« Latest Updated NSA-Affiliated IP Resources 10 | Main | Take this poll and let the GOP know how you feel about Ron Paul. . . »
US House of Representatives Passes HR 1955 titled the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 (Thought Crime Prevention Bill): Contact your Senators to block this unconstitutional madness or welcome to 1984
House Passes Thought Crime Prevention Bill : Indybay
Posted by: flohoff60
Thu Oct 25, 2007 10:59 pm (PST)
The U.S. House of Representatives recently passed HR 1955 titled the
Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007.
This bill is one of the most blatant attacks against the Constitution
yet and actually defines thought crimes as homegrown terrorism.
http://www.indybay.org/newsitem
----- Original Message -----
From: Auveline Robinson
To: Jerry Pippin ; patrice greanville ; Jason Miller ; jimrobinson@sbcglobal.net
; Jerry Mazza ; Richard J. Boylan, Phd. ; Jane Swartley ; John Hankey ;
Jim Marrs ; Joe Thibodeaux ; Joe Harvat ; Janet Stevens Reed ; John
Churchilly ; Ken Jenkins ; Jerry Wilhite ; Rob Kall ; Ed Komarek ; KEN
; kevinu@pasadenaweekly.com ; Sherrie Latigo ; Lori Price ; Larry Bryant ; Larry Dicken ; Allen Roland, PhD. ; "no matters" ; CAMPAIGN ; Anthony Hall ; admin@boomantribune.com
; Mark S Bilk ; Marvin Bishop ; Mike Bird ; Brad Friedman ; Randy Hill
; PILOTS FOR TRUTH ; Dr. Robin Falkov ; Duncan O'Finioan ; FrameUpYahoo
Group
Cc: GALEN ; David Ray Griffin ; THE CALL TO ARMS-Yahoo Group ; Dr.
Robert Guzman ; silences Yahoo Group ; Constance Mimms ; Wayne Madsen ;
mark staples ; Mike Schmidt
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 7:14 PM
Subject: Fwd: House Passes Thought Crime Prevention Bill
it is obvious that this 'THOUGHT CRIME BILL" took way too little thought. A.R.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Jim Kirwan <kirwanstudios@sbcglobal.net>
Date: Oct 25, 2007 7:49 PM
Subject: House Passes Thought Crime Prevention Bill
To: sightings@mindspring.com
Cc: tbacane <tbacane@earthlink.net >, Graham Jukes <grahamjukes@blueyonder.co.uk>
http://www.roguegovernment.com
Another mislabled piece of legislation: This time to hide a New McCarthyism,
but this time it wears an executioner's hood and far surpasses the Blacklisting
and humiliation of the House Un-American Activities Committee, from Ronald
Reagan & Dick Nixon days . . .
k
ROGUEGOVERNMENT.COM
EXPOSING GOVERNMENT CORRUPTION AND THE NEW WORLD ORDER
------------------------------
House Passes Thought Crime Prevention Bill
10-25-2007
www.roguegovernment.com
Lee Rogers
The U.S. House of Representatives recently passed HR 1955 titled the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007. This bill is one of the most blatant attacks against the Constitution yet and actually defines thought crimes as homegrown terrorism. If passed into law, it will also establish a commission and a Center of Excellence to study and defeat so called thought criminals. Unlike previous anti-terror legislation, this bill specifically targets the civilian population of the United States and uses vague language to define homegrown terrorism. Amazingly, 404 of our elected representatives from both the Democrat and Republican parties voted in favor of this bill. There is little doubt that this bill is specifically targeting the growing patriot community that is demanding the restoration of the Constitution.
First let's take a look at the definitions of violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism as defined in Section 899A of the bill.
The definition of violent radicalization uses vague language to define this term of promoting any belief system that the government considers to be an extremist agenda. Since the bill doesn't specifically define what an extremist belief system is, it is entirely up to the interpretation of the government. Considering how much the government has done to destroy the Constitution they could even define Ron Paul supporters as promoting an extremist belief system. Literally, the government according to this definition can define whatever they want as an extremist belief system. Essentially they have defined violent radicalization as thought crime. The definition as defined in the bill is shown below.
`(2) VIOLENT RADICALIZATION- The term `violent radicalization' means the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change.
The definition of homegrown terrorism uses equally vague language to further define thought crime. The bill includes the planned use of force or violence as homegrown terrorism which could be interpreted as thinking about using force or violence. Not only that but the definition is so vaguely defined, that petty crimes could even fall into the category of homegrown terrorism. The definition as defined in the bill is shown below.
`(3) HOMEGROWN TERRORISM- The term `homegrown terrorism' means the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States or any possession of the United States to intimidate or coerce the United States government, the civilian population of the United States, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.
Section 899B of the bill goes over the findings of Congress as it pertains to homegrown terrorism. Particularly alarming is that the bill mentions the Internet as a main source for terrorist propaganda. The bill even mentions streams in obvious reference to many of the patriot and pro-constitution Internet radio networks that have been formed. It also mentions that homegrown terrorists span all ages and races indicating that the Congress is stating that everyone is a potential terrorist. Even worse is that Congress states in their findings that they should look at draconian police states like Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom as models to defeat homegrown terrorists. Literally, these findings of Congress fall right in line with the growing patriot community.
The biggest joke of all is that this section also says that any measure to prevent violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism should not violate the constitutional rights of citizens. However, the definition of violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism as they are defined in section 899A are themselves unconstitutional. The Constitution does not allow the government to arrest people for thought crimes, so any promises not to violate the constitutional rights of citizens are already broken by their own definitions.
`SEC. 899B. FINDINGS.
`The Congress finds the following:
`(1) The development and implementation of methods and processes that can be utilized to prevent violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence in the United States is critical to combating domestic terrorism.
`(2) The promotion of violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence exists in the United States and poses a threat to homeland security.
`(3) The Internet has aided in facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process in the United States by providing access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda to United States citizens.
`(4) While the United States must continue its vigilant efforts to combat international terrorism, it must also strengthen efforts to combat the threat posed by homegrown terrorists based and operating within the United States.
`(5) Understanding the motivational factors that lead to violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence is a vital step toward eradicating these threats in the United States.
`(6) The potential rise of self radicalized, unaffiliated terrorists domestically cannot be easily prevented through traditional Federal intelligence or law enforcement efforts, and requires the incorporation of State and local solutions.
`(7) Individuals prone to violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence span all races, ethnicities, and religious beliefs, and individuals should not be targeted based solely on race, ethnicity, or religion.
`(8) Any measure taken to prevent violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence and homegrown terrorism in the United States should not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights and civil liberties of United States citizens and lawful permanent residents.
`(9) Certain governments, including the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia have significant experience with homegrown terrorism and the United States can benefit from lessons learned by those nations.
Section 899C calls for a commission on the prevention of violent radicalization and ideologically based violence. The commission will consist of ten members appointed by various individuals that hold different positions in government. Essentially, this is a commission that will examine and report on how they are going to deal with violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism. So basically, the commission is being formed specifically on how to deal with thought criminals in the United States. The bill requires that the commission submit their final report 18 months following the commission's first meeting as well as submit interim reports every 6 months leading up to the final report. Below is the bill's defined purpose of the commission. Amazingly they even define one of the purposes of the commission to determine the causes of lone wolf violent radicalization.
(b) Purpose- The purposes of the Commission are the following:
`(1) Examine and report upon the facts and causes of violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence in the United States, including United States connections to non-United States persons and networks, violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence in prison, individual or `lone wolf' violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence, and other faces of the phenomena of violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence that the Commission considers important.
`(2) Build upon and bring together the work of other entities and avoid unnecessary duplication, by reviewing the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of--
`(A) the Center of Excellence established or designated under section 899D, and other academic work, as appropriate;
`(B) Federal, State, local, or tribal studies of, reviews of, and experiences with violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence; and
`(C) foreign government studies of, reviews of, and experiences with violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence.
Section 899D of the bill establishes a Center of Excellence for the Study of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism in the United States. Essentially, this will be a Department of Homeland Security affiliated institution that will study and determine how to defeat thought criminals.
Section 899E of the bill discusses how the government is going to defeat violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism through international cooperation. As stated in the findings section earlier in the legislation, they will unquestionably seek the advice of countries with draconian police states like the United Kingdom to determine how to deal with this growing threat of thought crime.
Possibly the most ridiculous section of the bill is Section 899F which states how they plan on protecting civil rights and civil liberties while preventing ideologically based violence and homegrown terrorism. Here is what the section says.
`SEC. 899F. PROTECTING CIVIL RIGHTS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES WHILE PREVENTING IDEOLOGICALLY-BASED VIOLENCE AND HOMEGROWN TERRORISM.
`(a) In General- The Department of Homeland Security's efforts to prevent ideologically-based violence and homegrown terrorism as described herein shall not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, and civil liberties of United States citizens and lawful permanent residents.
`(b) Commitment to Racial Neutrality- The Secretary shall ensure that the activities and operations of the entities created by this subtitle are in compliance with the Department of Homeland Security's commitment to racial neutrality.
`(c) Auditing Mechanism- The Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Officer of the Department of Homeland Security will develop and implement an auditing mechanism to ensure that compliance with this subtitle does not result in a disproportionate impact, without a rational basis, on any particular race, ethnicity, or religion and include the results of its audit in its annual report to Congress required under section 705.'.
(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of contents in section 1(b) of such Act is amended by inserting at the end of the items relating to title VIII the following:
It states in the first subsection that in general the efforts to defeat thought crime shall not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights and civil liberties of the United States citizens and lawful permanent residents. How does this protect constitutional rights if they use vague language such as in general that prefaces the statement? This means that the Department of Homeland Security does not have to abide by the Constitution in their attempts to prevent so called homegrown terrorism.
This bill is completely insane. It literally allows the government to define any and all crimes including thought crime as violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism. Obviously, this legislation is unconstitutional on a number of levels and it is clear that all 404 representatives who voted in favor of this bill are traitors and should be removed from office immediately. The treason spans both political parties and it shows us all that there is no difference between them. The bill will go on to the Senate and will likely be passed and signed into the law by George W. Bush. Considering that draconian legislation like the Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act have already been passed, there seems little question that this one will get passed as well. This is more proof that our country has been completely sold out by a group of traitors at all levels of government.
------------------------------
DISCUSS THIS STORY IN THE INTEL STRIKE FORUM
___
From Indybay.org - comment on the above
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/10/25/18456040.php
Labor Unions are especially at risk under this bill’s definition of “VIOLENT RADICALIZATION.”
It would take just one fight between union members and their employer, or with police, scabs or strike breakers for a union to be labeled a “violent radical organization with an agenda, terrorists.” Historically unions have violent conflicts fighting for fair wages and better working conditions. Big Corporations can use this vaguely written bill to stop any labor movement. Police need only allege that people in a labor movement “were thinking about using violence.” And Government is quite adept at providing false or purchased testimony.
Once this bill passes the U.S. Government and police can eliminate any peaceful/lawful organization in “COINTELPRO” fashion by sending agent provocateurs into targeted lawful organizations and protest demonstrations to cause violence and/or destruction of private property. For instance, often many diverse organizations attend protests against the Iraq War, where violence might take place. Under this bill, all organizations that participate at a demonstration to stop the Iraq War could be charged with terrorism should violence occur, e.g., “for supporting an agenda by violence to coerce and influence the U.S. Government.” After this bill is passed, government and police will be able to eliminate any organization or individual that would dare attend a meeting or demonstration for or against anything.
Under this bill, after the Government charges you with Terrorism for “thinking about or supporting an Agenda that might entail violence, “Patriot Act Asset Forfeiture Provisions” kick in under Title 18 of the federal code. The “federal relation back doctrine” provides the government the power to seize any assets that was used prior to facilitate or support a purpose that would make that asset subject to government forfeiture. After this bill passes peaceful organizations and protestors attending demonstrations may be at great risk. Under the Patriot Act, if you or your organization are criminally charged with terrorism or terrorist conspiracy, Government can forfeit your home if used for meetings as constituting an asset “used” to support a terrorist conspiracy. The government can seize your car if used to transport co-conspirators to meetings or demonstrations that advance an “illegal agenda.” Even if no violence took place.
Government can, 20 years in the future, come back to forfeit those assets using only “civil evidence” since the passage of Henry Hide’s forfeiture bill HR 1658 in 2000. And no person or organization need be charged with a crime. Under this new bill just thinking or talking about violence in your home is enough to have your house seized by the government. That includes talking on your phone at your property. Under this new bill, innocent citizens are at risk if they participate in political, religions, labor, any meeting where another participant might attempt to further a lawful agenda though violence. Under the Patriot Act innocent citizens start out guilty having to prove they did not have reason to know the persons that they associated with may commit a terrorist act.
___
Put On the Cuffs, I'm Guilty as Charged
by Jim Freeman
http://www.opednews.com
Tell A Friend
If you thought, as I did, that some pretty scary legislation was created in the past seven years of this administration, you might want to pay attention.
You or I may be a violent radical in the eyes of your neighbor, or someone at work or (quite possibly) a complete stranger on the subway.
No way.
Don’t be sure. Jane Harman, a Democratic member of the House from California, has just gotten together with fellow members to pass HR 1955 RFS. Just four days ago, the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 sailed off to the Senate. Harman had fourteen co-sponsors, ten Democrats and four Republicans. Harman's bill has been called, quite properly, a "thought crime bill."
You might have been looking the other way or thinking about giving the lawn one last mowing before winter. There has not been so much as a whisper from the media, engrossed as they are by Hillary’s laugh and Britney’s course in child-raising.
The vote in your House of Representatives was 404 yes and a lonely 6 against. That’s how hot any disfigured legislation that often enough repeats ‘terrorism’ has become. Bad law comes of frightened times and we have allowed ourselves to become a terrorized nation.
Meanwhile, I ask you to think for a moment about the word ‘ambiguity;’ (noun) an expression whose meaning cannot be determined from its context; unclearness, by virtue of having more than one meaning.
The reason I ask that is because this act is thoroughly and deliberately ambiguous from start to finish—and therein lies its great danger to your and my freedom. I don’t mean freedom of speech or association, although those are at risk as well. I mean your freedom not to be hustled off in handcuffs, possibly never heard from again.
You’ve got to be kidding. This is still America.
Well, it is. For now--and presuming the Senate has the good judgment to bury Harmon’s bill. They sometimes do. Jane’s treachery to her fellow Americans resides at the moment in the Senate’s Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Incredibly, Harman began her career in Washington by serving as chief counsel and staff director for the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights. For Jane and most of Washington, scary-terrorism has come to trump the Constitution every time.
So, let’s get to it. What’s so scary about Rep. Jane Harmon’s bill? The first worry is its name, the 'Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007’ and the reason that’s a worry is because of its ambiguity. Ambiguity is what made Hitler’s Germany possible.
What do they mean by Violent Radicalization?
From the 'definitions page' of the bill; (2) VIOLENT RADICALIZATION- The term 'violent radicalization' means the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change. My dictionary says ‘extremist’ is ‘far beyond the norm.’ Whose norm? How far is far? Those are ambiguous terms and because they are and because this is terrorist legislation, their meaning is in the hands of the arresting entity.
Bingo! You and/or I may be gone the route of the recent and unfortunate Canadian and German ‘extremists’ who were arrested, rendered to foreign countries and tortured.
My writing this opinion piece is for the explicit purpose of ‘advancing political and social change.’ The only veil between my right to speak as a citizen and extraordinary rendition is someone’s definition of ‘far’ and ‘norm.’ Someone I may not (and probably will not) be able to challenge in court. I’m sorry, Jane, but I find that very, very scary.
What do they mean by Homegrown Terrorism? I would guess it’s not at all similar to a particularly flavorful, tomatoey kind of terrorism.
(3) HOMEGROWN TERRORISM- The term 'homegrown terrorism' means the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States or any possession of the United States to intimidate or coerce the United States government, the civilian population of the United States, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.
Coerce, force (verbs) to cause to do through pressure or necessity, by physical, moral or intellectual means.
Guilty as charged, I guess. It is certainly my purpose to morally and intellectually pressure my government in furtherance of a political and social objective.
Is Jane Harmon nuts? Is not what I have just described and what she has declared terrorist, not the essence of the democratic process? One of us is dead wrong.
What I find unacceptable is twofold; 1) that Harman has removed that definition (upon which my fate depends) from the Constitution and given it to agents of the state, and 2) that mainstream American media apparently hasn’t even noticed.
Anyone know what Ideologically Based Violence means?
(4) IDEOLOGICALLY BASED VIOLENCE- The term 'ideologically based violence' means the use, planned use, or threatened use of force or violence by a group or individual to promote the group or individual's political, religious, or social beliefs.
Ideological (adjective) of or pertaining to or characteristic of an orientation that characterizes the thinking of a group or nation. Violence (noun) an act of aggression, as one against a person who resists. Well, then you have to go further and define aggression; (noun) a feeling of hostility that arouses thoughts of attack.
Again, carry me off in cuffs, ‘cause I hope I characterize the thinking of a group, my hostility is against an administration that resists its own laws and, although I never have (nor would) advocate a physical attack against my government, I surely and repeatedly attack it verbally.
That is my right as a citizen. The great James Madison, our fourth president, said “If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.” Certainly terrorism’s false definition by the Bush administration as a foreign enemy confirms that warning by Madison with heartbreaking accuracy.
Jane Harmon, we can only presume, has never read nor paid much notice to our greatest presidents. If she had, her ears would ring with Lincoln’s admonition that “America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter, and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves,” adding that “to sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men.”
Jane apparently sees terrorism behind every palm tree in her homegrown California climate and finds her neighbors radicalized, some of them violently. Her bill makes certain ‘findings’ with which she arms the nation against the terrible destructive power of its own citizenry.
The Congress finds the following:
(1) The development and implementation of methods and processes that can be utilized to prevent violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence in the United States is critical to combating domestic terrorism.
No Jane, your Congress is incorrect. What is and always has been critical to our freedoms (including the freedom from terrorism) is the restriction of methods and processes within constitutional law.
(2) The promotion of violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence exists in the United States and poses a threat to homeland security.
You bet it does and that promotion (as I have described and confessed to it) is elemental to the freedoms within a homeland that make it worthy of preserving.
(3) The Internet has aided in facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process in the United States by providing access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda to United States citizens.
The presumption here is that, under Harmon’s watchful eye, we will only be exposed to what she deems worthy of exposition. Nice touch. Nice opening shot against Net Neutrality.
(4) While the United States must continue its vigilant efforts to combat international terrorism, it must also strengthen efforts to combat the threat posed by homegrown terrorists based and operating within the United States.
Most of those tormented by Senator Joseph McCarthy fifty years ago are dead by now. But in case supposed communists have been quietly been reincarnating themselves as supposed terrorists, Harman strives to bring back the halcyon days of Joe. Are those ‘card-carrying’ terrorists, Jane?
(5) Understanding the motivational factors that lead to violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence is a vital step toward eradicating these threats in the United States.
Eradication. Like Dutch Elm Disease. My motivation is the freedom to speak, to practice my religion (as a Muslim if that is my choice) or none at all, to associate with friends and perhaps even indulge in political discussion, to write without governmental editing, to travel as my desires, finances and passport allow and to be left the hell alone—all of these without threat (or perceived threat) to my neighbors.
(6) Preventing the potential rise of self radicalized, unaffiliated terrorists domestically cannot be easily accomplished solely through traditional Federal intelligence or law enforcement efforts, and can benefit from the incorporation of State and local efforts.
Probably correct and yet one wonders how (again, ambiguously) this bill purports to incorporate State and local effort. So far as I know, even Joe McCarthy was never allowed to do that.
(7) Individuals prone to violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence span all races, ethnicities, and religious beliefs, and individuals should not be targeted based solely on race, ethnicity, or religion.
Well Janie, let’s hear it for equal-opportunity victimization. But if not solely, then how about just a little bit?
(8) Any measure taken to prevent violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence and homegrown terrorism in the United States should not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, or civil liberties of United States citizens or lawful permanent residents.
Should not (probable), will not (absolute). Does that ‘should not’ apply before or after the determination to pack a suspect off to another country. I would suggest to you a quick reference to the tale of the son of an Egyptian diplomat.
(9) Certain governments, including the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia have significant experience with homegrown terrorism and the United States can benefit from lessons learned by those nations.
No doubt. Then of course, having not dotted every 'i' and crossed every 't' in the observation of her fellow (but perhaps less well-connected) citizens, Harman proposes to set up her own version of a “School for Scandal.”
SEC. 899D. CENTER OF EXCELLENCE FOR THE STUDY OF VIOLENT RADICALIZATION AND HOMEGROWN TERRORISM IN THE UNITED STATES. (Blah, blah and then more blah, until we get down to ‘c’)
(c) Activities- In carrying out this section, the Center shall--
(1) contribute to the establishment of training, written materials, information, analytical assistance and professional resources to aid in combating violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism;
Brown shirts are dress-optional.
(2) utilize theories, methods and data from the social and behavioral sciences to better understand the origins, dynamics, and social and psychological aspects of violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism;
Harman has done everything up to now but slip on the swastika arm-band.
(3) conduct research on the motivational factors that lead to violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism;
Including the motivation to live in a free and independent nation.
(4) coordinate with other academic institutions studying the effects of violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism where appropriate.
Well Jane. Now that you have finally waded down through this veritable swamp of constitutional degradation, hip-boots slathered in congressional slime, you throw us the bone of ‘where appropriate.’ How California of you.
In an effort to wind this up and provide some connective tissue, let me draw attention to other little heralded laws. Federal confiscation laws are in effect that could cost you everything you own. There is little argument against these violations of the 4th, 5th, 8th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution because, what the hell, you and I are not drug users or dealers.
(Your House is Under Arrest, Brenda Grantland, attorney) Property can be confiscated from innocent people for the crimes of others. Even if you are totally innocent, you have to go through the whole process, and prove at trial that you didn't know of or consent to the illegal use of your property before you can get it back.
Forfeiture procedures allow the government to seize property without a hearing, and hold onto it until the case is over. Often the police seize everything of value you own, so that you don't have any money to hire a lawyer to fight your case. There is no right to court appointed counsel in forfeiture cases.
In federal law, they make you pay the police 10% of the value of your property in order to have any right to a trial at all! Even after you pay the cost bond, you can still be denied the right to trial if the judge grants "summary judgement" for the government. This can happen if the judge decides there are no facts to dispute, or that you don't have enough "credible" evidence to win at trial.
At trial -- if you get one -- the property is presumed guilty. The burden of proof is on you to prove your property should not be forfeited. The courts even let the government use hearsay to prove their case -- but they won't let you use hearsay to defend yourself.
Some state forfeiture statutes have even taken away the right to a jury trial in all forfeiture cases.
You may say this could never happen in America because the U.S. Constitution protects you. There you are wrong, because it is happening in the U.S. -- at an alarmingly increasing pace.
And it has been happening since 1993, but most likely not to anyone you know personally.
The same might be said of HR 1955 RFS as well. But one of our greatest freedoms as Americans is the ability to walk down a street, drive down a highway and challenge anyone who stands in our way. Even a policeman, perhaps particularly a policeman.
"Is there a problem, officer," is said by Americans with the little bit of swagger that adds "you better have a damned good reason." I thank my country often for the ability to walk without fear, knowing no one wants me, no one wishes me ill, no one gives a damn who I am.
There isn't a man or woman among us who would trade that ability to sleep peacefully and un-bothered for someone else's concept of the fear of terrorism. Thanks anyway, Jane, I'll take my chances on good old traditional American police work.
___
Did you already distribute to your lists, friends, etc. about the 5th of November. It's very important that you do. Pretty please? Let's make history for Ron Paul! Ask them to distribute to everyone too, etc. This way we can get a geometrical progression.
Further reference at this link:
http://tekgnosis.typepad.com/tekgnosis/2007/10/ron-paul-and-th.html
Juan
http://tekgnosis.typepad.com
___
Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington DC West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming United States South America Great Britain England Europe Middle East Asia Melbourne World
Teknosis Join us at EENG - Free Blogs,.
October 26, 2007 in Current Affairs | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451d3ac69e200e55088c0b58834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference US House of Representatives Passes HR 1955 titled the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 (Thought Crime Prevention Bill): Contact your Senators to block this unconstitutional madness or welcome to 1984:
