Judge finds her court has “equitable jurisdiction”
“the former Fifth Circuit counseled courts to consider, for equitable
jurisdiction purposes, whether the government displayed a callous disregard for the movant’s
constitutional rights, whether the movant has an individual interest in and need for the seized
property, whether the movant would be irreparably injured by denial of the return of the seized
property, and whether the movant otherwise has an adequate remedy at law. Id. (describing these
factors as “some of the considerations” that should inform the decision of whether to exercise
equitable jurisdiction); see also Mesa Valderrama v. United States, 417 F.3d 1189, 1197 (11th Ci...”
The judge’s footnote is gonna leave a mark..
The “movant”? Yeah, writing in mumbojumbo really clears it up? I think that was some stuff my Gramma took once when she was backed up a little.