Another Amendment Bites the Dust

Back in October, the WSJ reported on an interesting case about to be heard by  the Supreme Court. Apparently prosecutors are more and more often rigging trials by means of civil forfeiture. By simply confiscating the assets of the accused, the accused can no longer pay for a defense lawyer of their choice. This makes life for the prosecution a lot easier, but it appears to be in conflict with the 6th amendment, at least in spirit. The amendment states:

 

“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

 

(emphasis added)

One could of course argue that a court-appointed lawyer is after all counsel as well (in fact, the prosecution did so argue in the case discussed below), but the countless innocents found vegetating on death row after DNA analysis became available could probably tell you a thing or two about the quality issues occasionally associated with that option.

The WSJ wrote at the time:

 

“On Oct. 16, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on a claim brought by husband and wife Brian and Kerri Kaley. The Kaleys are asking the high court to answer a serious and hotly contested question in the federal criminal justice system: Does the Constitution allow federal prosecutors to seize or freeze a defendant's assets before the prosecution has shown at a pretrial hearing that those assets were illegally obtained?

Such asset freezes often prevent a defendant from hiring the trial counsel of his choice to mount a vigorous defense, thus increasing the likelihood of the government extracting a guilty plea or verdict. Because asset forfeiture almost automatically follows conviction, a pretrial freeze ultimately enables the Justice Department to grab the frozen assets for use by executive-branch law enforcement agencies. It is a neat, vicious circle.

What crimes are the Kaleys charged with? Kerri Kaley was a sales representative for a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson. Beginning in 2005, the feds in Florida investigated her, her husband Brian, and other sales reps for reselling medical devices given to them by hospitals. The hospitals had previously bought and stocked the devices but no longer needed or wanted the overstock since the company was offering new products. Knowing that the J&J subsidiary had already been paid for the now-obsolete products and was focused instead on selling new models, the sales reps resold the old devices and kept the proceeds.

The feds had various theories for why this "gray market" activity was a crime, even though prosecutors could not agree on who owned the overstocked devices and, by extension, who were the supposed victims of the Kaleys' alleged thefts. The J&J subsidiary never claimed to be a victim.

The Kaleys were confident that they would prevail at trial if they could retain their preferred lawyers. A third defendant did go to trial with her counsel of choice and was acquitted. But the Justice Department made it impossible for the Kaleys to pay their chosen lawyers for trial.

The government insisted that as long as the Kaleys' assets—including bank accounts and their home—could be traced to the sale of the medical devices, all of those assets could be frozen. The Kaleys were not allowed to go a step further and show that their activities were in no way criminal, since this would be determined by a trial. But the Kaleys insisted that if the government wanted to freeze their funds, the court had to hold a pretrial hearing on the question of the legality of how the funds were earned.

The Kaleys complained that the asset freeze effectively deprived them of their Sixth Amendment right to the counsel of their choice—the couple couldn't afford to hire the defense that they wanted. Prosecutors and the trial judge responded that the Kaleys could proceed with a public defender. This wouldn't have been an encouraging prospect for them, for while public counsel is often quite skilled, such legal aid wouldn't meet the requirements the Kaleys believed they needed for this complex defense. Choice of counsel in a free society, one would think, lies with the defendant, not with the prosecutor or the judge.”

 

(emphasis added)

“Choice of counsel in a free society, one would think, lies with the defendant, not with the prosecutor or the judge” – Yes, one would certainly think so, alas…

 

Supreme Court Hands Government a Big Club

As criminal defense lawyer Scott Greenfield reports, the “Day the 6th Amendment Died” has arrived. He sounds slightly surprised, but he shouldn't be. After all, the 4th amendment and habeas corpus have become victims of the GWOT and the 'national security' octopus with nary a peep from anyone. A great many protections once enjoyed by individuals have become, shall we say, bona peritura.

Asset forfeiture on pure suspicion is especially pernicious given the fact that nowadays everyone is basically a criminal, as a result of the vast overproduction of laws, and rules/regulations that have the force of laws. Since ignorance cannot protect one from the law, every citizen would in theory have to spend several lifetimes studying the whole shebang to make 100% certain he won't commit at least three crimes before 9 AM. Of course this situation is not a coincidence. The fact that there are now so many laws that it has become nigh impossible not to break some of them now and then without even knowing it has become a major weapon against the citizenry in the hands of the State (only TBTF banks are completely safe, even if they e.g. launder 100ds of millions in drug money – since they are 'systemically relevant', they cannot be prosecuted or punished. And this after it was decided that corporations are 'persons'. Evidently not all 'persons' are similarly likely to get the book thrown at them).

As the case of the Kaleys shows, such asset forfeitures can be employed on what appear to be rather flimsy grounds. Judging from the WSJ article, the government seems to be attempting to transform an apparently victimless crime – as no-one asserts that they believe their property rights were violated by the accused (how can there be theft without victims? It boggles the mind) –  into a major theft and criminal conspiracy case ex nihilo. This is all the more astonishing as one of the co-accused has already been acquitted in a separate trial. So clearly, the prosecution is seeking to gain an advantage by means of the asset forfeiture in a complicated case it might otherwise very easily lose.

Here are a few excerpts from Mr. Greenfield's article:

 

“Having followed Kerri Kaley’s struggle to enable herself and her husband to fight charges of dubious merit since the circuit, an old question arose: Would the law that grew like a fungus in the bad, old drug days of forfeiture law that gave rise to such discreditable decisions as Monsanto, be perpetuated now that they were being applied to people who society didn’t inherently despise?

The Supreme Court answered the question in Kaley v. United States, a split decision by Justice Elena Kagan: Hell, yes!

 

[…]

The manner in which the Court structured its issue, and hence its response, foretold the outcome. Rather than approach the case as a 6th Amendment deprivation of the ability to obtain counsel to defend themselves from a spurious indictment, the majority seized upon it as a math problem.

Indictment = Probable Cause

Forfeiture = Probable Cause

Indictment = Forfeiture

Ham sandwich, anyone?  In considering the Court’s adherence to beloved legal fictions, one of which is that a grand jury indictment conclusively proves the existence of probable cause to believe that a crime occurred and the defendants committed the crime, the majority reduced the issue before it to an absurdity. What about the presumption of innocence?  What about the right to counsel of choice? What about the constraints of forfeiture to the proceeds of crime?

Meh.  It’s as if someone mumbled during their post argument conference, “you know, if we cut her a break, it’s going to look like we no longer have faith in grand jury indictments. Since everybody already knows they’re argle-bargle, that won’t end well. It looks like we have no choice here.”

There was always the other side of the equation, that pre-trial restraint of allegedly forfeitable assets is unconstitutional because it impairs a fundamental 6th Amendment right to counsel, but they blew that one in Monsanto when they were busy hating on drug dealers.  Yes, that crap invariably comes back to haunt us.”

 

(emphasis added)

Goodbye, presumption of innocence and due process. Which incidentally is precisely what Justice Roberts mentioned in his dissenting opinion:

 

“The issues presented here implicate some of the most fundamental precepts underlying the American criminal justice system. A person accused by the United States of committing a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. But he faces a foe of powerful might and vast resources, intent on seeing him behind bars. That individual has the right to choose the advocate he believes will most ably defend his liberty at trial.”

 

(emphasis added)

Inspector Clouseau to Justice Roberts:

Not anymeure!

 


 

What is the price of a piano compared to the terrible crime that has been committed here?

 


 

 
 

Emigrate While You Can... Learn More

 
 

 
 

Dear Readers!

You may have noticed that our so-called “semiannual” funding drive, which started sometime in the summer if memory serves, has seamlessly segued into the winter. In fact, the year is almost over! We assure you this is not merely evidence of our chutzpa; rather, it is indicative of the fact that ad income still needs to be supplemented in order to support upkeep of the site. Naturally, the traditional benefits that can be spontaneously triggered by donations to this site remain operative regardless of the season - ranging from a boost to general well-being/happiness (inter alia featuring improved sleep & appetite), children including you in their songs, up to the likely allotment of privileges in the afterlife, etc., etc., but the Christmas season is probably an especially propitious time to cross our palms with silver. A special thank you to all readers who have already chipped in, your generosity is greatly appreciated. Regardless of that, we are honored by everybody's readership and hope we have managed to add a little value to your life.

   

Bitcoin address: 1DRkVzUmkGaz9xAP81us86zzxh5VMEhNke

   
 

4 Responses to “Dismantling of US Bill of Rights Proceeds Apace …”

  • No6:

    How much more of this will be required until people recognise that the USA is now a full blown tyranny?

  • Incredulous:

    Ham sandwich completely sums it up.

    I served on a grand jury. What a shameful and damning experience. Talk about “Too Much Justice”. They are packed with enough people that every indictment is preferred, no matter how insignificant. The jurors are just the common man, with all of the critical faculties (or lack thereof) appertaining thereto, and any struggle for justice by “one angry man” causes further time to be wasted, and thus more of everyone’s money except the prosecuting attorney’s. What a monstrous travesty.

  • Goes to show you how far we have gone, when the so called Liberal judge recognizes no Constitutional rights, while the Conservative judge writes the dissent? When are Americans going to see those on the new left as NAZI’s and Communists? Statists don’t care anything about the truth. Note the Obama/Biden team, which walks around touting the climate change theories as settled science and those that disagree as flat earthers. A fair trial is about the truth and these people can’t stand the truth.

    Government takes your stuff when they find it on you. Average Joe better hope the cops don’t find a few thousand in their pocket. It’s gone and you don’t get it back unless you can prove where you got it. I don’t know where it goes, maybe the cops and lawyers picnic fund?

    Roberts has his own fiasco. I am sure Roberts looked at the ACA as legitimate law and was forced to come to the conclusion the penalty was a tax. In short, as it was presented to the American public, it was merely insurance regulation. In fact, it was the voiding of contracts between people and organizations, which in itself is a violation of the Constitution. This policy applies in this case as well, where the justices that wanted the case as it ended up, had to imagine a legitimate answer. If probable cause is guilt, then why have a trial? The old joke is a grand jury will indict a ham sandwich. The prosecution has control of them today, as opposed in the past, so why not? Now all the government needs to do is get an indictment and there goes all your stuff, contrary to the 5th and 6th amendment, as well as the 13th, which forbids involuntary servitude. If taking your stuff isn’t slavery, what is?

  • Keith Weiner:

    Weep for what we’re losing. :(

    One would think that the seizure of someone’s assets *IS* a punishment, which should only be possible after someone is convicted…

Your comment:

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Most read in the last 20 days:

  • Modi’s Great Leap Forward
      India’s Currency Ban – Part VIII India’s Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, announced on 8th November 2016 that Rs 500 (~$7.50) and Rs 1,000 (~$15) banknotes would no longer be legal tender. Linked are Part-I, Part-II, Part-III, Part-IV, Part-V, Part-VI and Part-VII, which provide updates on the demonetization saga and how Modi is acting as a catalyst to hasten the rapid degradation of India and what remains of its institutions.   India’s Pride and Joy   Indians are...
  • Global Recession and Other Visions for 2017
      Conjuring Up Visions Today’s a day for considering new hopes, new dreams, and new hallucinations.  The New Year is here, after all.  Now is the time to turn over a new leaf and start afresh. Naturally, 2017 will be the year you get exactly what’s coming to you. Both good and bad.  But what else will happen?   Image of a recently discarded vision... Image by Michael Del Mundo   Here we begin by closing our eyes and slowing our breath.  We let our mind...
  • US Financial Markets – Alarm Bells are Ringing
      A Shift in Expectations When discussing the outlook for so-called “risk assets”, i.e., mainly stocks and corporate bonds (particularly low-grade bonds) and their counterparts on the “safe haven” end of the spectrum (such as gold and government bonds with strong ratings), one has to consider different time frames and the indicators applicable to these time frames. Since Donald Trump's election victory, there have been sizable moves in stocks, gold and treasury bonds, as the election...
  • The Great El Monte Public Pension Swindle
      Nowhere City California There are places in Southern California where, although the sun always shines, they haven’t seen a ray of light for over 50-years.  There’s a no man’s land of urban blight along Interstate 10, from East Los Angeles through the San Gabriel Valley, where cities you’ve never heard of and would never go to, are jumbled together like shipping containers on Terminal Island.  El Monte, California, is one of those places.   Advice dispensed on Interstate...
  • A Trade Deal Trump Cannot Improve
      Worst in Class BALTIMORE – People can believe whatever they want. But sooner or later, real life intervenes. We just like to see the looks on their faces when it does. By that measure, 2017 may be our best year ever. Rarely have so many people believed so many impossible things.   Alice laughed. "There's no use trying," she said: "one can't believe impossible things." "I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was your age, I always did it for...
  • Pope Francis Now International Monetary Guru
      Neo-Marxist Pope Francis Argues for Global Central Bank As the new year dawns, it seems the current occupant of St. Peter’s Chair will take on a new function which is outside the purview of the office that the Divine Founder of his institution had clearly mandated.   Neo-Papist transmogrification. We highly recommend the economic thought of one of Francis' storied predecessors, John Paul II, which we have written about on previous occasions. In “A Tale of Two Popes” and...
  • Where’s the Outrage?
      Blind to Crony Socialism Whenever a failed CEO is fired with a cushy payoff, the outrage is swift and voluminous.  The liberal press usually misrepresents this as a hypocritical “jobs for the boys” program within the capitalist class.  In reality, the payoffs are almost always contractual obligations, often for deferred compensation, that the companies vigorously try to avoid.  Believe me.  I’ve been on both sides of this kind of dispute (except, of course, for the “failed”...
  • Trump’s Trade Catastrophe?
      “Trade Cheaters” It is worse than “voodoo economics,” says former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers. It is the “economic equivalent of creationism.” Wait a minute -  Larry Summers is wrong about almost everything. Could he be right about this?   Larry Summers, the man who is usually wrong about almost everything. As we have always argued, the economy is much safer when he sleeps, so his tendency to fall asleep on all sorts of occasions should definitely be welcomed....
  • Money Creation and the Boom-Bust Cycle
      A Difference of Opinions In his various writings, Murray Rothbard argued that in a free market economy that operates on a gold standard, the creation of credit that is not fully backed up by gold (fractional-reserve banking) sets in motion the menace of the boom-bust cycle. In his The Case for 100 Percent Gold Dollar Rothbard wrote:   I therefore advocate as the soundest monetary system and the only one fully compatible with the free market and with the absence of force or fraud...
  • Trump’s Plan to Close the Trade Deficit with China
      Rags to Riches Jack Ma is an amiable fellow.  Back in 1994, while visiting the United States he decided to give that newfangled internet thing a whirl.  At a moment of peak inspiration, he executed his first search engine request by typing in the word beer.   Jack Ma, founder and CEO of Alibaba, China's largest e-commerce firm. Once he was a school teacher, but it turned out that he had enormous entrepreneurial talent and that the world of wheelers, dealers, movers and...
  • Side Notes, January 14 - Red Flags Over Goldman Sachs
      Red Flags Over Goldman Sachs Just to prove that I am an even-handed insulter, here is a rant about my former employer, Goldman Sachs. The scandal at 1MDB, the Malaysian sovereign wealth fund from which it appears that billions were stolen by politicians all the way up to the Prime Minister, continues to unfold.   The main players in the 1MDB scandal. Irony alert: apparently money siphoned off from 1MDB was used to inter alia finance Martin Scorcese's movie “The Wolf of...
  • Silver’s Got Fundamentals - Precious Metals Supply-Demand Report
      Supply-Demand Fundamentals Improve Noticeably Last week was another short week, due to the New Year holiday. We look forward to getting back to our regularly scheduled market action.   Photo via thedailycoin.org   The prices of both metals moved up again this week. Something very noticeable is occurring in the supply and demand fundamentals. We will give an update on that, but first, here’s the graph of the metals’ prices.   Prices of gold and silver...

Austrian Theory and Investment

Support Acting Man

Own physical gold and silver outside a bank

Archive

j9TJzzN

350x200

Realtime Charts

 

Gold in USD:

[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]

 


 

Gold in EUR:

[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]

 


 

Silver in USD:

[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]

 


 

Platinum in USD:

[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]

 


 

USD - Index:

[Most Recent USD from www.kitco.com]

 

THE GOLD CARTEL: Government Intervention on Gold, the Mega Bubble in Paper and What This Means for Your Future

 
Buy Silver Now!
 
Buy Gold Now!
 

Oilprice.com