United States v. 6 Fox Street

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding that claimant’s utter failure to “offer any countervailing evidence” as to how he afforded his lavish expenditures meant that “the district court really had no choice but to grant summary judgment in the Government’s favor”
• characterizing as fraud upon the court an unconscionable scheme, involving an officer of the court, “calculated” to deceive the court
• affirming district court’s finding that the claimant “had waived . . . any statute of limitations defense when he failed to raise that affirmative defense in a responsive pleading”
• finding minimal legitimate income could not cover tens of thousands of dollars of expenses
• upholding forfeiture based, in part, on “evidence that [the claimant’s] legitimate employment as a car salesperson,” from which he earned only a few thousand dollars of taxable income, “could not support his lavish spending” on expensive vehicles and money market accounts
• “Even such an offense as perjury may not suffice—instead the type of conduct that would qualify as ‘fraud on the court’ must be something on the order of bribing a judge.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).