 |
Uncensored Justice System Discussion
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
SaberGal
Joined: 12 Dec 2007
Posts: 349
Location: Oregon
|
 Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2008 12:15 am Post subject: Civil Asset Forfeiture |
 |
|
This is another serious issue that goes widely unnoticed by the general public but poses a serious threat to the rights of all of our citizens. It's frightening how easy it has become for the government to literally steal from its citizens (and I'm not talking about taxes). Our government is "legally" able to steal the lifesavings of honest, law abiding people without ever having to charge anyone with a crime - much less prove a crime was even committed.
http://isil.org/resources/lit/looting-of-america.html
_________________
"Evil triumphs when good men do nothing."
- E. Burke
__________________________________________
That's OK. I wasn't using my civil liberties anyway. (Insert rolly eye emoticon here) |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
JUSTICE1st
Joined: 13 Dec 2007
Posts: 715
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2008 1:24 pm Post subject: Re: Civil Asset Forfeiture |
|
|
| SaberGal wrote: | This is another serious issue that goes widely unnoticed by the general public but poses a serious threat to the rights of all of our citizens. It's frightening how easy it has become for the government to literally steal from its citizens (and I'm not talking about taxes). Our government is "legally" able to steal the lifesavings of honest, law abiding people without ever having to charge anyone with a crime - much less prove a crime was even committed.
http://isil.org/resources/lit/looting-of-america.html |
I couldn't agree more; and any average citizen who owns property of ANY kind is literally powerless if the government decides they're going to have it, whether the owner likes it or not.
I also don't think anyone's going to take enough notice unless TV news programs publicize this deplorable practice and call on our ELECTED public officials to cease this practice immediately. It's all very well and good to write articles and books, and it is a great way to outline the problems in great detail, and give the specific stories of massive injustice.
But we all know that just about everyone watches television nowadays, so we need to get these alarming trends of government confiscating citizens' property for NO good reason, without any good probable cause for doing so known to the public as quickly as possible. Programs like MSNBC's COUNTDOWN, THE ABRAMS REPORT, and CNN'S LOU DOBBS TONIGHT, take your pick. All of these programs are good places to begin, especially since their host anchors are known and outspoken (rightly so!) critics of government anyway.
J 
_________________
"We must remember, always, that accusation is not proof, and conviction depends on evidence and due process of law."
EDWARD R. MURROW, 1954 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SaberGal
Joined: 12 Dec 2007
Posts: 349
Location: Oregon
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 12, 2008 6:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
From Link http://members.aol.com/richrwg/aforfeit.htm
| Quote: |
THE LOOTING OF AMERICA:
Civil Asset Forfeiture
By Jarret Wollstein
[Reprinted from I.S.I.L. Educational Pamphlet Series, International Society for Individual Liberty, 1800 Market Street, San Francisco, CA 94102. (415) 864-0952. Jarret Wollstein is a Director of ISIL and the author of 300 published articles.]
"A police dog scratched at your luggage, so we're confiscating your life savings and you'll never get it back." In 1989, police stopped 49-year-old Ethel Hylton at Houston's Hobby Airport and told her she was under arrest because a drug dog had scratched at her luggage. Agents searched her bags and strip-searched her, but they found no drugs. They did find $39,110 in cash, money she had received from an insurance settlement and her life savings; accumulated through over 20 years of work as a hotel housekeeper and hospital janitor. Ethel Hylton completely documented where she got the money and was never charged with a crime. But the police kept her mojey anyway. Nearly four years later, she is still trying to get her money back.
Ethel Hylton is just one of a large and growing list of Americans - now numbering in the hundreds of thousands - who have been victimized by civil asset forfeiture. Under civil asset forfeiture, everything you own can be legally taken away even if you are never indicted, tried or convicted of a crime.
Suspicion of offenses which, if proven in court, might result in a $200 fine or probation, are being used to justify seizure of tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of property. Totally innocent Americans are losing their cars, homes and businesses, based on the claims of anonymous informants that illegal transactions took place on their property. Once property is seized, it is virtually impossible to get it back.
Property is now being seized in every state and from every class of Americans. Seizures include pocket money confiscated from public housing residents in Florida; cars taken away from men suspected of soliciting prostitutes in Oregon; and homes taken away from ordinary, middle-class Americans whose teenage children are accused of selling a few joints of marijuana. No person and no property is immune from seizure. You could be the next victim. Here are some examples:
* In Washington, D.C. police stop black men on the streets in poor areas of the city, and "routinely confiscate small amounts of cash and jewelry." Most confiscated property is not even recorded by police departments. "Resident Ben Davis calls it 'robbery with a badge.'" [USA Today, 5/18/92].
* In Iowa, "a woman accused of shoplifting a $25 sweater had her $18,000 car - specially equipped for her handicapped daughter - seized as the 'getaway vehicle.'" [USA Today, 5/18/92].
* In December 1988, Detroit drug police raided a grocery store, but failed to find any drugs. After drug dogs reacted to three $1.00 bills in the cash register, the police seized $4,384 from cash registers and the store safe. According to the Pittsburgh Press, over 92% of all cash in circulation in the U.S. now shows some drug residue.
* In April 1992, Dr. Joseph Disbrow was accused of practicing psychiatry without a license. His crime was providing counselling services from a spare bedroom in his mother's house in Monmouth, NJ. Counselling does not require a license in New Jersey. That didn't stop police from seizing virtually everything of value from his mother's home, totalling over $60,000. The forfeiture squad confiscated furniture, carpets, paintings, and even personal photographs.
* Kathy and Mark Schrama were arrested just before Christmas 1990 at their home in New Jersey. Kathy was charged with taking $500 worth of UPS packages from neighbors' porches. Mark was charged with receiving stolen goods. If found guilty, they might have paid a small fine and received probation. The day after their arrest, their house, cars and furniture were seized. Based upon mere accusation, $150,000 in property was confiscated, without trial or indictment. Police even took their clothing, eyeglasses, and Christmas presents for their 10-year-old son.
The incentive for government agencies to expand forfeiture is enormous. Agencies can easily seize property and they usually keep what they take. According to the Pittsburgh Press, 80% of seizure victims are never even charged with a crime. Law enforcement agencies often keep the best seized cars, watches and TVs for their "departments," and sell the rest.
How extensive are seizures in America today? In April 1990, The Washington Post reported that the U.S. Marshals Service alone had an inventory of over $1.4 billion in seized assets, including over 30,000 cars, boats, home and businesses. Federal and state agencies seizing property now include the FBI, the DEA, the U.S. Marshals Service, the Coast Guard, the IRS, local police, highway patrol, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, FDA, and the Bureau of Land Management. Asset forfeiture is a growth industry. Seizures have increased from $27 million in 1986, to over $644 million in 1991. In 1992, seizures may exceed $1 billion.
Civil asset forfeiture defines a new standard of justice in America; or more precisely, a new standard of injustice. Under civil seizure, property, not an individual is charged with an offense. Even if you are a totally innocent owner, the government can still confiscate your "guilty" property.
If government agents seize your property under civil asset forfeiture, you can forget about being innocent until proven guilty, due process of law, the right to an attorney, or even the right to trial. All these rights only exist of you are charged with a criminal offense; that is, with an offense which could result in your imprisonment. If you (or your property) are accused of a civil offense (offenses which could not result in your imprisonment), the Supreme Court has ruled that you have no presumption of innocence, no right to an attorney, and no protection from double jeopardy.
Seizure occurs when government takes away your property. Forfeiture is when legal title is permanently transferred to the state. To get seized property returned, you have to fight the full resources of your state or the federal government; sometimes both! You have to prove your property's "innocence" by documenting how you earned every cent used to pay for it. You have to prove that neither you nor any of your family members ever committed an illegal act involving the property. [Editor: How do you prove the absence of a negative?]
To get a trial, you have to post a nonrefundable "bond" of 10% of the value of your property. You have to pay attorney fees - ranging from $5,000 to over $100,000 - out of your own pocket. Money you pay your attorney is also subject to seizure (either before or after the trial) if the government alleges that those funds were "tainted." And you may be forced through trial after trial, because under civil seizure the Constitutional protection against "double jeopardy" doesn't apply. Once your property is seized, expect to spend years fighting government agencies and expect to be impoverished by legal fees - with no guarantee of winning - while the government keeps your car, home and bank account.
As bad as current asset forfeiture laws are, far worse is just ahead. Hundreds of expanded asset forfeiture bills are pending before Congress and state legislatures. The 1991 Omnibus Crime Bill (passed by Congress, but vetoed by President Bush for being "too soft" on crime), increases from six months to six-and-one-half years the time officials have to return "improperly seized" property to its rightful owners.
The 1992 Omnibus Crime Bill extends civil asset forfeiture to political dissent. Under this Bill, if "violence" occurs during a political activity, the assets of the sponsoring organization are subject to forfeiture. If a fist fight broke out during a union picket, all of the union's assets could be seized. Even before this Bill has passed, cars belonging to Operation Rescue demonstrators are being confiscated.
Civil asset forfeiture is the beginning of the end of justice in America. Current and pending laws give government agencies the legal right to loot at will. The threat of asset forfeiture can be used to intimidate businesses, silence dissent, and destroy families.
Some people are fighting back. A New Jersey-based group, Forfeiture Endangers American Rights (FEAR), is lobbying Congress and creating a national network of forfeiture defense attorneys. The Drug Policy Foundation and the Criminal Justice Policy Foundation are fighting existing and proposed asset forfeiture laws. And the Citizens for the Bill of Rights is engaging in grass roots education and organizing opposition on a state level. These groups need your help to succeed.
The fight against civil asset forfeiture is a battle against tyranny in America. If forfeiture squads continue to expand, liberty and justice in America will become a fading memory. We must stop government looters and restore the rule of law now. Tomorrow will be too late.
|
_________________
"Evil triumphs when good men do nothing."
- E. Burke
__________________________________________
That's OK. I wasn't using my civil liberties anyway. (Insert rolly eye emoticon here) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SaberGal
Joined: 12 Dec 2007
Posts: 349
Location: Oregon
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 12, 2008 6:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Ending the Abuse
While defense lawyers talk of reforming the law, agencies that initiate forfeiture scarcely talk at all. DEA headquarters makes a spectacle of busts like the seizure of fraternity houses at the University of Virginia in March. But it refuses to supply detailed information on the small cases that account for most of its activity. Local prosecutors are just as tight-lipped. Thomas Corbett, U.S. Attorney for Western Pennsylvania, seals court documents on forfeitures because "there are just some things I don't want to publicize. The person whose assets we seize will eventually know, and who else has to?"
Although some investigations need to be protected, there is an "inappropriate secrecy" spreading throughout the country, says Jeffrey Weiner, president-elect of the 25,000 member National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. "The Justice Department boasts of the few big fish they catch. But they throw a cloak of secrecy over the information on how many innocent people are getting swept up in the same seizure net, so no one can see the enormity of the atrocity." Terwilliger says the net catches the right people: "bad guys" as he calls them. But a 1990 Justice report on drug task forces in 15 states found they stayed away from the in-depth financial investigations needed to cripple major traffickers. Instead, "they're going for the easy stuff," says James "Chip" Coldren, Jr., executive director of the Bureau of Justice Assistance, a research arm of the federal Justice Department.
Lawyers who say the law needs to be changed start with the basics: The government shouldn't be allowed to take property until after it proves the owner guilty of a crime. But they go on to list other improvements, including having police abide by their state laws, which often don't give police as much latitude as the federal law. Now they can use federal courts to circumvent the state.
Mr. Tracy Thomas is caught in that very bind. A jurisprudence version of the shell game hides roughly $13,000 taken from Thomas, a resident of Chester, near Philadelphia. Thomas was visiting in his godson's home on Memorial Day, 1990, when local police entered looking for drugs allegedly sold by the godson. They found none and didn't file a criminal charge in the incident. But they seized $13,000 from Thomas, who works as a $70,000-a-year engineer, says his attorney, Clinton Johnson. The cash was left over from a Sheriff's sale he'd attended a few days before, court records show. The sale required cash - much like the government's own auctions.
During a hearing over the seized money, Thomas presented a withdrawal slip showing he'd removed money from his credit union shortly before the trip and a receipt showing how much he had paid for the property he'd bought at the sale. The balance was $13,000. On June 22, 1990, a state judge ordered Chester police to return Thomas' cash. They haven't. Just before the court order was issued, the police turned over the cash to the DEA for processing as a federal case, forcing Thomas to fight another level of government. Thomas is now suing the Chester police, the arresting officer, and the DEA. "When DEA took over that money, what they in effect told a local police department is that it's OK to break the law," says Clinton Johnson, attorney for Thomas.
Police manipulate the courts not only to make it harder on owners to recover property, but to make it easier for police to get a hefty share of any forfeited goods. In federal court, local police are guaranteed up to 80 percent of the take - a percentage that may be more than they'd receive under state law. Pennsylvania's leading police agency - the state police - and the state's lead prosecutor - the Attorney General - bickered for two years over state police taking cases to federal court, an arrangement that cut the Attorney General out of the sharing. The two state agencies now have a written agreement on how to divvy the take. The same debate is heard around the nation. The hallways outside Cleveland courtrooms ring with arguments over who will get what, says Jay Milano, a Cleveland criminal defense attorney. |
http://members.aol.com/richrwg/aforfeit.htm
_________________
"Evil triumphs when good men do nothing."
- E. Burke
__________________________________________
That's OK. I wasn't using my civil liberties anyway. (Insert rolly eye emoticon here) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SaberGal
Joined: 12 Dec 2007
Posts: 349
Location: Oregon
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 12, 2008 6:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Paying For Your Innocence
The Justice Department's Terwilliger says that in some cases "dumb judgement" may occasionally cause problems, but he believes there is an adequate solution. "That's why we have courts." But the notion that courts are a safeguard for citizens wrongly accused "is way off," says Thomas Kerner, a forfeiture lawyer in Boston. "Compared to forfeiture, David and Goliath was a fair fight." Starting from the moment that the government serves notice that it intends to take an item, until any court challenge is completed, "the government gets all the breaks," says Kerner. The government need only show probable cause for a seizure, a standard no greater than what is needed to get a search warrant. The lower standard means the government can take a home without any more evidence than it normally needs to take a look inside. Clients who challenge the government, says attorney Edward Hinson of Charlotte, N.C., "have the choice of fighting the full resources of the U.S. Treasury or caving in."
Barry Kolin caved in. Kolin watched Portland, Ore., police padlock the doors of Harvey's, his bar and restaurant for bookmaking on March 2. Earlier that day, eight police officers and Amy Holmes Hehn, the Multnomah County deputy district attorney, had swept into the bar, shooed out waitresses and customers and arrested Mike Kolin, Barry's brother and bartender, on suspicion of bookmaking. Nothing in the police documents mentioned Barry Kolin, and so the 40-year-old was stunned when authorities took his business, saying they believe he knew about the betting. He denied it.
Hehn concedes she did not have the evidence to press a criminal case against Barry Kolin, "so we seized the business civilly." During a recess in a hearing on the seizures weeks later, "the deputy DA says if I paid them $30,000 I could open up again," Kolin recalls. When the deal dropped to $10,000, Kolin took it. Kolin's lawyer, Jenny Cooke, calls the seizure "extortion." She says: "There is no difference between what the police did to Barry Kolin or what Al Capone did in Chicago when he walked in and said, 'This is a nice little bar and it's mine.' The only difference is today they call this civil forfeiture." |
http://members.aol.com/richrwg/aforfeit.htm
_________________
"Evil triumphs when good men do nothing."
- E. Burke
__________________________________________
That's OK. I wasn't using my civil liberties anyway. (Insert rolly eye emoticon here) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JUSTICE1st
Joined: 13 Dec 2007
Posts: 715
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 12, 2008 7:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SaberGal wrote: | | Quote: | Paying For Your Innocence
The Justice Department's Terwilliger says that in some cases "dumb judgement" may occasionally cause problems, but he believes there is an adequate solution. "That's why we have courts." But the notion that courts are a safeguard for citizens wrongly accused "is way off," says Thomas Kerner, a forfeiture lawyer in Boston. "Compared to forfeiture, David and Goliath was a fair fight." Starting from the moment that the government serves notice that it intends to take an item, until any court challenge is completed, "the government gets all the breaks," says Kerner. The government need only show probable cause for a seizure, a standard no greater than what is needed to get a search warrant. The lower standard means the government can take a home without any more evidence than it normally needs to take a look inside. Clients who challenge the government, says attorney Edward Hinson of Charlotte, N.C., "have the choice of fighting the full resources of the U.S. Treasury or caving in."
Barry Kolin caved in. Kolin watched Portland, Ore., police padlock the doors of Harvey's, his bar and restaurant for bookmaking on March 2. Earlier that day, eight police officers and Amy Holmes Hehn, the Multnomah County deputy district attorney, had swept into the bar, shooed out waitresses and customers and arrested Mike Kolin, Barry's brother and bartender, on suspicion of bookmaking. Nothing in the police documents mentioned Barry Kolin, and so the 40-year-old was stunned when authorities took his business, saying they believe he knew about the betting. He denied it.
Hehn concedes she did not have the evidence to press a criminal case against Barry Kolin, "so we seized the business civilly." During a recess in a hearing on the seizures weeks later, "the deputy DA says if I paid them $30,000 I could open up again," Kolin recalls. When the deal dropped to $10,000, Kolin took it. Kolin's lawyer, Jenny Cooke, calls the seizure "extortion." She says: "There is no difference between what the police did to Barry Kolin or what Al Capone did in Chicago when he walked in and said, 'This is a nice little bar and it's mine.' The only difference is today they call this civil forfeiture." |
http://members.aol.com/richrwg/aforfeit.htm |
Thanks, Saber! As I said previously, this is an OUTRAGE, and it shouldn't be tolerated by citizens!
That being said, I still think this outright robbery by our government officials isn't going to stop until it is exposed by the majority of the broadcast media. You know, the "evil liberal media," which the right-wing statist crowd is so fond of demonizing. The MSNBC programs COUNTDOWN and THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW would be good places to start.
The right-wing crowd demonizes the "liberal media" because it does what they're afraid of; EXPOSES dirty little tricks perpetrated on average and non-wealthy citizens by the agents of government, that would otherwise go unnoticed. Gerry Spence, in one of his books (I forget which one) referred to the media as "the leopards in the night." It was a perfectly accurate description. I'll have to find the exact reference and how it was used, as it's been a while since I last read it. 
J
_________________
"We must remember, always, that accusation is not proof, and conviction depends on evidence and due process of law."
EDWARD R. MURROW, 1954 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
