Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
In an excellent ruling, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott issued an opinion denying Shelby County District Attorney Lynda K. Russell -- that's the DA from Tenaha, Texas, where they've been running a highway shakedown operation out of the police department and prosecutor's office -- could not use money from the asset forfeiture fund to defend herself against charges that the fund was gained through illegal means. And she's quite unhappy about it:
Russell has been left "high and dry," her attorney says."She'll have to pay for her defense out of her own resources, which are limited," said Tom Henson, Russell's attorney. "This whole thing has kind of fallen into a never-never land.
"She feels very strongly that she has done nothing wrong and she's not liable, and neither are the other defendants. They had good cause for whatever they did," Henson added.
Oh, the irony. The primary justification for asset forfeiture laws is that criminals should not be allowed to use assets gained through criminal activity to defend themselves in court. What a difference it makes when those who advocate and enforce such laws find themselves on the other end of an indictment, don't you think?
The problem with this suit is that it's only going to focus on alleged "abuses" of the asset forfeiture laws rather than on the fact that those laws themselves are inherently abusive. If you can seize property on the premise that it was involved with or gained through the commission of a crime, you should have to prove the crime first. The fact that you can seize property without even charging someone with a crime is as blatantly unconstitutional as any law that has ever been passed in this country.
Politics
Comments
Wait, so I couldn't rob a bank and hire a top-notch legal team with the money to defend myself? I'm going to have to rethink this.
Posted by: Odie | January 29, 2010 9:28 AM
This decision should fall under the blatantly obvious conclusion, category. That quote by the attorney is precious. You can see the dollar signs fading from his eyes now.
Because every other person in the country also has to defend themselves on their own dime, too. How do these numbnuts get so out of touch?
So what are the odds that a case like this will go to the SCOTUS level, or has that happened already? I can see the current court going along with it, but it would likely be a 5-4 split, IMO.
Posted by: FastLane | January 29, 2010 9:32 AM
No, Odie, if you want to put your ill-gotten gains to use defending you from the law, you gotta think big! Run a huge, multi-national corporation that does whatever the fuck it wants.
Then (and this is the ingenious bit) instead of using the money you make to hire a team of lawyers to prove you didn't break the law, donate as much as legally possible to a political party, then hire a team of lobbyists to put pressure on the politicians to make whatever it was you were doing legal. One-time payment, and you can do the same thing over and over! No more tedious need to pay a lawyer every time you commit a lucrative felony!
Posted by: Mill | January 29, 2010 9:37 AM
Careful there, Ed. We're not too far away from passing laws allowing the state to seize the assets of those expressing opinions which are critical of asset seizure laws - since anyone doing so must obviously be criminal, or else they'd have no reason to complain.
Posted by: MTiffany | January 29, 2010 5:24 PM
Have the allegations of illegal arrests, unlawful restraint, coersion, kidnapping, felony theft, misuse of office, sexual assault and associated crimes been investigated for Federal Criminal indictments in this case?
It is obviously the alleged crime of the decade in Texas town Governments.
Posted by: G | March 20, 2010 8:25 AM