Stephanie S.

by, Stephanie - I wrote this a long time ago and just found it at the 420 Lounge of all places.

Civil asset forfeiture is based upon laws dating back to 1862. The Confiscation act of July 17, 1862 enacted a law that was originally intended to allow the government to intercept and seize ships and other assets of the enemy during times of war. This law was made to over ride the necessity of a trial by jury when a crime is "suspected" or "alleged". Alleged is the operative word here. No crime has to actually be committed in order for law enforcement agencies nation wide to confiscate any property they believe is being used to "facilitate" criminal activity. Notably, any property confiscated on the open sea automatically loses "ITS'" right to trial by jury.

The law stands as such. The property is seized and is in essence, held accountable for a crime. Yes, the property itself! The property is charged with a crime, separately from any allegations towards the owner of the property. For example, In Florida, a sheriff's department adopted a forfeiture program that authorizes officials who stop and question people on the streets or highways because they look like suspected drug couriers to seize as suspected drug money any cash in amounts over $100 that such people may be carrying, regardless of whether drugs are found. Law enforcement agencies in Michigan alone used forfeiture in 9,770 instances in a recent year, confiscating more than $14 million in private property. In most of the cases in Michigan, drug activity was suspected, yet in all cases, was not proven. However, the property is charged separately from the owner, under civil law.

Civil Asset Forfeiture is just what it says. The assets are basically sued by the government. Since the person who owns the property is probably using most of his resources for his criminal defense or simply bail, he probably does not have the cash necessary to attain a civil attorney to defend his property! Is this crazy or what? The property needs its' own attorney! And to add salt to the already infected wound, there are few, if any attorneys in this country who are knowledgeable enough to handle a civil asset case.

The laws for Civil Asset Forfeiture are archaic, and only over the past ten years or so have they been so heavily used other than for wartime property seizures. If the Civil Forfeiture laws were actually targeted at REAL criminals, and were used to serve the community and/or nation as a whole, they may be better received by the people. While federal drug agents are trained to set up drug deal on or near expensive or valuable property, the cases of huge takes of property from "big time" drug dealers are few and far between. Instead, the homes of plain old, ordinary families are being yanked right out from underneath them, even when no crime has been committed. All it takes is suspicion.

The worst part is this, this law is being contorted and broadened. Now, states such as Texas, Florida, and New Jersey, apply their forfeiture laws to any criminal activity, meaning that property owners must police their property against all such activity, drug- related or not. Another little known or realized factor is that property can be seized if ANYONE using the property is suspected of criminal activity. This applies to friends, children, grandparents, ANYONE on the property suspected of a crime can lead to the property being confiscated. If police believe that your child uses or has used you
telephone to conduct a drug transaction, your property can be taken away, simple as that.

Over 200 statutes give federal agents the opportunity to seize property. What about the Fifth Amendment? "no person...shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." Well, the property is being charged with a crime, not a person. And a person cannot bail out their naughty property when they are spending all their cash on defense or bail!

Do we see where this is heading? Hyde's Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform! Laws are being changed folks. This bill has already passed through one house, now on to the Senate, then I guess we'll see just how well justice is served in this fine Democracy of ours.

This is just a brief overview of where we stand as property owners. I dug through some stuff at my school library and the public law library here, only to find the same thing over and over. There are hundreds of papers written on this, mostly by attorneys, as well as a few judges, Senators, and general media.


What I found most interesting and quite pleasing, is that this law has been so heavily abused over the past ten years or so and when it was realized about 5 years ago, how serious it was becoming, people actually took a stand, and it looks like it is working. It didn't take long, when you look at the possibilities of this government and its' inherent ability to drag things through the mud for ages on end.

Well, I hope this is useful to someone, anyone. I Really hope that the part about "anyone on your property suspected of a crime" can hold your property liable, stood out to everyone. I had no idea this was the case. I have had friends who were visiting use my phone to arrange a few things that now really concern me! I guess if you use a pay phone, they better confiscate it from the corner it is standing on.

Pull together brothers and sisters. Be as one on this issue. Regardless of any other differences, we have to unite, if we are to have anything to leave for future generations that is worth sticking around for.


I just thought I should add, that this law is not targeted soley toward drugs. They also use this law to take property from people suspected of money laundering, mail tampering, and a multitude of charges. The law, while it carefully avoides being unconstitutional, is still wrong.

http://www.fear.org/

__________________
"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda." —George W. Bush, Greece, N.Y., May 24, 2005 (Listen to audio)