InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 179
Posts 35267
Boards Moderated 20
Alias Born 04/17/2013

Re: integral post# 361

Thursday, 05/21/2015 12:19:37 PM

Thursday, May 21, 2015 12:19:37 PM

Post# of 510
How can one be PRESUMED guilty of stealing the funds before a trial?

Due process issue. It becomes circular logic - if you can't defend yourself with your legally-obtained funds and you get a shtty CJA attorney (and there are MANY) and you lose the case even though you were innocent, then your funds were "rightly" seized/frozen.

There is no black or white answer to this issue - I believe pre-trial asset freezes should allow for a reasonable payment of the accused's legal fees so that they are not FORCED by the GOVERNMENT to rely on a GOVERNMENT-PAID AND APPOINTED lawyer.

The potential for abuse by the State is great - it is actually a law the Nazis or the NKVD would have been comfortable with.

How can the government seize assets without due process and thereby deny the means to obtain return of the funds by denying competent legal counsel?

The similar issue is the police seizure of firearms after a ex parte restraining order in which the firearms owner has had no ability to defend themselves (or even notice) in a TRO PRO proceeding (which are virtually all ex parte). To me, straight up violation of Second Amendment rights without due process. This issue is also pending in the courts.


Join the InvestorsHub Community

Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.