Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The United States Marshals Service (USMS) is a federal law enforcement agency in the United States.The Marshals Service serves as the enforcement and security arm of the U.S. federal judiciary, and it is an agency of the U.S. Department of Justice and operates under the direction of the U.S. Attorney General.
United States ruled that a forfeiture could be considered as an excessive fine, [16] the court upheld the principle of civil forfeiture generally. [7] A 1996 Supreme Court decision ruled that prosecuting a person for a crime and seizing his or her property via civil forfeiture did not constitute double jeopardy , and therefore did not violate ...
The auction was a federal forfeiture conducted on behalf of the United States Marshals Service. [13] Bid4Assets has also pioneered internet-based tax defaulted property sales in Idaho, Nevada, Virginia and Missouri.
The United States Marshals Service is responsible for managing and disposing of properties seized and forfeited by Department of Justice agencies. It currently [when?] manages around $2.4 billion worth of property. The United States Treasury Department is responsible for managing and disposing of properties seized by Treasury agencies.
The United States Supreme Court has upheld the broad powers of the federal government to deal with federal lands, for example having unanimously held in Kleppe v. New Mexico [7] that "the complete power that Congress has over federal lands under this clause necessarily includes the power to regulate and protect wildlife living there, state law notwithstanding."
In 1990, a forfeiture case proved to be Bissell's downfall. On May 10, 1990, James Giuffre was arrested on charges of selling $700 worth of cocaine . Bissell said he would drop the charges if Giuffre forfeited two plots of land to the prosecutor's office, valued at $174,000.
United States v. $124,700 in U.S. Currency (2006), an asset forfeiture case based on drug law. United States v. Approximately 64,695 Pounds of Shark Fins (9th Cir., 2008). Asset forfeiture case under the Shark Finning Prohibition Act of 2000. South Dakota v. Fifteen Impounded Cats 785 N.W.2d 272 (S.D. 2010) United States v.
Loyalist property forfeiture Martin v. Hunter's Lessee: 14 U.S. 304 (1816) Loyalist property forfeiture, Supreme Court review of state court judgments Laidlaw v. Organ: 15 U.S. 178 (1817) the rule of caveat emptor in a commodity delivery contract: Craig v. Radford: 16 U.S. 594 (1818) Jay Treaty protection of alien enemy defeasible estate ...