Despite complying with the directives of the Office of the US Attorney, Mr Farshid Ezazi is still facing the loss of his property by civil forfeiture. Ezazi was pressured into evicting the Marin Alliance for Medical Marijuana (MAMM) by the Office of US Attorney, Melinda Haag, on threat of criminal prosecution, imprisonment, fines, and forfeiture. On November 18th, Melinda Haag’s office filed an in rem claim for the civil forfeiture of the property. Ezazi agreed to pursue the eviction and overcame a legal challenge by the Marin Alliance for Medical Marijuana to effect the eviction. MAMM is now out of the property.
Yet, the eviction doesn’t seem to have forestalled the forfeiture of Ezazi’s property. Haag’s office accomplished their stated objectives. Why persist with the forfeiture if this isn’t about enrichment? Additionally, why should landlords comply with the government’s cease and desist warnings if the government is going to take the property regardless?