• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Pretrial freeze of “untainted” assets violates the Sixth Amendment

Somerville said:
Frank, it seems the ideologues have failed to notice this little peculiarity
Click to expand...
Kangaroo logic, jumping to that conclusion, isn't it? I think everyone who read this OP was instantly aware that it was a strange set of pairings, just what does it prove or mean though? Nothing much.



Somerville said:
FIRST, the legal system must prove the accused is "taking from the innocent"
Click to expand...
We have judges in place to often make just such decisions at lower levels.

I would suggest the article would have done us much more of a favor in describing more of the particular crimes, the evidence and previous circumstances of Sila Luis. Somebody, apparently just one person, that has received $45 million in Medicare funds [? how is that possible] from the government and dispatches it, we do not know from the article how quickly, but maybe with the mountain of evidence and the penchant to spend every thing down to only $2Million now a judge could prudently freeze the funds? And I agree with Bucky, the criminals at this level are smart enough to use our funds first.

I would say this is a case where a judge can look at the material presented as evidence and decide whether it is best to protect the remaining amount of potential tax payer funds and, if the case is pretty open and shut, let the person deal with a public defender. There are consequences to committing crimes.
 
I am usually going to side against the rights of defendants. Clarence Thomas really betrayed us on this vote.

One consistent and promising vote is Samuel Alito. He maybe the toughest judge on criminals ever. If you look, he's actually more conservative than Scalia, and maybe the most conservative Supreme Court Judges ever. He's in the running....
 
Last edited:
Bucky said:
This type of ruling puts the handcuffs on our law enforcement instead of the criminals.

I am well aware of the concept of innocent until proven guilty however it seems some people in this thread believe until the verdict is reached we cannot do anything to stop a potential criminal taking from the innocent.
Click to expand...

Cry me a river. Handcuffs on the cops is a PR tactic by the police.

Innocent until proven guilty is the standard.
 
Bucky said:
I am usually going to side against the rights of defendants. Clarence Thomas really betrayed us on this vote.

One consistent and promising vote is Samuel Alito. He maybe the toughest judge on criminals ever. If you look, he's actually more conservative than Scalia, and maybe the most conservative Supreme Court Judges ever. He's in the running....
Click to expand...

okay.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Kangaroo logic, jumping to that conclusion, isn't it? I think everyone who read this OP was instantly aware that it was a strange set of pairings, just what does it prove or mean though? Nothing much.



We have judges in place to often make just such decisions at lower levels.

I would suggest the article would have done us much more of a favor in describing more of the particular crimes, the evidence and previous circumstances of Sila Luis. Somebody, apparently just one person, that has received $45 million in Medicare funds [? how is that possible] from the government and dispatches it, we do not know from the article how quickly, but maybe with the mountain of evidence and the penchant to spend every thing down to only $2Million now a judge could prudently freeze the funds? And I agree with Bucky, the criminals at this level are smart enough to use our funds first.

I would say this is a case where a judge can look at the material presented as evidence and decide whether it is best to protect the remaining amount of potential tax payer funds and, if the case is pretty open and shut, let the person deal with a public defender. There are consequences to committing crimes.
Click to expand...

It took me about 10 seconds to pull up some webpages on the Medicare fraud case.

2012
Thirty-Three South Florida Residents Charged as Part of Nationwide Coordinated Takedown by Medicare Fraud Strike Force Operations

Defendant Sila Luis was the owner and operator of LTC Professional Consultants Inc., which paid kickbacks and bribes to patient recruiters and beneficiaries to obtain Medicare beneficiaries and then submitted false claims to Medicare, primarily for skilled nursing for patients who purportedly needed insulin injections twice a day.
Click to expand...

June 2015
Supreme Court to take up Medicare fraud case from Miami defense attorneys
The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Monday to review a local Medicare fraud case that challenges the federal government's freezing of a defendant's assets before trial even if they are not traceable to criminal activity.

The petition, brought by Miami criminal defense attorneys Howard and Scott Srebnick, asserts that the government violated the constitutional rights of their client, home healthcare operator Sila Luis, when Justice Department prosecutors froze her “untainted” — or substitute —assets.

Luis was charged with conspiring to defraud the Medicare program of $45 million. But her criminal prosecution was put on hold while she contested the government’s seizure of her untainted assets, which prevented Luis from hiring the criminal defense attorney of her choice.
Click to expand...

Luis v. United States | Oyez
 
Somerville said:
It took me about 10 seconds to pull up some webpages on the Medicare fraud case.

2012


June 2015


Luis v. United States | Oyez
Click to expand...
Well, thanks for the info, you were/are obviously more interested in the case than I was... but having looked over some of the additional material I am even more of the opinion that it would have been just fine freezing of assets with this large and organized a crime organization...the amounts of fraud are staggering... and the task force large and, being the FBI, probably fairly comprehensive in their accounting for evidence against these folks and Sila.

No commentary from you on the case? And between you and me, probably time better spent would have been looking up the Danbury stuff than this, yano? Just saying.
 
I have to agree with this ruling.

There is no reason that any assets should be 100% frozen so that the person cannot used them for a defense.
I could see making sure that other than basic payments and defense that no other transactions happen.

IE money transfers out of the country or something.

however until they are convicted the state should have no ability to physically seize someone's property or assets.
 
Bucky said:
It is obvious you have a liberal bias, however I would consider reading Elena Kagen's dissent. This decision gives a perverse advantage to those that decide to spend stolen money and keep any other money as a rainy day fund for hiring a lawyer.

I guess if I want to start a criminal organization I know what to do. Go to Bank of American and create a two accounts: 1) for tainted money which I would spend right away and 2) for untainted money which I could use to hire a rich lawyer.
Click to expand...



The Constitution was not written to put feelings of personal safety or neighborhood security over all else. The 6th Amendment trumps worries about how criminals might theoretically spend their money.

Decade after decade, we have been selling all our freedoms/privacy down the river, simply because the government tells us that doing so will make us 'safe.' I don't just mean the NSA, I mean the roughly 30-40 exceptions that the Supreme Court has carved out of the 4th Amd's warrant requirement. Etc. Enough of this.

More freedom does mean less safety, but that's not a bad thing.






The dissent doesn't make any sense anyway. There's no "advantage". If anything, criminals had an incentive to spend all their tainted money right away specifically because they could be frozen. Now that they actually have to be proven guilty before they are punished with asset freezes/seizure, there might actually be more to seize if convicted.

And it's historically false anyway, because criminals didn't spend all their tainted money. That's why asset freezes and civil forfeitures are a thing.
 
Captain Adverse said:
Why? Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

Seizing untainted assets is an unreasonable restraint, and prevents a person from obtaining the best counsel available. It also puts an unreasonable burden on their everyday lives. No money = no food on the table, rent for shelter, bills paid, house repossessed. How is that justice?
Click to expand...
We only give it lip service. We don't really mean it.

I agree that we should leave untainted assets alone, but... how do we really know what is tainted and untainted?

If a person gets $100 legally, and $100 illegally, and they spend $100, did they spend from the tainted or the untainted funds? Or, do we presume 50/50?
 
Frank Apisa said:
Incredibly interesting splitting of the decision!

Strange bedfellows!

Breyer, Roberts, Bader Ginsburg, Thomas, and Sotomayor on one side…

…Kennedy, Alito, and Kagan on the other.

Where does that come from?
Click to expand...
Not everything has to fall on party lines. In fact, I'm generally pleased when it doesn't. It suggests to me that they actually thought about the issue rather than give some blind knee-jerk response.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom