The Supreme Court made it easier for the govt to take your assets before you even go to trial

[The Straight Story]

Justice for Kerri and Brian Kaley, the Supreme Court held Tuesday, is of the Alice in Wonderland variety: First comes the punishment—the seizure of all their assets—then the trial, and the crime last of all.* “But suppose they never committed the crime?” Alice asks. “It doesn’t matter,” comes the court’s answer, “because a grand jury said so.”

Writing for a six-justice majority in Kaley v. United States, thus concluded Justice Elena Kagan that a criminal defendant indicted by a grand jury has essentially no right to challenge the forfeiture of her assets, even if the defendant needs those very assets to pay lawyers to defend her at trial. In an odd ideological lineup, the dissenters were Chief Justice John Roberts and the more liberal Justices Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor.

The Kaleys’ saga began more than nine years ago when Kerri, a medical device salesperson, learned that she was under investigation by federal authorities for stealing devices from hospitals. Kerri admits she took some devices and later sold them with Brian’s help, but she says the devices she took were unwanted, outdated models that the hospitals were glad to be rid of—in effect, that she couldn’t steal something that was given to her. (It’s not a crazy argument. In fact, it worked for a co-defendant, who was quickly acquitted by a jury after the government failed to find even a single hospital that claimed ownership of the allegedly stolen goods.)

With charges looming, the Kaleys sought an estimate from their lawyers of how much mounting a defense would cost. The answer: $500,000. (That figure may seem high, but sadly the government agreed it was reasonable.) The Kaleys took out a home equity loan and used the $500,000 to purchase a certificate of deposit, which they planned to spend on lawyers.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2014/02/kaley_v_united_states_terrible_supreme_court_decision_lets_the_government.html?wpisrc=burger_bar

[msongs]

1. another sign the USA has no moral authority to bad mouth putin and his gang nt

[truedelphi]

3. Very true. Between decisions by SCOTUS like this one and others

that relate to the middle class having no rights to their property if someone more financially abundant wants said property, and considering all the things that indicate we are not on our way to being a Police State but already are one, and also how the FBI agents brag about how they take mentally ill people and ensnare and entrap them into almost pulling off a terrorist plot, I am betwixt and beside myself.

I really feel for the average person, regardless of where they live. I can't tell if the Ukranians would be better off under the EU financial domain, which can crash as soon as the United States does, or if they should remain tied into the Russian mafia.

A very out of the fire into the frying pan kind of reality, these days.

[jsr]

2. Recommend