On August 06, 2021 a
Party Notice
was filed
involving a dispute between
Commonwealth Of Massachusetts,
and
Eight Thousand Three Hundred Ninety Four,
Johnson, Brien,
Two Cell Phones,
for Administrative Civil Actions
in the District Court of Norfolk County.
Preview
-> %
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
NORFOLK, ss. SUPERIOR COURT
COMMONWEALTH OF
MASSACHUSETTS,
Plaintiff,
Vv. 2182CV2012-00727
‘
EIGHT THOUSAND
THREE HUNDRED NINETY FOUR
DOLLARS ($8,394.00)
IN UNITED STATES CURRENCY
AND TWO CELL. PHONE,
Defendant.
CLAIMANT’ S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR FORFEITURE
Now comes Brien Johnson and answers the Commonwealth’s
,
forfeiture complaint.
1. Claimant neither admits nor denies the allegations
contained in Statement of the Case, paragraph 1 of the
Complaint. They are procedural in nature.
2. Claimant neither admits nor denies the allegations
contained in Statement of the Case, paragraph 2 of the
Complaint. They are procedural in nature.
3. Claimant neither admits nor denies the allegations
contained in Jurisdiction, paragraph 3 of the
Complaint. They are procedural in nature.
4. Claimant admits the allegations contained in Facts,
paragraph 1 of the Complaint.
5. Claimant denies the allegations contained in Facts,
paragraph 2 of the Complaint.
I
6. Claimant denies the allegations contained in Facts,
+} paragraph 3 of the Complaint.
affirmative Defense:
A. Neither the currency nor the phones were furnished or
intended to be furnished in exchange for a controlled
substance.
B. The currency was not proceeds traceable to such an
exchange. -
c. Neither the currency nor the phones were used or
intended to be used to facilitate any violation of any
provision of M.G.L. c 94C, S$ 32, 32A, 32B, 32C, 32D,
32E, 32F, 32G, 321, 3273 or 40.
D. The currency, phones and other items seized by the
police were seized pursuant to an illegal search and
thus are not admissible for purposes of establishing
whether the money is subject to forfeiture.
E. Regardless, whether the currency and other items were
seized legally or illegally, the Commonwealth has
failed to establish probable cause to forfeit the
currency and the phones.
i
WHEREFORE, the claimant respectfully requests that the
claim be dismissed or that judgment be entered for the claimant,
f
denying the relief sought by the plaintiff. The currency and
phone should be awarded to the claimant.
1
t
* 2
'
Evidentiary Hearing and Jury Trial Demand:
The ‘claimant demands an evidentiary hearing to determine
whether the evidence on which the Commonwealth relies in its
complaint was legally seized and, if so, whether it establishes
probable cause to forfeit the currency and phones.
Additionally, the claimant demands a trial by jury on all issues
so triable.
Respectfully Submitted,
BRIEN JOHNSON,
y his attorney:
new" —___——_
THOMAS KERNER
BBO # 552373
Attorney at Law
240 Commercial St. Suite 5A
Boston, MA 02109
(617) 720-5509
|
Document Filed Date
October 25, 2021
Case Filing Date
August 06, 2021
Category
Administrative Civil Actions
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
-> % COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS NORFOLK, ss. SUPERIOR COURT COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, Plaintiff, Vv. 2182CV2012-00727 ‘ EIGHT THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED NINETY FOUR DOLLARS ($8,394.00) IN UNITED STATES CURRENCY AND TWO CELL. PHONE, Defendant. CLAIMANT’ S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR FORFEITURE Now comes Brien Johnson and answers the Commonwealth’s , forfeiture complaint. 1. Claimant neither admits nor denies the allegations contained in Statement of the Case, paragraph 1 of the Complaint. They are procedural in nature. 2. Claimant neither admits nor denies the allegations contained in Statement of the Case, paragraph 2 of the Complaint. They are procedural in nature. 3. Claimant neither admits nor denies the allegations contained in Jurisdiction, paragraph 3 of the Complaint. They are procedural in nature. 4. Claimant admits the allegations contained in Facts, paragraph 1 of the Complaint. 5. Claimant denies the allegations contained in Facts, paragraph 2 of the Complaint. I 6. Claimant denies the allegations contained in Facts, +} paragraph 3 of the Complaint. affirmative Defense: A. Neither the currency nor the phones were furnished or intended to be furnished in exchange for a controlled substance. B. The currency was not proceeds traceable to such an exchange. - c. Neither the currency nor the phones were used or intended to be used to facilitate any violation of any provision of M.G.L. c 94C, S$ 32, 32A, 32B, 32C, 32D, 32E, 32F, 32G, 321, 3273 or 40. D. The currency, phones and other items seized by the police were seized pursuant to an illegal search and thus are not admissible for purposes of establishing whether the money is subject to forfeiture. E. Regardless, whether the currency and other items were seized legally or illegally, the Commonwealth has failed to establish probable cause to forfeit the currency and the phones. i WHEREFORE, the claimant respectfully requests that the claim be dismissed or that judgment be entered for the claimant, f denying the relief sought by the plaintiff. The currency and phone should be awarded to the claimant. 1 t * 2 ' Evidentiary Hearing and Jury Trial Demand: The ‘claimant demands an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the evidence on which the Commonwealth relies in its complaint was legally seized and, if so, whether it establishes probable cause to forfeit the currency and phones. Additionally, the claimant demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable. Respectfully Submitted, BRIEN JOHNSON, y his attorney: new" —___——_ THOMAS KERNER BBO # 552373 Attorney at Law 240 Commercial St. Suite 5A Boston, MA 02109 (617) 720-5509 |