Don't you mean the tax payer? Don't tax payers have a say in who gets to waste valuable tax dollars on frivolous cases?
Only very indirectly. We tax payers (voters) elected President Obama, who appointed Carmen Ortiz as a federal prosecutor in 2009.[1] Since Obama can't run for president again, we've lost our chance to show our displeasure in the only way he'd really care about (losing an election).
Losing a (civil) case does not mean the plaintiff was in the wrong for having brought the case. Very often, people legitimately think they've been wronged, they submit the conflict to the courts for resolution, and the courts decide against them. That's why loser pays is the exception, not the rule. It's reserved for when people use the legal system simply to harass someone else, instead of submitting a legitimate grievance the resolution of which just happens to not come out in their favor.
This story is more than one about a rogue prosecutor, "the government is overstepping its bounds in a practice that has swelled in the past decade to encompass some 400 federal statutes, covering crimes from drug trafficking to racketeering to halibut poaching."
If you don't read the article, take a look at this infographic: http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/P1-BD015_FORFEI_G_...
In NY and CO, asset forfeitures have increased 1,000% since 2003. Think there might be a problem here?
Based on the graphic it was actually three states that increased by more than 1000%. The third, naturally, was Massachusetts.
http://reason.com/24-7/2013/01/30/carmen-ortiz-blew-a-gang-a...
If I owned ANY hotel, particularly in a bad part of town, I'd be rather proud that the police only came out to visit once a year. That's simply a business where some things are out of your control.
It's nice that government overreach is (potentially) punished. On the other hand it's an embarrassment for the entire legal system that defending against such overreach costs upwards of $500k.
