As to the rant, you are correct, but the US & State gov'ts have a horrible history of abusing this law in computer cases. The last that I recall that ever went to court was Rusty & Eddy's BBS (Back in '93, I think)... The gov't has had a bad habbit of taking computers without warrants, not giving receipts for what was taken, destroying information on HD's while doing "searches", looking for an keeping information on the computer which is not within the pervue of the search warrant (ie, keeping people's mailing/subscriber lists), and then not promptly returning equipment after aquittals. It used to be that one of their favorite tactics was to confiscate the whole works & not press charges. They would tell you to just go away & don't push it or they would take you to court, all sorts of threats, etc, and then you were out your equipment and information. These things seriously go against the intent of the related ammendments. If the gov't representatives did things the way they were supposed to , I would have no beef. The problem is that there is a long history of these abuses. > -----Original Message----- > From: Phredde [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2000 11:25 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: I've Been Framed > > I trust that those of you pronouncing the law concerning forfeiture are > attorneys, licenses in your jurisdictions in good standing. If so, then > one > might want to review, merely as a starting point, the Fifth Amendment to > the > United States Constitution (i.e., the "due process clause," which does not > prohibit the taking of private property, but merely requires that the > government provide due process when doing so.) Once one has the basics of > the 5th clearly in mind, a review of the pertinent federal due process/ > takings case authorities would be in order, followed by a similar review > of > the parallel authorities under your state's constitutional and statutory > law. At that point, and after becoming similarly well versed in the > substantive and procedural laws concerning forfeiture, one *might* be > quite > eager to retract statements such as that below, and thereby keep one's > license in good standing should one be called upon to defend a forfeiture > action on behalf of a client. > > On the other hand, if you are not attorneys, perhaps one should hesitate a > bit before making grand sweeping statements regarding the law, just as > newbie programmers should hesitate to state authoritatively the nuances of > C++ syntax. > > End of rant. On a more constructive note: > > The original poster should secure legal advice - from an attorney > experienced in the criminal law and forteiture matters - ASAP. Forfeiture > actions typically are civil suits, which require a formal answer to the > court within a limited time in order to preserve legal rights or status. > However, because the possibility of a formal criminal action is possible, > missteps in the civil action could have dire consequences in any criminal > case. Think of it as the legal version of wearing snowshoes through a > minefield. Bottom line: Nikki is so very right -- seek competent legal > counsel. Now. If things go well, your attorney might be able to provide > compelling proof of your innocence, or at least of the lack of credible > evidence of guilt. Perhaps even before formal charges are leveled. > > Good luck ! > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Burke, Thomas G. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2000 2:15 PM > Subject: RE: I've Been Framed > > > > And the wonderful part of the forfieture law is that it's > unconstitutional > > ... > > > <snip> > > > > > -- > To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe" > as the Subject. -- To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe" as the Subject.
