9QD6rg5CCiLzfAz2g5wDSIg2ju11S0JkuyIgp58N3PmgxRfRnv OlEjKyRilvef8UvowGmOoUsSgTgIwgZHNyPPP5wugMapJ8f7Lk DtrVZ3ChnDno

terminate "benefits".
]
* To the government, the question of whether the money had been legally
* earned or was the product of a nefarious drug sale was of no concern.
*
* Maybe worse than the nebulous structuring provision is a feature of the
* same group of laws that places the burden of proof on the victim. In
* other words, rather than the government having to prove that Alvarez
* had violated the statute before it seized his money, Alvarez had to
* prove that he was innocent of any wrongdoing before he could get it
* back. Further adding to the profound unfairness of the seizure process
* is an incredible provision that anyone who wants to challenge an action,
* who wants his day in court, must file a bond with the government of
* either $5000 or 10 percent of the value of the seized property. Alvarez
* had to borrow the money from his credit cards.
*
* The Assistant U.S. Attorney Jonathon R. Howden, flooded by financial
* statements by Alvarez's defense attorney (who was a retired career
* criminal investigator with the IRS), admitted he would not take the
* case to court. That step took seven months.
*
* However, Howden made an astonishing attempt to keep half of the $88,000
* the government had seized from Alvarez's bank account. Howden offered
* Alvarez two options: settle the matter by agreeing to a 50 percent
* forfeiture, or the money will be returned to the IRS, who might keep
* it. Alvarez's lawyer called his bluff and got the money back after
* a full year had elapsed. Loss of a full year's interest and $5000 in
* legal fees were the result.
*
* The government's abrupt assault shocked Paolo Alvarez to his core,
* leaving him with powerful feelings of fearful despair and isolation.
*
* While the fear was obviously justified, the feeling of isolation was
* way off the mark. He has lots of company.
[snip]
*
* The federal government seized the home of an elderly couple