🚀 go-pugleaf

that Alvarez
*   had violated the statute before it seized his money, Alvarez had to
*   prove that he was innocent of any wrongdoing before he could get it
*   back. Further adding to the profound unfairness of the seizure process
*   is an incredible provision that anyone who wants to challenge an action,
*   who wants his day in court, must file a bond with the government of
*   either $5000 or 10 percent of the value of the seized property. Alvarez
*   had to borrow the money from his credit cards.
*   
*   The Assistant U.S. Attorney Jonathon R. Howden, flooded by financial
*   statements by Alvarez's defense attorney (who was a retired career
*   criminal investigator with the IRS), admitted he would not take the
*   case to court. That step took seven months.
*   
*   However, Howden made an astonishing attempt to keep half of the $88,000
*   the government had seized from Alvarez's bank account. Howden offered
*   Alvarez two options: settle the matter by agreeing to a 50 percent
*   forfeiture, or the money will be returned to the IRS, who might keep
*   it. Alvarez's lawyer called his bluff and got the money back after
*   a full year had elapsed. Loss of a full year's interest and $5000 in
*   legal fees were the result.
*   
*   The government's abrupt assault shocked Paolo Alvarez to his core,
*   leaving him with powerful feelings of fearful despair and isolation.
*   
*   While the fear was obviously justified, the feeling of isolation was
*   way off the mark. He has lots of company.
[snip]
*   
*   The federal government seized the home of an elderly couple under the
*   Drug War's "facilitation" provision. The judge was so embarrassed he
*   gave the couple half the cash value of their house back. The drugs had
*   belonged to the teenaged-grandson. "The wh