Ashcroft Orders Libraries To Destroy Copies of Laws The American Library Association has refused the request
July 30 Statement from American Library Association President-Elect Michael Gorman: > Last week, the American Library Association learned that the Department of Justice asked the Government Printing Office Superintendent of Documents to instruct depository libraries to destroy five publications the Department has deemed not 'appropriate for external use.' The Department of Justice has called for these five public documents, two of which are texts of federal statutes, to be removed from depository libraries and destroyed, making their content available only to those with access to a law office or law library. The topics addressed in the named documents include information on how citizens can retrieve items that may have been confiscated by the government during an investigation. The documents to be removed and destroyed include: Civil and Criminal Forfeiture Procedure; Select Criminal Forfeiture Forms; Select Federal Asset Forfeiture Statutes; Asset forfeiture and money laundering resource directory; and Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 (CAFRA)." ALA has submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the withdrawn materials in order to obtain an official response from the Department of Justice regarding this unusual action, and why the Department has requested that documents that have been available to the public for as long as four years be removed from depository library collections. ALA is committed to ensuring that public documents remain available to the public and will do its best to bring about a satisfactory resolution of this matter. Librarians should note that, according to policy 72, written authorization from the Superintendent of Documents is required to remove any documents. To this date no such written authorization in hard copy has been issued. Keith Michael Fiels Executive Director American Library Association (800) 545-2433 ext.1392 ___________________________________________________ Why Ashcroft may want destroyed "Asset Forfeiture Laws" at Public Libraries by R. Striker ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): Under the Patriot, Ashcroft and other agencies can't confiscate property on a grand scale from U.S. Citizens, businesses and others until a "single provision" protecting the public is removed from Rep. Henry Hide’s passed "Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000." Provison affects USC 18 Forfeiture Statutes. Henry Hide's 2000 bill included a provision that was strongly resisted by the U.S. Justice Dept that states--if the U.S. Government attempts to seize an owner's property and fails, the U.S. Government must pay the owner's reasonable attorney fees and a limited amount of damages. This provision was included Hyde’s bill to stop government, police and paid informants from arbitrarily seizing property from U.S. Citizens using only a mere preponderance of evidence: Prior, (80%) of owners just gave up their property to "government forfeiture" because they could not afford to pay an attorney: Now more attorneys will defend an owner's property against government forfeiture because if they win, government must reimburse the property owner for reasonable attorney fees and damages. The public can now learn about "this innocent owner provision" and other forfeiture laws at public libraries without paying to consult an attorney-- provided Ashcroft does not have the forfeiture law books and guides destroyed. Ashcroft must get rid of this public protection provision under Title 18 before government agencies can begin asset forfeitures on a grand scale. There are over 200 federal forfeiture laws that have nothing to do with illegal-drugs. Currently quasi government agents and informants are paid up to 50% of an owner's forfeited property. In 2001 the "Nation" reported that DynCorp quasi-government agents were involved in seizing assets from 60,000 Americans. DynCorp’s asset forfeiture section was spun off in late 2003 to new corporate players, previously unknown to be working together according to the LA Times. Private mercenary quasi-government forfeiture agents and informants can make a fortune if Ashcroft gets Congress to remove the attorney reimbursement/damage provision in Hyde passed bill, "The Civil Asset Forfeiture Act of 2000." Currently forfeiture mercenaries and informants need only provide hearsay evidence to get up to 50% of a forfeited owner’s property. Under the Patriot Act, U.S. Government agencies can seize and civilly forfeit under Title 18, the assets of U.S. Citizens without providing the owner of the confiscated property, any evidence that his or her property was involved in a crime or violation that made their property subject to forfeiture: Under the Patriot U.S. Government need only provide a "mere preponderance of evidence" to civilly seize a citizen’s property while offering concurrently offering witnesses and informants 50% of the confiscation. Property owners have little or no chance to defend their property from forfeiture under such circumstances. The Patriot Act section "financial institutions" was expanded last month to include almost any business. This provision allows U.S. Government agencies to seize "proceeds deposited in financial institutions" and "Not have to trace where the proceeds came from." Other words, government agencies can under the Patriot Act seize someone's bank account without ever proving that the money was subject to asset forfeiture. And if a depositor(s) has removed his or her money prior, under the Patriot Act U.S. Government agencies can arbitrarily take the depositor’s other assets as substitution assets. This is what the Nazis did to the Jews and others. Often the Gestapo, a private quasi-Nazi Government organization just wanted someone's property. It didn't matter that a citizen or their property had not broken any laws. --------------- Little Bobby U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft was visiting an elementary school. After speaking for 15 minutes, he said, "I will now answer any questions you have." Bobby stood up and said: "I have four questions: 1. How did Bush win the election with fewer votes than Gore? 2. Why haven't you caught Osama bin Laden? 3. Why are you using the American Patriot Act to destroy civil liberties? 4. Where are the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?" Just then the bell went off and the kids were sent out to play. Upon returning, Mr. Ashcroft said: "I am sorry, we were interrupted. I will now answer any questions you have." A little girl called Julie stood up and said: "I have six questions: 1. How did Bush win the election with fewer votes than Gore? 2. Why haven't you caught Osama bin Laden? 3. Why are you using the American Patriot Act to destroy civil liberties? 4. Where are the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? 5. Why did the bell ring 20 minutes early? 6. Where is Bobby?"
