While everyone deserves due process and civil asset forfeiture is blatantly evil, this guy who had his money taken was obviously not some innocent like the better examples we've seen. I don't think we should be rallying around that particular flag.
Sounds a bit like "I'm not a racist but..."
The WHOLE POINT of due process, rule of law etc etc is that it protects the good and the bad (and even the ugly) equally. You don't get to choosewhich flag to rally around - because once the bad precedent is set it affects everyone.
Your name reminds me of a very relevant quote from CS Lewis: He thought that you were the lesser evil:
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. "
On behalf of the estate of Charles Dickens I claim $150k damages for the title of this post which is clearly infringing on the "Jarndyce v Jarndyce" case in Bleak House.
Yes I know that: 1. I've got no legal connection to the estate of CHarles Dickens 2. Dickens' work is out of copyright 3. There is no copyright claim on vague similarities. 4. There is no copyright in titles.
But then the legal shortcomings of my claim aren't that much greater than those reported in the article and the legal problem with their case didn't bother them so...
I have friends with degrees in economics who almost can't stand to watch congressional testimony on economic issues because the level of misunderstanding on display is so terrible.
Actually this is the worst one. Politicians only occasionally interact with the other disciplines but they are involved with economics all the time. In fact they are pretty much in charge in the economic sphere in a way that they aren't elsewhere.
These cases are insane. To realise how insane this could get consider what has happened in Belgium.
Because it is clear that, in fact, the Russian government will never pay the 50 Billion the Yukos shareholders have made an attempt to recover the money from anyone in Belgium who has any link to the Russian state - however tenuous that might be. For example the local branch of the Russian Orthodox Church, whose assets have been accumulated by donations from local people - mostly Belgian nationals with Russian ancestry- has been included on a list of organisations from which the shareholders could recover money.
This will continue until there is a significant penalty for failure in this type of case.
At present US practice doesn't routinely require the loser to pay costs in these cases. Hence it is inevitable that the defendant will balance the cost of fighting (and winning) against a modest licencing fee and accept the fee.
Winning such a case should never leave the defendant out of pocket.
This is true in other countries - which is why the US has more problems than the ret of the world.