During "discovery" in the case where the United States Postal Inspection Service is attempting to steal my money from me (16-01166-DSF), the government had these things to say. I figured it was important to publish them:
The government of the United States has admitted that it is using the term "defendant" to describe something that is not a person. How do we solve that problem?- "[The question] implies that the decisions of any United States District Judge or United States Magistrate Judge are influenced by the source of their salaries." The question was "Do you pay the salaries of judges Dale S. Fischer and Kenly Kiya Kato?"
- "[T]he defendant in this action is currency and is not entitled to legal representation."
- "To the extent claimant asserts that he is an innocent owner of the defendant currency, the assertion is without merit because there is no evidence currently available to the government suggesting that claimant exercised due diligence in obtaining any information about the person to whom he sold the bitcoins, or in determining whether the defendant currency was derived from a legal or legitimate source."
- "[T]he burden of proof is on claimant in this action to establish that he is the innocent owner of the defendant currency."
No comments:
Post a Comment