法律小常識 
HOME
Affirmative Defenses Drafted by Dr Yo's Law Firm in a U.S. Civil Action AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff claim that Claimant violated the Executive Order 13382, which subjected the defendant property to this civil forfeiture pursuant to 18 U.S.C §981(a)(1)(c) and §981(a)(1)(c). SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff claim that Claimant violated the Executive Order 13382, which subjected the defendant property to this civil forfeiture pursuant to 18 U.S.C §981(a)(1)(c) and §981(a)(1)(c), is a claim upon which relief cannot be granted in this case because the Claimant engaged in a legal business enterprise that did not involve a scheme to launder funds into the United States as part of an illicit procurement network for the purpose of evading U.S. export controls and sanctions. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Claimant acted in good faith at all times relevant to the Complaint. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The allegations contained in Plaintiff’s Complaint are compound, vague, ambiguous, and speculative. FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Claimant, as innocent businessman, did not know, or have reason to know, that he was designated by OFAC under E.O. 13382. SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff’s seizure of the defendant property and search of email account violates the Claimant’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from illegal searches and seizures. SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that it satisfied the following elements with regard to the search of Claimant and his employees four linked e-mail accounts. The American Law Reports lists a number of ways to establish the comprehensive foundation of electronic evidence. It suggests that the proponent demonstrate "the reliability of the computer equipment", "the manner in which the basic data was initially entered", "the measures taken to ensure the accuracy of the data as entered", "the method of storing the data and the precautions taken to prevent its loss", "the reliability of the computer programs used to process the data", and "the measures taken to verify the accuracy of the program". (7 American Law Reports 4th, 8, 2b.) EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The government is stopped from obtaining a forfeiture judgment because it obtained the seizure warrant through incorrect, misleading, or incomplete allegations. NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The government cannot obtain a forfeiture judgment pursuant to the unclean hands doctrine. TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The government cannot obtain the forfeiture it seeks because that result would be constitutionally disproportionate. ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The government is stopped from obtaining a forfeiture judgment in order to provide restitution to victims because it is the government that created the victims by wrongfully seizing the property. TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The government cannot obtain a forfeiture judgment because it has not acted in good faith. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS Claimants reserve the right to assert additional affirmative defenses or amend these affirmative defenses as discovery warrants. 作者：雙博國際法律事務所主持律師游啟忠博士 （中華民國及美國華府執業律師） |
