3 ms·
I think at best you could argue the people who wrote the law didn't actually know what seized means, which is more worrying. But i would say that taking public
by cortic 4y ago
I think at best you could argue the people who wrote the law didn't actually know what seized means, which is more worrying.
But i would say that taking public keys doesn't fulfill the "removes property from an individual's possession" in the law.cornell.edu link. There is no way to 'remove property from an individual's possession" while "leaving property in an individual's possession" at the same time. And if you are have done the second one of those things then you have failed to do the first.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago> the people who wrote the law didn't actually know what seized means Rooms full of lawyers getting a legal definition wrong for centuries across multiple jurisdictions is more likely than you misunderstanding a technical term? > no way to 'remove property from an individual's possession" while "leaving property in an individual's possession" at the same time Yes, there is. Possession involves control or ownership [1]. One can own something without controlling it and vice versa. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/possession https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/possession