>Sender: >To: >X-Original-Message-ID: <0b7a01bf324f$a178d8c0$9acf69cf@pacbell.net> >From: "Peter McWilliams" >Subject: Recognition One >Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 21:33:38 -0800 >X-Mozilla-Status: 8001 >X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 > > >The article below inspired this: > >If bipartisan congress can see the fundamental unfairness of assets >forfeiture, there it is reasonable to assume that they will, with education, >see the fundamental unfairness of medical marijuana prohibition, then the >fundamental unfairness of mandatory minimums, then the fundamental >unfairness of violating the civil rights of adults who choose to use certain >drugs, then the fundamental unfairness and economic folly of penalizing drug >entrepreneurs whose only crime is following his or her entrepreneurial >instinct--the spirit that made and makes America great. > >To that end, I propose an Educating Government web site. Individuals could >"adopt" an elected official and do everything possible to open a respectful >dialogue with that elected official on the issue of drug policy. The tone of >the correspondence must always be courteous and polite. > >The participants and the elected official they chose would be confidential. >The content of the dialogue to and from the elected official can be posted, >as long as the excerpt does not give enough information to reveal the >elected official's identity. Even if an elected official admitted to one of >the volunteers, "I think all drugs should be legal!." it is not our duty to >repeat or report that to any one for any reason. It is the elected >official's right and responsibility to "come out" as and when he or she sees >fit. This allows an environment of trust to build between the volunteer and >the elected official. > >The site will from time to time post articles, newspaper clippings, essays, >facts, study results, and other information volunteers may choose to send >the elected officials with whom they correspond. The discussion group allows >anyone to ask the "group mind" a question or for people to post wisdom about >ways to more effectively educate government. > >Any thoughts on this? > >Enjoy, > >Peter >peter@mcwilliams.com > > >Pubdate: Mon, 08 Nov 1999 >Source: Legal Times (DC) >Copyright: 1999 NLP IP Company >Contact: editorial@legaltimes.com >Address: 1730 M St., N.W. Suite 802, Washington, D.C. 20036 >Fax: (202) 457-0718 >Website: http://www.legaltimes.com/ >Author: Sam Skolnik, Legal Times > >FORFEITURE REFORM MOVING FORWARD > >A years-long attempt in Congress to make it harder for the Justice >Department to seize suspects' property is gaining momentum. > >Federal law enforcement officials have always been able to push back a >legislative crackdown, but it looks increasingly likely that they will >soon have to accept some curbs. > >In June, the Justice Department lost a major battle when House >Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde (R-Ill.) finally got >overwhelming bipartisan support for a bill that would strictly rein in >civil asset forfeiture. > >This week, the Senate is set to begin debate on two proposals of its >own. > >The Senate, whose members are generally more sympathetic to police and >prosecutors, appears to be a more hospitable venue for the DOJ. But >even there, many members are likely to back one of the two measures, >both of which attempt to put some new limits on prosecutors. > >Shifting Burden Of Proof > >Under current law, the federal government can >seize a citizen's assets without a trial or even a charge being filed >if it can simply show "probable cause" that the property was purchased >with proceeds of criminal activity or was used in the commission of a >crime. To recover his assets, a citizen must show that his money or >property was never connected to a crime. And even then, the law often >makes it difficult for the suspect to retrieve his assets -- even if >the charges against him have been dropped. > >In the most important change to current civil asset forfeiture laws, >all versions of the legislation being debated would shift the burden >of proof from the citizen to the police, who would need more concrete >evidence before seizing any assets. > >Under Hyde's bill, police would have to show "clear and convincing >evidence" that the assets in question were criminally tainted. The >legislation would also allow suspects to get their assets back while >their cases are pending if they can show "substantial hardship." >Further, the bill would allow the court to appoint counsel for >indigent defendants in forfeiture cases, a move prosecutors say could >clog the courts. > >Hyde has put together a strange but effective coalition, including >outspoken liberals such as Reps. John Conyers (D-Mich.) and Barney >Frank (D-Mass.) and strong conservatives like Bob Barr (R-Ga.). His >supporters say that although forfeiture laws put the squeeze on drug >dealers and other criminals by going after the fruits of crime, law >enforcers have often abused their power by seizing and holding onto >the houses, cars, and bank accounts of innocent people. > >The Justice Department has lined up a diverse coalition of its own to >try to amend the laws to its liking. > >Sens. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), Strom Thurmond >(R-S.C.), and Max Cleland (D-Ga.) -- in addition to the entire federal >law enforcement establishment -- are pushing a largely DOJ-written >bill, which counters Hyde's measure in a number of important ways. > >The Sessions bill, introduced last month, would, like Hyde's, shift >the burden of proof to the government -- but it would mandate only >that it show a "preponderance of the evidence," instead of Hyde's >"clear and convincing evidence" standard. Like the current law, >Sessions' measure has no provision for the appointment of indigent >counsel. And it places several more conditions than the Hyde bill does >on the release of assets to defendants in hardship cases. > >There is a third option brewing. > >Sens. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), chairman and >ranking minority member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, are working >on a draft that would serve as a compromise between Hyde and Sessions. >The "preponderance" standard would hold, but in many other respects, >according to a summary of the Hatch draft, the bill hews closer to the >Hyde measure. > >"Senators Hatch and Leahy are working to pass a bill that serves the >interest of law enforcement -- and the rights of property owners," >says Judiciary Committee spokeswoman Jeanne Lopatto. > >A not-so-hidden subtext of the debate is the money at stake. The DOJ's >forfeiture proceeds in FY1999 swelled to about $600 million, up from >$27 million in 1985. > > > > > >================================================================ > >This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to > the mailing list . >To unsubscribe, E-mail to: