Nexus - 0213 - New Times Magazine-pages

Page Content (OCR)

THE FOURTH REICH - TOWARDS AN AMERICAN POLICE STATE YOUR RIGHTS IN A HEARING ABOUT A POLICE SEIZURE ARE VERY LIMITED The DEA then demanded that Bill pay a $66,000 fine (which he did not have) to get the plane back. Meanwhile, the plane had incurred $50,000 in damage while in government custody. In the meantime, under DEA pressure, the FDA revoked Bill's flight cer- tificate. Bill never got the plane back. His business is gone, and he now drives a truck to support his family. But, the informant whose tip led to Bill's jet being seized is eligible for a reward up to 25% of the value of the plane. According to a recent article in USA Today, in 1992, 65 infor- mants made over $100,000 each by simply alleging to police agen- cies that their friends, neighbours, and/or business associates 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 a crime. All that is necessary is that the judge agree with a prosecutor that ‘probable cause’ indicates that a crime was committed in or on your property, Or a policeman, or sheriff, or federal drug agent can make that determination on the spot and seize your car, - boat, your home, your bank accounts, etc. According to The Pittsburgh Press, over 80% of the victims of 25,000 such seizures they analysed were never accused of any crime. As the Financial Privacy Report points out, "in some states, you have no right to trial by jury. Your case is heard by a judge who often has a direct financial stake in the seizure. If they take your assets, and you can't afford a lawyer, that's your tough 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 used against you. You do not have the right to confront your accusers. E “And worst of all, there is no presumption of innocence. These ‘forfeiture’ hearings, which harken back to the days of the Spanish Inquisition, work the other way - you are presumed guilty ur until you prove your innocence." Certainly local, city and federal government(s) are helping to cover some of their financial shortfall from the loot they steal from their victims. Informers and spies are profiting handsomely from seizures, with some airline ticket clerks, security guards, bank clerks, etc. comfortably supplementing their income with finder's fees for tips leading to seizures. Typically, informants (snitches) get 10 to 25% off the top. There are some snitches with horrible criminal records who are now millionaires from these seizures and ‘snitch fees’. You will be happy to know that 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 enforce- ment agencies are based on information supplied by informants. The government pays out more than $60 million per year in find- er's fees to informants. One wonders who is more corrupt, the informant or the bribing officials? In 1984, 'bounty hunter’ provisions were added to the federal forfeiture laws that permit local police to keep most of the pro- ceeds of the property they seize under federal authority. Since then, government seizures have soared 2,047%, a Congressional report has noted (approvingly). The laws governing how the seizure booty is split up vary from state to state. A typical state split for the balance (after paying the © informant's finder's fee) might run 70% to the local police, with the district attorney's office, judges’ chambers and the Feds splitting the balance. In Louisana, for example, every official involved in ‘justice’ is given a direct financial stake in upholding the seizure. The police bringing the case get 60%; the prosecuting DA's office gets another 20%; and the judge signing the forfeiture order gets the remaining 20% for his or her court fund. LOOKING SUSPICIOUS CAN GET YOUR ASSETS SEIZED A ‘suspicious' customer or transaction at a bank or financial insti- tution goes to the top of the seizure list. There is a box on the top of the CTR (cash reporting form) and if a person looks nervous, or — having the form filled out, or is too inquisitive about the , that box may be checked. The bank is supposed to notify the Treasury Department but cannot tell you, they're just supposed to spy. Should the Treasury Department find your actions suspicious, it can freeze your account and it's up to you to prove the seizure is improper. In the largest effort of this type, Operation Polar Cap, the Treasury froze more than 700 ‘suspicious’ accounts. Ultimately only about 10% of these were shown to be possibly tied to illegal activi- ty. 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 had been eamed by legitimate means. As the Financial Privacy Report writes, "Forfeiture laws were expanded in 1984 to allow the government to take possession with- out first charging the owner. The proceeds finance more investiga- tions and are helping to finance the financial shortfall of local, state and federal governments. Eliminating the need to prove a crime has moved most action to civil court, where the government accuses the item, not the owner, of being tainted by crime. As a result, jury tri- als can be refused, illegal searches condoned, and rules of evidence ignored. "In up to 80% of the cases, no charges are ever filed. If they are filed, you have plenty of time to fight them. But you only have a very limited time to fight a seizure. In California, for example, you only have 10 days to file your challenge to seizure. There you are: you have been thrown out on the street, your home and bank accounts seized, no money to pay a lawyer, and you have to prepare vaur case. In a case now before the Supreme Court, the Justice Department is seeking to virtually eliminate what is called the ‘innocent owner defence’ in federal forfeiture cases regarding seizures of real estate, cash, vehicles, bank accounts, etc., allegedly tainted through drug activity or any of more than 100 other ‘crimes’. A 1984 law states that federal ownership of property begins the instant an activity punishable by forfeiture takes place on it. Now, the Department of Justice interprets that wording as allowing it to deny the claim of any innocent owner to whom the property is later transferred. In other words, the alleged illegal act eliminates any subsequent rights to the property by any party other than the US government. The Justice Department holds that once property is tainted by a crime, it is tainted forever, The implications of the elimination of the ‘innocent owner defence’ are staggering. Example: a series of your case, "You also usually have to file a bond with the court. That bond is about 10% of the value of the property seized. Where do you get the money for the bond, if they have seized all of your financial assets (as they did to a friend of this writer)? But if you don't come up with the money for the bond, your property is gone. And what is the bond for? It's hard to believe, but it's to cover THEIR cost of fighting YOU in court. They seize your property without a trial, and then force you to finance their case against you. It's like being sentenced to the firing squad, but your executioners make you pay for the bullets and the burial, and dig your own grave.” Vol 2, No 13 - 1993 62¢NEXUS Continued from page 22 WHO PROFITS FROM THE PRESENT SEIZURE LAWS THE INNOCENT OWNER DEFENCE