On 2006-Sep 01, at 14:27hrs PM, Gerhard Fiedler wrote: Jack Smith wrote: >> Which basically seems to mean that (at least in the US) people don't >> have a right against seizure without being (criminally) guilty of any >> wrongdoing. >> >> Is this correct? Anybody knows how this is handled in other >> countries? >> I always was under the (obviously innocent) impression that for the >> government (any democratic government) to be able to seize anything >> from me, I have to be guilty (beyond reasonable doubt) of / >> something/. > There are a host of matters that fall under "civil" law that can > result > in seizure. (I mean civil in the sense of not criminal, in the > traditional British and American legal systems.) > > For example, suppose you build an new room on your house. (This is a > true story recently covered in the local newspapers) And, suppose you > submit the plans to the county authorities and receive the proper > building permits. And, finally, suppose you build the new room in > exact > accordance with the plans you submitted. [...] I can see this, and I can even agree with that. If the law says (which it seems to) that the builder is responsible for complying with regulations, and if the construction doesn't, it's his responsibility to make it comply. It would be nice to have something like a "binding permit", ie. a permit that says that this is ok no matter what, but that's just shuffling responsibilities around. (Which then would be with the county, and any costs from lack of compliance would be paid by the taxpayer. Not a good solution either.) ^ How about the county authorities have to show a "compelling" reason why the construction causes a problem ? Otherwise, let it go , just let it be AGSC ^ But that's different from the police simply seizing something that is supposedly the product of a criminal activity, without being able to show that there in fact was any criminal activity. In my simple logic this says that if there is no proof of criminal activity, the byproduct is also not proven to be of a criminal activity... Seems like a double standard to me to say that something is a product of a criminal activity without being able to prove the criminal activity. Gerhard -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ AGSC Augustus Gustavius Salvatore Calabrese 4337 Raleigh Street Denver, CO 720 222 1309 303 908 7716 cell adding " spam2006 " bypasses my spam blocker. Please place in the text or at the END of the subject line. ( i am hard to reach by phone ) All ideas, text, drawings and audio , that are originated by me, and included with this signature text are to be deemed to be released to the public domain as of the date of this communication . AGSC ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist