Marijuana.com

mikey_c_tx

This article has been long in comming, as last time I typed it the server would not post it, so I didn't have the heart to retype it. Since I have organized my thoughts and have retyped them in word to assure that I don't have spelling mistakes. Please read the whole thing. It clears up several questions about criminal forfeiture law.

Criminal Forfeiture Laws

In the beginning weed was free and legal. Then the first state laws passed in 1915 and the first federal law in 1937. When the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 passed, it was bordering on illegal. At the time it was thought that the federal government did not have the right to impose a federal criminal law. So the tax act set fourth an exuberant tax on marijuana, so anyone caught with the drug would not be in violation of criminal law, but tax evasion.

The lax of marijuana remained almost throughout the first half of the century. In the late 50’s the government started stepping up their campaign against drugs. In the 60’s the drug culture broke into a near mainstream arena. The feds knew it was time to get serious. In the past there had been two agencies responsible for drug enforcement. The Bureau of Drug Abuse Control was one in the Department of Health. The other agency was positioned in the Department of Treasury, Bureau of Narcotics. The two made up the countries drug control policy. But it would soon come under radical changes.

Nixon, in political hot water for Vietnam sought to target those who apposed him: hippies. This subculture used drugs as a part of their heritage. Nixon started to attack drug use. What was once a health issue was now labeled “Public Enemy Number One” and the infamous “War on Drugs” began its first major conflict.

The first thing that needed to be done was to pass a better means of control and punishment. The two agencies needed to be reclassified in the Department of Justice, so criminal laws could be passed and enforced. The two were merged into the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs in 1968. Soon to follow was the most crippling and un-American document present in contemporary law: the Controlled Substances Act.

This act set fourth the first real federal criminal laws, other than acts against the government like treason and the like. It also took existing laws and contorted them into an adulterated version of the original. Not only did the feds have power to arrest persons, try them in a federal court after skipping their right to be tried in their state, but it also set fourth the most heinous provision known to the war on drugs. Forfeiture law had been snuck under the radar.

Under the guise of preventing ill-gotten gains from making drug running profitable, forfeiture set up the means for the government to confiscate property that an individual holds. In 1984 that law was further skewed to allow the government the power to sell and profit from the forfeiture.

Forfeiture is the most misunderstood law in America. It is assumed that you have to be convicted of a crime before the state or federal government can take your land and put it up for auction. The fact is that most people assume that when their land is taken from them they are the defendant.

In fact is that section 853 entitled “§ 853. Criminal forfeitures,” provides the means for the government to take property without any trial at all. Let’s examine this law to fully understand forfeiture.

When the government suspects you of committing a crime, a warrant is issued. In a forfeiture case a forfeiture warrant is issued. A law enforcement agent must go through the same process to get that warrant as he would a search or arrest warrant. What is different about this warrant is that it stipulates the government as the victims. (§ 853. [f] Controlled Substance Act, 1970, “Warrant of seizure”)

It is assumed that ill-gotten gains come at a cost to the government dime. So the property in question is forfeited to the government. The government is the defendant in this case and the person whose house or car was taken becomes the plaintive. The plaintive in this case has 30 days to file a petition. Upon reception of this petition the government will set up a hearing. No jury shall be present at this hearing, because the right to a trial by jury is left to the defendant, which is the government in this case. (§ 853. [n] Controlled Substance Act, 1970, “Third party interests” subsection 1, 2)

The worst part about this role reversal is the plaintive holds the burden of proof. It is up to the owner of the property to prove their innocents of a crime. Even by the best record keeping standards it is difficult at best to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the property in question was obtained with legal funds. Not only that but the petition is filed “under penalty of perjury” meaning that if you file a petition and are not absolved during the hearing you have committed perjury and can be tried and convicted for that. Being that you are the plaintive and not the defendant, you do not have legal right to an appeal. If you loose the hearing, you have no further legal recourse, save for challenging the validity of the seizure warrant as issued. Because these provisions lie in the Controlled Substance Act, it only applies to drug violations.

Since 1970 and the Controlled Substance Act the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs has since become the Drug Enforcement Agency under a clause in the Controlled Substance Act. Since then the escalation of the “War on Drugs” has lead to military involvement and even paramilitary operations in Cuba supported by American tax dollars.

The “War on Drug” should not only be fought on the grounds that it is the basic right for a person to hold sovereignty over their bodies and free choice to what drugs go into their bodies. Rather it should be contested occasionally that drug laws have struck a serious blow to the constitution and the American way. Drug laws have led to the most serious and widespread cases of corruption and deviance when it applies to American law. It has also seriously changed the American landscape from that of fair opportunity to unfounded suspicion and unprecedented levels of legal recourse taken against citizens.


Sources:
DEA Website [http://www.dea.gov]

Controlled Substance Act, US Code Title 21, Chapter 13, subsection 853.

__________________
"-they have taken my right to freechoice. a godgiven right. So i must take it back by force. I am defying a law that I do not believe in, made by a government I do believe in. Peaceful coexistence is what I desire. I fear I shall never see it."--Me

 

Mamabudz

You did some great work there my friend!

~ take a cookie...you earned it

mikey_c_tx

yeah. I sent this to high times, hopefully they will wanna publish it.

Conine

Wow, scary. Hard to believe that they can just assume that you're guilty and take it away. Even in a civil proceeding it would seem that they'd need to take YOU to court to get your property. What the hell happened to <b>due process??</b> Where does the Supreme Court stand on all of this?

Something stinks here. All it takes is the DEA and a judge to take whatever they want?? No evidence? That's a hard pill to swallow.

mikey_c_tx

the government gets due process. they have their warrant hearing. No defense there, but you get your shot at arbitration when it comes time to petition.

 

TokeyMcBongHit

Ugh that's so stupid. I hate the government.

Niteshift

Sorry, I just don't have the time to get into this one, but some of the info is not correct. For example, I've made numerous seizures that resulted in forfeiture and have never had to get anything called a "forfeiture warrant".

__________________
A burning desire for social justice is never a substitute for knowing what you're talking about. -Thomas Sowell

Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is muzzle flash.

Conine

Sorry, I just don't have the time to get into this one, but some of the info is not correct. For example, I've made numerous seizures that resulted in forfeiture and have never had to get anything called a "forfeiture warrant".

Please do get back with us. From what you've posted, it sounds even worse. If that's possible.

mikey_c_tx

Its my understanding that the above aplies only to drug foreiture. I believe the forfeiture you participated in was of another nature. That aplies to forfeiture that comes as a result of an informant. I believe that the ones you participated in was a result of a trafic stop with a DWI or other infraction that could result in a forfeiture not under the clause in the CSA. But I could be wrong.

Niteshift

"I believe that the ones you participated in was a result of a trafic stop with a DWI or other infraction that could result in a forfeiture not under the clause in the CSA. But I could be wrong."

You are. Most of them were drug related. I've spoken about the others as examples, but most of mine have been drug related.

"Its my understanding that the above aplies only to drug foreiture."

Not in this state. Forfeiture is forfeiture, wheter it's for drugs, counterfeiting, gambling or smuggling aliens.

"That aplies to forfeiture that comes as a result of an informant."

There is no difference in a forfeiture if an informant was used or not.


Before you condemn all criminal and civil forfeiture, you need to look at its non-drug uses as well. Most of those you'd agree are needed.