This is a cross post from another system, thought you all might be
 "interested" in what our fearless leaders are up to now... This latest
 power grab makes the last two look small. Could this be what our Founding
 Fathers feared so much that they included the 2nd amendment?...


      Property Forfeiture for Speeches, Writings and Assembly
                           by Ross Regnart

                  The Crime Control Act of 1993

The Crime Control Act of 1993 redefines Illegal Search and Seizure
while eliminating an innocent citizen's civil redress in suits against
government officials and agents.  [Title VII Section 2337]
Incorporated:  were provisions of proposed S.45 titled "Terrorism
Death Penalty Act of 1991"  Both bills contained language which can
charge law abiding citizens of being agents or affording support to
terrorist organizations.

Consider:  the Proper Forfeiture Effects on organizations and
individuals when Speeches, Writings, and Assemblies mentioned in S.45
are combined with the Forfeiture Provisions of Biden's SB 266 now
incorporated in The Crime Control Act of 1993: any individual or
organization in the United States who had or should have had knowledge
that an associate might commit a terrorist act can have their property
seized.  Written like Federal Drug Forfeiture Laws, a citizen who
allowed their home or other real property to be used for an assembly
would start out guilty having to prove they did not have knowledge of
unlawful methods of the organization or individuals they allowed to use
their property.  See S.8  Definitions  Title VII  Section 2332
"Local"  C

Politically active organizations and labor unions are especially
vulnerable to The Crime Control Act of 1993 provisions which define
bodily acts as "terrorist acts"  A fist fight at a demonstration or
picket line would qualify.  The physical act need not cause bodily harm
as its provisions refer to "involving any violent act".
S.8  The Crime Control Act of 1993 Forfeiture Provisions which seem
aimed at public dissent are written like RICO laws taking on the added
prospect of Political Property Forfeiture.  Broadly written intent to
commit terrorist acts is defined: "appear to be intended (1) to
intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (2) to influence the policy
of a government by intimidation or coercion."

 It would appear that provisions contained in Senator Biden's proposed
Senate Bill 266, now included in The Crime Control Act of 1993, target
any group of persons which would dare demonstrate for or against any
issue.  Any picket line which is alleged to have blocked public access
could qualify to intimidate or coerce a civilian population.  Should
violence result for any reason at a public assembly, the Property
Forfeiture Provisions of The Crime Control Act of 1993 may be triggered
causing forfeiture of attending demonstrators' homes used for meetings
and the vehicles they used for transportation to the event.
Demonstrators and/or pickets who left messages on a member or
organization computer BBS System could cause the forfeiture of the
system and all its records.  The fact the system operator had no
knowledge of any planned violence will Not Prevent Property Forfeiture
of organization and member assets.

Conspiracy is enough.  Under provisions of The Crime Control Act of
1993 Property Forfeiture, Arrest, Huge Fines, and Prison Sentences can
result from "activities which appear to be intended toward violence".
Distributing political action flyers could qualify.
The Crime Control Act of 1993 Terrorist Provisions when first examined
are misleading for they give the reader the impression they are after
agents of a foreign power wishing to do Americans harm.  The "Trojan
Horse" in The Crime Control Act of 1993: anyone in the United States
committing an undefined violent act or attending an assembly can be
charged with terrorism.  S.8  Terrorism Forfeiture Provisions Would Be
Retroactive Going Back 4 Years.

           Discovery of Witnesses and Evidence Eliminated

If a Defendant under Section 2333 of Title VII terrorist acts and/or
conspiracy seeks to discover from the Department of Justice the
evidence against him, the attorney for the Government may object on the
grounds that compliance will interfere with a criminal investigation or
prosecution of the incident, or a national security operation related
to the incident, which is the subject of Civil Litigation.  Example:
Government Civil Forfeiture.  Expected: Defense against Government
charges may be difficult where citizens have no access to knowing of
the alleged evidence against them or the right to cross examine
government's secret witnesses.

   Secret Witnesses - Secret Trials: Protection of jurors and witnesses
                             in Capital Cases

Chapter 113B Section 138 states that the list of jurors and witnesses
need not be furnished to Capital Offense Defendants should the court
find by a preponderance of the evidence that providing the list may
jeopardize the life or safety of any person.

Title VII Section n2337
   The Crime Control Act of 1993 eliminates civil suits against U.S. and
Foreign Governments by innocent persons injured resulting from
Government Agents in prusuit of terrorist acts.

Title VII Section 711: Sentencing Guidelines Increased for Terrorist Crimes
  The United States Sentencing Commission shall have the power to provide
an increase in the base offense level for any felony committed in the
United States that involves or is intended to promote international
terrorism.  Participation by political activists in Lawful Speeches,
Writings and Public Assemblies may be used as evidence by Government to
show that a political participant was aware of the unlawful methods of
the individual or organization they are alleged to have afforded

 One person's violent unlawful act at an assembly may be enough for
the Government to allege the assembly Appears To Be Intended Toward
Violence or Activities which could Intimidate or Coerce a Civilian
Population.
 Under current drug forfeiture laws: innocent citizens have been
implicated by informants who will often testify to anything to mitigate
their own arrest.  This has resulted in innocent citizens being
arrested and killed by drug agents; forfeiture of the property; and
financial ruination.  Under proposed provisions of The Crime Control
Act of 1993 special breaks are afforded informants, even against the
death penalty.  Government will have no difficulty Creating Informants
to cause the incarceration of any citizen considered a threat to one's
political agenda.
Disproportionate zero tolerance laws have served as precedents for
expanding forfeiture:  Since 1984, forfeiture laws have been operating
on the erroneous contention that property can possess intent to commit
crime.  Innocent owners can have their property seized prior to trial
on mere suspicion, starting out guilty, the owner having to prove they
did not have reason to know that their property was being used to
facilitate a forfeitable offense.  Government need only show the
property owner was negligent in making his property available for
illegal drug activity to cause its forfeiture.
   The Forfeiture Scam: tenants arrested on real property when offered a
sentencing deal by a prosecutor or immunity from further prosecution,
often reply in testimony, "that had the real property owner been
vigilant, he or she could have discovered drug activity taking place on
their property."  Government has used against real property owners in
Civil Forfeiture actions the fact that a property owner had reported to
police that a tenant was dealing drugs at their property to show an
owner had prior knowledge of the activity.  Elderly citizens afraid to
face machine guns and other threats by drug dealers are especially
vulnerable to having their homes and rental property siezed.  Elderly
property owners, often in bad health, are easy prey for Police
Forfeiture Squads.

Searches, wiretaps and seizures that result in obtaining evidence from

an invalid warrant issued by a 
detached and neutral magistrate found to be invalid based on misleading
information or reckless disregard of the truth may in many instances
override Constitutional 4th Amendment protection against illegal search
and seizure.The Crime Control Act of 1993 will allow government to use against its
citizens illegally seized evidence.
   S.8  The Crime Control Act of 1993 amends the "Exclusionary Rule" to
add Section 3509 Admissibility of Evidence Obtained By Search or
Seizure (a) Evidence Obtained By Objectively Reasonable Search or
Seizure (b) Evidence Not Excludable By Statute or Rule: sets the
groundwork for Government Forfeiture Squads to at random invade
innocent owners' homes and businesses with a minimum of probable cause.
Government need only assert that "a search and seizure was carried out
in circumstances justifying an objectively reasonable belief that it
was in conformity with the Fourth Amendment."
   Informants: Now being paid by government 25% of net proceeds realized
from Forfeited Assets in drug related seizures could earn similar
amounts causing forfeiture of citizens homes they allege to have been
used by an owner for discussion of attending assemblies which the
informant believed "appeared to be intended toward violence or to
intimidate or coerce a civilian population."

                The Crime Control Act of 1993

   Informants and law enforcement agencies addressing prevention of
terrorist acts are to be funded by Forfeiture and Fines collected from
terrorists and/or persons alleged to have afforded terrorists material
support.  Will Citizens Exercising Their Constitutional Right To Free
Expression And Association Be Targeted By Government Agents Who Know
Their Jobs Are Dependent ON Property Seizures, Fines and Arrests?


From "Property Forfeiture for Speeches, Writings and Assembly," by Ross
Regnart, in the May, 1993 _Asset_Guardian_ newsletter (POBox 513,
Franklin, NJ 07416, 1-201-827-0513).  Informational posting of this
article is allowed as long as credit is given to _Asset_Guardian_.

Also published in Liberty Amendment News {Box 2386; El Cajon, CA 92021
(619)579-8500}, October 1993, Vol 15  No 3, page 3.

Well,what does everyone think about this? I'd be EXTREMELY interested to
learn if the citizens of Senator Joe Bidens home state of Delaware know
what he has been involved in... Perhaps they might wish to ask their
senator to explain just exactly what he thinks he is doing...

... Better to die on your feet,than to live on your knees ...