Avoid Delta and Atlanta

On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 13:16:45 -0400, Karen Selwyn
wrote:

mrtravel wrote:


In civil matters "proof" is not a criterion.


Really? There is no need for evidence?

Hatunen was subtly riffing on Mixi's ignorance of the law. The standard
of proof for a civil trial is "preponderance of evidence." That's a
different standard than the more-familiar "beyond a resonable doubt"
associated with criminal law.

Neither of which constitutes "proof".

************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 22:22:50 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

Karen Selwyn writes:

Hatunen was subtly riffing on Mixi's ignorance of the law. The standard
of proof for a civil trial is "preponderance of evidence."

There is no trial for civil forfeiture.

A trial is not an essential component of due process.

************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

Define "abroad".

other countries

On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 10:01:23 -0700, Hatunen wrote:
So Mexico and Canada and the Caribbean islands are "abroad", even
for Americans.

And France is abroad for Germans?

On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 10:49:41 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

Carole Allen writes:

Are you talking about personal property, real property?

Both. If the government suspects that property belongs to someone
thought to be dealing drugs, for example, it will assume that the
property represents the spoils of drug-dealing and will seize it
without any due process.

On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 11:28:54 +0200, Dave Frightens Me
wrote:
That is not a civil matter, it's criminal.
--
---
Actually, in the US it is a civil forfeiture. But he has it
backwards. If someone is arrested and charged with drug dealing, say
he has a pot farm in his garage, 100 plants or so, the plants will be
taken as evidence. After a conviction (either by trial or plea) AND
sentencing, the state may commence civil forfeiture proceedings
against the house, which are an entirely separate legal action
(different case number, different government entities involved), and
which are subject to the laws of the applicable jurisdiction. They
don't just arrest you and take your house upon "suspicion." This
also applies to cars, boats, etc. But the forfeiture happens after
sentencing, not while charges are only pending.

Now, if you have a prior conviction which carried as an additional
condition of your sentencing that you not possess firearms (ever
again, for the rest of your life) , and you are arrested for speeding
or shoplifting, or whatever, or and you have a gun in your possession,
they WILL take the gun, and you won't get it back, and you will
probably be charged with something like UPFA (Unlawful Possession of a
Firearm). Or your friend or roommate has a gun and he gets busted and
you are in the car with him and it, you are still in violation of the
firearm prohibition.

They don't confiscate your property if you are charged with child
molestation in your livingroom. Civil forfeiture pretty much follows
drugs - pot farms, meth labs, using a house to run a significant size
drug selling ring, etc. Or a boat to run drugs. And it doesn't
happen in every single case.

define government:
US (federal)
state
UK
France
Germany
Saudi Arabia
etc., etc.

government is a pretty vague concept

Tchiowa writes:

That's because property can't commit a crime. But the civil forfeiture
is a result of the criminal conduct. And it all has to be approved by a
judge.

On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 12:24:25 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:
Criminal conduct is decided by a jury, not a judge. And civil
forfeiture occurs before anything is proved by anyone. Therefore, no
due process.

--
No numbnuts. If by "criminal conduct" you mean guilt or innnocence,
many of these cases are decided a a judge. Yes, in the US a defendant
is entitled to a jury trial if he so chooses. OR he can waive that
right and plead (usually he will do so if offered a lesser charge), OR
he can waive his right to jury and opt for a bench trial in which the
judge is the sole fact-finder. Many defendants do in fact choose a
bench trial. Every criminal trial is NOT a jury trial. It is up to
the defendant to forego one if he so wishes.

And civil forfeiture occurs AFTER conviction and sentencing. The
state (through the county prosecutor) files and prosecutes the
criminal case, and a criminal defense attorney represents the
defendant. The local property taxing district (if it is real
property), such as a city attorney (NOT the county attorney) files a
SEPARATE civil lawsuit, diferent case number, different category of
case, different parties in fact, in which the "party" named is the
"property;" this is a civil lawsuit seeking to have the property
forfeited - i.e., turned over to that government entity. The property
owner is entitled to a full and fair adjudicative hearing before a
judge on this issue. No forfeiture order is signed without the
opportunity for such a hearing. The property owner may choose to
waive this hearing and stipulate to the forfeiture.

I KNOW how this works beause I have sat through these in open court.
The property owner gets due process up the ying-yang.

On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 18:16:59 GMT, mrtravel
wrote:
Is there no proof associated with "perpderence of evidence"?

The usual phrasing is "burden of proof"

in criminal cases beyond a reasonable doubt

in civil cases preponderance of the evidence

Karen Selwyn writes:

Hatunen was subtly riffing on Mixi's ignorance of the law. The standard
of proof for a civil trial is "preponderance of evidence."

On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 22:22:50 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote:
There is no trial for civil forfeiture.

--
Tell that to my judge, and others, who have conducted them. You are
so full of sh..... where do you get these ideas?

On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 03:07:49 GMT, (Carole
Allen) wrote:




Define "abroad".

other countries

On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 10:01:23 -0700, Hatunen wrote:
So Mexico and Canada and the Caribbean islands are "abroad", even
for Americans.

And France is abroad for Germans?

Apparently.

************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 22:39:24 +0100, "JohnT"
wrote:
Mixi is right. I don't have cable TV. But he seems to have nothing on the
list except a computer and a cellphone. Not that he would describe himself
as average.

JohnT

But he has that watch he can program to the nano-second. And he has
more than one computer, no?

"Carole Allen" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 22:39:24 +0100, "JohnT"
wrote:
Mixi is right. I don't have cable TV. But he seems to have nothing on the
list except a computer and a cellphone. Not that he would describe himself
as average.

JohnT

But he has that watch he can program to the nano-second. And he has
more than one computer, no?

I hate to have to admit this, but I have a Junghans watch which synchronises
with the MSF transmitter (it is 10 years old). And I have both a computer
and a PDA. At which point the comparison with Mixi is at an end. Rumour hath
it that he is finding Paris too hot in the Summer and is thinking of
relocating to Seattle.

JohnT