What cha gonna do when they come for you?

Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 09:18:06 -0500 From: Dave Kuehne dkuehne@erols.com

I *know* what I'm gonna do! --DaveK--

Forwarded Message From: North444 North444@aol.com 

This is so incredible, I've got to forward to you, even at the risk of alarming many of my dearest friends. We all have to learn of this Forfeiture business, as it's spreading beyond just the Feds to the states... note the part where there are now some 300 (THREE HUNDRED!) crazy laws by which they can swipe 'most anything you have. And one other thing I learned recently on internet (can't prove it, but do believe it) -- a large percentage of our money bills have drug scent on them, can be sniffed out by dogs -- and could be CONFISCATED by the law. For more, go to http://www.fear.org

Have a nice day! ---ELN ----------

Attachment From: Jim Strode theduke@swcp.com

I would say the line is drawn,in Amerika, what cha going to do when they come for you. Proof the Constutition is gone, Bill of rights flushed. We see it in every State, cars, homes, guns, and our kids.


Subj: Civil Asset Forfeiture Gone Gestapo? From: GRLR (Charles Miller) by way of: NewsViewz NewsViewz@aol.com Step Away From Your House, Ma'am!!! Civil Asset Forfeiture Gone Gestapo? By Charles Miller In the early hours of the morning there was a heavy "bang, bang, bang" noise knocking on the elderly 75 year old mother's front door. She peeked through the age-worn curtains to see who was there, unaware that she was about to enter Hell in the federal world law of Civil Asset Forfeiture. Seeing about twenty men in suits and uniforms gathered around her house, and a large television camera scanning the scene, she was terrified why all of these men were there. Only dressed in her thin nightgown, she said through the door, "What do you want?" An FBI man replied back.."We are here to seize your house!" The elderly mother said, "Well, where am I suppose to go?" After she heard him say, "We don't care where you go, but you have a half hour to pack up and get out", her normally uneventful days would never be the same for the next several years. Unable to ever recoup from the nightmare of the forfeiture squad, she finally couldn't take the financial and public ruination of this event any longer, and ended her life. What did she do to deserve this horrific, un-American, Nazis-like treatment? Six years previous, her youngest son rented one of her adjacent rental properties and sold some marijuana out of it. Anything he touched was tainted in the mindset of these dutiful, officer-friendly men. It mattered not that the law admitted she was not part of his pot-ring conspiracy. There were no charges against her personally...only against her properties. She was free to go.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled it is okay to seize property from innocent owners because there is no innocent owner provision in federal civil asset forfeiture law, and the charges only need be against their property. Furthermore, the government does not have to give you a hearing, trial or prove anything in a court of law in order to do this. For a simple speeding ticket you are entitled to a trial with proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but to seize your house, car, cash, business, or anything tangible merely suspected of wrongdoing, it can be done on as little evidence as hearsay. It has encouraged legal plunder on a Federal, State, and Local basis. Numbers are mounting on misplaced funds and other unintended applications. Congress needs to stop making laws which include thinking that citizens are the only ones capable of wrongdoing or making mistakes. There should be no property forfeiture until after a criminal conviction, and even then only assets used or obtained illegally. Our U.S. Constitution protects our property rights in all cases except in forfeiture. The theory in this law, initially intended for rightly taking the ill-gotten gains of real criminals, has evolved into civil-charge use that is becoming out of control. Forfeiture stems from medieval Biblical times, like when an ox gored someone the ox was sacrificed and put to death. England used it to seize ships from Pirates, because the pirate couldn't show what else he was using the ship for. This Country moved it off the high seas and brought it inland to be used in crime control. Most citizens today, clamoring to the government to stop crime, do not realize the tempting misuse of authority that has been written into the fine print of this law.

Since 1984, numerous attempts have been tried by champions of the cause to reform it, such as by Congressman Henry Hyde of Illinois, but in every step of the way, the Justice Department and other law enforcement lobbyists sandbag the effort. Why? Because it is a legal way to take money and boost short- budgeted agencies. Recent memos of Janet Reno obtained through the Freedom of Information Act show that this Clinton Administration appointee is now asking federal prosecutors to accelerate forfeitures even more to help make up for a 40% decline in money which was previously available to the Department. This will dawn on new young prosecutors as a way to further their careers. In 1997, in Henry Hyde's HR1965 forfeiture reform bill, the Justice Department insisted that the bill also include... No Probable Cause before seizing property for forfeiture. Sponsorship by nearly all liberal and conservative groups for Hyde's initial HR1965 efforts which would have helped matters a great deal, were quickly and publicly dropped when this sudden change came about in a non-public meeting with the Justice Department. What happened for sure, nobody out here knows. It is a sad day in our wonderful Country when everybody agrees on some good changes, except those appointed to protect us. The federal statutes on forfeiture have grown from about 100, to now over 300 in the past several years. It has become so popular that State and local law enforcement agencies are dressing up their department's laws similarly. Many of you have heard of the cases in Florida and Louisiana where people are stopped and relieved of the cash in their pockets if the officer deems the money guilty. The point is, this can be done without a hearing or a trial, and there is no innocent owner provision. Allow a friend to use your boat ? If Fish and Game find a fish in your boat one inch under the size limit, your boat can be history even if you did not authorize the wrongdoing. Many law examples of it's use are on a website at http://www.fear.org along with a huge volume of other information on it. Florida recently dropped the ball on an all-approved forfeiture reform bill which outlawed any forfeiture without a criminal conviction. Word has it that pressure from the top law enforcement agent in the State did it. When a press conference is held on the final approval, questions will only be allowed to be asked on the provisions of the final one, not on the provisions that were dropped from it which would have protected us from this tyranny-like law. Isn't that ingenious? Congress has held numerous hearings about the abuse of this law, has admitted it is their fault for allowing it to continue, and still nothing gets done. How many more mothers with bad kids are going to lose their homes? How many frugal immigrants on the highway shall be relieved of their cash because an officer knows he doesn't have to prove anything? It isn't just time to only write about this to your email friends, it is way past time to also start screaming at your Congressman. Until it starts costing them votes.... nothing will get done. For a reference article, the Wall Street Journal printed an excellent explanation of property forfeiture laws in it's December 29, 1997 editorial page.

ICE ice@coolmedia.net http://www.coolmedia.net/ice/ **********************************************

To subscribe or unsubscribe, email: majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com with the message: subscribe ignition-point email@address or unsubscribe ignition-point email@address

I am much afraid that schools will prove to be the great gates of hell unless they diligently labor in explaining the Holy Scriptures, engraving them in the hearts of youth. I advise no one to place his child where the scriptures do not reign paramount. Every institution in which men are not increasingly occupied with the Word of God must become corrupt.

Martin Luther [ 1483-1546 ]

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

''UNITED WE STAND,DIVIDED WE FALL'' Jim Strode Division ll Commander American Consitutional Militia Network, Western Alliance Militia Leaders dedicated to preserving the Constitution,and being in unity. Communications and Preparedness, united for A common purpose Commander New Mexico Militia Phone 505-877-5980 FAX 505-877-4928

From: "spiker" spiker@ev1.net
To: Recipient list suppressed
Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2001 8:59 PM
Subject: They're coming for you

Jewish World Review

Jeff Jacoby

They're coming for you

You didn't object when they forced motorcyclists to wear helmets.  It's
for their own good, you figured. And it was no skin off your nose, since you don't ride motorcycles anyway.

You didn't protest when they passed mandatory seat-belt laws.  You
couldn't see what the big deal was -- after all, you've always buckled up.

You didn't say anything when they pushed tobacco ads off the air, or when
they drove up the price of cigarettes with sin taxes, or when they tried
to classify nicotine as a drug.  Smoking, you believed, is nasty and
unhealthy; why shouldn't the government discourage it?

You kept quiet when they made air bags compulsory.  When they passed laws
to keep adults from owning guns.  When they tried to censor the
Internet.  When they decreed that every new television must include a
"V-chip." Yes, all of these eroded Americans' freedom to make decisions
for themselves.  And yes, they further empowered the government to regulate
the way we live our lives. But none of them discommoded you personally, so you didn't see any reason to speak out.

Do you think the lifestyle police will stop goosestepping when they get to
something you do care about?

Meet Kelly Brownell.  He directs the Center for Eating and Weight
disorders at Yale, and he doesn't like your diet.  "The contribution of diet to poor
health in America is staggering," he says.  "It's an epidemic."

Brownell doesn't stop there.  He isn't satisfied with trying to persuade
you to eat less junk food.  He wants Big Brother to make you eat less junk
food. In a dispatch from New Haven, the Associated Press reports that "Brownell
believes the government should subsidize the sale of healthy food,
increase the cost of non-nutritional foods through taxes, and regulate food
advertising to discourage unhealthy practices."

In the name of "public health," the antitobacco bullies have gotten away
with restricting speech, crushing freedom of choice, penalizing the
consumers of a lawful product, and demonizing the sellers of that
product.  Brownell thinks the food bullies should be able to do no less.

"To me," he has said, "there is no difference between Ronald McDonald and
Joe Camel." Pause to recall the hysterical outrage that R.J. Reynolds's
cartoon figure evoked -- a Washington Post columnist called Joe Camel ads
"as dangerous as putting rat poison in a candy wrapper" -- and you get a
sense of just how far Brownell would like to go.

Societies do not usually lose their freedom at a blow.  They give it up
bit by bit, letting themselves be tied down with an infinity of little knots.

As rules and regulations increase, their range of action is gradually
compressed.  Their options slowly lessen.  Without noticing the change,
they become wards of the state.  They still imagine themselves free, but
in a thousand and one ways, their choices are limited and guided by the
authorities.  And always, there are what seem to be sensible reasons for
letting their autonomy be peeled away: "Safety." "Health." "Social
justice." +"Equal opportunity."

It is easy to grow accustomed to docility.  That is why eternal vigilance
is the price of liberty.  Not because liberty is easy to shatter.  But
because it can be softened and dismantled with the acquiescence of the
very men and women from whom it is being stolen.

Many Americans no longer understand this, which is why the government now
dictates everything from the words that may appear on wine labels to the
volume of water toilets may flush.  But Brownell and his ilk understand it
very well.  To those who snicker at his goal of hitting snack-food makers
with heavy taxes and forbidding the use of Ronald McDonald in advertising,
Brownell has a reply:

"If 20 years ago somebody had said, 'I predict that states will recover
health care costs from the tobacco industry for deaths; I predict that an
icon of smoking advertising, Joe Camel, would be banned from billboards,'
people would have said, 'Oh, that's horrible government intrusion.' What
is now taken for granted, 20 years ago would have been thought of as

Exactly.  Watch as it unfolds.  Already other voices have taken up
Brownell's call.

The Center for Science in the Public Interest -- the food fanatics who
periodically issue reports denouncing movie popcorn and Chinese food --
declares that "diet and lack of exercise kill as many people as tobacco"
and agrees that a tax on Big Macs and Double Stuf Oreos "makes eminent
sense." Hanna Rosin writes in The New Republic that a tax on fatty foods
"can actually be a less intrusive policy than regulating tobacco" and
asks, "Is it really such a crazy idea?" US News & World Report hails the
"Twinkie tax" as one of "16 Silver Bullets: Smart Ideas to Fix the World."

Soon you'll hear about all the children whose lives will be cut short
because they got hooked on junk food at an early age.  You'll see
references to the 300,000 people "killed" each year by fatty diets.  In
time there will be lawsuits and congressional hearings and moving
testimony by the "victims" of chocolate and butterfat.  Politicians, sensing another
interest group to pander to, will demand strict controls over candy ads.
Ben and Jerry will be transformed from kindly Vermont hippies to foul
peddlers of heart disease.

Preposterous, you say!  Laughable!  Absurd!

Philip Morris used to think so, too

soldiers.jpg (16403 bytes)


Please freely distribute contents of this site!

Subscribe to apfn-1
Powered by groups.yahoo.com

Without Justice, there is JUST_US!

American Patriot Friends Network [APFN]
"...a network of net workers..."

Without Justice, there is JUST_US!

APFN Message Board

APFN Sitemap

APFN Contents Page

APFN Home Page

E-Mail: apfn@apfn.org

Hit Counter

Last updated 04/24/2010