RW>You, sir, are about to be honored. 
  >I don't get it, could you explain it to me?
RW>The government through a LE agency takes your property
  >because they THINK you committed a crime.  Now how is
  >that a civil preceding?
RW>Also I don't see how it is even Constitutional with the
  >14th amendment.
RW>AMENDMENT XIV  (1868)
  >SECTION 1. All persons born or naturalized in the
  >United States, . . .nor shall any state deprive any
  >person of life, liberty, or property, without due
  >process of law; . . .
RW>But as I said I don't get it.
Civil seizures are made every day of the week and do not implicate
the protections normally afforded criminal defendants.  The criminal
law deals mostly with protecting your personal freedom through specific
constitutional provisions.  When dealing with your personal property,
the same protections do not apply.  Let me hasten to add, Rich; that
I don't particularly like this situation either.
RW>Sure someone can always get off but are you saying that
  >you have never seen a case where a DA brought a case
  >and got a conviction where that old "mens rea" thing
  >wasn't met?  Remember we are talking about a case that
  >came about due to a ZT policy.  ZT is a political beast
  >designed to make the politicians look good and a DA is
  >a politician.  I'm sure you have seen cases where a DA
  >became 'overly enthusiastic' prosecuting cases when
  >election time gets close.
Now you are attempting to carry zt into the courtroom....that doesn't
fly Rich.  When a person gets arrested, the very first thing that has
to be proven is that a crime has been committed.  Secondly, it must
be proven that the person charged committed that crime.  Third; and
of equal importance, (except in cases which do not require a mens
rea because of specific statute language) it must be proven that the
person intended to commit the crime. (a classic example of a statute
which does not require a "mens rea" would be drunk driving.  e.g. you
cannot go out drinking yourself silly, drive your car and use the 
excuse that you had no criminal intent because you were drunk.  A 
classic example of a lack of criminal intent would be a person who is
mentally ill and commits an act without understanding that the act was
wrong or illegal.
RW>So she MIGHT get off but she would still have to be
  >arrested and ran through the process and have that
  >felony arrest on her record.  And she might decide to
  >not take the chance and plea to a lesser charge.
RW>Have you ever been through the arrest process?
Nope; but I've seen plenty of others go through it.  It's unfortunate
that sometimes innocent people have to fall into the system.
CH> Orders probably "illegal on their face" and which any
CH> responsible  officer should be loathe to carry out.
RW>Loathe to carry out but still carry them out, right?
  >Such as the FBI sniper at Ruby Ridge?  Given an illegal
  >shoot on sight order, which he might or might not have
  >loathed, carried it out.
Hey; I wasn't at Ruby Ridge so I don't know what really happened.  But
I can tell you that of all the officers I know they all loathe having
to shoot someone,....let alone killing someone.  Really, Rich; it's not
something that they run down to the coffee shop to brag about.
RW>In the military, which I have some knowledge, any
  >person that caries out an illegal order to kill someone
  >face the UCMJ.  In the FBI anyone carrying out an
  >illegal order he can relax in the thought that the feds
  >won't charge him and will make sure that any case the
  >state or local LE brings is put into the federal
  >system.
That may be true; but if the FBI internal affairs had reached a 
conclusion that Horuchi had carried out an "illegal order" he probably 
would have been handled differently.  By this statement I am not
justifying or condemning any person or agency.
CHARLES HUNTER
 * 1st 2.00 #9124 * Some days you're the bug, other days the windshield.
--- QScan/PCB v1.19b / 01-0671
---------------