United States v. Pole No. 3172, Hopkinton, Etc., Appeal of Alice Gazda, Ida Ambrosio and Charles Fogarty

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that “the interest acquired as a result of mortgage payments made with the proceeds of drug transactions should be forfeitable”
• though technically a claimant, property owner’s action to recover his property after seizure by the government was more in the nature of a response
• failure to appear at deposition could not be found to be willful
• “at the pleadings stage, the government must allege facts from which one could infer that the payments claimed to be proceeds actually were tainted; the fact finder can then later determine the percentage interest acquired as a result of tainted payments.”
• interest acquired as result of mortgage payments made with proceeds of drug transactions should be forfeitable, but forfeitability does not spread like disease from one infected payment to defendant’s entire interest in property acquired prior to infected payment
• particularity requirement in Supplemental Rules “is not merely a procedural technicality, but a way of ensuring that the government does not seize and hold, for a substantial period of time, property to which, in reality, it has no legitimate claim”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).