&quot; but we&#x27;re not looking at them deciding his guilt or innocence here&quot;<p>Yes, I got that. My point is that positing the various ways the case plays out with whether the person is guilty or innocent is outside the scope of the question. Alito&#x27;s avenue of analysis was misguided. It doesn&#x27;t matter whether they&#x27;re guilty or innocent because we&#x27;re asking what the government should do with the funds <i>before we know the result of the case</i><p>And I understand the point of appeals courts. I&#x27;m making an argument based on a plain, layman&#x27;s understanding of how the system should work. I have no doubt that for those inside the system, it all makes some kind of weird sense. &quot;Hey, we took all of your money, but look! The paperwork has been done correctly!&quot;<p>I also understand that the Supreme Court disagrees with me. Probably isn&#x27;t the first time, nor will it be the last. Those guys are a hell of a lot smarter than I am. My best argument is that at some point it makes sense legally but yet you lose consent of the governed. Taking somebody&#x27;s money so they can&#x27;t afford a lawyer -- along with a half-dozen or so other bone-headed decisions over the last decade or two -- begin to cross that line. Somebody should speak up. That &quot;speaking up&quot; is not a legal argument; it is a political one.<p>Sometimes the law is an ass.<p>Thank you for the instruction on the split between the Fifth and Sixth Amendment issues. Lots of detail to consider here.