THE FOURTH REICH
                  Toward An American Police State

Extracted from an article written by Donald S. McAlvany,published in:
The McAlvany Intelligence Advisor, January 1993 edition. Subscription
office: PO Box 84904, Phoenix, AZ 85071
USA. Tel:(602) 252 4477, or (303) 259 4100. US$56 for 6 months
(in USA), US$72 for 6 months (Foreign)

(Sorry for the typographic errors, caused by transmission!)

  America's draconian asset seizure laws are being quietly
anddevastatingly enforced.  The media silence on this issue
isalarming
in itself. Read this and pray that Australia does notfollow, yet
again,
in America's footsteps.

THE EXPLOSION OF GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS.

Congress passed almost 2,500 new laws in 1992. Most of these laws
carry
both
criminal and civil penalties for violations.These laws are turned
over
to
any of several dozen applicable federal agencies (i.e., FDA, EPA,
BATF,
SEC, IRS, OSHA, FCC, FAA, DEA, etc.) which write tens of thousands of
federal regulations each year to implement and enforce these new
laws.
These agencies employ close to 121,000 faceless bureaucrats to write
the

new regulations and enforce these laws and regulations.

There were 67,715 pages of new regulations written and published (in
fine
print) in the Federal Register in 1992 and that suffices as legal
public

notice of the new laws and regulations. The public are responsible
for
following every one of those. It would take a large battery of
Philadelphia
lawyers to interpret and keep up with this avalanche of new
regulations; but each US citizen is considered to be responsible to
know, understand, and abide by these new laws and regulations. Heavy
fines
and/or jail sentences are associated with violation of many of these
laws
and regulations, and tens of thousands of Americans are now sitting
in
jail, or have been heavily fined, or had their businesses closed for
violation of these new laws and regulations. In many instances,
agents
from the various agencies run stings against unsuspecting citizens or
businesses, and entrap them into violating the new law or regulation,
A
high profile example is then made of the new criminal, or violation,
along
with the fines, prison sentences, and media publicity, to intimidate
the

public, or other related businesses into going along with the
regulations.
America has more people in prison per capita today than South Africa,
Albania (and most of Eastern Europe), or even Red China. We jail 6
times
as
many people per capita as Denmark, and almost 11 times as many per
capita
as Japan.  These dictatorial new laws and regulations are costing
Americans
literally hundreds of billions of dollars per year, and are
hamstringing

tens of thousands of small businesses which literally cannot afford
the paperwork, red tape, and expenses of compliance, and are
therefore
forced out of business. One small example: The Agriculture Department
has
made it a crime to sell peaches or nectarines which do not meet the
minimum
size of 2-7/16" andÜj      Ü
2-3/8" in diameter respectively. This
new regulation (passed in 1992) will condemn to rot over 500 million
perfectly edible peaches and nectarines per year. The US Attorney
General
has already filed for a federal injunction and a $100 per box fine
against
California's largest nectarine and peach farmer, who was selling the
forbidden fruit at a bargain price of under $10 per box to thankful
inner
city residents. The farmer is now a criminal who will be fined
heavily
for
his crime. But meanwhile, the Agriculture Department has asked the
California Nectarine Administrative Committee to undertake market
research
to determine the effect of fruit size on consumer preferences.

ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS.

   These may be the most dangerous of all, because the Clean Water
Act,
   Clean Air Act, and a host of other environmental laws and
regulations

   passed in recent years give the government draconian, dictatorial
   controls over virtually every business and person, over every
piece
of
   private property, every car, and every action of every American in
the
   US.  Even as thousands of murderers and rapists are turned loose
by
our
   justice system each year on technicalities, room is being made in
our

   jails for honest law-abiding citizens, A case in point is a
Vietnam
   vet. and environmental consultant, Bill Ellen, who is now serving
   a six month prison sentence for a 'wetlands' violation. (The
   US attorney had pushed for a three year sentence but the judge
   wad more lenient.) What was Ellen's crime? In 1987, Ellen who had
a
   strong background as a conservationist, agreed to do a project
   to construct 10 ponds for migrating geese and wildlife on the
Eastern

   shore of the Chesapeake Bay in Maryland, Ellen was to build the $7
   million 103 acre wildlife sanctuary on a 2,000 acre private
estate.
   Ellen, who knew environmental laws well, got all the proper
permits,
   and complied with all those laws and regulations as written 1987,
   However, in 1988, the definition of 'wetland' was expanded to
include

   potholes that collect water during rains. Ellen, who already had
   permits, was unconcerned with the new regulations because the land
was
   so dry that workers had to wear dust masks.  However, Ellen was
   indicted for 'wetlands'violations after one government agency told
him
   he could continue landfill work and another told him he could not.
   Acting on the former, he hauled in two more loads of landfill
(i.e.,
   dirt). Angry federal environmental bureaucrats toured the land
after
   three days of heavy rains and indicted Ellen for "desecration of
   wetlands". He was sentenced to six months in jail where he now
sits.
   The owner of the estate escaped jail as an accomplice to an
   environmentad ('wetlands') crime by paying a $1 million fine and
making
   another $1 million donation to the National Fish and Wildlife
   Federation.

POLICE STATE TACTICS

   US military and National Guard personnel have been
   undergoingÜj      Ü
training and exercises for several years for
   house-to-house searches (presumably for drugs or guns), for crowd
   control, and for domestic 'counter-terrorism measures'. Roadblocks
are
   being randomly set up on highways around America by local, state,
   or federal officials to conduct driver's licence checks
orwarrantless

   spot checks of cars or their occupants for drugs, liquor, or
firearms;
   local or state police use of military helicopters are, with
greatly
   increased frequency, overflying cities, towns, neighborhoods, and
   individual houses at low levels (looking for drugs, for
surveillance
or
   for intimidation purposes). In late '91, an 'urban warfare
training
   exercise' by the US Marines brought a dozen military helicopters
   swooping low over San Francisco rooftops, prompting hundreds of
   frightened calls td radio stations and the local police, who
denied
any
   knowledge of the exercise. Hundreds of military vehicles (black
and
   with no markings) are being observed in various parts of the US,
in
   many instances manned by personnel in black uniforms (with no
    insignias). Denial of any knowledge of these helicopters,
vehicles
or
   personnel from local, state, and federal officials almost always
   follows frightened enquiries from citizens. Over the past two
years,
as
   training and enforcement exercises have increased, SWAT teams in
black
   Ninja suits and other government marshals and enforcement teams
have
   had an increasing number of shootouts with innocent victims who
   are characterized by the government as 'religious fundamentalists'
   'white supremacists', 'left or right wing extremists',
   'tax protesters', etc. In August '92, a mob of Federal
   agents surrounded the remote Idaho home of Randy Weaver (wanted on
   a misdemeanor warrant) and his family, and in a ten-day siege
shotand

   killed his wife and 14-yr-old son. In October '92, a 'drug raid'
   against a 61-year old wealthy, partially blind Ventura County,
   California resident, Donald P. Scott, resulted in Scott being shot
dead
   by Los Angeles County Sheriff's deputies. No drugs were found, nor
did
   Scott resist arrest. The general tactic (whether used by local of
   federal police officials, or both) is to overwhelm (and
intimidate)
   the 'suspected' money launderer, environmental or
   financial 'criminal', gun law violator, etc. by invading his home
   or business with a SWAT team and/or federal marshals or
   agents numbering 10 to 20 or 30 people. Guns are often drawn and
if
   the 'victim' of the attack makes any sudden move, he is often
shot.
   This writer personally knows of at least a dozen individuals (none
ever
   convicted of a traditional crime such as murder, rape, robbery,
etc.)

   who have had their homes or businesses invaded by local, state or
   federal law enforcement SWAT teams in this manner. The experience
is
   terrifying for the individual, families, or employees involved.
Shades
   of Nazi Germany, Red China, or the old Soviet Union!

TOWARD A STATE OF NATIONAL EMERGENCY

  Over the past few years, a number of references to a State
ofNational
Emergency (or martial law) have been hinted at orÜj      Ü
suggested
by government officials, congressmen, etc. usually tofight the drug
war,

crime, etc.  Indeed, martial law was imposedin Los Angeles (and was
begged
for by the public) to quell themassive riots in the spring of '92,
and
could have been declarednationally had the riots continued to spread
during the summer of'92. MARTIAL LAW, by definition, is "A system of
government underthe direction of military authority. It is an
arbitrary
kind oflaw, preceding directly from military power and having
noimmediate constitutional or legislative sanction. It is
onlyjustified
by necessity, and supersedes all civil government. Martial law is
built
on
no settled principle, but is arbitraryand in truth no law."
Suspension
of
the writ of habeas corpus(i.e., right to trial by judge and jury and
protection fromillegal imprisonment) is a major element of martial
law.
AsJustice Blackstone wrote: "In this case, the nation parts with a
portion
of its liberty and suspected persons may then bearrested without
cause
assigned." The potential for a State of National Emergency or martial
lawin America over the next three to five to seven years (perhaps
todeal

with riots, the war on crime or drugs, a financial/bankingcrisis or
some

manufactured crisis) is a very real possibility.Indeed aspects of a
state
of emergency (or martial law) and thesuspension of constitutional
rights

already exist in America today! Over a dozen Executive Orders have
been
passed by Congressover the past few decades giving the President
total
dictatorialcontrol over every aspect of American life if the
Presidentdecides to trigger and implement same. FEMA would then go
intoaction, firearms would be confiscated, and many (if not
all)constitutional rights and guarantees would be suspended. Under a
full
state of emergency, tens or hundreds of thousandsof Americans (guilty
of

hate, environmental, financial, or guncontrol 'crimes') are likely to
be

imprisoned. Perhaps this iswhy George Bush moved in recent years to
double
US prisoncapacity, and why under a national security directive called
"Rex84", signed in 1984 by President Reagan, eleven huge
federaldetention centres were activated in California,
Arizona,Arkansas,

Wisconsin, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Georgiaand Florida.

ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE AND COMPUTERIZATION OF THE PUBLIC

Computers and other high-tech breakthroughs over the past fewyears
have
given the US (and other governments) the ability tolisten to,
monitor,
track, and keep citizens under surveillance(from the cradle to the
grave)
that were not available to Hitlerin Nazi Germany or to the communists
in

Russia, China or the Eastbloc until very recently. In 1974, the
government
had 3.9 billion records of individualsstored in the personal data
systems
of 97 federal agencies. TheDepartment of Health, Education and
Welfare
had
693 separate datasystems with 130 million personal records including
marital,financial, health, etc. data stored.  The Treasury department
had910 data systems with 853 million records; the Justice
Üj      Ü
Department 175 data systems with 181 million records, the
DefenseDepartment 2,219 data systems with 312 million records
stored,etc. These numbers (from US News and World Report) are 20
years
old.The computer files on Americans today are probably ten
timeslarger
and are linked together between most government agencies.Like it or
not,

your life is now an open book. Using your SocialSecurity number, any
government agency, or agent (local, state,or federal) can now tap
into
dozens (or hundreds) of computer data bases on every American. A
total
and
comprehensive computerprofile exists on virtually ever adult
American.
Now
the government has developed a DNA (genetic) data base on1.5 million
US
military servicemen and is experimenting with sameon federal
prisoners.
Most Americans are not aware that theirphone calls, telexes, faxes
and
certain US mail are regularlymonitored by federal agencies. Phones
can
now
be made 'hot on the hook' (i.e., turned intomicrophones even when
hung
up
and not in use). According to a1992 report by the General Accounting
Office entitled "FBIAdvanced Communication Technologies Pose
WiretappingChallenges", it is the intention of the FBI to tap all
phones

in America. Every square inch of the earth's surface can now be
monitoredby satellite so that all persons and activities can now
bewatched. The government, in conjunction with AT&T, has
developedcomputerized voice recognition on phones and also picks up
andrecords (through the National Security Agency) key words
fromconversations, which trigger the NSA tape recorders. Several
years
ago, US passports were made computer-readable.Now, US, Canadian,
Australian, German and other Europeanauthorities are installing
computers
in airports which will notonly read passports, but also hand prints
via
infrared securityreaders. This means data banks of computerized hand
prints willbe developed over the next few years and linked to other
gov.data bases, so that an instant computer record of an
individualwill
be flashed on a screen simply by waving a person's handover a grocery
store-type infrared scanner. Does this soundfarfetched? This system
is
being set up at the Kennedy andNewark airports and airports in the
aforementioned countries at this writing. Biometric identification
systems
are now exploding onto thescene with computerized fingerprint
comparisons,
identificationcards, debit and smart cards, driver's licences,
proposals

for abiometric national ID card, a biometric card to replace
welfarecheques and food stamps, biometric passports, and
biometricbooking of prisoners by law enforcement officers.
Biometrictechnologies include fingerprint comparison, retina
scanning,
DNAanalysis, voice recognition, hand geometry, body odour, body
heatpatterns and brain wave analysis. In other words, 1001 ways
oftracking the earth's inhabitants are emerging via new
hightechnology.
Cars can be tracked via small implanted computerized receivingdevices
linked with government satellites. The US government hasactually
spent
$3
billion over the past 15 years to develop
thisÜj      Ü
people/vehicle tracking system. Now the exact location
of trucks,police cars, and other vehicles is beginning to be tracked
in
theUS via this method.

TOWARD A CASHLESS SOCIETY: THE WAY ON CASH AND PRIVACY

Present US government attitudes toward cash and people who useit are
reminiscent of Nazi Germany. Police agencies nationwideconsider
anyone
carrying a large quantity of cash to be involvedin criminal activity
unless they can prove otherwise. Forexample, an Iowa man stopped for
a
traffic ticket pulled hisdriver's licence out of his wallet, which
also
contained $7,000in cash. He was on his way to a sale that required
cash
-
muchlike the government's own auctions of seized property.
Thepoliceman
confiscated the cash because he didn't think that aman dressed in
overalls
should be carrying that much cash. A subscriber from New Jersey
recently

described the followingincident in a letter to your editor. He was
recently driving downthe New Jersey Turnpike in an 18-foot Hertz
rental
truck. Hestopped at the last toll booth at the end of the Turnpike
nearWilmington, Delaware, and paid the toll with a $50 bill -the
onlycash he had on him. The attendant told him to wait a minute
andthen
went to the front of the truck and wrote down the licenceplate
number, a

description of the subscriber (who was driving)and his son (a
passenger
in
the truck). While the driver askedabout this, the attendant stapled
the
$50 bill to the governmentform and told him that this was the
procedure
for anyone payingwith a $50 or $100 bill. In Florida, The Orlando
Sentinel
recently carried a seriesentitled: "Highway Robbery on I-95", which
described how policeseize your cash for even minor traffic violations
on

the basisthat the cash is "probable proceeds of drug transactions".
Atairports, ticket agents and security personnel are alert toanyone
carrying large quantities of cash. Why? Because if their tipoff leads
to
a
seizure, they get a finder's fee of 10-25%. Ina seizure recently
described
on 60 Minutes, a DEA agenttestified in court that the person he
seized
cash from wascarrying $100s, $50s, $20s and $10s, "which were all
widely

usedin the drug trade." Of course, this only leaves $1s and $5s
foreveryone else. Drug residue on your cash provides 'probable cause'
for
itsseizure. Tens of thousands of cash seizures are made each
yearbecause

dogs allegedly identified the cash as containing drugresidue. And
yet,
according to the DEA's own lab studies, it isthe government itself
(i.e.,
the Federal Reserve) thatcontaminates most cash in its currency
sorting
operations.Rollerson the Fed's cash sorting machines are contaminated
with
cocaineresidue (20 to 100 times higher than those [sic] found on
theaverage bill). Various studies dating back to 1985 show
thatanywhere
between 80% and 97% of cash circulating has drug residueon it. What
happens to the seized cash? It's deposited into agovernment bank
account

to be recirculated. No effort is made totake it out of circulation,
according to affidavits from 21Üj      Ü
agencies that participate in
cash seizures. If you want your cashback, you must go to court to
prove
that the funds were earnedlegitimately. If you win, the government
always
appeals under thestrategy that they will litigate until you run out
of
money. So,does this make carrying cash illegal? In effect it does!
Illustrative of the government attitude toward cash was theNovember
'92
article by David Warwick in 'The Futurist'magazine, entitled "The
Cash
Free Society". The article claimsthat "cash has been the root of much
of

the social and economicevil. Ridding society of its cash could make
most

criminal activity disappear, from purse-snatching to drug
trafficking,Electronic money systems promise to lead the way to a
cash-free,crime-free society." The article admits that there are $300
billion in legitimatecash transactions in America each year, but
argues
that the 40million Americans who primarily use cash must adjust.
Warwickrecommends the instituting of a federal debit card system
forall
transactions, down to buying gum or a newspaper, paying fora parking
meter
or toll phone call, of even leaving a tip.Electronic transfers would
"constitute legal tender". There wouldbe no such thing as a
"withdrawal",
only a "transfer". A recenttrial run was the government use of debit
cards
for food stampsand the paying of Marines at Paris Island via debit
cards.

MONEY-LAUNDERING LAWS

In the former Soviet Union, if the government wanted toapprehend and
imprison someone who had committed no crime, theycharged him with the
catch- all crime of 'hooliganism'. InAmerica, the catch-all crime
used
against organized crimefigures or other Americans has for years been
RICO
statutes or simply 'conspiracy'. But in recent years the government
hascreated a new catch-all crime, punishable by
imprisonment,confiscation of property, heavy fines, or all of them.
It
iscalled 'money-laundering'. Most Americans suppose
'money-laundering'
refers primarily tothe hidden, laundered, movement of cash profits
from
drug deals.Wrong! It refers today to almost any 'financial crime',
brokenfinancial regulation, use of cash, avoidance of government
cashreporting laws, unreported foreign bank accounts,
unreportedtransfer

of funds, or virtually anything the governmentbureaucrats want it to
mean.
The definition is vague andever-expanding. IRS agents are greatly
accelerating money-laundering cases insituations where there is
obviously
no criminal intent, andcertainly no involvement whatsoever with drugs
or

drug money.Remember, the IRS considers money- laundering to be any
effortyou make to disguise your assets or avoid completing a
federalcurrency transaction or border-crossing form. If a tax case
can
be
called 'money-laundering', it is no longercivil, but criminal, with
large
potential criminal sentences andfines. The government's growing and
expanding money-launderinglaws are becoming the basis for a total
financial dictatorship inAmerica, all under the guise of fighting the
drug
war. The firstÜj      Ü
thing the Nazis did in the 1930s to establish
control over theirpopulation was to establish 'money crimes' that
were
punishableby forfeiture and imprisonment. Half a century later, the
samething is happening here. The war on drugs is a classic
governmentpower grab. The Treasury Department has published a booklet
entitled"Money-Laundering: A Banker's Guide to Avoiding Problems",
whichcontains a list of suspicious activities that the
TreasuryDepartment says fit the profile of a 'money- launderer'.
Theseactivities include: 1) Paying off a delinquent loan all at
once;2)
Changing currency from small to large denominations; 3)Buying
cashier's
cheques, money orders, or traveller's cheques for lessthan the
reporting

limit (i.e., under $10,000); 4) Actingnervously while making large
transactions with cash or monetaryinstruments; 5) Opening an account
and

using it as collateralfor a loan; 6) Presenting a transaction that
involves a largenumber of $50s and $100 bills; and 7) Presenting a
transactionwithout counting the cash first. Any non-reporting of cash
transactions over $10,000 on a form8300 (THAT NOW INCLUDES CASHIER'S
CHEQUES, MONEY ORDERS OF ANYKIND AND TRAVELLER'S CHEQUES) by a
banker,
stockbroker, cardealer, jeweller, coin dealer, or any business
accepting

cash(or the above-listed cash equivalents) is considered a money-
laundering violation and can result in heavy fines, and
evenimprisonment.
Personal cheques, money market fund cheques andbank wires are not
presently reportable on form 8300s. [NB:Murder, rape, and armed
robbery
now result in smaller and lessfrequent jail terms or fines than the
new
federal crime ofmoney-laundering. In fact, the penalties for
money-laundering are10 times more severe than the same crime
prosecuted
as
taxevasion.]

BUSH'S INTERNATIONAL STRUCTURING AND EXPANDED FORFEITURE LAW

The November '92 issue of 'Low Profile', written by MarkNestmann
(P.O.
Box
84910, Phoenix, AZ 85071) carried an ominousarticle on America's
latest
money-laundering legislation. On29/10/92, George Bush, who pushed
through
more money-laundering,anti-currency, and anti-privacy legislation in
his

single termthan any other US president, signed the
"Annunzio-WylieAnti-money- laundering Act" which: 1) Prohibits a bank
orfinancial institution from disclosing to a depositor the factthat
their account is the subject of a money-launderingoperation; 2)
Requires

all financial institutions or others whosell or redeem monetary
instruments (cash, cashier's cheques,money orders or traveller's
cheques)
or transmit funds by wire,to maintain records of any international
transactions, and makethem available for warrantless inspection 3)
Permits
the Treasuryto require financial institutions to report suspicious
transactions that could involve a violation of any law orregulation.
The

institution is not allowed to notify the"suspect" of the report; 4)
Permits the government to seizemonetary instruments or financial
accounts
even if it cannotspecifically identify the property allegedly subject
toÜj      Ü
forfeiture (in other words, any other property of the
"accused"can be seized); 5) Prohibits any action to structure or
assist
instructuring the transfer of monetary assets across US borders inany
effort to avoid reporting the transfer. Any property involvedin any
structured transaction is subject to forfeiture. 6)Applies the weight
of

the anti-money-laundering laws to thosewho conspire to violate them,
even
if no violation takes place; 7) Permits any federal agency to share
any
data
it holds with anyother federal agency; 8) Permits the government to
confiscatethe assets of people even if they are held in foreign
countries(this is the culmination of years of negotiations with
othercountries); 9) It allows the US government to prosecute
foreignbanks who use US banks to launder money; and 10) It empowers
banking regulators to revoke the charter of institutionsconvicted of
money- laundering. These provisions are designed toterrorize bankers
and

force them to become the money police forthe government. As Mark
Nestmann
wrote in his 10/92 Low Profile newsletter:"This bill greatly
strengthens

the government's hand inmoney-laundering and forfeiture cases. The
'vague'
internationalstructuring ban is particularly frightening. In theory,
anyonetransferring more than $10,000 in monetary instruments in
installments below that amount across a US border withoutnotifying
the
Customs Service could be illegally structuringtheir transactions.
They
would then be subject to criminalpenalties and forfeiture."

WHEN MONEY-LAUNDERING MEETS THE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICE

Mark Nestmann wrote in a recent Low Profile newsletter: "TheJuly 1992
ABA
Banking Journal describes how the EnvironmentalProtection Agency
(EPA)
can
use money-laundering laws againstlenders that provide money to
corporate

polluters. The CrimeControl Act of 1990 permits the EPA to apply
money-
launderinglaws in criminal violations of most federal air and
waterpollution legislation. A lender may be convicted
ofmoney-laundering

if it advances more than $10,000 to a companythat it knows or has
reason

to believe has violated environmentallaws. Violators may be fined
$500,000
or twice the value of the property involved, whichever is greater. A
maximum
20-year prisonsentence may also apply to the individual(s) approving
the

loan." "The courts have defined 'proceeds' as moneys that may
havebeen
co-mingled with other, legitimate funds. As a result, allreceipts
coming

from a facility violating environmental laws,property acquired from
such

receipts, and perhaps even thecompany controlling the facility, may
be
'proceeds'. All are subject to forfeiture under federal law". "The
article
suggests that lenders should adopt 'due diligence'measures to avoid
lending to companies in violation ofenvironmental laws; make
personnel
aware of environmental andmoney-laundering laws."

STRUCTURING LAWS
Üj      ÜŒ  'Structuring' is defined by the IRS as any effort to
avoidreporting cash or other monetary transactions over $10,000
bybreaking them down into smaller  'related' transactions over any12
month period (defined by USC 31, Sec. 5322- 5324Money-Laundering
Control
Act of 1986, as amended). A structuring
violation carries with it a criminal penalty with a mandatoryprison
term,  heavy fines, and confiscation of structured fundsand money
'connected' to  them. (A civil penalty of $25,000 finewith
confiscation
of structured funds also exists.) Monetaryinstruments included in
structuring are cash, cashier's cheques,money orders, and traveller's
cheques.
  'Structuring' is now defined as money-laundering, and is acriminal
offence. You can now go to jail for dealing in cash toprotect your
financial privacy,  if the IRS thinks you're tryingto hide or
structure
your transactions or  monetary instruments.Furthermore, it's against
the
law for a bank or merchant to tellyou that you might be violating the
law. This can get himprosecuted  as part of your structuring
'conspiracy'. If theythink your behaviour is  suspicious, they may
fill
out a form onyou without telling you and file it  with the IRS who
will
audit you, or begin a criminal investigation.
  A few examples of structuring violations include a series ofrelated
withdrawals or deposits over $10,000 (i.e., several inany 12-month
period) in monetary instruments without filing acash reporting report
(CTR) to the  government, or makingpayments of $10,000 or more in
monetary instruments on  aninstallment loan without filing a CTR. One
illustration thiswriter is  familiar with is a high school principal
who
lived inthe South, with no  criminal record, no history of drug usage
ordealing, or even a speeding  record - he simply believed inprivacy.
About two years ago, he purchased  $62,000 worth ofkrugerrands from a
coin dealer and several days later mailed nineseparate cashiers
cheques
to the dealer, of sizes varying between$6,000 and $9,000.
  He had accumulated $62,000 in cash (after taxes) over a 15 or20 yr
period, believing that privacy and Amendment IV of the USConstitution
were still in effect. He was wrong, they are not!The man went to nine
separate banks to buy cashier's cheques,three of them (33%) turned
him
in to the IRS, the man was
indicted on 16 counts of criminal violation of Title 31 of TheBank
Secrecy  Act of 1986; was found guilty; fined $200,000; hadhis
$62,000
forfeited to  the IRS; and was sentenced to fiveyears in the federal
penitentiary, all for the new federalmoney-laundering crime of buying
nine cashier's cheques with
his own cash. That is structuring laws in action and that soundsmore
like  Nazi germany than the America most of us grew up in.
  If the government's case is shakier (or less clear cut) thanthe
principal's case (which, unfortunately, was a classictextbook Title
31
violation), their ploy will be to drop thecriminal charges if you
allow
your assets to be  seized withoutgoing to trial, and/or pay a stiff
fine. This is now very  commonin drug kingpin cases. The drug dealer
goes free, the police keephis assets. 'Structuring' is a strict
liability statute. Thatmeans that even if there's no criminal intent,
even if you earnedÜj      Ü
the money legitimately, unless you can prove that thetransactions
were
unrelated, the government keeps your
assets.
  If the government decides to prosecute you criminally, inaddition
to
the  mandatory prison sentence and fine, they canlegally confiscate
not
just the money involved in thetransaction, but any assets associated
with the  'structured'funds. For example, if you 'structure' a
withdrawal of $10,000 in
cash (over any 12 month period) from a $1 million bank account,the
government can seize the entire $1 million. The seizure canproceed
even
without a  criminal conviction or indictment, justlike the forfeiture
laws.
  The average person might say, "Well, the government would nevercome
after  anyone who was totally innocent." But that's nottrue, he
misses
the point!  The IRS admits that 85% of the peopleaccused of
'structuring' committed no  other crime than seekingto protect their
privacy. The courts have upheld numerouscriminal structuring
convictions
for violations that concealed nocriminal activity. If the government
wins the conviction, thejudge must  sentence the criminal "to a
mandatory prisonsentence".
  This gives the lie to the argument thatmoney-laundering/structuring
laws are enforced to get drugdealers and fight the war on drugs. The
fact is that it is fareasier to convict an honest law-abiding citizen
and confiscatehis  property than to go after a real drug dealer who
has
abattery of high-priced lawyers and accountants, and who mighteven
shoot
back.
  In US vs Aversa, a federal judge delivered a scathing critiqueof
the
government's use of the 'structuring' statutes. Aversa's'crime' was
initiating a secret loan to help keep informationabout his wife's
infertility private. The loan triggered reportsof 'suspicious
transactions' in his bank account.
  In conclusion, money-laundering and 'structuring' laws havelittle
if
anything to do with the war on drugs. That is simplythe excuse. They
are
a  legal way for the socialist governmentbureaucrats to plunder and
confiscate the peoples' assets (as inNazi Germany or Russia), they
are a
way to enrich thegovernment's debt-ridden coffers, they are a way to
drive ustoward the  cashless society, and they are a way to
placeOrwellian-type controls on the  American people.
  This trend is likely to get worse under Bill Clinton, judgingby a
recent  speech he gave in Michigan to a group of prosecutors(as
reported
by Money- Laundering Alert): "If we really want toget the big
criminals,
we can focus more on the money-launderingaspects of their operations,
and use the federal authorities todeal with financial transactions
that
cross state lines, that
deal with federally insured institutions, that deal with thosethings
that the states will never be competent to deal with, Thatis what the
federal  government ought to focus on, go after themoney!"

ASSET FORFEITURES: HOW THE GOVERNMENT PLUNDERS THE PEOPLE VIASEIZURE
LAWS Üj      ÜŒ
  George Orwell's 1984 has arrived in the USSA. Just as in
NaziGermany
in the 1930s and in Russia from 1917 to 1990, anygovernment agent or
agency in America today can confiscate orseize almost any property
from
any American  and there is verylittle the citizen can do to protect
himself. We are  witnessingthe death of property rights in America,
human rights and allother freedoms will follow.
  In 1984, government seizures of so-called 'illegal assets'totalled
$30  million. In 1991, these seizures totalled $644million (not
including IRS  levies) for a net increase of 2,047%.(Seizures in 1992
probably exceeded $750 million.) A total of$2.6 billion in US
citizens'
assets have been seized  since 1885,the Government Asset Forfeiture
Office proudly boasts. Eighty
percent of these seizures never resulted in an arrest orconviction,
indicating that most are being taken from innocentpeople.
  According to USA Today, there are now 1,000 forfeitures perweek in
the
US, or 52,000 per year. Assets seized in order offrequency are: 1)
cash
or other monetary instruments; 2)vehicles, boats, planes; 3) bank and
brokerage  accounts; 4) realestate (including your home); and 5)
pension
and profit- sharingplans.
  Police or government seizures now pose a seemingly random,
butstill,
very  real and terrifying threat to everything we haveworked so hard
to
earn and  save over the years. It isfrightening to realize that if
your
teenage son or daughter hostsa party at your house, and one of the
guests brings a few  jointsof marijuana, you can lose your entire
house
and everything in itunder many local or state forfeiture laws.
(Federal
forfeiturelaws will apply only if the substance is present in
saleablequantities.)
  Asset forfeiture is an unconstitutional process (thoughconsidered
legal  according to new socialist laws andregulations) which allows
the
government  or any police agency tosimply 'accuse' or 'suspect' you
of a
crime (but not formallycharge you), and then seize your property. In
most instancesthere is no arrest, no trial and no conviction. You are
presumedguilty until you can  prove yourself innocent. The plain fact
isthat the great majority of people  who have property seized
fromthem
by the police are innocent and law-abiding. One study showedthat in
80%
of the seizures, the police never even filed  chargesagainst the
victims
of the seizures, or, in some cases, filedcharges and then dropped
them.
  The police need no warrant to seize your car, you cash,
yourbusiness,
your house, your bank account, your investments, yourretirement plan,
or
your  personal property, with no due process.They don't even have to
formally  charge you with a crime. Thereare hundreds of local, state
and
federal laws  and thousands ofregulations on the books under which
the
government can seize
your property.
  Furthermore, as Financial Privacy Report (P.O. Box
1277,Barnesville,
MN  55337) says, there's no cap on the value of theseized assets.
They
can take expensive cars and homes for evenÜj      Ü
the most minor 'suspected' violation. You  might be undersuspicion of
violating some statute for which the maximum penalty, if convicted
criminally in a court of law might be a$500 or $1,000 fine. But under
these laws, the police orgovernment can seize your property worth 100
or
even 1,000 timesas much as the maximum fine, and they don't need to
convict youto do it.
  Three fraternities on the University of Virginia campus foundout
the
hard way when federal agents raided them and confiscateda small
amount
of  marijuana worth, at most, a few hundreddollars. Criminally, this
would have  been treated as a youthfulfirst transgression of a few
teenagers. But under  the seizurelaws, the police took the fraternity
houses themselves, whichwere worth about one million dollars.
  In Iowa, a woman accused (not convicted) of shoplifting a
$25sweater
saw  her $18,000 car (which had been specially equippedfor her
handicapped  daughter) seized as the potential 'getawayvehicle'. In
Portland, Oregon, the police raided a bar andarrested a bartender
(not
the owner) on suspicion of bookmaking.There was zero evidence
pointing
to the bar owner's involvement,
the police documents didn't even mention him. But the policeseized
his
business anyway. The deputy district attorney incharge said she
didn't
have evidence to press criminal chargesagainst the owner "so we
seized
the  business".

PROBABLE CAUSE

  The government or police do not have to show any more than'probable
cause' that a crime has been committed, the samestandard which for
centuries has been applied to search warrants.So the police can now
seize your home with no more evidence thanit once took to search it.
  'Probable cause' can be when the police or government
agency'suspects'  racketeering (which is broadly defined, it can
meanalmost anything), drug  possession, drug
trafficking,money-laundering (See section IIA above),  robbery,
murder,
taxevasion, extortion, environmental crimes, violation of  theTrading
with the Enemy Act, violation of the Emergency EconomicPowers  Act,
gun
control violations, and more than 100 suspectedunlawful activities
named in legislation.
  Some specific examples of 'probable cause' in the currentavalanche
of
government seizures: 1) a tip from a paid informant(with a finder's
fee
of  10-25% of the value of the seizedproperty paid); 2) a tip from an
airline  ticket sales person orairport security guard (with a
finders'
fee paid of  10-25% ofthe value of the seized property); 3) any trace
of
any controlledsubstance (i.e., drugs) on any person or property (zero
toleranceis allowed); 4) any trace of any controlled
substance(i.e.,drugs)on cash or other  monetary instruments; 5) any
specified unlawfulactivity in which probable  cause indicates you are
guilty (i.e.,firearms violations, unpaid speeding  tickets, etc.); 6)
makingan effort to avoid filling out a cash reporting form at the
bank;7) innocently doing business with a person that the government
believes you should have suspected of committing a crime. Üj      ÜŒ
Bill and Karen Munnerlyn, recently profiled on 60 Minutes, areclassic
examples of (7) above. Bill Munnerlyn used to own a LasVegas air
freight  service. But on 19/3/89, Bill flew an old manand four
padlocked
blue plastic boxes to a California airport.Unknown to Bill, his
passenger was a convicted cocainetrafficker, and the boxes contained
nearly $3 million in cashfrom a drug deal An informant tipped off the
DEA as to the natureof the cargo and passenger, and both the
passenger
and Bill werearrested upon arrival. The jet, the blue boxes, and even
$8,500in cash Bill's passenger had paid for the flight were seized.
  Bill was released three days later with no charges, but the DEAkept
the  plane, and the US Attorney prosecuting the seizure saidit was
justifiable  because the plane flew into the Los Angelesarea which is
"known as a center  of illegal drug activity" andthat was sufficient
'probable cause' to seize  the plane. InOctober '90, Bill took the
government to court and won a jury
trial. But the judge overturned the jury's verdict.
  The DEA then demanded that Bill pay a $66,000 fine (which hedid not
have)  to get the plane back. Meanwhile, the plane hadincurred
$50,000
in damage  while in government custody. In themeantime, under DEA
pressure, the FDA  revoked Bill's flightcertificate. Bill never got
the
plane back, His business is gone,and he now drives a truck to support
his family. But, theinformant whose tip led to Bill's jet being
seized
is eligiblefor a reward up to 25% of the value of the plane.
  According to a recent article in USA Today, in 1992, 65informants
made
over $100,000 each by simply alleging to policeagencies that their
friends,  neighbors, and/or businessassociates had committed crimes.
And
no, when you  go to trial,you don't have the right to confront the
informant in court. The
reason: it's a civil, not a criminal proceeding.
  To seize your property, the government need not accuse you of
acrime.
All  that is necessary is that the judge agree with aprosecutor that
'probable  cause' indicates that a crime wascommitted in or on your
property. Or a  policeman, or sheriff, orfedral agent can make that
determination on the spot and seizeyour car, your boat, your home,
your
bank accounts, etc.Accordingto The Pittsburgh Press, over 80% of the
victims of 25,000 suchseizures they  analysed were never accused of
any
crime.

LOOKING SUSPICIOUS CAN GET YOUR ASSETS SEIZED

  A 'suspicious' customer or transaction at a bank or
financialinstitution  goes to the top of the seizure list. There is a
boxon the top of the CTR  (cash reporting form) and if a personlooks
nervous, or protests having the  form filled out, or is
tooinquisitive
about the form, that box may be  checked. The bank issupposed to
notify
the Treasury Department but cannot  tell you,they're just supposed to
spy. Should the Treasury Department findyour actions suspicious, it
can
freeze your account and it's upto you to  prove the seizure is
improper.

  In the largest effort of this type, Operation Polar Cap,
theTreasury
froze  more than 700 'suspicious' accounts. Ultimatelyonly about 10%
of
these were  shown to be possibly tied toÜj      Ü
illegal activity. The other 90% were erroneously  (but
'legally')confiscated. Yet each depositor whose account was
wrongfully
seized had to prove, at their own expense, that their assets hadbeen
earned  by legitimate means.
  As the Financial Privacy Report writes, "Forfeiture laws
wereexpanded
in  1984 to allow the government to take possessionwithout first
charging the  owner. The proceeds finance moreinvestigations and are
helping to finance the financial shortfallof local, state and federal
governments. Eliminating the  need toprove a crime has moved most
action
to civil court, where the
government accuses the item, not the owner, of being tainted bycrime.
As
a  result, jury trials can be refused, illegal searchescondoned, and
rules of  evidence ignored.
  "In up to 80% of the cases, no charges are ever filed. If theyare
filed,  you have plenty of time to fight them. But you onlyhave a
very
limited time  to fight a seizure. In California, forexample, you only
have 10 days to file your challenge to seizure.There you are: you
have
been thrown out on the  street, you homeand bank accounts seized, no
money to pay a lawyer, and you  haveto prepare your case.
  "You also usually have to file a bond with the court. That bondis
about 10% of the value of the property seized. Where do youget the
money
for the bond, if they have seized all of yourfinancial assets (as
they
did to a friend of  this writer)? Butif you don't come up with the
money
for the bond, your  propertyis gone. And what is the bond for? It's
hard
to believe, but it'sto cover THEIR cost of fighting YOU in court.
They
seize yourproperty without a trial, and then force you to finance
theircase against you. It's like being  sentenced to the firing
squad,but your executioners make you pay for the  bullets and
theburial,
and dig you own grave."

YOUR RIGHTS IN A HEARING ABOUT A POLICE SEIZURE ARE VERY LIMITED
  As the Financial Privacy Report points out, "in some states,you
have
no  right to trial by jury. Your case is heard by ajudge who often
has a
direct  financial stake in the seizure. Ifthey take your assets, and
you
can't afford a lawyer, that's yourtough luck. You don't have a right
to
a court-appointed attorney.In some cases you do not get to testify on
your own behalf.Hearsay  evidence, not admissible for criminal cases,
can be usedagainst you. You do  not have the right to confront
youraccusers.
  "And worst of all, there is no presumption of innocence.
These'forfeiture'  hearings, which harken back to the days of
theSpanish
Inquisition, work the  other way - you are presumedguilty until you
prove your innocence."

WHO PROFITS FROM THE PRESENT SEIZURE LAWS

  Certainly local, city and federal government(s) are helping tocover
some of their financial shortfall from the loot they stealfrom their
victims.  Informers and spies are profiting handsomelyfrom seizures,
with some airline ticket clerks, security guards,Üj      Ü
bank clerks, etc. comfortably supplementing their income withfinder's
fees for tips leading to seizures. Typically, informants (snitches)
get
10-25% off the top. There are somesnitches with  horrible criminal
records who are now millionairesfrom these seizures and  'snitch
fees'.
You will be happy to knowthat no Form 1099s are issued on  these
fees,
so the 'snitches'are apparently enjoying tax-free income.
Incredible!
  More than 90% of the search warrants granted to law
enforcementagencies are based on information supplied by informants.
Thegovernment pays out more than $60 million per year in finder'sfees
to
informants. One wonders who is more corrupt, theinformant or the
bribing
officials?  In 1984, 'bounty hunter'
provisions were added to the federal forfeiture laws that permitlocal
police to keep most of the proceeds of the property theyseize under
federal  authority. Since then, government seizureshave soared
2,047%, a
Congressional report has noted(approvingly).
  The laws governing how the seizure booty is split up vary fromstate
to  state. A typical state split for the balance (afterpaying the
informant's  finder's fee) might run 70% to the localpolice, with the
district attorney's office, judges' chambers andthe Feds splitting
the
balance. In Louisiana, for example, everyofficial involved in
'justice'
is given a direct financial  stakein upholding the seizure. The
police
bringing the case get 60%;the  prosecuting DA's office gets another
20%;
and the judgesigning the forfeiture order gets the remaining 20% for
his
orher court fund.

THE INNOCENT OWNER DEFENCE

  In a case now before the Supreme Court, the Justice Departmentis
seeking to virtually eliminate what is called the 'innocentowner
defence' in federal  forfeiture cases regarding seizures ofreal
estate,
cash, vehicles, bank  accounts, etc., allegedlytainted through drug
activity or any of more than 100 other'crimes'.
  A 1984 law states that federal ownership of property begins
theinstant
an  activity punishable by forfeiture takes place on it.Now, the
Department of  Justice interprets that wording asallowing it to deny
the
claim of any  innocent owner to whom theproperty is later
transferred.
In other words, the allegedillegal act eliminates any subsequent
rights
to the property byany  party other than the US government.
  The Justice Department holds that once property is tainted by
acrime,
it is tainted forever. The implications of the eliminationof the
'innocent owner  defence' are staggering. Example: aseries of say, 3,
4,
or 5 owners of real estate, property, avehicle, a plane, a boat, etc.
have bought and paid for theproperty or item in good faith, and are
unaware of any priorcriminal  activity related to that property. But
if
owner 1 or 2dealt or kept drugs on that property (or did any other
illegalactivity) or even transported them in the car, boat, plane,
etc.,the Justice Department claims that it owns the property
(viaforfeiture/seizure laws) from the point in time that it "became
Üj      ÜŒtainted with the crime" and that all subsequent owners have
norights. It also claims that it is entitled to all income fromthat
property from the time it was "tainted with the crime" untilthe
seizure
and forfeiture, whether the lapse was a year, or tenyears. The
Department of Justice holds that buyers 3, 4, or 5 wholegally paid
for
the property and hold title to it, can have it
seized from them at any point in the future.
  Imagine how many of us own a home or vehicle which may have hada
former  owner who was a drug dealer (or who violated any one ofthe
more
than 100 laws for which forfeiture is permitted). TheDepartment of
Justice says that we do not have good title to thathome or vehicle,
that
the government can seize it at any time.Mortgage lenders, real estate
brokers (or investors), title
companies, landlords, are going to freeze in their tracks whenthey
begin
to understand the implications of this. There may beno such thing as
clear title in the US as the Department ofJustice declares literally
millions of properties vulnerable topotential forfeiture.
  There is a five-year statute of limitations in federal
civilforfeitures (although the government is now arguing in a
casebefore
the Supreme Court that there is no statute of
limitations,whatsoever).
So, if the government gets the 'innocent ownerdefence' thrown out, it
has five years after the first allegedillegal use to make a claim
against the property, no matter how
many times the property has changed hands in the interim. Thelast
owner
gets burned, but he will sue all prior owners for nothaving gotten
the
good title he thought he got.
  Let's look at a large example. Let's say that in 1989, XYZCompany
dealt  drugs out of its offices on the 32nd floor of theEmpire State
Building, which is owned by R Corporation. TheEmpire State Building
is
later sold in 1991 to Japanese interests(J Corporation). XYZ Company
officials are arrested and indictedon drug charges in 1992. At that
point who legally has title tothe Empire State Building?   According
to
the Justice Department,not R  Corporation and not J Corporation. The
government owns itfrom the time the crime occurred in 1989 and can
seize
it inforfeiture when it wishes.

CONCLUSION

  We are entering an unconstitutional quagmire of
seizures,forfeitures,
and lawsuits of incredible dimensions. It is almostbeyond belief to
this
writer  to see what is happening in Americatoday. The government
encourages Americans to spy on one anotherfor pay; the government and
police unconstitutionally  seize andconfiscate private property of
innocent American citizens;Americans who believe in the
Constitutional
guarantees toprivacy, or simply the use of cash, are impoverished,
jailed, orboth.
  A growing number of our police and government officials nolonger
necessarily represent justice and protection, but arebeing corrupted
with their new-found power and ability to sharein the loot; and
everyone
is beginning to be suspicious ofeveryone else, and especially of the
police and governmentÜj      Ü
officials - a growing number of whom are beginning to look andact
more
like their Gestapo and KGB counterparts every day. Thisis not the
America this writer grew up in! Welcome to the USSA -a branch of the
New  World Order!

****End Text****

     I don't know about you but this frankly scares the bejesusout of
me. I've often thought of buying a sail boat big enough tolive on and
then sail off into the Pacific....Well folks it'sabout time.  I don't
have the money yet, but every dime I canscrape goes into that fund
right
now, and anybody that'sinterested in investing in it (I plan on
something that willeasily  house 3 couples plus crew) are welcome to
come forward.
 

NEXT

BACK TO GEOCITIES

BACK TO PANDEMONIUM

TO STEVE'S PAGE

TO REVELATIONS