fraud florida class-action professional-ethics entrapment
what if two words in a law or act are being used but are contradictory?
<p>specifically within the adam walsh act, in florida, it allows the ICAC to enact "proactive investigations" and this is how they avoid being pursued for entrapment.</p>

<p>Blacks law definitions</p>

<p>What is PROACTIVE?</p>

<p>A behaviour that focuses on results and actions rather than acting
when something happens.</p>

<p>What is INVESTIGATION?</p>

<p>A term that means to examine and to look at carefully, discover the
factor make a legal inquiry.</p>

<p>What is OPERATION?</p>

<p>In general, the exertion of power; the process of operating or mode of
action; an effect brought about in accordance with a definite plan.
See Little Rock v. Parish, 3G Ark. 100; Fleming Oil Co. v. South Peun
Oil Co., 37 W. Va. 053, 17 S. E. 203.</p>

<p>so an investigation, would be to observe only, and an operation is
when you do something. The actions of ICAC overreach the definition of
the term investigation, are not an investigation and cannot be defined
as such when interacting in the manner they do to do what they do. The
creation of a profile, fraudulent portrayal of ones self, and
coordination of multiple parties and agencies to guarantee a 100%
conviction rate to get as much funding and convictions as possible,
amounts to racketeering, continuing criminal enterprise, fraud and
entrapment under current law and legal definition as laid forth in
blacks law dictionary, and state statute.</p>

<p>please support all responses with case law, either federal or state of florida, or one of 17 states laws this act effects.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>what if two words in a law or act are being used but are contradictory?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Your post is unclear in that you did not link or cite any specific language of the section(s) or statute(s) that make you concerned, nor did you elaborate on "<em>the manner they do to do what they do</em>". Absent that context &amp; detail, it is impossible to come up with statutory or case law that addresses a concern so broad.</p>

<p>The excerpts of definitions included in your post do not lead to inconsistencies. For instance, the definition of <em>investigation</em> does not exclude the notion of conducting operations. Nor should the definition exclude that notion. In fact, certain operations are so intertwined with --and are so indispensable in-- the investigative process that it would be absurd to try separating them. At the very minimum, an investigator ought to conduct operations to the effect of securing or preserving evidence, lest its loss or deterioration render both process and conclusion unreliable.</p>

<p>The investigators' creation of a fake profiles is most likely intended to evidence a defendant's pattern of conduct. This is relevant in the prosecution of wrongs and crimes for which legislation requires proof of defendant's mental state. That type of operations would be illegal if, for instance, the investigators impersonated the defendant (such as in fabricating "evidence" that would seem self-incriminatory) or by procuring testimony from third parties with the investigator knowing or reasonably judging that such testimony would be false.</p>
