Jump to content

Federal Judge, No Reason To Return Legally Seized Property


Recommended Posts

http://www.thenewspa...ews/38/3814.asp

 

 

Ok, forget the women's laughable request for $500 Billion in damages.

The meat and potatoes here is the Judge's ruling.

 

Ohio: Federal Court Says City Can Keep Seized Cars

Federal magistrate rules that city has no constitutional duty to return vehicles impounded as a result of an accident.

 

saturntow.jpgA federal magistrate judge on Monday recommended a motorist's lawsuit against the city of Columbus, Ohio should be thrown out. Earlier this year, the city impounded the 2002 Saturn SC2 belonging to Michelle R. Mathis after she was hospitalized from a traffic accident. When Mathis was released, she had no way to get the car back. Her case was not helped by her handwritten demand to the court for $500 billion in damages.

 

On January 12, Columbus police grabbed Mathis's Saturn while she was being treated at Ohio State University Medical Hospital. Mathis was able to receive regular mail while recovering, but she never received any notification about the status of her car. On February 7, Mathis returned from her treatment and went to the impound lot in person, only to receive the run around. Mathis believes the city sold her car and holds a grudge against her.

 

"Plaintiff has and continues to have issues with the impound unit and thus would like to permanently restrain and grant an injunction on defendants and its officers, agents, servants, employees and attorneys from any further action resulting to any action with plaintiff," Mathis wrote in her complaint.

 

She insisted the lack of notice represented a violation of her due process rights, but the federal official tasked to investigate the claim for the court was not impressed.

 

"In this case, the undersigned finds that plaintiff fails to state a facially plausible federal claim," US Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers explained. "Plaintiff first attempts to a bring claim under the Fourth Amendment for unlawful seizure. From the facts plaintiff pleads, however, it appears that the seizure of her vehicle was proper. As both the Supreme Court and United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit have held '[t]he authority of police to seize and remove from the streets vehicles impeding traffic or threatening public safety and convenience is beyond challenge.'"

 

The Judge maintained that there was no constitutional problem implicated by a city refusing to return a car, as long as it was seized for a legitimate reason.

 

"Furthermore, plaintiff's claims do not appear to challenge the actual seizure of her vehicle, but instead focus on her inability to regain possession of her vehicle. Plaintiff's interest in regaining her vehicle, however, is outside the scope of the Fourth Amendment.... Plaintiff also fails to state a viable claim under the Equal Protection Clause."

 

The judge also recommended dismissal because no pattern of misconduct had been established.

 

"The mere fact that plaintiff had poor experiences with the towing of a vehicle she previously owned is not enough for the court to reasonably conclude that the city of Columbus has adopted an implicit custom or policy that encourages its employees to violate plaintiff's federal rights," Deavers wrote. "Accordingly, plaintiff fails to satisfy the requisite pleading standards for municipal liability."

 

The magistrate's recommendation is available in a 25k PDF file at the source link below.

 

The Judge maintained that there was no constitutional problem implicated by a city refusing to return a car, as long as it was seized for a legitimate reason.

slippery-slope-1.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Everything worth seizing is worth money.

Get used to it because it going to become more and more common as Cities, States and their LE search for income.

They are criminalizing damned near everything, they do it via regulation if not by law.

So when you inadvertently run afoul their laws/regs, you are going to be forced to forfeit cash and/or property.

Its all about revenue.

 

I'm really believing that the US and World Economy is going to collapse, that it is now inevitable, the only question is how bad it will be.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Chili, you're just now coming around?

ALL empires rise and fall. The faster the rise, the harder the fall.

 

Compared to most empires, we've risen REALLY fast. So, when we do fall, its gonna be REALLY hard. Mostly because it will pull the rest of the world with us.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It sounds like she had a moron for an attorney. $500 billion in damages and a questionable foundational argument. It's no wonder the judge sent them packing. Retard! If she had approached the court on a reasoned and proper legal basis and was rejected I'd have a lot more sympathy for her. I think the judge sent a message. I doubt she learned anything from it though. The judge went on record citing there was no pattern established so it was obviously her case. Besides, she can always appeal it to the Supreme Court. rolleyes.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

We got a broke system. If your car gets stolen in el paso and comes across the border and gets confinscated you have to pay the x ray costs and seizure price to get it back. The cops are corrupt all over the country. There are more and more government oficials tide to the cartel. Umm big bailouts for there buddies i think the list goes on forever. Billion dollar bailouts is alot worse then bribing a mexican cop or american one for some chump change.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The RICO law has been out of control for a long time and it's become government highway robbery at all government levels. Now they are hurting for money so they'll find more excuses to steal people's property. Sickening.

Link to post
Share on other sites

She had no lawyer - she filed a hand-written complaint.

 

She's batting a 1000. Worse than the presentation of her case was the decision to represent herself. She had a fool for counsel/client. She's lucky she didn't have to pay court costs and attorney's fees for defense counsel.

Link to post
Share on other sites

When you decide to VOLUNTARILY register your vehicle with the state DMV you are actually turning over OWNERSHIP to the state. What belongs to them can be returned-enforced at cause, or in this case, with just a whim. Beware.

 

The cure is to not register you cars and not to get a drivers license or insurance, (another facist racket) but then one runs the risk of being jailed or fined and still having your private property seived without any due process.

 

Remember the Freeman movement awhile back? Among other topics, they claimed that liberty included the freedom of movement-travel. They are correct, but what and how are we going to do anything about it today? HB of CJ

Link to post
Share on other sites

So a Spanish ship can sit on the bottom of the ocean for 350 years and still be Spanish property. BUT if your car is over parked while you are in the hospital, then YOU loose your property rights?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

That's what happens when you park in the wrong place, sue for 500 billion dollars and fail to hire a competent attorney to represent you in court. She was complicit in the miscarriage of justice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's what happens when you park in the wrong place, sue for 500 billion dollars and fail to hire a competent attorney to represent you in court. She was complicit in the miscarriage of justice.

 

In terms of reality, that's true of course.... but if the court truly cared about justice, she'd have her car back even without an attorney.

 

Why do you have to pay an attorney to protect your rights in a court of law?

 

Because they want to force you to "buy into the game".

Can't afford it? Too bad, you lose!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

That's what happens when you park in the wrong place, sue for 500 billion dollars and fail to hire a competent attorney to represent you in court. She was complicit in the miscarriage of justice.

 

In terms of reality, that's true of course.... but if the court truly cared about justice, she'd have her car back even without an attorney.

 

Why do you have to pay an attorney to protect your rights in a court of law?

 

Because they want to force you to "buy into the game".

Can't afford it? Too bad, you lose!

 

She could have hired an attorney and sued for the value of the car, court costs and attorneys fees. I suspect she is not a rocket scientist.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Chatbox

    Load More
    You don't have permission to chat.
×
×
  • Create New...