INSTEAD OF GIVING IT TO SCHOOLS AS LAW REQUIRED.�
MISSOURI COPS SAID ASHCROFT AGREED TO LOOK THE OTHER WAY" ON FORFEITURE LAW.
By Daniel Forbes � 2001
Two Missouri police officials quoted then governor John Ashcroft as having
told them he'd "`look the other way'" should they ignore an upcoming Missouri
State Supreme Court ruling that might direct asset forfeiture monies to be
distributed to local school boards in accordance with the state constitution.
The statements were made independently and at different times by both a
sheriff in uniform and a police chief at a meeting at the office of then US
Attorney for the Western District of Missouri, Jean Paul Bradshaw, a decade
ago, according to Don Burger, then an official with the US Department of
Justice. Representing Justice, Burger attended in his role as a community
affairs specialist seeking to steer to Missouri schools and treatment
programs some of the drug-bust money being illegally kept by police.
John Ashcroft drapes himself in the mantle of "integrity." He used the word
in reference to himself several times during his introduction by
President-elect Bush as the Attorney General nominee. The repeated
characterization fuels the oft-proclaimed notion that Sen. Ashcroft is a man
of such moral rectitude that the nation can count on him to fully enforce all
laws - no matter his personal views. During the first day of his Senate
confirmation hearings, Sen. Ashcroft declared, raising his right hand for
emphasis, that, "When I swear to uphold the law, I will keep my oath, so help
me God." Yet, during Sen. Ashcroft's tenure as governor of Missouri, he
blithely told two senior law enforcement officials he would ignore a serious
matter of law, according to Burger.
Says Burger, recalling the meeting at Bradshaw's office in Kansas City, MO a
decade ago, the two law enforcement officials said Gov. Ashcroft had told
them he would "`look the other way'" should the police proceed to ignore a
ruling about to emerge from the Missouri Supreme Court. The ruling,
ultimately issued in November 1990, mid-way through Sen. Ashcroft's second
term as governor, concerned a case brought by a local school board that
argued that Missouri law enforcement must follow the state constitution and
turn proceeds from asset forfeiture cases over to education rather than keep
the money for themselves. Millions of dollars were at stake, money Missouri
law enforcement agencies had used for years to buy everything from computers
to radio systems to cars and guns.
Now, with a ruling expected shortly, the cops were nervous that their well
might run dry. But, according to Burger's recollection of statements by the
two top cops, who spoke independently at different times during the meeting,
police - especially the highway patrol that reports to the governor's office
- need not fear interference from the same cabinet nominee who now pledges to
rigorously and impartially enforce the nation's laws.
Hosted by US Attorney Bradshaw, the meeting was attended by members of what
was known informally as the Law Enforcement Coordinating Committee, says
Burger. Among the items on the agenda was a discussion of the "problem of
state law," he says - that is, the provision in Article IX, Section 7 of
Missouri's constitution that requires "the clear proceeds of all penalties,
forfeitures and fines collected hereafter for any breach of the penal laws of
the state shall be distributed annually to the schools of the several
counties according to law."
Referring to the sheriff and the police chief, Burger told the Review, "Both
men stated at different times during the meeting that - based on their
conversations with Governor Ashcroft - the governor said he would 'look the
other way' specifically regarding the [Missouri] Supreme Court's ruling and
asset seizures going to education. That was the terminology used by both
persons." Burger adds that he remembers both individuals using the specific
"look the other way" terminology because, "It struck me as an unusual
reference regarding the applicability of funds to be set aside for education."
In fact, says Burger, the remarks were salient enough, that he later jotted
down the Ashcroft quote in the margins of a Dept. of Justice report he was
reading. The governor's statement, in Burger's opinion, indicated that
Missouri law enforcement agencies would continue, despite any state supreme
court ruling, to "use asset forfeiture to divert money to sheriff and police
department projects."
Bradshaw, now in private practice in Kansas City, recalls no such statements
by any police officials at any meeting he attended. Mindy Tucker, a
spokesperson for the Bush/Cheney transition team said that ignoring a court
ruling "is not a position ever held by Gov. Ashcroft." She based her
statement, she said, on conversations with "people familiar with his
positions on this." But, consider the disclosure last May by Karen Dillon,
who's written an award-winning two-year series in the Kansas City Star on
asset forfeiture issues:
"In 1990, just a few days after the Missouri Supreme Court ruled that state
forfeitures had to go to education in most cases, the US attorney for the
Western District of Missouri wrote a letter to state and local law
enforcement agencies. 'I know that all of you in law enforcement are in
desperate need for additional financial resources,' wrote Jean Paul
Bradshaw. He explained that police could bring seizures to a federal agency
even if the agency had no involvement in the case. 'As most of you know,
the money we share through our forfeiture program goes [directly] to the
state or local law enforcement agency,' he wrote."
The fruits of Ashcroft's alleged winking and Bradshaw's exhortation were
harvested richly. There have been subsequent attempts in 1992, 1993, and last
year in the Missouri legislature to strengthen the law that forfeited assets
be conveyed to education. Another attempt will be made in the upcoming
session. A report by the staff of the US Senate Judiciary Committee; a 1998
federal district court case and Dillon's massive and continuing series in the
Kansas City Star also suggest an end-run around the state constitutional
requirements.
City Councilman and Mayor Pro Tem of Kansas City, Alvin Brooks, is a former
police detective and a charter board member of the Community Anti-Drug
Coalitions of America. He was also one of President Bush's "Thousand Points
of Light," and, according to his bio, was recognized by William Bennett as "a
front-line soldier in our war against drugs."
Back in 1990 he was running the Ad Hoc Group Against Crime in Kansas City,
which fought crime and drug abuse. During that time Brooks says he had many
conversations with Don Burger, representing the Dept of Justice, about the
mechanics of asset forfeiture and how to steer some of those funds to local
drug treatment programs. He said his discussions with Burger focused on "how
could we get law enforcement to bring some money back to the neighborhoods
where the forfeitures were taking place." He adds, "Don did research on this
and said here's what community groups should do to try to get some of this
money."
Told of Burger's allegations, Kevin Zeese, executive director of the Common
Sense for Drug Policy Legislative Group opposing the Ashcroft nomination,
says "Ashcroft told people to go ahead, to federalize it, I'll look the other
way. That's an affirmative action, but one he tried to keep his fingerprints
off." Hilary Shelton, director of the NAACP Washington Bureau, says that
senators he has spoken to, including Russ Feingold (D-WI), report that Sen.
Ashcroft has told his former Senate colleagues that he'll vigorously enforce
the law without exception. But Shelton maintains that, "If indeed these
allegations are true, it raises major, fundamental concerns about Mr.
Ashcroft's ethical ability to serve as attorney general. It begs the question
of how he will enforce laws that he doesn't agree with."
The concept by which state and local law enforcement agencies still
circumvent the Missouri Constitution is known as "adoptive forfeiture."
Basically, the cops call in federal agents, typically DEA agents, and have
them "adopt" the case. Stopping a car on Interstate 70, for instance, and
finding drugs and a quantity of cash, the Missouri Highway Patrol declares
that it has detained the assets (often including the car itself), but has not
"seized" them. It leaves that to the DEA. Then, according to federal
guidelines, the feds keep 20% of the proceeds and, in effect, launder the
remainder back to the local authorities; often, several jurisdictions will
slice up the pie. Everyone but school kids is happy.
Quoting the Kansas City Star, the Senate Judiciary Committee report quotes
one officer as saying, "We don't deal in state forfeitures at all, because
law enforcement doesn't derive any revenues from that." Evidence that the
tactic continues is found in a concurring opinion issued by a federal judge
in the Eight Circuit in 1998, who found that the Missouri Highway Patrol and
the DEA "successfully conspired to violate the Missouri Constitution."
James D. Worthington, a partner in the Lexington, MO, law firm of Aull,
Sherman, Worthington, Giorza and Hamilton, represented the local school board
in the 1990 case. He says the case was prompted by press reports of three
separate forfeitures of approximately $1 million each in a particular county,
and the school board in Odessa reasoned that surely they should have received
some funds. After the court ruling, says Worthington, police agencies
indicated they would comply. "But then they proceeded with a sleight of hand,
a bait and switch, a calling the feds down to have the feds 'seize' the
money. It's been nothing but organized blackmail, graft and corruption."
Don Burger joined Justice in 1968, recruited by Ramsey Clark to spend a
career working primarily to foster improved relations among the many
different shades of Americans. He served the final years of a twenty-two year
career based in Kansas City. Retired from federal service, he's now a
consultant on civil rights issues.
Atkins Warren is now regional director of the Dept. of Justice for the states
of Missouri, Kansas, Nebraska and Iowa, and he worked with Burger for many
years in Washington. "He was a very good employee," said Warren. "He did a
lot to resolve community conflict." Warren termed Burger "credible," then
added, "He was excellent."
US Rep. Jim Clyburn, Democrat of South Carolina, got to know Burger through
their work with the National Association of Human Rights Workers; Rep.
Clyburn is a past president and Burger served a term as national secretary.
(Burger was also president of his government employees union local.) Rep.
Clyburn, who opposes the Ashcroft nomination, says, "Burger was always a
straight shooter with me. I never had any dealings with him that make me
question whether he was a straight shooter or not."
Leonard Zeskind, formerly research director for the anti-Klan, Atlanta-based
Center for Democratic Renewal, worked with Burger combating hate crimes and
white supremacy organizations such as the Covenant Sword and Arm of the Lord
in rural Missouri.
Currently writing a book for Farrar, Strauss, Giroux on white nationalist
groups and a former McArthur Foundation "genius" award winner, Zeskind
declares Burger, "a reasonable guy, a nice, smart guy."
In fact, Burger is such a straight arrow, he actually referred a potential
favorable witness on Sen. Ashcroft's behalf to Missouri Senator Kit Bond.
With accusations of racism hounding Sen. Ashcroft, Burger says he referred an
African-American woman to Sen. Bond who was anxious to speak favorably of her
experience at Evangel University in Springfield, MO, the college run by
Ashcroft's father. Marlene Henderson confirms that last Friday, Burger called
both Sen. Bond's Missouri and Washington offices on her behalf.
Burger says he's fairly agnostic on Ashcroft's nomination, but that he's
spent a career trying to develop funding for drug treatment, among other
things, and wants to call attention to where seized assets are still being
directed.
New York freelancer Daniel Forbes testified before both the US. Senate and
the House of Representatives regarding his series in Salon on sub rosa White
House payments to television networks and magazines rewarding anti-drug
content. A subsequent Salon article detailed the media campaign's origins as
an attempt to influence voters on state medical marijuana initiatives.
http://www.newsmakingnews.com/#ASHCROFT%20FUNNELED%20FORFEITED%20DRUG%20BUST%2
0MONEY%20TO%20COP%20PALS,%20INSTEAD%20OF%20GIVING%20TO%20SCHOOLS%20AS%20LAW%20
REQUIRED
