of forfeitable assets, it does not specify the manner in which the Court must act if it concludes that action to preserve the availability of forfeitable assets is warranted, nor does it expressly authorize or require ex parte orders directing the seizure of presumptively protected expressive materials. The mere fact that § 1963 may be applied in a manner that results in an unconstitutional prior restraint does not render that section unconstitutional on its face. In resolving challenges to the facial validity of a federal statute, a guiding principle is that a court must “first ascertain whether a construction of the statute is fairly possible by which the question may be avoided.” United States v. Thirty-Seven Photographs, 402 U.S. 363, 369, 91 S.Ct. 1400, 1404, 28 L.Ed.2d 822 (1971) (<HOLDING>). With that principle in mind, the Supreme
holding of 6 justices holding that the disciplinary rules of the code of professional responsibility are not laws of the state of texas for purposes of statute which excludes the admission of evidence obtained in violation of law holding that denial of receipt of notice of trial did not rebut presumption of trial courts certificate of mailing of notice requiring an evidentiary hearing holding that the relevant time of inquiry is the date of the filing of the complaint holding that care of the grounds was part of the business of the hospital