Daily Archives: April 1, 2015

New Mexico legislature passes civil asset forfeiture reforms

Posted on by

nm-sealNEW MEXICO — The unconstitutional procedure of civil forfeiture is being given special attention these days thanks to the Land of Enchantment. The New Mexico legislature passed H.B. 560 to limit civil forfeitures in their State. Governor Susana Martinez, however, has yet to sign it into law. The organization Freedom Works is concerned about the delay.

Recently Eric Holder announced new rules actually restricting civil forfeiture.

According to the End Forfeiture web site, there is a distinct difference between civil and criminal forfeiture.

In a criminal forfeiture, as the name implies, forfeiture of assets occurs when one is convicted of a crime. The action is taken against a person which means the person is given all rights to a criminal trial and a lawyer if one can not be afforded. The burden of evidence is on the government.

In a civil asset forfeiture, “Civil forfeiture cases are in rem proceedings—meaning that they are technically brought against the property itself rather than its owner. This legal fiction means that police and prosecutors can take and sell your cash, cars, homes or other property without having to convict you or even charge you with any wrongdoing. Fighting back means having to pay for a lawyer yourself or go it alone. And instead of the government having to prove your guilt, under civil forfeiture you must prove your innocence. It is an upside-down world that where the government holds all the cards and has the financial incentive to play them to the hilt.”

The classic example used is the IRS. If you deposit $10,000 or more regularly, that is reported to the IRS. If one starts depositing just less than that amount, the IRS assumes that you are guilty of attempting to hide something and acts to seize all of your assets. There may be no criminal charges brought against the person, but the burden of evidence is on the person to to prove their innocence. That may require lawyers fees more than the assets are worth, thus allowing the government to keep the seized assets.

The new rules by Eric Holder would require government authorities to act only on probable cause that the funds were generated by illegal activity or planned to be used in future criminal activity. In addition, if the activity does not prove to rise to the level to bring either civil or criminal trial, the agency must return assets in full.

This is a policy change, however, and can be changed by subsequent nominations to the position of Attorney General. This is just one example of why it is important for the Senate to select wisely. Freedom Works is not impressed with the civil asset forfeiture record of Loretta Lynch.

Action at the national level is not restricted to the office of the Attorney General. Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) has submitted S. 255 Senator Rand Paul (R-KY), the Fifth Amendment Integrity Restoration Act of 2015 or the FAIR Act [H.R. 540 in the House submitted by Rep. Tim Walberg (R-MI-7)].

The Senate bill would ensure that a person contesting civil forfeiture has legal representation and increase the burden of proof by the federal government to clear and convincing evidence of a criminal activity.

The act of civil access forfeiture violates not only the due process of the Fifth Amendment, but the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures and to be secure in their effects.

Civil asset forfeiture is not restricted to federal abuse. State and local law enforcement agencies have been known to seize assets without due process. The Institute for Justice gave Arizona a grade of D in 2010 for the civil forfeiture procedures in the State.

The New Mexico legislation is being hailed as the most sweeping reform of civil asset forfeiture in the history of the practice.

See Also:
1. New Mexico Nixes Civil Asset Forfeiture: Leviathan Can Be Defeated — Forbes
2. Arizona Earns “D” In “Policing for Profit” Report — Institute for Justice

Pavement maintenance on SR 89 south of Yarnell today

Posted on by

Following a recent rock fall on State Route 89 south of Yarnell (mileposts 272-277), crews will repair damages tomorrow on the southbound lanes and drivers traveling southbound will be shifted onto one lane of the northbound lanes from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. according to the Arizona Department of Transportation.

No major restrictions or delays are expected. The speed limit will be reduced to 30 mph.

Bill introduced to prevent President Obama from renaming McKinley by executive order

Posted on by
Denali_Mt_McKinley

Photo by a NPS employee from Wikipedia.

WASHINGTON — was submitted by the congressional delegation of Ohio fearful that President Obama will rename McKinley to Mount Obama by executive order.

Representative Bob Gibbs of Ohio submitted H.R. 437, the text which reads:

Notwithstanding any other authority of law, the mountain located 63 degrees 04 minutes 12 seconds north, by 151 degrees 00 minutes 18 seconds west shall continue to be named and referred to for all purposes as Mount McKinley.

Okay, that is the April Fools part of the article.

Verily, the name given to the highest mountain in North America has been in dispute for some time. The Alaska Board of Geographic Names lists the mountain as Denali—meaning “the great one” in the Athabaskan language. The United States Board on Geographic Names lists it as Mount McKinley.

William_McKinley1896Efforts by Alaskan authorities have always been thwarted by the congressional delegation from Ohio—such as with this bill H.R. 437. Since being introduced in January, it moved from the House Committee on Natural Resources to the Subcommittee on Federal Lands March 2. The bill has no cosponsors.

Mount McKinley was named after William McKinley—the 25th President of the United States, serving from March 4, 1897, until his assassination in September 1901, six months into his second term. He was born in Ohio and this bill was submitted on January 21—eight days before the date of his birth in 1843.

It is rather interesting that this debate has not been given the same coverage by the media as the name of a football team.

Is Jade Helm operation a casual exercise or prelude to martial law?

Posted on by

OPINION
Updated: 4/2/2015, 9:10 a.m.

300-jade-helm

But in republics there is more vitality, greater hatred, and more desire for vengeance, which will never permit them to allow the memory of their former liberty to rest; so that the safest way is to destroy them or to reside there.—The Prince, Nicolo Machiavelli CHAPTER V

Since the Daily Mail news story on Operation Jade Helm (PDF), the blogosphere has exploded with every possibility of conspiracy.

Concerns in the southwest are not totally unfounded; particularly in light of the Bundy Ranch episode last year on March 27. One communist web site, relying heavily on reports from the Southern Enriched-By-Taxpayer-Dollars Law Center, was stressed that the militia was actually doing what it is supposed to do. Stopping national government encroachment. The government-approved Federalist papers as, well as those Federalist Papers not so well-known, make that clear.

One can certainly question the premise of “Master the Human Domain.”

According to the Mail, the operation scheduled from July 15 to September 15 will feature:

  • Operation Jade Helm will see 1,200 service members including Green Berets and SEALs and special forces from the Air Force and Marines in July
  • Soldiers armed with blank rounds will operate in and around towns in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, California, Nevada, Utah and Colorado for 8 weeks
  • The so-called Realistic Military Training has some residents fearful the drill is a preparation for martial law

The premise of this operation is that Texas has been invaded by a “hostile force” and has to be retaken.

Lieutenant Colonel Mark Lastoria denounced this as a prelude to martial law in Stars and Stripes.

Army Lt. Col. Mark Lastoria, a USASOC spokesman, confirmed that there is an upcoming exercise called Jade Helm 15 which is scheduled to take place this summer at locations in Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, Colorado, California and Nevada. But he denied the event is preparation for some sort of military takeover.

A judge in Texas apparently agrees.
Continue reading →