Ana Maria Martel, Robert Steven Lapham, United States Attorney, Sacramento, CA, for Plaintiff.
Order
Burrell, District Judge.
After convicted Unabomber Theodore John Kaczynski pled guilty “to a series of coldly calculated bombings that resulted in the loss of innocent life and numerous life-altering injuries,” Kaczynski moved for return of his property that was “seized pursuant to a search of his Montana cabin in 1996….” United States v. Kaczynski, 416 F.3d 971, 972 (9th Cir.2005). His motion was denied partly because of a ruling that a $15,026,000 restitution orders, which had been entered in favor of certain victims and their families (“Named Victims”) but had not yet been satisfied, constituted a lien on the property that defeated his motion. United States v. Kaczynski, 306 F.Supp.2d 952, 955–56 (E.D.Cal.2004).[1]
On appeal, the Ninth Circuit stated that the restitution order in favor of the Named Victims “gives the government a cognizable claim of ownership” that “defeat[s] [the] motion for return of property [only] ‘if that property is needed to satisfy the terms of the restitution order!’ ” Kaczynski, 416 F.3d at 974 (quoting United States v. Mills, 991 F.2d 609, 612 (9th Cir.1993)). Since the government asserted the property had only “negligible value,” the Ninth Circuit concluded the government had not shown that the property was needed to satisfy the restitution order. Id. at 975. The Ninth Circuit stated that “[i]n the probable event” the property has more than negligible value, “the government has a cognizable claim of ownership sufficient to defeat [the] motion for its return” and “has some degree of discretion as to how to enforce the restitution lien.” Id. at 976. But the Ninth Circuit found “neither [the government’s] actions … nor its … proposed restitution plan … [were designed to obtain restitution for the Named Victims in a] reasonable [manner].” Id. Therefore, the Ninth Circuit remanded the return of property motion “to the district court … to give a timely and adequate opportunity for the government to present … a commercially reasonable plan to dispose of the property at issue, the principal purpose of which shall be to maximize monetary return to the [Named Victims].” Id. at 977. The Ninth Circuit stated that “[i]f the government fails or refuses to
- ↑ The Named Victims are those victims and their family members who submitted claims for restitution at the time of Kaczynski’s sentencing.
