FORFEITURE AND SEIZURE LAWS


Music on this page-"My Country Tis of Thee" 

Well we've all heard about the search and seizure laws, the forfeiture laws.
Here I've put some notes concerning these very laws.  Some are old, some are
new.  But it doesn't really matter whether they are old or new because the
new Crime Bill makes it all the easier for the government to do this to you!

The RICCO law is making a mockery of the right to be secure from seizure.

Being required to tell the state everything you own is not being secure in one's home and effects.

For some other examples of infringements of 5th Amendment rights check out the examples here or visit a very good site for this type of information......F.E.A.R



4/22/93  7:51 PM

Judy,
      Did you know there were  52,000 unlawful confiscations of citizens property this past year due to unconstitutional forfeiture laws?              Source: The MacAlvany Intelligence Adisor.

                                             Ed



06/25/93  1:18 AM

  52,000  Americans,  mostly honest,  law-abiding  citizens, have  experienced a lot of abusive seizures and  forfeitures in  the  past year alone; thousands more have  been  jailed.  Never say never--in 1993 (or beyond) it could be you or your family.  Just a few of these cases are discussed below:

*In Maryland, a member of the Carroll County Narcotics  Task Force disguised as a UPS driver delivered a parcel  containing a small quantity of marijuana to the owner of a  54-acre estate.   The  county  is now seeking to  seize  the  entire estate.   One task force member commented during  the  bust, that the property "would make a great police retreat."



*In  New Jersey, forfeiture is permitted for  property  connected  with any indictable offense.  A New Jersey  graduate medical  student set up a counseling office in his  parent's home  in  Monmouth County.  He got prior approval  from  the local Mental Health Director that this was legal.  But a few weeks later, police arrested him for "practicing  psychiatry without  a  license", and seized the contents of  the  home.  Under  New Jersey law, his challenge of the seizure will  be heard  by a single judge.  No jury trial is permitted.   (In another  New  Jersey  case, authorities  seized  a  business because it submitted a defective bid for a state  purchasing contract.)


*In  Tennessee, Willie Jones, a black  gardening  contractor from  Nashville, who had bundled up $9,600 in cash from  his prior  year's profits and headed for Houston for  his  semi-annual  trip to buy flowers and shrubs, was stopped  by  the police on suspicion of money laundering.  He had bought  the round trip ticket to Houston (about $400) with cash and  was turned in by the ticket agent.  It was said that he fit  the drug dealer profile--he was black and had cash.  The  police searched him, seized the $9,600, gave him a receipt and  let him  go.   No evidence of wrongdoing was  produced,  and  no charges were filed.  The money was never returned.


*In Jefferson Davis Parish LA, in April 1989,  deputies seized  $23,000  in  cash and a truck  belonging  to  Johnny Sotello, saying a space in the truck could have been used to hide  drugs.  Sotello said he was carrying the cash  because he was on his way to an auction.  He was never charge.  In a deal  cut a year later, he got the truck and only  half  the cash back.


*In  New  York City, in March 1991, some 20  armed  sheriffs deputies  entered Dan's Supreme Supermarket.  Carrying  guns and  radios,  they  blocked all store  exits  and  stationed themselves  at the cash registers.  Wearing  bright  bullet-proof  vests  with "SHERIFF" written on  their  backs,  they demanded  $16,900 immediately in cash.  They  threatened  to empty  the  cash registers and bust open the store  safe  if they  were not given the money.  What could he do?  He  gave them the money.  The reason for the seizure:  Litter  violations.


SUBJECT:    A.T.F. - IDAHO

  From the Seattle Times, 6/23/93, page A5:

  Donald Carlson is a casualty in the war on drugs, shot three times by federal agents who were looking for a cocaine stash at his home.
  Still in pain from his wounds, Carlson told Congress yesterday he thinks his $260,000 San Diego residence was one motivation for the fed's raid.  If they had found cocaine - they didn't - the authorities could have invoked the civil asset-forfeiture laws and seized his property.
  The paid infromant who provided the bad information has now been indicted, but that's small solace to Carlson.
  "I am afraid that I now agree with many people who believe that there is some insidious motivation permeating the war on drugs which causes agents and their supervisors to feel that they can conduct themselves in any manner they see fit in the name of the war on drugs," Carlson said.............. Rep. Henry Hyde, R-Ill., said they "are being used in terribly unjust ways, are depriving innocent citizens of their property with nothing that can be called due process."
end quote

  I know a former DEA agent, and his attitude is the same as those federal agents at Idaho and Waco who showed such a low regard for the civil rights of American citiznes.   They think their cause is so just that they have the right to ignore state and federal constitutions, and, they think most American's are the enemy.



04/05/93  8:07 AM

There's another example of government abuse of seizure laws that's receiving a lot of attention in Seattle. The Treasury Department has allowed until April 15 for the victim to appeal to get back his property. Letters and calls to treasury may help, although pressure from our senator and some congresspersons have only resulted in more charges and threats.>>>
Willem Eickholt's sailboat, the Hatuey, was seized on March 15th when he returned from donating powdered milk to Cuba.  The Customs Department has declared that Mr. Eickholt, a Dutch citizen, was guilty of "trading with the enemy". His explanation that he had neither bought nor sold anything were ignored. Customs had no search warrant, yet searched his boat three times, including once with dogs. They were determined to find illegal cargo, especially drugs, but could find none. They seized his boat anyway. He must now post bond and hire an attorney to try to get it back. Although they would not tell him what the procedures are lawyers tell him that the Treasury Department gets to decide whether the Treasury Department had sufficient grounds to take his boat.

If you would like more info, you can call or write Will at:
19407 1st Ave. So., Normandy Park, WA 98148, (206) 878-SAIL.
 



Msg #1048 in *Politics 101* Created on 01/31/93 at 20:39:36
To: ALL, From:
Subject: More on the "police state"!
MESSAGE HAS REPLIES.

Subject: Drug Seizure Laws Unconstitutional

   The laws that the Government has passed to fight the "War On Drugs" are Draconian and have stripped the Bill of Rights down to almost nonexistence. The right of a prosecuter to accept the word of an "informant" as gospel without checking it out and then seizing someone else's property as a result is tyranous.
The British used to do the same to the American colonies.  The Writs of Assistance were tools custom agents used that gave them permanent search warrants to ransack homes, boats and warehouses with impunity.
Often, as now, the agents planted illegal contraband so they could seize all the property of the poor target of their tyranny. John Hancock, one of the signers of the Constitution was a merchant who had his vessel seized by British custom agents who claimed they found goods that hadn't had the duties on them paid. John Adams was the lawyer who defended him and eventually got his vessel returned.
This was the reason John Hancock was chosen as one of the signers of our Constitution. He was a well known merchant who was dealing in illegal contraband. The Writs of Assistance were used mercilessly, as the Drug Seizure Laws are used now, and were the spark that eventually led to the revolution against the British.
The idea of Drug Seizure Laws is to strip drug dealers' profits from drugs and make it unprofitable. However the laws are being read so liberally that they are being used to rob the houses, cars and bank account of people who are merely users of drugs.
The laws do not require the person to be charged with crime for the seizure to take place, hence the seizure becomes the only intent of the police. The money they get does not go into the till of the public, but the police get to keep everything they seize for their department. This gives them the incentive to seize everything they can by applying the law as liberally as they can.
A Bill of Attainder is a legislative act which inflicts the consequences of attainder( or a conviction of a crime) upon a person without a judicial trial. The U.S. Constitution requires that a bill of attainder shall not be passed (Art. 1, sec 9).
A seizure of property for a criminal act without a conviction violates the prohibition of a bill of attainder. If a person is convicted of a drug crime, then the seizure is valid, but if he is not convicted or even charged with  a crime, but has his property seized, then he has been inflicted with the consequences of conviction without a conviction.


Some articles that are a bit long but deserve a look at for more information on forfeiture laws

"Presumed Guilty"

Return to Barb's Conservative Menu Page
You are visitor #

Since Octorber 14, 1997
Thank You-Happy Surfing!

tobepolsky@oocities.com

Get your free home page now!
 This background from--Backgrounds by Benita
This page last updated November 8, 1997