*without even a charge of a crime*
There were 13 charges (claims) originally
From the article, which I linked to you just a moment ago:
Within the lawsuit, Amazon filed 13 claims against Carleton Nelson along with other defendants.
The claims include lease transaction enterprise, direct purchase enterprise, detinue pursuant, fraud, tortious interference with contractual and/or business relations, civil conspiracy, breach of contract, unjust enrichment and constructive trust, conversion and constructive trust, alter ego/piercing the corporate veil, agency/respondeat superior, Robinson-Patman Act – antitrust violation and preliminary injunction.
According to court documents, Amazon did not appeal all original 13 claims, but only three instead – fraud, racketeering enterprise, and unjust enrichment.
thx for the recap with the so called ‘claims,’ although i assumed that all civil lawsuits involve claims of various kinds (contractual, law, etc.) i hadn’t seen those.
my statement about ‘no charges’ was taken directly from the post. i’ll quote to get it exactly right for you:
“All the while, no charges have been filed and all of the evidence points to the Nelsons being innocent.”
so that’s not me. that’s from the post.
first not a lawyer so i’m going to be talking out of my own hat here somewhat, (full disclosure).
in terms of the lack of ‘charges,’ you may be mistaken in conflating those with what you are calling ‘claims.’ when i think of charges, i think of criminal charges on which a person has been indicted by a grand jury, or charged with by the police. which may not be ‘claims’ in a lawsuit between two parties, as you say.
from the post, given the quote, i assumed it meant that the DOJ has filed no charges in the case which would at least give them some moral justification for civil asset forfeiture, imho. not being a lawyer, i may be wrong about that.
anyway, my opinion stands that if there has been no indictment by a jury (or a real charges filed against the man, by the DOJ, not just a garden variety lawsuit filed by Amazon who is obviously biased) then the DOJ is likely being influenced by bezos, acting tyrannically, taking the facts on their face presented in the post.