81 F.3d 147 (1st Cir. 1996), 95-1923, U.S. v. All Funds, Monies, Securities, Mut. Fund Shares and Stocks Held in Fidelity Investments
|Docket Nº:||95-1923, 95-2016.|
|Citation:||81 F.3d 147|
|Party Name:||UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, Appellee, v. ALL FUNDS, MONIES, SECURITIES, MUTUAL FUND SHARES AND STOCKS HELD IN FIDELITY INVESTMENTS, et al., Defendant, Appellee. Thomas E. KNEELAND, Jr., Defendant, Appellant.|
|Case Date:||March 29, 1996|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the First Circuit|
This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA1 Rule 36 regarding use of unpublished opinions)
APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS [Hon. William G. Young, U.S. District Judge]
Thomas E. Kneeland, Jr. on brief pro se.
Donald K. Stern, United States Attorney, and Patrick M. Hamilton, Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee, United States of America.
Before TORRUELLA, Chief Judge, and STAHL and LYNCH, Circuit Judges.
These consolidated appeals have their origin in a civil forfeiture action which was dismissed without prejudice, on the government's motion, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(2). Claimant Thomas Kneeland challenges the dismissal; the denial of various pre-dismissal motions, including his requests for an adversarial hearing or entry of judgment in his favor; and the denial of various post-dismissal motions, including a renewed motion for summary judgment, a motion for return of property, a motion to disqualify the district judge, and a motion for judgment on the pleadings. 1 For the following reasons, we affirm.
Kneeland allegedly operated an advance fee scheme whereby he fraudulently promised potential borrowers that he could obtain funding for their projects, accepted substantial up-front fees, failed to arrange financing or to return the fees, and subsequently "laundered" the fees. On December 2, 1993, the government received ex parte warrants authorizing seizure of the defendant properties after persuading a United States Magistrate Judge that there was probable cause to believe that they were involved in or traceable to money laundering. Thereafter, the government initiated administrative forfeiture proceedings and Kneeland filed a claim of ownership. On March 30, 1994, a federal grand jury returned an indictment charging Kneeland with conspiracy, mail fraud, wire fraud, money laundering and...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP