For your consideration:
US v. Wright, a recent forfeiture case from the 9th Circuit that borders on but does not quite reach "legal funion."
SCENE: DINGY INTERROGATION ROOM
US Government: "We have you dead to rights, Mr. Wright! Your dastardly Las Vegas crime wave has come to an end! And we'll just be taking this obviously-stolen $63,513 that we found at your house."
Wright: "That's not my house and I've never seen this money."
USG: "You're wrong, Mr. Wright! We have an open-and-shut case, and we'll prove it in court!"
SCENE: DISTRICT COURTHOUSE
District Court Judge: "Wow. This is a truly impressive show of prosecutorial misconduct you've put on, Mr. Government. I'm suppressing nearly all of this evidence as a sanction."
USG: "Well.
That sucks. Say, Mr. Wright, how about we settle on one count of felon-in-possession?"
Wright: "That works, I suppose. I'm already going away for a long stretch in prison for a different armed robbery anyway."
Judge: "So be it."
Wright: "Now that sentencing is over, I've just remembered that the $63,513 is actually my perfectly legitimate money from what is definitely my house. And I'm entitled to a presumption that the money is mine. Give it back."
Judge: "As if! It's laughably obvious that this money was stolen."
USG: "Now we're speaking the same language! Naturally we'll take that money to use as we see fit."
Judge: "Not! There are procedures to follow for seizing property properly. And you've handled that just like you've handled the rest of this case: incompetently."
Wright, USG, in unison: "Well.
That sucks."
SCENE: NINTH CIRCUIT COURTHOUSE
Appellate Panel: "Everything that Judge said? That. Exactly that."
Gentle Readers: "So what happens to the money?"
Appellate Panel: "Heck if we know! That's for Judge to sort out on remand. Who knows, maybe the government will manage to pull its head out of its procedural posterior."