

US Attorney Carmen Ortiz could end up with big legal bill from motel case - i4i
http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/blog/bottom_line/2013/02/feds-legal-bill-in-caswell-case.html?page=all

======
hexonexxon
Same psycho freedom stealing prosecutor also had to grovel to the courts a few
days ago that her office arrested the wrong guy in a high profile gang case
because he kind of looked like who they were after. Innocent guy enjoyed
almost a month in prison and legal bills

[http://reason.com/24-7/2013/01/30/carmen-ortiz-blew-a-
gang-a...](http://reason.com/24-7/2013/01/30/carmen-ortiz-blew-a-gang-arrest-
by-nabbi)

------
AJ007
I thought that case sounded familiar, the WSJ had a very good article back in
2011 on it and asset forfeiture:
[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297020445080457662...](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204450804576623404141904000.html)

This story is more than one about a rogue prosecutor, "the government is
overstepping its bounds in a practice that has swelled in the past decade to
encompass some 400 federal statutes, covering crimes from drug trafficking to
racketeering to halibut poaching."

If you don't read the article, take a look at this infographic:
[http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/P1-BD015_FORFEI_G_...](http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/P1-BD015_FORFEI_G_20111017183008.jpg)

In NY and CO, asset forfeitures have increased 1,000% since 2003. Think there
might be a problem here?

~~~
AnthonyMouse
>In NY and CO, asset forfeitures have increased 1,000% since 2003.

Based on the graphic it was actually three states that increased by _more
than_ 1000%. The third, naturally, was Massachusetts.

------
hannibalhorn
I wouldn't have any problem with the government going after what is basically
a drug den, but the article says "Law enforcement officials cited 15 incidents
over a similar number of years"... That's one incident a year.

If I owned ANY hotel, particularly in a bad part of town, I'd be rather proud
that the police only came out to visit once a year. That's simply a business
where some things are out of your control.

------
gamblor956
The U.S. Attorney's _office_ could end up with a million dollar legal bill,
but this would not affect Carmen Ortiz's finances.

~~~
sc00ter
_The U.S. Attorney's office could end up with a million dollar legal bill_

Don't you mean the tax payer? Don't tax payers have a say in who gets to waste
valuable tax dollars on frivolous cases?

~~~
greenyoda
_"Don't tax payers have a say in who gets to waste valuable tax dollars on
frivolous cases?"_

Only very indirectly. We tax payers (voters) elected President Obama, who
appointed Carmen Ortiz as a federal prosecutor in 2009.[1] Since Obama can't
run for president again, we've lost our chance to show our displeasure in the
only way he'd really care about (losing an election).

[1] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carmen_Ortiz>

~~~
fennecfoxen
Now, don't get me wrong. I'm all for dissing Obama and his party at almost any
defensible juncture. But, as the Libertarians would be glad to tell you, asset
forfeiture and overzealous prosecutions are a larger problem than the Obama
administration, and come from both sides (a "tough on white-collar criminals"
policy push from the left, because businesspeople and executives are evil
dontchaknow, and a "war on drugs" policy push from the right, because drug use
is a threat to society and immoral dontchaknow.)

See? Bipartisanship in action!

(Disclaimer about how I don't roll with the Libertarians and have my own
mockery for certain Libertarian policy positions which are not relevant to
this conversation.)

------
mcherm
So the lesson here is that if a federal prosecutor wants to take something,
like your house or a $1,000,000 hotel you own free-and-clear, then even if
their case is SO weak that they will go on to lose on nearly every point, it
will still take you about $500,000 of legal bills to defend yourself, and
that's BEFORE the appeals, plus some of his lawyers were free.

------
philwelch
So I have an interesting proposal. Carmen Ortiz is the US Attorney for the
District of Massachusetts. We get all kinds of stories about her along this
vein, but really she's the only US Attorney we're giving this much scrutiny
for. I propose we randomly select three other US Attorneys and subject them to
the same scrutiny, illustrating whether it's just that Carmen Ortiz is an
awful human being, or whether it's the entire system that's broken.

~~~
veidr
I really hope somebody takes you up on your proposal, but I have a hunch that
rather than being "either/or" it's probably more of a "yes, and yes" in this
case.

~~~
philwelch
Never in my life have I been impressed with the US Department of Justice. If
anything, I'm slightly relieved they aren't stomping kittens to death and
capturing little kids at gunpoint like they did during the Janet Reno years.

------
gesman
Don't worry, taxpayers will take care of the tab.

------
linuxhansl
Not if I should laugh or cry.

It's nice that government overreach is (potentially) punished. On the other
hand it's an embarrassment for the entire legal system that defending against
such overreach costs upwards of $500k.

------
el_cuadrado
I though this was a pretty much standard legal procedure in this
circumstances. How is that news?

~~~
a5seo
Loser pay is the exception, not the rule, unfortunately.

~~~
rayiner
You only think it's unfortunate because you're thinking about a sympathetic
defendant. Consider the opposite hypothetical: all those people suing mortgage
lenders for predatory loans. A lot of those people are going to lose those
cases. Should they get stuck with the mortgage lenders' legal bills?

Losing a (civil) case does not mean the plaintiff was in the wrong for having
brought the case. Very often, people legitimately think they've been wronged,
they submit the conflict to the courts for resolution, and the courts decide
against them. That's why loser pays is the exception, not the rule. It's
reserved for when people use the legal system simply to harass someone else,
instead of submitting a legitimate grievance the resolution of which just
happens to not come out in their favor.

~~~
el_cuadrado
Excellent explanation, thank you.

------
i4i
Institute for Justice (who represented the Motel Caswell) posted a wrap-up of
the case. [http://www.ij.org/massachusetts-civil-forfeiture-
release-1-2...](http://www.ij.org/massachusetts-civil-forfeiture-
release-1-24-2013)

