A People's History of the United States -
History of the US from the perspective of the Indians, Slaves, and Laborers.
|
Tuesday, 13 June 2017
quote [ Four years after the Philadelphia District Attorney seized her house without ever charging her with a crime, a 72-year-old grandmother has prevailed at the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, where justices strengthened protections for property owners against civil asset forfeiture. ]
|
Taxman said @ 7:11pm GMT on 14th June
When they seized the house, she could have filed a petition to continue living in the house while the court case played out. They would have Lis Pendens the house, which is just a holder for the government's interest, preventing sale.
Would she have tried to do that? Probably not. It's procedure in case she tried to.
There seems to be a misunderstanding in how the law works. The DA pushed that the mother knew what her son was doing, but because he was family, allowed him to continue to commit illegal acts. The property is forfeit. You aren't allowed to use your house to sell drugs. It now belongs to the US government.
The PA Supreme Court agrees that more forethought needs to be put into wether someone is complicit. Good for them, I agree with that.
Taxman said @ 7:16pm GMT on 14th June
When they seized the house, she could have filed a petition to continue living in the house while the court case played out. They would have Lis Pendens the house, which is just a holder for the government's interest, preventing sale.
Would she have tried to sell the house and flee? Probably not based on the situation. It's procedure in case she tried to.
There seems to be a misunderstanding in how the law works. The DA pushed that the mother knew what her son was doing, but because he was family, allowed him to continue to commit illegal acts. The property is forfeit. You aren't allowed to use your house to sell drugs. It now belongs to the US government.
The PA Supreme Court agrees that more forethought needs to be put into wether someone is complicit. Good for them, I agree with that.
<-- Entry / Current Comment
Taxman said @ 7:11pm GMT on 14th June
When they seized the house, she could have filed a petition to continue living in the house while the court case played out. They would have Lis Pendens the house, which is just a holder for the government's interest, preventing sale.
Would she have tried to sell the house and flee? Probably not based on the situation. It's procedure in case she tried to.
There seems to be a misunderstanding in how the law works. The DA pushed that the mother knew what her son was doing, but because he was family, allowed him to continue to commit illegal acts. The property is forfeit. You aren't allowed to use your house to sell drugs. It now belongs to the US government.
The PA Supreme Court agrees that more forethought needs to be put into wether someone is complicit. Good for them, I agree with that.
