From: Bill Lucy 

In article <39103fc2$1{at}w3.nls.net>, billy-m{at}pacbell.net says...
> It was a major topic of discussion on the cable channels for the first
> couple of days following the morning of the raid. The venue was typical
> point-counterpoint, with WH detractors denouncing the lack of a warrant and
> apologists defending the raid in spite of not having a warrant.

It seems that parties on both sides didn't have the facts. I don't watch
those shows very much for that reason. At least the "apologists"
understood that a warrant wasn't necessary.

> To this day, there are unanswered questions surrounding the warrant.

Including the one I asked you.

> For
> example, it had nothing to do with the custody point you have been making
> and was issued as an "arrest" warrant for Elian for being an
"illegal
> alien", which he was not. Also, it appears that false information was given
> by the government in order to justify it. Finally, it appears that the
> district Judge who would normally be responsible for the case was purposely
> avoided insofar as they waited until 7:30PM the Friday before the morning of
> the raid (where he would be definitely unavailable) and instead used a
> magistrate known to be friendly to the government.

Now you're working from the Linda Chavez playbook. This is almost word for
word what she said in her column.

It appears I was correct -- you haven't seen the warrant. You seem to be
relying on a single column by a columnist not known for getting her facts
right.

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5