-Caveat Lector- Forwarded from another. Take a look. Ray, the editorial from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution is more of the fool-the-public writing which is endemic in the country as part of the ongoing campaign to confuse us rather than truly inform us. First, to say that Scott was shot dead by "a sheriff's deputy serving an early-morning search warrant" continues the obfuscation about these raids. As you and others on forced altruism know, what actually happens is that in the middle of the night, when people are asleep, a gang of ninjas breaks through the doors and immediately assumes aggression against the occupants. Anyone who reasonably acts to try and defend themselves against these sudden intruders is killed. This not infrequently occurs as the result of police informers, which has led to police action against completely innocent people, sometimes even at the wrong address. However, the real travesty is how all of this continues to be presented to the public. Henry Hyde, like most other federal dishonorables, got his turn to try and fool us into thinking that he cares about our rights and privacy. Most of the time, this sort of thing is purely fodder for the public, knowing all along that the bill won't pass both House and Senate. When something does pass, however, it is usually just another form of federal dictate in territory where they are not supposed to be in the first place. We the People all over the political spectrum will continue to use examples like this to pretend that there is a rational debate of sorts going on, which ignores plain reality. It is 100% true as you highlighted, "If true, Ramstad's warning is all the more reason to reform the law. IF CONFISCATIONS ARE OCCURRING ON SUCH A SCALE AS TO BE A PRIME SOURCE OF FUNDING FOR LOCAL POLICE, THIS THING HAS GOTTEN WAY OUT OF HAND. [Emphasis mine. -RT]" The main problem is that what we are being sold on is "reform" because things have "gotten out of hand". Instead, we should be getting rid of this abomination entirely. The fact that these police powers were "passed during the first Reagan administration as part of the war on drugs" is very important to getting beyond the rhetoric of politics. Clinton opposes the reform. I bet Bush does too. And Gore. And of course, local law enforcement wouldn't want to be reformed. All people who have profited from the drug war, legally and illegally, while hurting millions of people in the process not to mention trashing our supposed constitutional republic, based on natural rights and limited government. As Mike Ruppert says, "Covert operations are driven by economics (money) -- not politics (spin). ....Congress, the Cabinet, the major media and even the White House have come here for a reality check when they can't separate themselves from their own spin." http://www.copvcia.com/ Instead of just saying no to drugs, we should've just been saying no to the intrusions of federal power first. Since we did not, and the same people were pushing drugs who were also telling us that we needed a War on Drugs, we continue to finance the destruction of liberty. There is no "reform" that will change that fact. Virginia Message: 1 Date: Mon, 05 Jul 1999 09:18:31 PDT From: Ray Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Police Rob and Kill POLICE ROB AND KILL Forced Altruism List 7/5/99 Reposting permitted in complete form with the contact information at the end intact. This came from Keith Nobles [EMAIL PROTECTED], moderator of the "Keith's Forum Against The Man" List. Contact him if you're interested in subscribing. This story is an excellent example of why we need to completely DO AWAY WITH RICO LAWS. They are an abomination and are unconstitutional if anyone would take the time and effort (and the money) to challenge them in an honest court (rather than one of the courts where judges rule based on current liberal ideas). The day has come when you wonder whether that red light in your mirror means you're going to get a ticket or be robbed. When the police become bandits, we're lost. When they "target" someone's property and even have it APPRAISED before the raid. they can no longer be called police, but bandits with badges. RAY THOMA$ REIN IN POLICE RAIDS FOR PROFIT The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, p. E-6 July 4, 1999 Lead Editorial On Oct. 22, 1992, 61-year-old Donald Scott was shot dead in his own home by a sheriff's deputy serving an early-morning search warrant on Scott's ranch in Ventura County, Calif. No drugs were found, and the local district attorney later determined that the search warrant had been obtained by using false evidence. So why was the raid undertaken? The district attorney's investigation determined that the deadly raid "was motivated, at least in part, by a desire to seize and forfeit the ranch for the government." Before the raid occurred, deputies had gone so far as to get an appraisal of the $5 million ranch, which they hoped to confiscate for their department's profit. "We find no reason why law enforcement officers who were investigating suspected narcotics violations would have had any interest in the value of the ranch," the report noted. Since the early '80s, when federal property-confiscation laws were relaxed, local, state and federal law enforcement officials have seized billions of dollars of private property from those whom they merely suspected of a crime. Most of the owners of confiscated property were never found guilty of anything. In fact, in 80 percent of confiscation cases, no criminal charges were even filed. Under the law, passed during the first Reagan administration as part of the war on drugs, police agencies were empowered to seize property that they suspected was either used in crime or had been purchased with illegal profits. If they had "probable cause" to suspect the property was tainted -- essentially the standard needed to get a search warrant -- they could seize the property. Furthermore, the law allowed police agencies to keep or sell whatever they confiscated. In essence, it put a dangerous profit motive into law enforcement, and agencies began behaving just as you would expect with such a carrot dangling in front of their noses. In Volusia County, Fla., for example, sheriff's deputies began making random stops on I-95, confiscating cash in quantities of more than $100. They argued they had "probable cause" to believe that anybody carrying more than that amount of cash was engaging in drug trafficking. An investigation by the Orlando Sentinel discovered that 90 percent of motorists targeted for confiscation were black or Latino. Last month, the U.S. House of Representatives finally voted to reform the law that created such outrages. The bill, sponsored by U.S. Rep. Henry Hyde (R-Ill.) was backed by congressmen and lobby groups from across the political spectrum, and passed overwhelmingly, 375-48. The Clinton Administration opposes the bill, as do many law-enforcement groups. U.S. Rep. Jim Ramstad (R-Minn.), who voted against the measure, expressed the sentiment of the administration and many of those groups when he warned that changing the confiscation law could devastate the budgets of local law enforcement agencies. [It would cost them millions of dollars in stolen money and billions in stolen property. -RT] If true, Ramstad's warning is all the more reason to reform the law. IF CONFISCATIONS ARE OCCURRING ON SUCH A SCALE AS TO BE A PRIME SOURCE OF FUNDING FOR LOCAL POLICE, THIS THING HAS GOTTEN WAY OUT OF HAND. [Emphasis mine. -RT] The Hyde bill does not by any means eliminate confiscation as a tool in crime-fighting. It merely strengthens the standard that law enforcement must meet to justify the taking of private citizens' property. Under the reform, police officers would have to offer clear and convincing evidence, rather than mere probable cause, that the property being seized had been used in a crime or been purchased with the proceeds of crime. That returns the burden of proof to where it belongs, to the government agency that is attempting to confiscate a citizen's property. Two hundred and twenty-three years ago today, people such as Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and Benjamin Franklin declared their independence from a nation that treated their citizens' property and liberty as if they belonged to the state, to be withdrawn whenever the state deemed fit. The heritage they left us must be defended even now, not just from outside threats but also from more dangerous, if well-intentioned, threats from within. To protect that legacy, the U.S. Senate ought to pass the Hyde bill, and President Clinton should sign it into law. [If I am correct (and I wasn't paying much attention at the time), I believe this bill failed in the Senate. -RT] ------------------------------------------------------- To visit the any of my web sites or subscribe to any of my newsletters or discussion lists, go to my personal web site at: http://www.angelfire.com/co2/RayThomas and click on the appropriate link. They are: The "Forced Altruism Scam" web site The "Forced Altruism" List The "Child Protector Watch" site or newsletter The "Stay Alive Longer" web site The "Beyond Common Sense" online newsletter The "Simple Web Sites" Design site. "Whatcha gonna do when they come for you?" Doug Quirmbach, Moderator The Awakening Lions List ------------------------------------------------------- Only the posts that carry this notice reflect the opinion of the Forced Altruism List owner. All other posts are the opinion of the poster, and may or may not reflect the opinion of the List owner. ------------------------------------------------------ **COPYRIGHT NOTICE** In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. Ref.: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! 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 credeence 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
