> This is not an honest reading of the article, which itself is of course slanted. > The warrant allowed the "nests" of boxes to be siezed, but not their conte

> This is not an honest reading of the article, which itself is of course slanted. > The warrant allowed the "nests" of boxes to be siezed, but not their contents. By omitting the part of the article that very clearly discusses this aspect, just one sentence below that, I put it to you that you are the dishonest one here. "In court filings, however, Gluck and other attorneys representing anonymous plaintiffs argue that the seizure of the nests "does not appear to be the government's true purpose here." "A reasonable person could easily conclude that taking and searching the contents of the boxes was the true purpose of the USPV seizure, not just an unintended but unavoidable byproduct as the government seeks to portray and justify it," they write. Do they think we are stupid? "We want to seize these useless shelves, because we don't have the legal authority to search the boxes. Oh, now we've moved the shelves, we get to look into the boxes! What a surprise!" They got a subpoena for something with _no informational value_ because they knew they could _abuse_ the law to look into and take things they had no right to take.