U.S. v. APPROXIMATELY $65,680 IN FUNDS SEIZED INCIDENT TO SEARCH WARRANT EXECUTION AT THE RESIDENCE OF JONES, 3:17cv293. (2017)
Court: District Court, W.D. North Carolina
Number: infdco20171002f76
Visitors: 1
Filed: Sep. 27, 2017
Latest Update: Sep. 27, 2017
Summary: ORDER TO STAY GRAHAM C. MULLEN , District Judge . THIS MATTER is before the Court on the government's motion for a stay pursuant to 18 U.S.C 981(g). Claims have been filed by Michal David Jones and Reema Ramzy Abdulatif. Both claimants are represented by Edward Burch, who has made a general appearance in this case. Claimants, through counsel, have consented to the government's motion. The government has represented that a related state criminal investigation has been opened by the Meckl
Summary: ORDER TO STAY GRAHAM C. MULLEN , District Judge . THIS MATTER is before the Court on the government's motion for a stay pursuant to 18 U.S.C 981(g). Claims have been filed by Michal David Jones and Reema Ramzy Abdulatif. Both claimants are represented by Edward Burch, who has made a general appearance in this case. Claimants, through counsel, have consented to the government's motion. The government has represented that a related state criminal investigation has been opened by the Meckle..
More
ORDER TO STAY
GRAHAM C. MULLEN, District Judge.
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the government's motion for a stay pursuant to 18 U.S.C § 981(g).
Claims have been filed by Michal David Jones and Reema Ramzy Abdulatif. Both claimants are represented by Edward Burch, who has made a general appearance in this case. Claimants, through counsel, have consented to the government's motion.
The government has represented that a related state criminal investigation has been opened by the Mecklenburg County District Attorney's Office and is currently pending. Based on the representations and consent of the parties, the Court finds that civil discovery in this case would adversely affect the ability of the State to conduct the related criminal investigation and any subsequent prosecution. Moreover, civil discovery would also burden claimants' claimants' rights against self-incrimination, which would support a stay under § 981(g)(2) upon a motion by claimants.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this case is stayed pending resolution of the related criminal case or further order of the Court. At such time as the stay may be lifted or vacated, the 21-day period for filing an answer under Rule G(5)(b) shall be deemed to begin on the day after the stay is lifted or vacated by the Court.
Source: Leagle
