Mediaboss Marketing

The Second Circuit has recently held that the Government must account for rental income it denied a property owner during a period of illegal seizure even though the Government was able to establish probable cause at a post-seizure hearing. The appeal stemmed from a decades-long sanctions and civil forfeiture action in which the U.S. Department of Justice has sought to forfeit, among others, a 36-story skyscraper located at 650 Fifth Avenue in Midtown Manhattan co-owned by the Alavi Foundation, an entity accused of laundering money for Iran.

The Government brought the civil action seeking to forfeit Alavis assetsincluding the building, valued at nearly $1 billionto distribute proceeds to victims of bombings and other attacks linked to Iran. The Government alleged that the property was traceable to violations of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, money laundering statutes, and Iranian sanctions promulgated by the U.S. Department of Treasurys Office of Foreign Assets Control.

The case has been vigorously litigated for more than 13 years, involving extensive motion practice and years of discovery among hundreds of litigants, and producing several appeals, including an appeal from a judgment for the Government following a month-long jury trial that the Second Circuit vacated in 2019.

In the latest appeal, Alavi challenged the district courts finding of probable cause for the forfeiture, and argued that, even if probable cause existed, Alavi was entitled to the rental income the Government seized before the district courts determination of probable cause. The Second Circuit affirmed the probable-cause finding but agreed with Alavi on the second point.

18 U.S.C. 983 sets forth the [g]eneral rules for civil forfeiture proceedings. It permits courts to issue a protective order to seize, secure, maintain, or preserve the availability of property subject to civil forfeiture, and such orders may be entered prior to judgment. Id. 983(j)(1). 18U.S.C. 985, however, states that real property that is the subject of a civil forfeiture action shall not be seized before entry of an order of forfeiture. Id. 985(b)(1)(A), (f)(1). Section 985 contains two exceptions to this prohibition on pre-judgment seizures of real property: (1) where, on the Governments application, the court conducts a pre-seizure probable cause hearing in which the property owner has a meaningful opportunity to be heard or (2) where the court determines that there is probable cause for the forfeiture and that there are exigent circumstances that permit the Government to seize the property without prior notice and an opportunity for the property owner to be heard. Id. 985(d)(1)(B)(i)-(ii).

The Government argued that the specific provisions in 985 that require a pre-seizure hearing or showing of exigent circumstances apply only to seizures of real property and not, as here, to a seizure of rental income, and thus the protective order at issue was governed by 983, not 985. The Court disagreed. It held that a seizure of rental income is subject to the statutory due process restrictions in 985 as well as the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Because the Governments seizure of the rental income without a pre-deprivation notice and hearing violated constitutionally protected due process rights, the Court found no need to reach the statutory due process issue, describing it as academic. The Court thus concluded that the building had been unlawfully seized until the district courts hearing on probable cause in October 2020.

The Court then turned to the remedy for the period of illegal seizure. The Government argued that as long as a court eventually determines that probable cause for forfeiture exists, previously unlawfully seized rental income should not be released. The Court disagreed, joining a majority of other circuits holding that the remedy for an illegal seizure where the Government fails to provide pre-deprivation notice and hearing but the property is later found to be subject to forfeiture after due process has been afforded is return of rents or lost profits during the period of illegal seizure. Because the district court did not hold a hearing on probable cause until October 13, 2020, all rental income seized by the Government before that date must be released to Alavi.

Read more from the original source:
No Hearing? No Money: Second Circuit Holds the Government May Not Keep Illegally Seized Rent - JD Supra

What if liberty and democracy are opposites? What if the principle underlying liberty is to restrain the government to maximize individual autonomy? What if the principle underlying democracy is to unleash the government to give the people whatever they want?

What if personal liberty is an individual birthright because we are created in the image and likeness of God? What if just as God is perfectly free, we are perfectly free? What if our personal liberties are integral to our humanity?

What if personal freedom -- which we are free to abuse -- is Gods greatest gift, after life itself? What if, without freedom, we would not be fully human but subservient to whomever or whatever took our freedoms away or persuaded us to surrender them?

What if government is essentially the negation of liberty? What if some liberties should be negated? What if those liberties that should be negated consist of the liberty to violate the natural rights of others by taking their lives, liberties and properties? What if government does this every day because it wants to tell us how to live? What if no one consented to a government that takes property and freedom from the people it governs?

ARTHUR HERMAN: MESSAGE TO DESANTIS CIVICS IMPORTANT BUT HERE'S WHAT WE REALLY NEED TO TEACH OUR KIDS

What if the right to worship or not, to think as you wish, say what you think, to publish what you say, to associate -- or not -- with whomever you choose, to defend yourself using the same means as the government and bad guys, to enjoy the right to privacy, to keep the government off your property and back and out of your face, to travel wherever and whenever, to engage in commercial intercourse on private property freely and without the need for government permission are natural, personal rights that no government -- whether by edict, legislation or referendum -- can morally dismiss or discard?

What if democracy offers the government tools to take our personal liberty and private property? What if, under a democracy, the government grows and liberty shrinks? What if thats because the democratic government desperately wants to stay in power, and in order to do so, it takes wealth from some and gives it to others? What if those from whom it takes wealth never consented to the takings?

What if, in a democracy, the public treasury has turned into a public trough? What if, in a democracy, those in power find ways around laws intended to limit their power? What if the government is essentially the judge of its own powers? What if no matter which party is in power, the government acts as if it can right any wrong, regulate any behavior, tax any event, and insinuate itself into any controversy -- whether authorized by the Constitution or not?

What if the Constitution is the supreme law of the land? What if it was written to establish the government and to limit it? What if its amendments expressly guarantee that the government shall not interfere with the exercise of natural rights? What if the government does so anyway?

What if the governments excuse is always emergency or safety? What if it promises during "an emergency" that it will bring safety in return for a surrender of liberty? What if the Ninth Amendment commands that the government may not deny or disparage natural rights, no matter the emergency?

What if this liberty-for-safety-in-an-emergency offer is the Devils bargain? What if surrendering liberty does not lead to safety but only more government?

What if -- since liberty is a personal birthright -- you can surrender your own liberty but you cannot your neighbors? What if the government takes liberty whether voluntarily surrendered or not?

What if the theory of the Constitution is that the states voluntarily surrendered some of their sovereign powers to the federal government so that it can address federal issues that are spelled out in the Constitution? What if the theory of state sovereignty is that the people in each state voluntarily surrendered some personal liberty in return for the protection of natural rights? What if the only liberty surrendered is the liberty to impair the natural rights of others?

What if no rational person has surrendered to government the liberty to walk the streets, to go to work, to operate and patronize lawful businesses and to control absolutely ones own face?

What if the Fifth Amendment commands that the government cannot take property rights without paying the ownertheir fair market value?

What if the government and its friends in the media have scared the daylights out of hundreds of millions of Americans so that they will peacefully surrender their rights and livelihoods during the governments emergency, and thus bring about the governments version of safety?

CLICK HERE TO GET THE OPINION NEWSLETTER

What if there are no emergency powers in the Constitution? What if, during the War Between the States, the Supreme Court later ruled there was no emergency power to deny basic civil liberties?

What if state legislatures are utterly without power to interfere with our daily choices in the name of emergency and safety? What if those same state legislatures cannot give to governors powers that they do not have?

What if all the COVID-19 restrictions on personal autonomy directly defy the Constitution? What if the government doesnt care? What if millions who lost personal autonomy dont care because they have accepted the Devils bargain that somehow voluntary servitude will bring them temporary health and safety?

What if they have forgotten about the safety of their personal liberties?

What if democracy and liberty can only co-exist when the government is faithful to the Constitution? What if the history of American government is its infidelity to the Constitution?

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

What if liberty taken or surrendered is not returned?

What will we do about it?

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM JUDGE ANDREW P. NAPOLITANO

Go here to read the rest:
Judge Andrew P. Napolitano: Who will keep our liberties safe? - Fox News

Part of A Tradition of Violence, an extensive investigation into more than five decades of abuse, terror, and murder carried out by gangs within the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department.

Content Warning: This series explicitly details acts of violence (including murder) carried out by law enforcement officials. Please exercise self-care and check in with yourself before choosing to read.

The Lynwood Vikings sheriffs gang began its reign of terror in the 1980s and harmed hundreds of people, killing several. But no individual story has captured the gaze of the media more than that of Francisco Franky Carrillo, who was framed for a murder by a Viking and spent 20 years wrongfully incarcerated.

In 1991, Franky Carrillo was a 16-year-old high school student. Although he had friends and relatives in Lynwood, his family recently moved out of the area. He wasnt in a gang, but he was friends with people who were, and that made him a target. He had been stabbed in the past, and his dad was worried. The Carrillos relocated to Maywood, which Carrillo described to WitnessLA as a a brand new life. He was expecting his first son with his girlfriend at the time, and all was mostly well. But like other Black and Brown men living in the area, he was harassed by sheriffs deputies. Once, a deputy stopped and photographed him while riding bikes with a friend. That image was later included in a photobook featuring potential members of the Young Crowd gang, a mostly Latinx group in the Lynwood area. Very quickly, Carrillos life was put on a collision course with another tragedy.

On January 18, 1991, 15-year-old Dameon Sarpy was hanging out in front of his house with a few friends. He was raised in the Lynwood neighborhood and loved it. He told Netflixs The Innocence Files he loved rap music at that point of his life and spent a lot of time at home with his friends discussing their favorite tracks. Scott Turner, who was there that day, told Netflix they were probably talking about music most likely or girls. The group of around five young Black men were gathered near the curb. Around 7 PM a car filled with Latino men drove by, which the friends noted. At the time, the predominantly Black Neighborhood Crips gang was in conflict with Young Crowd, and Turner was affiliated with Neighborhood. Donald Sarpy, Dameons father, came out and asked the group to head inside. Moments later, the car came back and circled the block while an occupant yelled out something like FUCK N CROWD! (a reference to the Neighborhood Crips). Shots rang out, and the group scattered. Donald Sarpy never got up again.

The teenage boys who witnessed the shooting were badly shaken, but they cooperated with deputies. They were initially interviewed by telephone but couldnt remember many details. They agreed to go down to the Lynwood Station around 1 AM for another round of interviews. Turner was interviewed by Deputy Craig Ditsch, a member of Lynwoods Operation Safe Streets (OSS), the gang enforcement unit. A year earlier, Ditsch held a family, including a bedridden woman, at gunpoint during a botched raid.

Ditsch was familiar with Turner, as hed provided the deputy with information in the past. Ditsch handed the teenager a book filled with photographs of potential Young Crowd members (referred to as a six-pack) which contained Frankys photo. This guy Ditsch, he was a bad dude, he had it out for Franky, says Marilyn Bednarski, a member of Carrillos legal team. Frankys picture never should have been in the book. Its like youre riding a bike in a park one night and now their picture is being shown to witnesses.

Bednarski says Ditsch worked out of a trailer behind the Lynwood Station reserved for OSS. Every Monday, Ditsch met with Deputy Loy Luna, Commander Kevin Goran, and other members of the OSS team and share information about shootings over the weekend or any changes to the street gang hierarchy. As part of their investigations, the unit put together six-packs and showed them to witnesses in hopes of getting positive identification on suspects. Ditsch testified in a deposition that he asked Turner to pick out a suspect from the Sarpy shooting from a six-pack Goran prepared for a different case.

Ditsch watched as Turner went through the photographs and asked him to identify Sarpys killer. As Turner went along, Ditsch provided commentary on each of the subjects, telling the teenager why they couldnt possibly be the triggerman. When Carrillos picture came up, Ditsch told Turner that he was probably the shooter, according to depositions. That suggests that [Ditsch] didnt really care who did it so much as he cared about putting one more suspected gang member behind bars, Caitlin Weisberg, one of Carrillos attorneys, tells Knock LA. After Turners release, he told his friends about Ditsch and said the deputy told him he had correctly identified the shooter in the photo. Six days later, Carrillo was arrested for the murder of Donald Sarpy.

Even though his father provided Carrillo with a solid alibi, the District Attorneys office continued their prosecution. Of the five teen witnesses, Turner was the only one who saw the six-pack, but by the time they got to court, everyone identified Carrillo. The first trial ended with a hung jury. Before the second, Turner recanted and told prosecutors that his identification of Carrillo was a mistake. He was no longer willing to testify against Carrillo. Turner was in custody at that point for an unrelated issue and was transported to the court from a juvenile detention center. Carrillo told Netflix he approached Turner in the holding tank. After a few minutes of talking, Turner stated he knew that Carrillo was innocent.

Carrillo also overheard Turner recant to the prosecutor, Deputy District Attorney Maria Escalante. However, she refused to accept. At some point, Deputy Ditsch was asked to step into the lockup to interview Turner. David Lynn, a private investigator looking into the Vikings around this time, was at the court that day in June 1992. Carrillos attorney asked that Lynn accompany him to observe. In a deposition, Lynn stated that Turner recanted prior testimony and Ditsch responded by threatening him: No more breaks if you get arrested in Lynwood. Lynn also testified that as he and Ditsch left the holding area, Ditsch stated Ill tune him up, a euphemism for assault. Its like a way of saying Im after you, Bednarski says.

The prosecution went forward with their case against Carrillo. They claimed Turner recanted because hed received pressure in prison, and the jury believed them. Carrillo was convicted of the murder, as well as multiple counts of attempted murder. Lynn wasnt convinced and kept hunting for details about the real killers of Donald Sarpy. He got his answer from a Young Crowd gang member who previously sent him a video of someone who appeared to be a deputy flashing the Viking gang sign. In a deposition, Lynn said he found Oscar Rodriguez at home one afternoon in December 1992. Lynn asked Rodriguez to talk to him about Carrillos case, and the two of them headed off in Lynns car to the crime scene. On that drive, Rodriguez confessed to the murder and said he would testify to such.

The next day, Lynn took Rodriguez to court. Rodriguezs prior attorney told the court that Carrillo was not present during the murder. The judge denied a proposed delayal of the sentencing. It was this kind of tunnel vision, says Bednarski. Theyre so immersed in just putting these young kids in prison. Carrillo received one life sentence and a second sentence of 30 years to life run consecutively, reducing his chances of parole to zero.

For 15 years, Carrillo insisted on his innocence and wrote letters to private attorneys, the ACLU of Southern California, the California Office of the Inspector General, and the Innocence Projects in California and New York. Finally, an assistant state public defender named Ellen Eggers agreed to take him on. She and her team spent the next five years of their spare time working on Carillos case. They were attempting to get Carrillo a writ of habeas corpus, a process that allows incarcerated people to report unlawful imprisonment. It is so hard to get a writ granted because most people plead and take a deal because theyre terrified by somebody saying, Youre going to prison for life without parole, Bednarski says. The small number of people who went to trial and were wrongfully convicted, those people have to convince a judge at some point that evidence that would have made a difference in their case was hidden from them. Or in some cases that their representation was so ineffective. Imagine all these people in jail who feel that way they can never prove it because somebody is not willing to tell the truth or the evidence never surfaces. On top of that, Bednarski says that in many cases District Attorneys offices will refile any charges pursued in a writ of habeas.

At Carrillos habeas hearing, five out of the six witnesses recanted their original testimony, while the sixth invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. After a week-long evidentiary hearing, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Paul Bacigalupo granted Carrillos habeas corpus request and vacated his sentence. The LA District Attorneys Office did not appeal the ruling, nor did they attempt to refile charges. Carrillo was released from custody on March 16, 2011, after over 20 years of incarceration.

Once released, Carrillo filed a civil rights case against Los Angeles County, another effort which is historically unfruitful. Its so hard to win a civil rights case for someone, because first they have to win their freedom, says Bednarski. Now you got to find a civil rights lawyer who will take your case. And you dont have any money because youre going to jail for all this time you gotta find somebody who will fight an institution like the sheriffs department knowing theyre in for several years of litigation and no guarantee of ever winning.

During the litigation, Carrillos team of lawyers questioned Ditsch about his ties to the Vikings in a deposition. Ditsch admitted, on the record, that he was a member of the gang, but denied that it was a racist, overzealous, or abusive group of deputies. Ditsch defined the gang as a group of hardworking men and women who trained and worked at the Lynwood Station, even going as far as to state repeatedly, We all were Vikings. When Ditsch was asked if he thought Carrillo was guilty, he said yes. When asked if he was upset Carrillo was released, he responded, It just gives me job security. I have no problem with that. If the system thinks that he should be released, who am I to say? Ill find them at another time and another place doing the wrong thing, and theyll go to jail. Ditsch retired from the department in 2013 and appears to collect a six-figure pension.

Los Angeles County settled Carrillos case for over $10 million in 2016, funded by taxpayers. The attorneys who served on Carrillos legal team say that it was a righteous case. But the attorneys also acknowledge that gang culture persisted within the department. There is a culture in the sheriffs department being really these cowboys and really aggressive and really not having a lot of oversight or restrictions, Bednarski says. It just reinforces all the bad police practices.

Although the Vikings abuse of Lynwood residents and the lawsuits that ensued resulted in a brief media frenzy, the department did not adopt any significant policy changes. When David Lynn was summoned before local, state, and federal government bodies in the late 1990s to testify about his findings on the Vikings, there was no follow-up investigation. I dont have a whole lot of hope that they will change because all this stuff has been going on for 30 years.

READ NEXT: Working in the Gray Area

CORRECTION 3/24/21: An earlier version of this article positively identified Deputy Loy Luna as the individual who flashed a Viking gang sign on tape.

Thanks to readers like you, Knock LA is able to keep you informed on local politics and uplift marginalized voices in Los Angeles. Join us in fighting the good fight and click here to support Knock LA. If you have sensitive information to share regarding the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department, email us at email hidden; JavaScript is required.

Go here to see the original:
The Miracle Trial - A Tradition of Violence - Knock LA

1. Erdogans tantrum is a sign of weakness  Financial Times
2. After History of Erratic Economic Policy, Erdogan Plunges Turkey Into Fresh Turmoil  The Wall Street Journal
3. Erdogan urges investors to trust Turkeys economy, potential  KRQE News 13
4. Erdogan calls on Turks to help stabilize the lira as investors fear a monetary crisis  CNBC
5. The Politics Behind Erdogan's Central Bank Decision  Bloomberg
6. View Full Coverage on Google News

Originally posted here:
Erdogans tantrum is a sign of weakness - Financial Times

Issued on: 27/03/2021 - 18:11

Several thousand women took to the streets in Istanbul on Saturday to demand Turkey reverse its decision to withdraw from an international treaty against domestic abuse which it once championed.

President Recep Tayyip Erdogan stunned European allies with last week's announcement that Turkey was pulling out of the Istanbul Convention, named after the Turkish city where it was drafted in 2011.

Turkey was one of the first signatories and women say their safety has been jeopardised by Erdogan's move against the European treaty.

Amid a heavy police presence, protesters gathered in an Istanbul seafront square waving purple flags and chanting slogans including "Murders of women are political". One placard read, "Protect women, not the perpetrators of violence."

"Withdrawing from the Istanbul Convention is a disaster for millions of women and children living in this country," Amnesty International Turkey Director Ece Unver told Reuters, calling for Ankara to reverse its decision.

World Health Organization data shows 38% of women in Turkey are subject to violence from a partner in their lifetime, compared with 25% in Europe.

Estimates of femicide rates in Turkey, for which there are no official figures, have roughly tripled over the last 10 years, according to a monitoring group. So far this year 87 women have been murdered by men or died under suspicious circumstances, it said.

"We will not give up. We will be here until we get our freedom and our convention back. We will not give up on the convention," said student Selin Asarlar Celik.

Conservatives in Erdogan's Islamist-rooted AK Party say the convention, which stresses gender equality and forbids discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation, undermines family structures and encourages violence.

Officials said this week domestic law would protect Turkish women, not foreign treaties.

The protesters concerns were echoed by Ankara's Western allies, who denounced what they described as a baffling and unwarranted decision which risked undermining the rights of Turkish women.

(REUTERS)

Read more:
Women in Turkey rally against Erdogan decision to exit domestic violence treaty - FRANCE 24 English