Comm2A Sues over Property Forfeiture

[92G]

The judge who ruled the towing cases as not analogous, made clear that VV was liable, no question if VV was a state actor. So big time liability. Everyone who lost shit within the three years prior can sue him.

Thx for info.
my question then is....
So are they suing him? And if not, why so?

 

[terraformer]

Thx for info.
my question then is....
So are they suing him? And if not, why so?

Because the judge found VV was not a state actor. We need to fix that...

 

[Hoover]

The judge who ruled the towing cases as not analogous, made clear that VV was liable, no question if VV was a state actor. So big time liability. Everyone who lost shit within the three years prior can sue him.

Thanks.

Disappointed it's only 3 yrs, I'd like to see him without a dime left.

 

[Jorg]

Because the judge found VV was not a state actor. We need to fix that...

So if VV was not a state actor, VV could declare bankruptcy and the state would not be liable for any monetary damages?

 

[Len-2A Training]

So if VV was not a state actor, VV could declare bankruptcy and the state would not be liable for any monetary damages?

If anything, Dowd is a shrewd businessman. I'd be shocked if VV had any significant assets. When you own multiple corporations it is easy to shuffle things to minimize exposure.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

So if VV was not a state actor, VV could declare bankruptcy and the state would not be liable for any monetary damages?

Probably not. This issue that if he is a state actor, he is liable, and the sovereign immunity granted to state actors does not extend to private parties acting as such.

The issue of the extent of the protection provided by the corporate veil is beyond my pay grade.

 

[FrugalFannie]

If anything, Dowd is a shrewd businessman. I'd be shocked if VV had any significant assets. When you own multiple corporations it is easy to shuffle things to minimize exposure.

Probably not. This issue that if he is a state actor, he is liable, and the sovereign immunity granted to state actors does not extend to private parties acting as such.

The issue of the extent of the protection provided by the corporate veil is beyond my pay grade.

Construction companies used to do this type of thing. One would pop up, build a development, dissolve, shift assets to another construction company with the same principals, etc in order to "avoid" potential issues down the road. The courts have found that these are NOT separate entities and that one "entity" can be held liable for the other's actions when it is apparent (i.e.. same principals in charge of the company on the corporate docs, transfer of assets between the 'companies' etc) they were set up as shells. IANAL but I would think a good lawyer could show the same in "this" case if it were to happen. Also, corporate protections do NOT extend to individuals if you can prove intentional malfeasance. The corporate "veil" of protection does not absolve one of personal responsibility when actions are deliberate.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

The courts have found that these are NOT separate entities and that one "entity" can be held liable for the other's actions when it is apparent (i.e.. same principals in charge of the company on the corporate docs, transfer of assets between the 'companies' etc) they were set up as shells.

This is why I said the issue of piercing the corporate veil is beyond my pay grade.

The corporate "veil" of protection does not absolve one of personal responsibility when actions are deliberate.

If there are limited assets, the subject is generally free to spend them attempting to protect the corporate veil, rather than preserve them to pay a judgement once that veil is penetrated.

Boston cab companies are notorious for this - many shell companies each owning a cab or two, with minimal (ie, cheap) liability insurance. Some attorneys have pierced this veil, but it is complex and expensive to do.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Construction companies used to do this type of thing. One would pop up, build a development, dissolve, shift assets to another construction company with the same principals, etc in order to "avoid" potential issues down the road. The courts have found that these are NOT separate entities and that one "entity" can be held liable for the other's actions when it is apparent (i.e.. same principals in charge of the company on the corporate docs, transfer of assets between the 'companies' etc) they were set up as shells. IANAL but I would think a good lawyer could show the same in "this" case if it were to happen. Also, corporate protections do NOT extend to individuals if you can prove intentional malfeasance. The corporate "veil" of protection does not absolve one of personal responsibility when actions are deliberate.

IANAL but from what I've learned, I'd be surprised if VV really did anything illegal (malfeasance). The malfeasance as I see it was that the state failed to regulate them such that victims would be treated fairly. Sadly gov't (and those in gov't in charge) is never held financially responsible for failing to act in the best interest of those they govern!

 

[Hoover]

If anything, Dowd is a shrewd businessman. I'd be shocked if VV had any significant assets. When you own multiple corporations it is easy to shuffle things to minimize exposure.

I think dowd would still be responsible to pay any money made by these thefts over the 3 yrs if he took money from the corporation. Similar to what Madoff did with his ponzi scheme. All the money he took from the company was taken back by the court. If the court rules as it should and finds these actions illegal, I think he would personally need to pay up any money he took out of the business if the business doesn't have the assets to cover it.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Defendant Village Vault filed their brief in this appeal on Wednesday.

Read it here.

 

[Jorg]

Haven't donated in a while to Comm2a, and sent something in earlier today.

 

[jefftk]

Haven't donated in a while to Comm2a, and sent something in earlier today.

You could set up a monthly recurring donation - that makes it easy to remember

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

The amicus brief of the Massachusetts Executive Office of Public Safety and Security was filed on Tuesday 5/26.

 

[JayMcB]

The amicus brief of the Massachusetts Executive Office of Public Safety and Security was filed on Tuesday 5/26.

any friend of village vault is no friend of mine

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Yesterday we filed our Reply to the the Response offered by Village Vault. More info at: Jarvis v. Village Vault.

SUMMARY OF REPLY
The only reason that Defendant was able to impose fees and liens, and to ultimately take title to the Plaintiffs’ property, was that police had seized that property and were under a legal obligation to hold it. Defendant’s unilateral contract terms – the deprivations in this case – resulted because the police had taken custody of the Plaintiffs’ property. This coercive action is what enabled Defendant to take custody, without authority from the Plaintiffs, and to then dictate the rates and other terms that would apply.

Defendant’s claim that it is not liable hangs largely on its assertion that it did not impose any deprivation that the police had not already imposed. But this is not the case, for the police could not charge fees or impose liens, nor could they sell the guns for their own benefit. These deprivations could only occur after police chose to transfer custody to Defendant, and Defendant then chose to take those actions. And by all indications, Defendant was quite willing to do so. There is no dispute that, by the time each of the Plaintiffs received their first notice of Defendant’s involvement, the fees needed to transfer the property away from Defendant’s custody was half (or more) of the amount that Defendant realized when it auctioned the items. Defendant, a licensed gun dealer, was able to add guns to its inventory by doing nothing more than picking them up from the police and sending a few notices to their owners.

Defendant is liable as a state actor because the deprivations result from the police action of seizing the guns and the resulting police obligation to store them. Defendant would never have been able to impose its unilateral terms if police had not taken the guns and then had a legal obligation to hold them. Defendant’s attempts to analogize to cases concerning creditor’s remedies is misplaced, for in those cases the aggrieved individuals had voluntarily chosen to make their contracts. Here, Defendant imposed its contract on the Plaintiffs – and it did so precisely because the Plaintiffs were in no position to contract for themselves, owing to the police action.

The remaining defenses of Defendant and the Commonwealth are meritless. No self-executing legislation compelled Defendant to impose its fees and terms. Rather, Defendant chose the fees and other terms on its own, just at it chose to relieve the police of their storage obligations. Furthermore, the (theoretical) availability of a state-court action for conversion is also no defense. This case concerns actions that state law expressly authorizes, not random and unauthorized acts that could not be predicted.

 

[JayMcB]

^ You guys are awesome.

 

[bigblue]

I would think an argument could be made that no contract of sale was entered by the plaintiffs therefor defendant had no legal standing to sell the property in question. That makes any sale resulting from the confiscation of plaintiff property fraud and void on its face. Defendant may not sell property he does not rightfully own and since no compensation has been made to the rightful owner, no legal transfer of property occurred. The only way out of that argument for the defendant is if he is a state actor who took possession of the property as a result of a civil asset forfeiture. Catch 22.

 

[Whutmeworry]

^ You guys are awesome.

+1. I just hope the court is objective enough to see the facts for what they are and rule accordingly.

 

[Friday]

A very thoughtful and logical argument. Pity Liberals explode when you use logic in an argument.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Oral arguments before the First Circuit are this morning. Think happy thoughts. We did not pull a good panel.

 

[KMM696]

Best of luck...

Got my happy thoughts on

 

[pochito413]

good luck. happy thoughts on.

 

[Jbarila]

Good Luck!

 

[icyclefar]

Best of luck!

 

[MachineHead]

You guys are gonna do great!

 

[LoginName]

Oral arguments before the First Circuit are this morning. Think happy thoughts. We did not pull a good panel.

How did it go?

How long until they issue a ruling, decision?

 

[Hoover]

The 3 judges Barron, Selya and Lipez (obama appointee, reagan, clinton)

Barron is marrid to uber liberal nut Juliette Kayyem who worked in the obama admin and ran for governor for a bit. He's suppose to be very liberal. He's the one who wrote a legal opinion while working for the obama admin that it was ok legally to drone a US citizen without judicial review. He was only confirmed because Reid killed the filibuster for judges.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

How did it go?

How long until they issue a ruling, decision?

A ruling is likely months away. However the recording or transcript should be available fairly soon. When that becomes available it will be posted on the Comm2A website.

I'm out of state on vacation, so was not able to be present in the courtroom. The initial feedback I received was not entirely discouraging.

The important thing to remember here is that this isn't a gun case per se. This is about property forfeiture at the hands of the government. If the judges can get past the 'oh my god it's guns' aspect of the case we're in a much better position.

 

[rivet_42]

Bit belated, but best of luck.