they started stealing from me, and yet no one would listen when I proclaimed my innocence.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: When did it happen?
[ link to this | view in thread ]