The Crime Control Act of '93by Bill Cooper
We are living in the last days of freedom for the average man - property forfeiture for speeches, writings, and assembly. The Crime Control Act of 1993 is aimed at many who would dare wake you up, stir you to action, who would dare tell you the truth about what's happening in this world. The Crime Control Act of 1993 redefines illegal search and seizure while eliminating an innocent citizen's civil redress and suits against government officials and agents. Title 7, Section 2337 (again, that's Title 7 Section 2337) incorporated provisions of proposed SB 265 titled "Terrorism, Death Penalty Act of 1991" and Senator Biden's SB 266 "Comprehensive Counter Terrorism Act of 1991," - both bills contains language which can charge law-abiding Citizens with being agents of or affording support to terrorist organizations. Consider the property forfeiture effects on organizations and individuals when speeches, writings, and assemblies mentioned in SB 265 are combined with the forfeiture provisions of Biden's SB 266, now incorporated in the Crime Control Act of 1993. Any individual or organization in the United States who had or should have had knowledge that an associate might commit a terrorist act can have their property seized. Written like federal drug forfeiture laws, a citizen who allowed their hotel to be used for an assembly would start out guilty, having to prove they did not have knowledge of the unlawful methods of the organization or individuals they allowed to use their property. Politically active organizations and labor unions are especially vulnerable to the Crime Control Act of 1993's provisions, in which they define bodily acts as "terrorist acts." A fist fight at a demonstration or picket line would qualify. The physical act need not cause bodily harm as its provisions refer to "involving any violent act." This means that if you hold a meeting at your home or place of business where people speak politically against something or politically for something, and then any individual who was at that meeting goes out and commits any violent act, you're in big trouble. S8, the Crime Control Act of 1993, has forfeiture provisions which seem aimed at public dissent and are written like RICO laws, taking on the added prospect of political property forfeiture. Broadly written, intent to commit terrorist acts is defined "appear to be intended (1) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (2) to enforce the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion." That means any radio show. That means any television show. That means any public speech. That means any public demonstration. That means any march on Washington. It would appear that provisions contained in Senator Biden's (remember that name) proposed Senate Bill 266, now included in the Crime Control Act of 1993, target any group of persons which would dare demonstrate for or against any issue. Any picket line which is alleged to have blocked public access could qualify to intimidate or coerce a civilian population. Should violence result for any reason at a public assembly, the property forfeiture provisions of the Crime Control Act of 1993 may be triggered, causing forfeiture of attending demonstrators' homes used for meetings and the vehicles they used for transportation to the event. The Crime Control Act of 1993 terrorist provisions, when first examined, are misleading, for they give the reader the impression they are after agents of a foreign power wishing to do Americans harm. But the "Trojan horse" in the Crime Control Act of 1993 is this: anyone in the United States committing an undefined violent act or attending an assembly can be charged with terrorism. If the defendant under Section 2333 of Title 7, Terrorist Acts and/or Conspiracy, seeks to discover from the Department of Justice the evidence against him, the attorney for the government may object on the ground that compliance will interfere with a criminal investigation or prosecution of the incident or a national security operation related to the incident which is the subject of civil litigation. Example: government civil forfeiture - expected. Defense against government charges may be difficult where citizens have no access to the alleged evidence against them or the right to cross examine government secret witnesses. Chapter 11-3B, Section 138, states that the list of veniremen and witnesses need not be furnished to capital offense defendants should the court find, by a preponderance of the evidence, that providing the list may jeopardize the life or safety of any person. And who decides that? Well, they do, of course. Title 7, Section 2337, states the Crime Control Act of 1993 eliminates civil suits against the United States and foreign governments by persons injured resulting from government agents in pursuit of prevention of terrorist acts. If they raid your home because they made a stupid mistake and kill your entire family, you cannot sue the United States government or foreign governments. Title 7, Section 711 - Sentencing Guidelines Increased for Terrorist Crimes. The United States sentencing commission shall have the power to provide an increase in the base offense level for any felony committed in the United States that involves, or is intended to promote, international terrorism. Participation by political activists in lawful speeches, writings, and public assemblies may be used as evidence by government to show that a political participant was aware of the unlawful methods of the individual or organization they are alleged to have afforded support. One person's violent unlawful act at an assembly may be enough for the government to allege the assembly appears to be intended toward violence or activities which could intimidate or coerce a civilian population. Under current drug forfeiture laws, innocent citizens have been implicated by informants who will often testify to anything to mitigate their own legal troubles. This, folks, has resulted in innocent citizens being arrested and killed by drug agents, forfeiture of all of their property and financial ruination for that person and their whole family. Under proposed provisions of the Crime Control Act of 1993, special breaks are afforded informants, even against the death penalty. The government will have no difficulty creating informants to cause the incarceration of any citizen considered a threat to one's political agenda. Disproportionate zero tolerance laws have served as precedents for expanding forfeiture. Since 1984, forfeiture laws have been operating on the erroneous assumption that property can possess intent to commit crime. Innocent owners can have their property seized prior to trial on mere suspicion. Starting out guilty, the owners have to prove they did not have reason to know that their property was being used to facilitate a forgettable offense, and in many cases they are completely innocent, their property having been used for nothing but in the case of hydroponics. The Crime Control Act of 1993 will allow government to use illegally seized evidence against its citizens. Searches, wiretaps and seizures that result in obtaining evidence from an invalid warrant, but which were carried out in reasonable reliance on a warrant issued by a detached and neutral magistrate, found to be invalid based on misleading information or reckless disregard of the truth, are why instances override constitutional Fourth Amendment protection against illegal search and seizure. S8, the Crime Control Act of 1993, amends the exclusionary rule 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 sets the groundwork for government forfeiture squads to invade innocent owners' homes and businesses with minimum or no probable cause. 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." Informants now being paid by government 25% of net proceeds realized from forfeited assets in drug-related seizures can earn similar amounts by causing forfeiture of citizens' homes they allege to have been used by an owner for discussion of attending assemblies which the informant believes "appeared to be intended for violence or to intimidate or coerce a civilian population." Informants and law enforcement agencies addressing prevention of terrorist acts are to be funded by forfeiture and fines collected from terrorists and/or persons alleged to have afforded terrorists material support. All citizens exercising their constitutional right to free expression and association will be targeted by government agents who know that their jobs are dependent on property seizures, fines and arrests. I guarantee you they will. Forwarded by: Remember the old typist's exerdse, "Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their party?" Don't Just Sit There! Congress is back in Session and looking at CRIME. NOW! is the time to Contact Your Member of Congress and Tell Them AMERICA ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT NEED ANOTHER EXPENSIVE NATIONAL CRIME BUREAUCRACY (Which they call fighting crime) WRITE, PHONE OR FAX your Representative TODAY! JUST SAY NO TO THE CRIME CONTROL ACT OF '93
Table of Contents | 1994 Issues | Subscribe Credit card Orders call: 800-321-9054 or fax: (619)676-0433 Truth Seeker is published by Truth Seeker Co., Inc. (ISSN 0041-3712) © 1996 |