|
|
| Forfeiting Liberty |
|
Posted by FoM on March 01, 2000 at 14:52:20 PT Editorials & Opinions Source: Detroit News 
The U.S. government has the power to seize American citizens’ property without a finding that the citizens are guilty of a crime . Tomorrow, the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee considers legislation to rein in this power. There will be an attempt to water down this legislation with a weaker alternative. The attempt should be resisted.
For the past several years, newspapers have been filled with horror stories about innocent citizens or companies who have had their cash or assets seized because they were somehow involved with actual criminals. In one case, a California computer chip company had nearly $300,000 seized because one of its buyers was engaged in a fraud that had nothing to do with the company. It took the firm six years to get its money back. The government has the power to seize property on the basis of “probable cause” that the property is involved in a crime. This is known as “civil forfeiture.” Probable cause is the lowest legal standard necessary for police to act. Not only is it not required for the owners of the property to be convicted of a crime, but once the property is seized, the burden is on the owners to prove that it was not used for illegal purposes or purchased with ill-gotten gains. Law enforcement agencies are also allowed to sell seized property and use the proceeds to bolster their own budgets. This situation upends the presumption of innocence and creates financial incentives for government to abuse its seizure power. The House last year passed a strong bill, written by Rep. Henry Hyde, R-Ill., and co-sponsored by Detroit’s Rep. John Conyers, to raise the legal standard needed for seizure and give innocent citizens more rights in reclaiming their property. The Senate committee will consider legislation that waters down the House bill, but still affords citizens more protection against government seizures. This bill is sponsored by Sens. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and Patrick Leahy, D-Vt. It is supported by such conservatives as Reagan administration Atty. Gen. Edwin Meese and Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork. But it is also supported by an array of Lyndon Johnson and Jimmy Carter attorneys general, such as Nicholas Katzenbach, Griffin Bell and Benjamin Civiletti. Opponents of the Hatch-Leahy compromise, however, will attempt to water it down still further, while giving government yet new powers to seize property. This attempt is backed by the Justice Department and is part of legislation proposed by Sens. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., and Jeff Sessions, R-Ala. They are expected to try to amend the Hatch-Leahy bill with their own tomorrow. Reps. Hyde and Conyers had it right. At the least, the Senate Judiciary Committee members, including Michigan Republican Spence Abraham, should adopt the Hatch-Leahy bill. The government has too much arbitrary power to take citizens’ property without proving a criminal case against them. That’s not what this country is supposed to be about.
E-mail us at letters@detnews.com Published: March 1, 2000 Editorial: Amend Civil Forfeiture Forfeitures and Fairness Action Alert - S. 1931 - Civil Forfeiture Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help |
 |
| Comment #5 posted by observer on March 01, 2000 at 17:57:29 PT |
Yes ... this is stealing, plain and simple. But the good people need to think otherwise, so we have euphemized this naked theft as "forfeiture". Since it is happening to America's selected scapegoats (*those* people: those "evil" drug users), many people feel justified. Still, they only fool themselves. It is theft to steal a person's property simply because he was using a certain substance. It was stealing before 20th century US drug laws, anyway. Governments may rename stealing to "forfeiture", but that only changed the name. Stealing is stealing.
> The Rampart Files Series from ABC News
Has anyone here read "L.A. Secret Police (Inside the Elite LAPD Spy Network)" by Mike Rothmiller and Ivan G. Goldman? http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0671796577/Cannabisnews/ This book was written in 1992 ... but details the culture of corruption that permeates and oozes from every facet of the LAPD. (I remember one ex-LAPD detective told me after the Rodney King beating, "What's the big deal? We always `thump' them after a chase!"). Shocking at it may semm, the Rampart behavior was the rule, it was not the exception.
You may be able to find the book (used), here:
Quite an eye-opener! In that book, Rothmiller indicates the behaviour recently revealed in the LAPD Rampart division is Standard Operating Procedure for the LAPD and local PDs across the nation...
| Comment #4 posted by Wabo on March 01, 2000 at 17:54:33 PT |
And Barry says it ain't a war.
"Har, me laddies. Stand to and hoist the Jolly Roger. The blighters have a Winnebago."
| Comment #3 posted by FoM on March 01, 2000 at 16:29:35 PT |
The Rampart Files
LAPD Issues Rampart Report
By Cynthia Webb
The Associated Press
Los Angeles:
ABCNews
http://abcnews.go.com/
Web Posted : March 1, 2000
Copyright ©2000 ABC News Internet Ventures.
Poor supervision and a clique culture that encouraged officers to break rules contributed to the worst scandal in Los Angeles police history and could take years and millions to resolve, department investigators concluded.
Click the link to read the series.
http://pub6.ezboard.com/fdpt19501dp.showMessage?topicID=23.topic
| Comment #2 posted by kaptinemo on March 01, 2000 at 15:22:44 PT |
Perhaps we should ask George Soros, the man hwo gave prop215 some money, if he would underwrite a commercial along the "This is your brain" line.
Something like this: Voice over: This is the government. [Policeman breaks window of house, climbs in with flashlight and duffel bag.]
Voice over: This is government's forfeiture laws. [Cop ransacking house, taking valuables, stuffing them in duffel bag.] Pan right to wide eyed homeowner standing aghast at cop's stealing everything in sight. Yells to someone upstairs, 'Call 911!'
[Cop sneeringly replies] 'Don't bother, I'm already here.'
[Burglar cop walks up to homeowner, gets in his face.] 'And what are you going to do about it?'
[Cop walks out of front door with duffel bag slung over his shoulder, turns to homeowner standing in doorway and says] 'We'll be back for the house next week.'
Voice over: Any questions?
| Comment #1 posted by greenfox on March 01, 2000 at 15:15:12 PT |
Opperation MIndrime
| Post Comment |  |
|  |