From: lucifer@dhp.com (Anonymous)Tired.Fighter@dhp.com
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 1996 18:25:27 -0800 (PST)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: denial of service and government rights
Message-ID: <199612010225.VAA05194@dhp.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



This thread is probably already due for a change in
the Subject line, but I'll leave it untouched for 
the moment.

On 30 Nov 96 at 13:10, Black Unicorn wrote:

> On Fri, 29 Nov 1996, Greg Broiles wrote:

> [...]
> 
> > I don't see any reason why this wouldn't be true for a
> > computer. Fed.Rul.Crim.Pro. 41(b)(1) allows the seizure 
> > (but seizure is not forfeiture) of "property that 
> > constitutes evidence of the commission of a
> > criminal offense". 
> 
> It is true of computers.
> Take the case of Ripco (the Chicago BBS raided in the 
> SunDevil raids back when).
> 
> I don't think "Dr. Ripco" has yet gotten his equipment 
> back.  I don't know for sure, but what I do know is 
> that 5 years after the raid, he still had certainly 
> not gotten anything back.
[....] 
> Recall also that Ripco was never specifically charged 
> (or the minor charges that they did try to pin didn't 
> stick).
> 
> Also recall that Ripco (now ripco.com) was raided with a
> -sealed- warrant. I dont think that the contents of that 
> warrant have, even today, been released (though I could 
> be mistaken).  Certainly 5 years after they had not.

[....]
> > But there's a big difference between "seizure" and 
> > "forfeiture".
> 
> I'd argue with computer hardware it is a distinction 
> without a difference. Seizing computer hardware (like 
> Ripco's stuff) for in excess of 5 years is tantamount
> to forfeiture given depreciation and so forth.
> 
> Add to this the very liberal rules about how long the 
> feds can take to even CHARGE you with a crime after 
> seizure....

And it sums to a very bleak picture, indeed.

[....]
> > So yes, there may be a statute which gives title to
> > the government in computers used to commit crimes, 
> > and no, the Supreme Court won't necessarily care 
> > about an "innocent owner".
> 
> Again, I would argue that such a statute needn't even 
> exist given the rules already well estlablished and 
> demonstrated in action with regard to indefinate 
> seizure of computer hardware even in the absence of 
> criminal claims against the owner.

Please forgive my naivete, but are there no legal
weapons available to the 'victims' in such cases?
I'm passingly familiar with the Operation Sundevil
fiasco -- i.e., with the outcome re the principal
'charges'.  I'm appalled, however, at the apparent 
lack of remedies for return of such seized property.
Are individuals who find themselves in such a 
predicament simply at the government's mercy (there's
an oxymoron for ya)??


Tired Fighter