Federal Government Argues That Merely ACCUSING You of a Crime Allows Them to Seize ALL Your Financial Assets!

November 25th, 2015

Awake Goy

Is the U.S. Supreme Court set to give prosecutors authority to strip
defendants of their own means of self-defense? It’s possible, depending
upon what the high court decides in a very important case that could
determine your ability to maintain enough resources to hire a defense
lawyer. ~ J D Heyes

In Luis v. US, federal prosecutors are arguing
that the government has the power to freeze all of a defendant’s assets,
including those that were not earned through criminal activity, in the latest twist and insult to freedom involving civil asset forfeiture.

“What
the government proposes to do is financially cripple someone before
they’ve been convicted, before they’ve had a trial and not allow them to
use assets that are theirs to try to match the government in the
courtroom.”

Defense attorney Howard Srebnick told reporters, in
reference to oral arguments made before the high court by U.S. attorneys
Nov. 10.

As noted by Off The Grid News:

Srebnick
is representing Sila Luis, who owns home health care companies and is
accused of a scam to defraud Medicare.

The US attorney froze all of
Luis’s assets, including money not related to the alleged fraud, after
it indicted her in 2012, NPR reported.

Srebnick contends that
deprives Luis of her Sixth Amendment right to counsel by taking away
money she could use to hire a defense attorney.

Federal
prosecutors allege that Luis will not have enough funds left over to
pay restitution to Medicare if she is permitted to use her available
resources to hire a defense lawyer. But in court proceedings, the
government has stipulated that not all of Luis’ assets were earned
dishonestly.

Isn’t the Constitution clear?

The Sixth
Amendment states:

“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy
the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the
state and district wherein the crime
shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously
ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have
compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the
assistance of counsel for his defense.”

Luis’ attorney is arguing that the government wants to deprive his client of her right to “have the Assistance of Counsel.”

Justices appeared divided on the case, Off The Grid News
reported, noting specifically that Justice Stephen Breyer, one of the
high court’s liberals, was skeptical of the government’s allegation.

“The
principle is that the government, without proving that he’s guilty of
any crime beyond a reasonable doubt, can take all of his money,” he
said, referencing a theoretic defendant. “I’ve never heard of such a
principle.

“And I’m saying it’s pretty hard for me to think in a
country which says that before he’s convicted, you have to release him
on bail except in unusual circumstances, that nonetheless, you can take
all his money away so he can’t hire a lawyer,” he added.

“This could apply to any law on the books”

However,
one of the court’s constitutional originalists, Justice Samuel Alito,
asked Srebnick tough questions in making a case that, if his client
spends all her assets, then she won’t be able to repay victims of an
apparent scam if she is convicted.

“Your answer is that the
defendant’s right to hire counsel of choice takes precedence over the
rights of the victims, and you would say that no matter how strong the
proof is?” Alito asked, according to OTG News.

The court’s
historic swing vote, Justice Anthony Kennedy, wondered aloud what
precedent the high court would establish by ruling in favor of the
government.

“It seems to me if the government prevails in this
case, every state in the union, every locality could say that in the
event of… any crime involving bodily injury… that the government is
entitled to [freeze assets] even if the consequence is that in most of
those cases most people would not be able to afford counsel,” he said.

Added Chief Justice John Roberts, “This could apply to any law on the books.”

Source

November 25, 2015 – KnowTheLies

References

OffTheGridNews.com

Freedom.news

Law.Cornell.edu