Hacker News Reader

Comment by user2459 | Hacker News Reader

"The blunder, which occurred because the police applied for the wrong type of court order..."

Blunder my ass, sounds like abuse of power that, against the police hopes, ended up being checked.

I'm skeptical that they could have deliberately done something wrong just hoping it wouldn't get noticed. This is a very high-profile case; they would be expecting a lot scrutiny.

Plus the guy can afford the very best of legal counsel. Any holes in the case are sure to get found and exploited.

All his money has been seized. He might not get it back. Some countries separate out the mis-handling of a case form the actual case.

"Fruit of the poison tree"[1] doesn't hold in the UK, for example.

[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree)

Google couldnt find anything to prove this to me, but if its true then how the country can properly function (UK) if cops can do whethever the heck they want to as long as they get the "evidence" as a result. no idea.

Cops can't do whatever they like to get evidence. But evidence is not thrown out because the police used the wrong warrant or whatnot. Maybe the officer doing wrong would face disciplinary procedures (resulting in loss of pension and job) or maybe they'd face criminal trial.

there won't be nothing. Cops whether break law or not don't get in trouble, by the rule. There is exemption but its a statistical noise just to make people feel like there is a justice.

I was assuming he'd be taking on counsel on a contingency basis - the fee would have to be very high to account for the risk, but I don't see why that wouldn't be workable.

Also, it would be pretty hard to seize all the assets of someone worth hundreds of millions.

unfortunately, not necessarily. I think they wouldnt care how high profile the case is. Even it its the mount everest case and it will be clear that X fucked up, knowing how the world of law enforcement works (cops dont tell on each other), there would be no consequences whatsoever. IF media would hung for too long on this issue, they may move X to a different position, temporarily, but rest assure it was definitely worth for cops to take a "risk".

I think it's obvious they did it. They needed an interim restraining order but benefited from a foreign restraining order that caught the defendant by surprise. They then raise the issue to imply it was a mistake made in good faith before the defense team can assemble a different story.

In any case, the prosecution should never be allowed to benefit from a process blunder that harms the defendant's ability to defend himself. If it's allowed, all sort of abuses will be committed "in good faith" only to be later "corrected" by such a half-hearted apology.

I think the chose that type of warrant on purpose and they were hoping it would be "good enough" to do what they were planning.

Richard Nixon would like a word with you.

Given that it is the prosecution who raised the problem, I am not 100% sure I'd agree with you.

This looks an awful lot like another examples of "incompetence, not malice".

Even being noticed by the prosecution, they should not benefit from the mistake. Raising this issue themselves is a nice way to apply the incompetence defense while benefiting from the initial abuse. If they are allowed to prevail, other future seizures may be done using the abusive mandate and later be "corrected".

If that's something that would come up anyway, it's smart to raise the issue themselves before the defense does it.

Absolutely; I hope the judge rules the seizure invalid for exactly that reason.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com