IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
June 11, 2008
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
$6,238.0 0 IN UNITED STATES CURRENCY, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: David R. Herndon United States District Judge
STIPULATED ORDER FOR FORFEITURE AND FOR RETURN OF PROPERTY
Upon stipulation by the United States of America by and through its attorneys, A. Courtney Cox, United States Attorney for the Southern District of Illinois, and Michael Thompson, Assistant United States Attorney, and Michael J. Mettes, Attorney for Malcolm Henderson, the Court hereby finds and orders as follows:
1. All due notices required by law with respect to the forfeiture have been provided; Malcolm Henderson timely filed a Claim and Answer in this proceeding; and all persons and entities other than Malcolm Henderson are found to be in default.
2. Malcolm Henderson agrees that $1,559.50 of the subject-matter property shall be forfeited to the United States, and said $1,559.50 is hereby ordered so forfeited. The United States Marshal shall dispose of said $1,559.50 pursuant to law.
3. The remaining $4,678.50 shall be returned by the United States Marshal to Malcolm Henderson through his attorney, Michael J. Mettes, and the United States shall not seek any further forfeiture of said funds based on any activity which occurred prior to the entry of this Order.
4. Malcolm Henderson warrants, that subject only to the right of the United States to forfeit said currency, he has at all relevant times been the sole owner of said currency and that there are no other liens or legal or equitable interests in same.
4. Malcolm Henderson hereby releases and holds harmless the United States of America, the County of St. Clair, Illinois, and all officers, agents, employees, and attorneys of the United States of America and of the County of St. Clair, Illinois, from any and all damages or causes of action arising from the seizure of any of the subject-matter currency and the institution of forfeiture proceedings against said currency, including, but not limited to, any damages for loss of any interest, attorneys's fees, or litigation costs, further including but not limited to any amounts which could be imposed under 28 U.S.C. § 2465(b)(1). The parties stipulate, and the Court so finds, that there is reasonable cause for the seizure of the subject-matter property and that this order may serve as a certificate of reasonable cause pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2465(a)(2).
© 1992-2008 VersusLaw Inc.