-Caveat Lector- <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/"> </A> -Cui Bono?- Some Islamic countries impose Draconian penalties on men who approach and talk to women in public. In Washington, D.C., Portland, Oregon, and Hartford, Connecticut, police confiscate the cars of men who drive up and suggest a "capitalist act between consenting adults" to streetwalkers. Customs Service officials in Texas seized a $138,000 Lear jet after discovering that the owner had made a typographical error on paperwork he submitted to the Federal Aviation Administration.[35] (The FAA's usual response to such a mistake is to require the owner to correct the form.) The Immigration and Naturalization Service has seized over 30,000 cars and trucks since 1990 from either people helping illegal immigrants enter the United States or construction companies transporting illegal immigrants to job sites .[36] Customs agents confiscated the $113,000 that a Vietnamese mother had collected from 20 families in the Seattle area to take back to Vietnam for humanitarian relief for their relatives.[37] (Customs officials pronounced the woman guilty of violating the Trading with the Enemy Act.) A New Jersey mother's Oldsmobile was confiscated by police after they alleged that her son had used it to drive to a store where he shoplifted a pair of pants.[38] One New York businessman was forced to forfeit all of his gas stations because of a failure to pay New York sales tax.[39] A New Jersey construction company had all its equipment seized after state officials decided that the company was technically ineligible to bid on three municipal projects that it had already completed.[40] Suffolk County, New York, legislators considered a law in 1993 to allow local officials to confiscate the "cars, boats and planes used in connection with any misdemeanor."[41] Asset confiscation programs are creating thousands of new police informants. The Justice Department routinely gives monetary rewards to individuals who report information or make accusations that lead to a seizure. The forfeiture program thus turns many airline ticket agents into conspirators with the government, since anyone who pays cash for an airline ticket stands a chance of being reported as a suspected drug dealer or an accomplice to drug dealing. Perverse Incentives Forfeiture is the biggest growth area in law enforcement partly because federal and local police agencies usually keep a large amount of the booty they seize. Federal Judge Richard Arnold noted in 1992 that some observers were questioning "whether we are seeing fair and effective law enforcement or an insatiable appetite for a source for increased agency revenue."[42] In Nueces County, Texas, Sheriff James Hickey used assets from a federal drug forfeiture fund to grant himself a retroactive $48,000 salary increase just before retirement ($400 a month for the previous ten years). The sheriff was indicted for embezzlement by a federal grand jury in August 1993.[43] Even internal government documents concede that federal agents have gone overboard: a September 1992 Justice Department news letter noted, "Like children in a candy shop, the law enforcement community chose all manner and method of seizing and forfeiting property, gorging ourselves in an effort which soon came to resemble one designed to raise revenues."[44] Prosecutors and legislators stack the deck against property rights. A 1990 Justice Department directive declared, "It is the Department's position that no advance notice or opportunity for an adversary hearing is statutorily or constitutionally required prior to the seizure of property, including real property."[45] Professor Claudio Riedi noted in 1992 in the University of Miami Law Review, "Frequently, the government can meet its burden of proof by simply qualifying one of its detectives as an expert, who then testifies that a particular way of bundling money is typical for drug dealers. Standing alone, such testimony may be enough for a showing of probable cause, and may therefore entitle the government to forfeiture. In contrast, an innocent owner must adduce massive evidence to prove her case."[46] The Orlando Sentinel noted, "Deputies routinely said bills in denominations of $1, $5, $10, $20, $50, and $100 were suspicious because they are typical of what dealers carry. But that leaves few alternatives for others."[47] In most forfeiture court proceedings, it is up to the owner to prove that his house, his car, or the cash in his wallet was legally obtained--the government has no obligation to prove that the property is guilty. The fact that a government official makes an unsubstantiated assertion that a piece of property was somehow involved in illicit activity effectively transfers the ownership of that property to the government. Asset forfeiture is proliferating in part because of a technicality in the law that allows the government to claim that it is suing only the item of property, not the property's owner. This is why forfeiture cases often have peculiar titles such as "U.S. v. 1960 bags of coffee," "U.S. vs. 9.6 acres of land and lake," or "U.S. vs. 667 bottles of wine." And since the Bill of Rights recognizes the rights only of citizens and state governments, not the rights of chunks of land or bottles of wine, there are almost no due process restrictions on government's attacks on property. A federal appeals court recognized this when it announced in August 1992: "We continue to be enormously troubled by the government's increasing and virtually unchecked use of the civil forfeiture statutes and the disregard for due process that is buried in those statutes."[48] The citizen must show vastly more evidence to reclaim his property than the government did to seize it in the first place. Government officials routinely refuse to return seized property even after an accused person has been tried and found innocent. The costs of suing the government to recover property are extremely high, routinely exceeding $10,000, and citizens must post a bond of up to $5,000 before filing suit. (The bond is required to cover the government's legal costs in having to defend against a property owner's efforts to reclaim his property.) The legal battles required to recover wrongfully seized property often take two, three, or more years. If the property seized is only worth a few hundred dollars, the person cannot possibly break even by suing the government. Most forfeiture statutes deny a private citizen any compensation for his attorney's fees when he successfully reclaims forfeited property. No End in Sight Although the number of asset forfeiture actions has skyrocketed in recent years, Justice Department officials apparently believe that the seizure bull market has only just begun. Cary H. Copeland, director of the Department of Justice's Executive Office for Asset Forfeiture, declared at a June 1993 congressional hearing: "Asset forfeiture is still in its relative infancy as a law enforcement program."[49] The Federal Bureau of Investigation announced in 1992 that it anticipated that its total seizures of private property would increase 25 percent each year for the following three years.[50] The Supreme Court marginally limited government forfeiture powers in several 1993 decisions, but Justice Department spokesman Mark Sakaley indicated that the decisions were not expected to have a major impact on forfeiture programs. Mr. Copeland declared that asset forfeiture "is to the drug war what smart bombs and air power are to modern warfare.''[51] Asset forfeiture basically allows government agencies to carpet bomb the rights of the American people. The Federal Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals complained in 1992 that it was "troubled by the government's view that any property, whether it be a hobo's hovel or the Empire State Building, can be seized by the government because the owner, regardless of his or her past criminal record, engages in a single drug transaction."[52] Conclusions and Implications Law enforcement in the United States is reverting back toward conditions existing in England before the Magna Carta, when rulers almost automatically seized all the property of any person convicted of a felony. Such seizures spurred English barons to force King John to limit his powers in 1215.[53] Unfortunately, some federal officials appear to cherish a pre-thirteenth century philosophy of government power. (A 1992 U.S. Solicitor General's brief quoted the Old Testament and praised forfeiture as an "ancient punishment.")[54] Asset forfeiture provisions presume that government officials should have the power to inflict economic capital punishment on private citizens for the breaking of scores of laws. Many civil libertarians believed that the liberal Clinton administration and Attorney General Janet Reno would correct some of the most overt abuses in the forfeiture program. However, Reno has continually postponed substantive reform and even derailed a bipartisan liberal-conservative congressional effort to reform the forfeiture law. Instead, Reno's Justice Department has put forward its own "reform" proposal that has been derided as a "prosecutor's wish list" by forfeiture expert David Smith. The asset seizure controversy redefines the relation between the State and the citizen: what pretext does the State need to claim that a citizen's property actually belongs to the State? Do people have a right to their property only until some "secret informant" tells police something bad about the citizen's use of his property? If Congress proposed to forcibly alter all private deeds and titles in the United States by adding a clause stating that the government acquires automatic ownership rights if any law enforcement official hears a rumor about a property's possible illicit use, the public backlash would raze Capitol Hill. But, increasingly, that is the law of the land. End Notes 1. The federal government had possessed limited seizure powers since 1789, but these were limited to areas such as smuggling and customs evasion. Return 2. Cary Copeland, "Civil Forfeiture for the Non-Lawyer," U.S. Department of Justice. Bureau of Justice Assistance Forfeiture Project, Spring 1992. Return 3. Brief of the Institute for Justice in the case of U.S. vs. "James Daniel Good Real Property, et al.," No. 92-1180. Return 4. In California alone, more than $180 million worth of property has been forfeited since 1989 under a state forfeiture law. Gary Webb, "Police lobbying to save state asset forfeiture law," San Jose Mercury News, September 7, 1993. Return 5. Interview with Steven Kessler, September 21, 1993. Kessler's study on forfeiture is titled "Civil and Criminal Forfeiture: Federal and State Practice" (New York: Clark, Boardman and Callaghan, 1993). Return 6. Lynne Marek, "Hyde Seeks to Curb Property Seizures by U.S.," Chicago Tribune, June 16, 1993. Return 7. Paul Kirby, "S.C. Woman: Criminal Asset Forfeiture Program Needs Reforms," States News Service, June 22, 1993. Return 8. Paul Finkelman, "The Latest Front in the War on Drugs: The First Amendment," Drug Law Report, March-April 1991. Return 9. "Willie Jones v. U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration," 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5409 (April 23, 1993). Return 10. Andrew Schneider and Mary Pat Flaherty, "Police Profit by Seizing Homes of Innocent," Pittsburgh Press, August 12, 1991. Return 11. Christopher Elser, "Two Admit Growing in Marijuana at Home," Allentown (Pa.) Morning Call, March 16, 1995. Return 12. Gary Fields, "'Robbery with a Badge' in the Nation's Capital," USA Today, May 18, 1992. Return 13. Ibid. Return 14. Jeff Brazil and Steve Berry, "Tainted cash or easy money?" Orlando Sentinel, various dates, 1992. The series of articles won the 1993 Pulitzer Prize. Return 15. "Weeks After Seizing Pickups, Feds Still Mum About Charges," Livestock Weekly, May 21, 1992. Return 16. Interview with Anthony Nicholas, counsel for the Smiths, July 31, 1993. Return 17. Written statement of W. B. Smith, December 1992. Return 18. U.S. Congress, House Government Operations Com- mittee, "Asset Forfeiture," June 22, 1993. Written statement submitted by Nancy Hollander, p. 9. Return 19. Andrew Schneider and Mary Pat Flaherty, "Government Seizures Victimize Innocent." Pittsburgh Press, August ll, 1991. Return 20. Phil Reeves, "Gun Law Claims a Rich Recluse," The Independent, October 18, 1992. Return 21. Editorial, ''Thieves with Badges," Sacramento Bee, April 2, 1993. Return 22. Carol Bidwell, "Motives for Raid Questioned," Houston Chronicle, April 4, 1993. Return 23. Michael Fessier, "Trial's End," Los Angeles Times Magazine, August 1, 1993. Return 24. Daryl Kelley, "Block Challenges Critical Report on Malibu Ranch Raid," Los Angeles Times, April 9, 1993. Return 25. Editorial, "Thieves with Badges." Return 26. Dennis O'Brien, "Prosecutors Want Veto of Forfeiture Bill," Baltimore Sun, April 18, 1994. Return 27. Ibid. Return 28. U.S. Department of Justice, Annual Report of the Department of Justice Asset Forfeiture Program 1991 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1992), p. 7. Return 29. As lawyer Terrance G. Reed noted, "This probable cause standard for seizure allows the government to dispossess property owners based only upon hearsay or innuendo - 'evidence' of insufficient reliability to be admissible in a court of law." Terrance G. Reed, "American Forfeiture Law: Property Owners Meet the Prosecutors," Cato Institute Policy Analysis No. 179. September 29, 1992. Return 30. Andrew Schneider and Mary Pat Flaherty, "With Sketchy Data, Government Seizes House From Man's Heirs," Pittsburgh Press, August 14, 1991. Return 31. Mary Pemberton, "Baltimore Public-Housing Tenants Begin a Rent Strike," Associated Press, February 24, 1993. Return 32. "In War on Narcotics, Tough New Statutes Target Owners of Drug-Ridden Properties," Wall Street Journal, March 29, 1989. Return 33. Andrew Schneider and Mary Pat Flaherty, "Police Profit by Seizing Homes of Innocent." Return 34. "Landlords Upset with Board-ups," United Press International, July 29, 1992. Return 35. Written statement of Forfeiture Endangers American Rights, Franklin, New Jersey. September 30, 1992. Return 36. U.S. Department of Justice, Annual Report (1991), p. 29. Return 37. Brazil and Berry. Return 38. David Kaplan, Bob Cohn, and Karen Springen, "Where the Innocent Lose." Newsweek, January 4. 1993, p. 42 Return 39. Reed, op. cit., p. 12. Return 40. Ibid., p. 1. Return 41. Rick Brand and Katti Gray, "DWI? They Might Take Your Car," Newsday, May 12, 1993. Return 42. U.S. v. Twelve Thousand, Three Hundred Ninety Dollars, 956 F. 2d 801, 808 (1992). Return 43. "Sheriffs Own Pay Raise Leads to Indictment," Associated Press, August 19, 1993. Return 44. U.S. Department of Justice, "Message from the Director: 'Do the Right Thing,' " Asset Forfeiture News, September-October 1992, p. 2. Return 45. U.S. Department of Justice, Executive Office for Asset Forfeiture, "Departmental Policy Regarding Seizure of Occupied Real Property," Directive No. 9s10, October 9, 1990. 46. Claudio Riedi, "To Shift or to Shaft: Attorney Fees for Prevailing Claimants in Civil Forfeiture Suits," University of Miami Law Review, Vol. 47, September 1992, pp. 147. Return 47. Brazil and Berry. Return 48. U.S. v. All Assets of Statewide Auto Parts, Inc., 971 F. 2d 905 (1992). Return 49. Statement of Cary H. Copeland before the Subcommittee on Legislation and National Security, Government Operations Committee, U.S. House of Representatives, June 22, 1993, p.4. Return 50. U.S. Department of Justice, Annual Report of the Department of Justice Asset Forfeiture Program 1991 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1992), p. 27. Return 51. Dennis Cauchon, "Government Doesn't Have to Prove Guilt," USA TODAY, May 18, 1992. Return 52. United States v. One Parcel of Property Located at 508 Depot Street, Docket No. 91-2382SD, May 20, 1992. Return 53. Brief of American Library Assoc. et al., in Ferris Alexander v. U.S.. U.S. Supreme Court, No. 91-l526, September 2, 1992, p. 6. "Criminal forfeiture in personam arose in medieval England, where, following a felony conviction, the entire estate of the felon was confiscated and any inheritance from the felon was prohibited. In the Magna Carta, forfeiture on the ground of commission of a felony was sharply curtailed, but survived to an extent in the English common law." Return 54. Brief for the United States, Ferris J. Alexander v. U.S., No. 91-1526, October 29, 1992, p. 43 Return =========================================== About the Author Mr. Bovard is the author of Shakedown, (Viking, 1995) and Lost Rights: The Destruction of American Liberty, (St. Martins, 1994). Reprinted with the permission of The Foundation for Economic Education (FEE). ================================================================= Kadosh, Kadosh, Kadosh, YHVH, TZEVAOT FROM THE DESK OF: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> *Mike Spitzer* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ~~~~~~~~ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> The Best Way To Destroy Enemies Is To Change Them To Friends Shalom, A Salaam Aleikum, and to all, A Good Day. ================================================================= <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substance�not soap-boxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
