[raygun]

Think 'bout it: it could be worse. Supposing somebody wanted to excercise their 1st ammendments rights using their own property, and because that activity ran afoul of the party line, their property was zeized and held in contempt of court as a result.

Now there are two seperate actionable items before the court: one the charge against the individual respecting their 1st ammendment rights, and the second that will levied against their property.

So if the individual has 50 tons of silver that has been assayed, and guaranteed to be .999 pure, will have its day in court. However, nevertheless, and that notwithstanding, the rights afforded Man do not apply to that of property. And so the property will have to prove its innocence in accordance to the levels of proof required by criminal cases (as opposed to civil cases).

[Smokin' Joe]

So if the individual has 50 tons of silver that has been assayed, and guaranteed to be .999 pure, will have its day in court. However, nevertheless, and that notwithstanding, the rights afforded Man do not apply to that of property. And so the property will have to prove its innocence in accordance to the levels of proof required by criminal cases (as opposed to civil cases).

IOW, it is likely the metals siezed will not return to the folks they were siezed from...(I'm so surprized! /s)