|
|
|
Notice of Arrest and Seizure William H. Edwards, III is a United States Marshal. On July 29, 1998, Edwards arrested $89,292.04, in United States Currency, belonging to Morgan, Stanley, Dean Whitter, Discover and Company. Civil Action No. CV-98-P-1855-J. The property was seized on a verified complaint for forfeiture. A verified complaint is nothing more than a piece of paper that declares, something is true - one of those "he said - she said," deals. The difference being, the defendant does not get an opportunity to present his/her side of the story, before the seizure takes place. Did somebody say, what about due process? The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution forbid the government, state or any subdivision thereof from taking a person's property without providing that person with due process of law. The interpretation of English Lord Coke, English Jurist Blackstone, and U.S. Supreme Court Justice Storey confirmed that the clause drew its true meaning from the phrase "Law of the Land" contained in the Magna Carta. Due process originally meant, that before the government could take action against a citizen, the government must first give the citizen notice of the action against him/her and also provide a meaningful opportunity to present his/her side of the story. According to the United States Supreme Court, "The requirement of 'due process' is not a fair weather or timid assurance. It must be respected in periods of calm and in times of trouble; it protects aliens as well as citizens. But 'due process,' unlike some legal rules, is not a technical conception with a fixed content unrelated to time, place and circumstances." Continuing to errode human rights, the United States Supreme Court further declared that, "due process cannot be imprisoned within the treacherous limits of any formula. Due process is not a mechanical instrument. It is not a yardstick. It is a delicate process of adjustment inescapably involving the exercise of judgment by those whom the Constitution entrusted with the unfolding of the process." In other words, by the courts interpretation, the courts are free to interpret and apply due process in any way, form or fashion the court chooses. The concept of suing money, exemplified by this case, is amusing and incredible. No doubt, the evolving concepts the courts have applied to "due process" encourage the kinds of frivolous and incredible actions illustrated here. Interestingly, the state or government entity can sue and confiscate a citizen's property, applying the loose knit, due process rules, but a citizen cannot sue the state. Another court-made rule called, "Absolute or Sovereign Immunity" prohibits a citizen from suing the state, even in cases of wrongful seizure. How is that for fair play? But that is another story, in the continuing saga of the rise and fall of human rights in America. |
   |
|
