Forfeiture claimant had standing but for taking the Fifth on everything other than possession. This was thus mere unexplained ownership, and that\u2019s not enough. United States v. $133,420.00 in United States Currency, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62270 (D. Ariz. June 23, 2010)*:<\/p>\n
In this case, Louis’ assertion of ownership in his responses to the Government’s special interrogatories together with the fact that the currency was seized from the car he was driving would be enough to establish standing under $148,840.00. However, as the Government points out in its motion to strike Louis’ discovery responses, Louis responded to the Government’s special interrogatories only where advantageous to his cause. He conclusorily claimed an ownership interest in response to the Government’s inquiries into the nature of his property interest in the currency, but declined, on Fifth Amendment self-incrimination grounds, to respond to follow-up questions about the details of that ownership interest, including how, why, or where he obtained the funds. Louis’ invocation of the Fifth Amendment is therefore indistinguishable from that of the claimant in $148,840.00 and is a clear example of the impermissible use of the privilege as both a shield and a sword. Louis cannot be permitted to respond where it benefits his standing position yet shield that response from further scrutiny, thereby using the Fifth Amendment privilege “to mutilate the truth.” Parcels of Land<\/a>, 903 F.2d at 43.<\/p>\n
The Court will therefore exercise its discretion to strike Louis’ interrogatory responses and therefore his evidentiary assertion of ownership. What remains is the undisputed fact that Louis was in physical possession of the currency when it was seized. Louis has provided no explanation of that possession. Mere unexplained possession is insufficient for standing at any stage of the proceeding. See $191,910.00 in U.S. Currency<\/a>, 16 F.3d at 1058; $148,840.00<\/a> in United States Currency, 521 F.3d at 1275-76.<\/p>\n
The Court is mindful that the rules of decision proposed by both sides in this case are open to abuse. …\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading