[08-15]

Not at the behest of The People? What a weird court.

But more importantly, "to seize" means to "take possession", doesn't it? And you need a license to possess a teletherapy machine, for the very good reason that the damn thing is dangerous. IGR had a license. The bureaucrats didn't. Neither did the new site owner, landlord, whatever you want to call them. They still took possession, by force.

Property rights are a set of rules. Nuclear safety regulations are a set of rules. These are not the same kind of rules, though. Not understanding the difference kills people. The court didn't understand the difference.

[dredmorbius]

In this case, the dispute appears to have been a civil one between parties contesting control over the property: the former clinic operator and the landlord/owners of the property, the St. Vincent de Paul Society. The people had no advocate at that proceeding, and the court and authorities were unpersuaded by IGR and Carlos Figueiredo Bezerril.

Courts are normally given all but total immunity in all jurisdictions. I'd argue that the court and SVdP were criminally negligent here.

(I'm just reading these details now through the Wikipedia article. I'm interested in a more complete report, because quite clearly things were fouled up quite badly.)