Comments on: Contract With America: The Betrayal Begins http://www.themoralliberal.com/2010/03/08/contract-with-america-the-betrayal-begins-steve-farrell/ Defending the Judeo-Christian ethic, limited government, & the American Constitution Mon, 13 Feb 2012 18:36:27 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Ross Wolf http://www.themoralliberal.com/2010/03/08/contract-with-america-the-betrayal-begins-steve-farrell/comment-page-1/#comment-114 Ross Wolf Thu, 14 Oct 2010 18:06:57 +0000 http://www.themoralliberal.com/?p=5748#comment-114 Americans to protect their freedoms, should immediately address GOP"S dangerous proposal in the “Contract With America” that would “make it much easier” to succeed with false arrests by permitting police to utilize illegally seized evidence in courts. Republican Orin Hatch slipped this nightmare into (S.8) The Crime Control Act of 1993 that failed to pass that attempted to add “Section 3509 Admissibility of Evidence Obtained By Search or Seizure (a) Evidence Obtained By Objectively Reasonable Search or Seizure (b) Evidence Not Excludable By Statute or Rule:” This provision would have laid the groundwork for Government/police to conduct illegal searches of persons and homes with a minimum of probable cause, as follows: “Government need only assert that "a search and seizure was carried out in circumstances justifying an objectively reasonable belief that it was in conformity with the Fourth Amendment." Had the Hatch bill passed it would also have opened the door for government/police to conduct mass civil asset forfeiture using (illegally obtained evidence) because police would only have to assert, "a search and seizure was carried out in circumstances justifying an objectively reasonable belief that it was in conformity with the Fourth Amendment." There are over 200 U.S. laws and violations mentioned in the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 and the Patriot Act that can subject property to civil asset forfeiture. Under federal civil forfeiture laws, a person or business need not be charged with a crime for government to forfeit their property. Again, U.S., private contractors and their operatives work so close with police exchanging information to arrest Americans and or share in the forfeiture of their assets, they appear to merge with police. Rep. Henry Hyde’s bill HR 1658 passed, the “Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000” and effectively eliminated the “statue of limitations” for Government Civil Asset Forfeiture. The statute now runs five years from when police allege they “learned” that an asset became subject to forfeiture. With such a weak statute of limitations and the low standard of civil proof needed for government to forfeit property “A preponderance of Evidence”, it is problematic law enforcement and private government contractors will want access to NSA and other government wiretaps perhaps illegal, including Citizens’ Internet activity and emails to facilitate arrests of Americans; forfeiture of their homes, businesses and other assets. Most property and business owners that defend their assets against Government Civil Forfeiture claim an “innocent owner defense.” This defense can become a criminal prosecution trap for both guilty and innocent property owners. Any fresh denial of guilt to the government when questioned about committing a crime “even when you did not do it” may “involuntarily waive” your right to assert in your defense—that the “Criminal Statute of Limitations” past for prosecution: any fresh denial of guild, even 30 years after a crime was committed may allow Government prosecutors to use old and new evidence, including information discovered during a Civil Asset Forfeiture Proceeding to launch a criminal prosecution. For that reason many innocent property and business owners are reluctant to defend their property and businesses against Government Civil Asset Forfeiture. Re: waiving Criminal Statute of Limitations: see USC18, Sec.1001, James Brogan V. United States. N0.96-1579. U.S. To stop the GOP’s “New Contract With America” proposal to use illegally obtained tainted evidence in court against Citizens, Americans need to loudly and publicly oppose this GOP proposal. Americans to protect their freedoms, should immediately address GOP”S dangerous proposal in the “Contract With America” that would “make it much easier” to succeed with false arrests by permitting police to utilize illegally seized evidence in courts. Republican Orin Hatch slipped this nightmare into (S.8) The Crime Control Act of 1993 that failed to pass that attempted to add “Section 3509 Admissibility of Evidence Obtained By Search or Seizure (a) Evidence Obtained By Objectively Reasonable Search or Seizure (b) Evidence Not Excludable By Statute or Rule:” This provision would have laid the groundwork for Government/police to conduct illegal searches of persons and homes with a minimum of probable cause, as follows: “Government need only assert that “a search and seizure was carried out in circumstances justifying an objectively reasonable belief that it was in conformity with the Fourth Amendment.” Had the Hatch bill passed it would also have opened the door for government/police to conduct mass civil asset forfeiture using (illegally obtained evidence) because police would only have to assert, “a search and seizure was carried out in circumstances justifying an objectively reasonable belief that it was in conformity with the Fourth Amendment.”

There are over 200 U.S. laws and violations mentioned in the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 and the Patriot Act that can subject property to civil asset forfeiture. Under federal civil forfeiture laws, a person or business need not be charged with a crime for government to forfeit their property. Again, U.S., private contractors and their operatives work so close with police exchanging information to arrest Americans and or share in the forfeiture of their assets, they appear to merge with police.

Rep. Henry Hyde’s bill HR 1658 passed, the “Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000” and effectively eliminated the “statue of limitations” for Government Civil Asset Forfeiture. The statute now runs five years from when police allege they “learned” that an asset became subject to forfeiture. With such a weak statute of limitations and the low standard of civil proof needed for government to forfeit property “A preponderance of Evidence”, it is problematic law enforcement and private government contractors will want access to NSA and other government wiretaps perhaps illegal, including Citizens’ Internet activity and emails to facilitate arrests of Americans; forfeiture of their homes, businesses and other assets.

Most property and business owners that defend their assets against Government Civil Forfeiture claim an “innocent owner defense.” This defense can become a criminal prosecution trap for both guilty and innocent property owners. Any fresh denial of guilt to the government when questioned about committing a crime “even when you did not do it” may “involuntarily waive” your right to assert in your defense—that the “Criminal Statute of Limitations” past for prosecution: any fresh denial of guild, even 30 years after a crime was committed may allow Government prosecutors to use old and new evidence, including information discovered during a Civil Asset Forfeiture Proceeding to launch a criminal prosecution. For that reason many innocent property and business owners are reluctant to defend their property and businesses against Government Civil Asset Forfeiture. Re: waiving Criminal Statute of Limitations: see USC18, Sec.1001, James Brogan V. United States. N0.96-1579. U.S.

To stop the GOP’s “New Contract With America” proposal to use illegally obtained tainted evidence in court against Citizens, Americans need to loudly and publicly oppose this GOP proposal.

]]>