Property Owners Take Notice
2005
You Better Read the Fine Print!
“A week ago, the Supreme Court in a ruling on the case of the United States versus $405,089.23 that forfeiting a person’s property in a civil action and then prosecuting him or her with a crime in a criminal proceeding does not constitute double-jeopardy. This seriously reversed a trend in which the Supreme had begun rolling back forfeiture laws in favor of the Constitutional protections.
In effect, the fifth amendment took a horrible blow. It is also endangering the first and second.
With a long history in U.S. law, civil property forfeiture emerged in the 1980s as a weapon in the drug wars. Originally it was intended to allow seizing property of drug dealers when they couldn’t be convicted of a crime.
Civil forfeiture is still being sold to the public by the mainline media as being used primarily in the drug war. But in reality, there are now over 200 federal statutes alone in addition to dozens of state statutes which allow for the seizure of property on the mere allegation that a crime has been committed, ranging from environmental crimes to making a mis-statement on a loan application for a mortgage loan.
If you make a mis-statement of income on a federally-guaranteed loan for a home mortgage, the house can be seized in a relatively simple procedure. And what constitutes a mis- statement? Remember: no criminal conviction or proof is required.
Another example, since 1990 there have been several attempts in Congress to create a law which would allow seizing of the medical practices of physicians who fraudulently bill Medicare. Again, remember that proof of the crime is not required — only allegation and the burden of proof is on the person.
Here are the facts of forfeiture:
(1) When civil forfeiture takes place, the property, not the person is charged with the crime.
(2) The forfeiture proceeding goes through civil court. Since property does not have constitutional rights, the burden of proof rests on the property owner instead of the government. The courts are frequently ruling that an innocent owner defense – where the owner wasn’t aware the property was being used for illegal activities – is no bar to a forfeiture.
(3) In a civil forfeiture procedure there is no jury, you do not have the right to a court-appointed attorney and the outcome lies with the whim of the presiding judge.
(4) Even if a person is acquitted of the related crime in a criminal court, he or she usually does not get their property back. In 80% of the federal cases where people have property forfeited they are never even charged with a crime, much less convicted.
(5) To date, there has been $5B forfeited in this country. Money that is forfeited does not go into a general fund but rather to the law enforcement agency making the seizure. It’s an off-budget source of cash. Credible studies are showing that forfeiture is corrupting law enforcement agencies, since it acts as an incentive to legalized extortion, because forfeiture is easy to accomplish. Undercover investigations are showing that drug busts are now being made not on the basis of drugs but rather how much property and money can be seized.
(6) Informants who remain anonymous can get up to 25% of this and, by the way, the amount is not reported to the IRS as required so informants can pay taxes on it; which means states lose income tax from federal forfeitures. Either way, it’s a violation of federal law. In essence, perhaps the motto of some law enforcement agencies should be changed from “To Serve and Protect” to “To Seize and Plunder.”
(7) Abuse is rampant. Dozens of innocent people are losing property each week and the mainline media has failed to report this. Forfeiture is especially dangerous to religious freedom and freedom of speech, because “hate speech” and “politically correct” speech laws are inching closer and closer to public acceptance. Already the courts have rule that RICO statutes can be applied to abortion clinic protestors. RICO includes property forfeiture. Once “hate speech” laws and property forfeiture link up together, it will mean the death of freedom speech and religion. Remember, all that is needed is an accusation and a civil procedure and the property is gone and you have to spend thousands of dollars trying to get it back and you may never succeed – even if someone else used your property for something that was allegedly illegal.”

Comment