After reading the full indictment at Smoking Gun, it does kinda seem that Vick was the least-involved person served with papers. But he’s the most famous, so he gets the most punishment. Not totally fair. Which isn’t to say that he isn’t a despicable human being, but it does appear that there were more despicable people copping pleas and getting off more lightly, largely because they aren’t famous.
Wasn’t he the money and driving force behind the whole thing? The news reports I have seen say kennels were set up because of him. On land he bought specifically for this. He seems like the big fish of the whole thing.
After the indictment, which was a bit unclear about Vick’s direct involvement in killing the dogs, there were the Plea Agreements of the co-defendants.
One of the statements in the Plea Agreements of Quanis Phillips was:
These are also the ones who were killed because they weren’t game enough, ie, didn’t seem willing to fight.
What punishment is he getting that’s worse than the others involved? I didn’t see any of that indicated in The Smoking Gun site.
I’m sure he’s getting the most press… but after all he is a ‘celebrity’. No one wants to hear about Joe Blow from down the street.
He may have been the least involved in the actual fighting and killing of dogs, but he was the one who provided the venue, financial support, materials and contacts for the entire operation.
Game dogs are culled if they show aggression to humans. You are in a pit with two handlers and referee who must physically break apart the dogs at times. Mean, people attacking dogs don’t make a good game dog.
The whole basis is that the government gets paid first. They take what they are owed, what remains gets paid to whoever is next in line, presumably the mortgage holder. The next party in line is left to try to recover enough money to make themselves whole.
If the auction of the property doesn’t cover the amount owed, the debt is not forgiven, it is just reduced by the amount recovered by selling the property.
Have you paid attention to the current meltdown in the sub prime mortgage market? An interesting facet is that if a person defaults on their mortgage and the mortgage holder forgives the debt, the amount that is forgiven is considered income by the government. They will then send a tax bill to the person that defaulted in the first place. Example, if you owe $200,000 and default on the loan and the mortgage holder sells the property for $100,000 and forgives the other $100,000, the government considers that 100G’s as income for you and will make you pay income taxes on it.
Default is not an easy way out. If the government seizes property they don’t make any payments, they just get what they can out of it and leave the damage to the loan holder and the person from who they seized it. The government is always the first party satisfied in any case like this.
No, that’s not correct. The mortgage holder would be regarded as an “innocent owner” or a “bona fide purchaser for value” and its interest would be protected. If there’s a mortgage, the mortgage holder would have to be paid first from the proceeds of any sale:
(This is different from a tax sale.)
I stand corrected.
In reading your link it appears that the government seizes the property, the mortgage holder files the “innocent owner” defense, the property is sold, the “innocent owner” gets their money and the government takes the rest. Is that how you read it? It seems safe to say that the government does not make any mortgage payments.
It appears that the way this law was written is a good example of why banks and lenders hire lobbyists.
Perhaps it’s simply logical, given the problems associated with the alternative:
You loan me money secured by property I occupy, giving you the right to seize and sell that property if I fail to repay the loan. I commit illegal acts on the property, leading the Gummint to declare my property forfeit. Despite having nothing to do with the illegal acts and having no legal way to have prevented or even known about them, you are SOL.
Okay, let’s say that Vick bought the house for $100,000 and it was appraised for $200,000 and he took out an $80,000 home equity loan on it before the government took it. Would he be debt free?
Also, would the government still be able to take the house if there was a lien on it?
As I understand it, when property is seized, the Government ends up owning whatever part was formerly owned by the criminal(s), but not the bits and pieces owned by others who were not complicit.
So there is nothing stopping me from purchasing a house for $200,000, finding a shifty appraiser to appraise it for $600,000, take out a $400,00o home equity loan, start a dog fighting ring, get caught, serve a few months in prison, and walk away with the $400,000?
If you can find a bank foolish enough to lend on the basis of that dubious appraisal (perhaps possible a year ago, now not so much) then I guess so.
But I don’t imagine that the Goverment is obliged to take over your property and settle your debt. The could look at a seizable place, decide it has a negative net worth, and decline to proceed further.
(I’ll note what should be obvious: IANAL, and simply speculating.)
Before the house is sold, the mortgagor is going to have to be paid. If he gets $200,000 from the government auction, then copperwindow still owes $400,000. The rest of the mortgage will come due immediately. You’re not going to get to keep the money.
The house wouldn’t be sold, it would be taken. Why wouldn’t I be able to keep the money?
What do you think the government is going to do with your house? They’re not going to move in – they’re going to sell it.
And what do you think the mortgagor is going to to when the government takes your house? They’re going to call in your $600,000 loan.
Yes. But more often the property, once seized is taken into the custody of the USMS. Once forfeiture proceedings are completed, the property would generally be sold to recover it’s value, minus mortgage the outstanding mortgage, which would be paid to the lienholder.