Friday, October 28, 2005

Coragio

About Me
Name:Fr Willy Raymond, CSC Location:Hollywood, California, United States
Born in Maine, Old Town, in 1944, the eighth of 12 children, of French-Canadian parents.

View my complete profile

Wednesday, September 07, 2005

HECTOR L. HUERTAS, Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants.

LexisNexis(TM) Academic - Document: "Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(e)"

LexisNexis(TM) Academic - Document

LexisNexis(TM) Academic - Document: "On a Rule 12(c) motion, the facts are to be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party; the facts asserted in the nonmoving party's pleadings will be accepted as true; and any contradictory statements in the movant's pleadings are deemed false. Constitution Bank v. DiMarco, 815 F. Supp. 154, 157 (E.D. Pa. 1993). To prevail, the moving party must show that there are no genuine issues of fact and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Mele v. Federal Reserve Bank of New York, 359 F.3d 251, 253 (3d Cir. 2004) (citing Leamer v. Fauver, 288 F.3d 532, 535 (3d Cir. 2002)). Judgment on the pleadings is appropriate only when 'all material allegations of fact are admitted or not controverted in the pleadings [*24] and only questions of law remain to be decided by the district court.' 5C CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT & ARTHUR R. MILLER, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE � 1367."

Wednesday, June 01, 2005

Unlawfully Seized Property

: "The Ninth Circuit has consistently held that the fruits of an unlawful seizure, including the forfeitable item, may not be used as evidence during a forfeiture trial. United States v. $ 191,910.00 in U.S. Currency, 16 F.3d 1051, 1063 (9th Cir. 1994); United States v. $ 277,700.00 in U.S. Currency, 941 F.2d 898 (9th Cir. 1991). The court rejected the government's argument that the money is the nominal defendant and could not be suppressed even if it was obtained as a result of an unlawful seizure, stating that precedent, logic, and common sense precluded the arguments. The court also rejected the government's assertion that INS v. Lopez-Mendoza supported its position, stating that 'an examination of the facts' indicated that the Court was not stating that an illegally seized res is admissible for its evidentiary value in a forfeiture proceeding, but merely restating the settled principle that the government can maintain an action against a defendant even if that defendant's presence was unlawfully procured. $ 191,910.00, 16 F.3d at 1063. The Ninth Circuit expressly disagreed with the dictum and holding of the Eighth and Second Circuits in $ 12,390.00 and $ 37,780.00, and noted in a footnote that 'the majority of circuits to consider the issue have agreed with the rule . . . adopted in $ 277,700.00, which requires the suppression of an illegally obtained res.' The court then cited earlier dicta by the Eighth Circuit that 'had the money in this case been sei"