it, and the State requests that the Court enter a judgment that is slightly differentfrom what Intervenors propose. In light of Intervenors’ disclaimer of interest, thisCourt should enter the proposed order attached as
The Court should enter the order attached as
for four reasons.First, Intervenors have no standing to be heard on the proper disposition of this case.
To be clear, the slot machines that the State seized unquestionably bear the names and logos of these manufacturers and were indisputably owned by themat one time.
Mot. for Sum. Judg., Exhibits. But Intervenors
have failed tointroduce any evidence that they have a lawful property interest in these devices,and they have irrevocably and unconditionally waived any interest that they mayhave in them. Accordingly, Intervenors have no more right to be heard on the proper disposition of this case than the proverbial “man off the street.”Second, the State’s proposed order correctly grants the State’s petition for forfeiture, but Intervenors’ proposed order improperly requests that the Court granttheir motion to
the State’s petition.
Intervenors’ Proposed Order. Asthe State has previously explained, Intervenors’ proposed disposition is erroneous.Because the Intervenors have unconditionally withdrawn their claims to the property, the correct disposition is for this Court to grant the State’s petition for
The Court may recall that it expressly directed the Intervenors at the November 8hearing to file a “simple vanilla” disclaimer of interest that did not seek the entry of any specificorder. In contravention of the Court’s direction, the Intervenors still improperly purport to styletheir “disclaimer” as a “motion” and still seek to control how this case is disposed.