Bill of Rights - Amendment V - No double jeopardy; no self incrimination; due...

[DennisLeeWilson]

Judge Narragansett's New Constitution Project
http://tinyurl.com/Narragansett-Constitution

Bill of Rights - Amendment V - No double jeopardy; no self incrimination; due process of law; "eminent domain" restriction
http://atlasshruggedcelebrationday.com/simplemachinesforum/index.php?topic=121.msg279#msg279
From: DennisLeeWilson-Ariz-Wyo  (Original Message) Sent: 1/31/2003 5:25 PM

In framing the Constitution of the Confederate States, the authors adopted, with numerous elisions and additions, the language of the Constitution of the United States, and followed the same order of arrangement of articles and sections. The changes made in this adaptation of the old Constitution are here shown. The parts stricken out are enclosed in [ ] brackets, and the new matter added in framing the Confederate Constitution is printed in italics.

Bill of Rights - Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any Criminal Case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.  

[DennisLeeWilson]

From: DennisLeeWilson-Ariz-Wyo Sent: 7/1/2005 12:15 PM

Eminent Domain is not explicitly authorized in the Constitution but may possibly be implied from Section VIII.
Eminent Domain is primarily a State and Local (rather than explicitly Federal) legal mechanism.
 
200 years of history has amply demonstrated that the power of "Eminent Domain" is a corrupt and corrupting process and should be EXPLICITLY FORBIDDEN at ALL (Federal, State, County and City) LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT.

The recent decision by the US Supreme Court in Kelo v. New London should provide sufficient proof that NO government can be trusted to reasonably "interpret" the intentions of such things as "eminent domain" powers. Consequently, I recommend that the last line of Amendment V be modified to EXPLICITLY remove such power from any future government. (The parts stricken out are enclosed in [ ] brackets, and the new matter added is printed in italics.) See definition of due process below.
 
"...nor be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken by ANY (Federal, State, County and City) LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT for any alleged public purpose whatsoever! [for public use, without just compensation.]"
 
 http://www.criminalgovernment.com/docs/duproc0.html

Definition of Due Process of Law

"The essential elements of due process of law are notice, an opportunity to be heard, and the right to defend in an orderly proceeding." Fiehe v. R.E. Householder Co., 125 So. 2, 7 (Fla. 1929).

"To dispense with notice before taking property is likened to obtaining judgement without the defendant having ever been summoned." Mayor of Baltimore vs. Scharf, 54 Md. 499, 519 (1880).

"An orderly proceeding wherein a person is served with notice, actual or constructive, and has an opportunity to be heard and to enforce and protect his rights before a court having power to hear and determine the case. Kazubowski v. Kazubowski, 45 Ill.2d 405, 259, N.E.2d 282, 290." Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, page 500.

"Due Process of law implies and comprehends the administration of laws equally applicable to all under established rules which do not violate fundamental principles of private rights, and in a competent tribunal possessing jurisdiction of the cause and proceeding upon justice. It is founded upon the basic principle that every man shall have his day in court, and the benefit of the general law which proceeds only upon notice and which hears and considers before judgement is rendered." State v. Green, 232 S.W.2d 897, 903 (Mo. 1950).

"Phrase means that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, property or of any right granted him by statute, unless matter involved first shall have been adjudicated against him upon trial conducted according to established rules regulating judicial proceedings, and it forbids condemnation without a hearing, Pettit v. Penn., La.App., 180 So.2d 66, 69." Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, page 500.

"Due Process of law implies the right of the person affected thereby to be present before the tribunal which pronounces judgement upon the question of life, liberty, or property, in its most comprehensive sense; to be heard, by testimony or otherwise, and to have the right of controverting, by proof, every material fact which bears on the question of right in the matter involved. If any question of fact or liability be conclusively presumed against him, this is not due process of law." Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, page 500.

"Aside from all else, ‘due process’ means fundamental fairness and substantial justice. Vaughn v. State, 3 Tenn.Crim.App. 54, 456 S.W.2d 879, 883." Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, page 500.

See also: Due Process Cannot Be Modified By Legislation

[DennisLeeWilson]

See extended discussion of Eminent Domain under Section VIII at the following link:
http://atlasshruggedcelebrationday.com/simplemachinesforum/index.php?topic=143.msg335#msg335

[DennisLeeWilson]

The officially sanctioned plunder called
“Civil Asset Forfeiture”

http://www.republicmagazine.com/news/plundering-america-cops-acting-as-robbers-squabble-over-the-loot.html
Plundering America: Cops Acting as Robbers Squabble over the Loot

Posted on 14 December 2011 by William Grigg

Through the officially sanctioned plunder called “civil asset forfeiture,” police departments across the country have confiscated untold millions in cash and property – and now some of the robbers are squabbling over how to divide the loot.

Police officers in the town of Westminster, Maryland (population roughly 19,000) are accusing their superiors “of misspending money seized from drug suspects by buying iPads and iPhones for top commanders,” reports the Baltimore Sun. It’s important to understand that through civil asset forfeiture, cash or property can be confiscated – that is, stolen – from people who have never been formally accused of a criminal offense, let alone convicted of one. This is a different proposition from criminal asset forfeiture, which involves seizure of money or property from an individual who has actually been convicted of a crime.

Through their local union, the Carroll County Fraternal Order of Police, officers in Westminster have charged that “bosses are getting all the perks while the rank and file are left cleaning up the mess,” explains attorney and police union labor negotiator Gary McLhinney.

While dismissing the allegations as union posturing in the context of contract negotiations, police and city officials have yet to offer a substantive denial.

Reports the Sun:

   “Clearly, someone disagrees with the manner in which some of the forfeiture funds have been spent,” said Westminster Police Chief Jeffrey Spaulding, declining to confirm, as the law firm alleges, that he and his top commanders — a major and three captains — have iPhones or iPads purchased with funds collected as part of criminal forfeitures.

    The mayor refused to say how much money the city has gotten from the asset forfeiture program, or release an annual audit of the programs at participating police agencies in Carroll County.

    “We’re not going to release anything from the city of Westminster until we have a chance to talk to our attorney,” Utz said. “Then we’ll be able to respond. I have nothing to hide.”

    Expenditures from asset forfeiture programs must follow guidelines from the U.S. Department of Justice. McLhinney said he is not alleging that the spending was illegal but that it was inappropriate. The guidelines, for example, allow money to be spent on computers and communication equipment.

    McLhinney said the money shouldn’t be spent on smartphones for commanders but for officers who could use them. For instance, Baltimore police officers have BlackBerrys that can access warrant information. “There are men and women risking their lives to make these seizures, what, so the boss can have an Apple iPhone?” he said.

The idea that police are “risking their lives” to confiscate money and property is self-serving and melodramatic. Even if it were true, however, this wouldn’t make their actions any more heroic than those of any other band of armed robbers.

The Fifth Amendment dictates that government may not deprive any individual of his property “without due process of law”; one has to be convicted of a crime before the state can impose a punishment. At least that’s how things were intended to operate in the old constitutional republic. The degenerate corporate state ruling us today operates in a fashion similar to that of feudal kleptocracies, in which robbers (sometimes called “tax farmers”) were permitted to keep a portion of whatever they stole from the public.

One early specimen of what is now called “forfeiture” was described by British historian Arthur Arnold after he visited 19th century feudal Iran. Arnold observed that government agents were “free to extort all that [they] can get, upon condition of making a certain annual payment to Tehran.” In this fashion, the subjects were “kept in perpetual disorder by the demands of armed men, who plunder under the pretense of [law], and who … are scarcely preferred to robbers.”

This is essentially the same arrangement that emerged from “forfeiture” reform efforts ten years ago. Amid a growing chorus of public outrage over the practice, Congress and various states enacted measures supposedly forbidding police to profit from forfeiture. The Justice Department, however, nullified those laws by permitting police to keep eighty percent of whatever they confiscate in joint operations with the Feds – thereby instituting a scheme remarkably similar to the 19th Century Iranian feudal system described by Arnold.

While “civil asset forfeiture” is generally described as a valid law enforcement tool, in practice it is undisguised theft. In a detailed investigative series, the Detroit News reported a couple of years ago: “Local law enforcement agencies are raising millions of dollars by seizing private property suspected in crimes, but often without charges being filed — and sometimes even when authorities admit no offense was committed.”

As Republic magazine recently noted (see “The Stasi State Expands,” October 21),
Between 2003 and 2007, Romulus, Michigan witnessed a 118 percent increase in forfeiture revenues despite the fact that there has not been a corresponding increase in criminal activity. Well, make that unofficial criminal activity.

On September 27, Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy announced the arrest and indictment of former Romulus Police Chief Michael St. Andre, his wife, and five detectives, all of whom were accused of using forfeiture proceeds for their personal benefit.  St. Andre was accused of using forfeiture money to buy a tanning salon for his wife. Some of the money was allegedly used to procure the services of prostitutes. Some $40,000 was reportedly spent on alcohol and marijuana.

Police aren’t the only “public servants” who can live the high life thanks to the miracle of asset forfeiture. Tampa Mayor Bob Buckhorn, to cite one example, drives a customized high-end SUV confiscated from Charles Melvin Fox, who is accused of running a prostitution ring. Buckhorn selected his pimped-out ride from a “forfeiture fleet” – that is, a large collection of autos stolen by police from people either accused of crimes or associated with them – but not yet convicted in court.

Buckhorn insists that the SUV was seized from “someone engaged in criminal activity.” That may or may not be true of Charles Fox. It is unambiguously true of Buckhorn, who – as a politician – belongs to a class of criminals more loathsome than pimps or prostitutes.

Any vice – that is to say, a prohibited activity engaged in by consenting adults – can be turned into a potential revenue bonanza for the political class. This includes not only drug use and prostitution, but gambling, as well.

In 2009, Maryland’s Anne Arundel County Police Department set up a fraudulent account for “Linwood Payment Solutions” to process payments for online gambling. The funds were deposited directly into the federal government’s asset forfeiture fund. Earlier this year, the Feds seized the online domains and other assets of online gambling sites – and smugly instructed Americans who had participated in online gambling, none of whom committed a prosecutable offense, to contact the websites if they wanted to get their funds back.

Those funds, of course, had already been stolen by the Feds. For its role in the heist, the Anne Arundel County Police Department netted a cut of nearly a half-million dollars, which will be used to fund the SWAT teams employed to carry out smash-and-grab invasions under the rubric of the “War on Drugs.”

In addition to the obvious material benefits it provides for opportunistic police and civic officials, the practice of asset forfeiture provides an unaccountable pool of funds that can be used to cover up other forms of official corruption.

Nassau County, New York is burdened with one of the worst and most abusive criminal “justice” systems in the country. The County Police Department’s crime lab has been shut down because of incurable corruption. Thousands of criminal convictions may be tainted because of perjury and evidence tampering on the part of crime lab officials.

Nassau County DA Kathleen Rice has announced that thousands of forensic samples from the lab will have to be re-tested at a cost of nearly a half-million dollars. The expenses will be paid out of the police department’s forfeiture funds.

When asked how much money was in the forfeiture slush funds, Rice refused to answer. The police department – in a fashion typical of the risk-aversive plunderers who gravitate to that disreputable occupation – insists that a public accounting of the forfeiture funds would put officers “at risk.” It’s understandable that the thieves would try to avoid riling up the victims by describing the size of their haul.

No other criminal racket can compete with the one called “government” – and officially sanctioned robbery of this kind grows increasingly common as the productive economy dies.

Read more about this in the Baltimore Sun.

[DennisLeeWilson]

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20091112/METRO/911120388/Police-property-seizures-ensnare-even-the-innocent
November 12, 2009 at 1:00 am

Police property seizures ensnare even the innocent
Money raised by Metro Detroit agencies increases 50% in five years

    * By George Hunter and Doug Guthrie
    * The Detroit News

Mike LaBlanc of Plymouth checks out cars at an auction in Wayne County's Brownstown Township. The Wayne County Sheriff's Office took in $8.69 million from civil seizures in 2007. (Steve Perez / The Detroit News)

Local law enforcement agencies are raising millions of dollars by seizing private property suspected in crimes, but often without charges being filed -- and sometimes even when authorities admit no offense was committed.

The money raised by confiscating goods in Metro Detroit soared more than 50 percent to at least $20.62 million from 2003 to 2007, according to a Detroit News analysis of records from 58 law enforcement agencies. In some communities, amounts raised went from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands -- and, in one case, into the millions.

"It's like legalized stealing," said Jacque Sutton, a 21-year-old college student from Mount Clemens whose 1989 Mustang was seized by Detroit police raiding a party. Charges against him and more than 100 others were dropped, but he still paid more than $1,000 to get the car back.

"According to the law, I did nothing wrong -- but they're allowed to take my property anyway. It doesn't make sense."

While courts have maintained the government's right to take property involved in crimes, police seizures -- also known as forfeitures -- are a growing source of friction in Michigan, especially as law enforcement agencies struggle to balance budgets.

"Police departments right now are looking for ways to generate revenue, and forfeiture is a way to offset the costs of doing business," said Sgt. Dave Schreiner, who runs Canton Township's forfeiture unit, which raised $343,699 in 2008. "You'll find that departments are doing more forfeitures than they used to because they've got to -- they're running out of money and they've got to find it somewhere."

The increase in property seizures merely is a byproduct of diligent law enforcement, some law enforcement officials say.

"We're trying to fight crime," said Police Chief Mike Pachla of Roseville, where the money raised from forfeitures jumped more than tenfold, from $33,890 to $393,014.

"We would be just as aggressive even if there wasn't any money involved."

Roseville had among the most dramatic increases over the five-year period examined by The News. But several other agencies also more than doubled their takes, including Novi, Trenton, Farmington Hills, Southfield, the Michigan State Police, Shelby Township, Livonia, Warren and Romulus.

The increase in money coming in leads to a higher percentage of the police budget being covered by seizures. In Roseville, the share of the police budget raised from forfeitures went from 0.3 percent to 4.2 percent. In Romulus, it jumped from 4.5 percent to 11.2 percent from 2003-2007, the most recent years for which comparable records were available. Some agencies said records weren't available.

Police and prosecutors profit because citizens must either pay to get their confiscated property back or lose their cars, homes and other seized assets to the arresting agencies, which auction them off.

The increased reliance on seized property to fund police operations amounts to a trade-off for law enforcement. The tough economy may be prompting law enforcement agencies to use an "entrepreneurial spirit," but that makes for bad public relations, said Tom Hendrickson, director of the Michigan Association of Chiefs of Police.

Courts support seizures

The friction over seizures is a result of two competing legacies in U.S. law. While the Fourth Amendment, adopted in 1791, protects the right of citizens to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, the Supreme Court ruled in 1827 that a Spanish-owned ship could be seized after it fired on a U.S. vessel. Whether or not the crew was convicted, the brig was the principal offender, it ruled.

And 169 years later, the nation's high court reaffirmed the notion when it ruled that a Royal Oak woman couldn't challenge the seizure of the family sedan after her husband was caught having sex with a prostitute inside, even though she didn't know the car was being used for that purpose.

Just last month, the high court heard the case of six people from Chicago who sought prompt hearings on the seizure of their cars and money. When a federal attorney told the court the government needs time to determine who owns a car and to investigate that person's connection to the criminal activity, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said: "I'm sorry. You take the car and then you investigate?"

A ruling, expected to come on procedural grounds, is due by the end of the Supreme Court's term in June and isn't expected to change law on property forfeiture.

"Unfortunately, the Supreme Court so far has ruled that they're not unconstitutional," said Kary Moss, director of the Michigan American Civil Liberties Union.

Modern civil forfeiture laws originally were passed in the 1970s and 1980s to allow police to seize the means of committing crimes. For instance, if a drug dealer was using a boat to transport drugs, the law enabled officers to confiscate the vessel before the case went to trial.

But the laws expanded over the years to allow the seizure of property that had only a loose connection to the alleged crime, and police now are taking property for infractions that would not have resulted in forfeitures in the past, including minor drug possession, gambling, drag racing, drunken driving and even loitering near illegal activity.

While laws governing seizures by federal authorities have been reformed to make it more difficult for them to seize property, state legislatures, including Michigan's, have not followed suit.

The Wayne County Prosecutor's Office often makes people pay to get their seized property back without filing any charges -- and in some cases citizens such as Sutton must pay even though police and prosecutors admit they can't prove any law was broken. In his case, police raided a dance party they thought was a blind pig and issued tickets to more than 100 people, all of which were later dropped.

Prosecutor Kym Worthy declined comment, but issued a written statement explaining that she wants to get criminals off the street, and that the law allows her office to seize property without filing charges.

Canton's Sgt. Schreiner insisted forfeiture laws should be wielded responsibly.

"There's a right way and a wrong way to do forfeitures," he said. "First of all, you should always file charges; if you don't have a case against someone, you shouldn't seize their property.

"But even when there is a crime, the law should be used as it was intended. If we seize a computer that was used to commit identity fraud, that's a good thing. But if Joe Citizen complains that he was arrested for a small amount of drugs, and we took his refrigerator and silverware, then I think he has a valid complaint."

Agencies ramp up efforts

Many of the increases in forfeitures obtained by local police agencies aren't the result of money hunting, officials say, although they also admit their efforts to take property have increased.

When Romulus saw a 118 percent jump in forfeiture revenues from 2003-07, the increase was not the result of more criminal activity, Chief Michael St. Andre said.

"It's because our forfeiture efforts have ramped up in the past few years," he said.

Revenue was not a primary concern, he said, "but it is nice when we're able to purchase things we need from arrests.

"I don't have to go to the city and ask for things like bulletproof vests or computers."

In Trenton, forfeitures hit a high of $874,499 in 2006. Police Chief William Lilienthal said his department joined a federal drug task force in 2005 that focused on asset seizures, which partially accounts for the increase.

Novi saw the biggest revenue increase in forfeiture revenues, going from $12,278 in 2003 to $2.7 million in 2007. But police officials said that spike is largely attributed to a 2005 arrest of a nationwide drug cartel that netted millions of dollars over a three-year period.

Yet adding to the dissent over seizures is that police agencies are able and even required to return the proceeds from forfeitures into more law enforcement activities, which can make a seizure look like a money-grab even if it isn't.

That's risky business, said Hendrickson, who represents the state's chiefs of police.

"Police departments should never make revenue a prime concern," he said. "That undermines people's confidence in their police officers."

Under state law, police departments may use the funds raised from most seizures indiscriminately within their own departments, although drug forfeiture money must be put back into fighting drugs.

But even that rule is being relaxed because of the tough economy. Earlier this year, Romulus police were able to purchase 16 new Dodge Chargers from drug forfeiture funds, which usually isn't allowed.

"They allowed it this year because the economy is so bad, it's an emergency situation," St. Andre said. "We contacted the DEA and asked permission to use that money to purchase vehicles."

In Trenton, forfeiture revenues paid for a new firing range.

"Forfeitures are a way to help supplement your budgetary issues," Trenton Chief William Lilienthal said.

"You can't supplant your budget with them, but you can supplement it. If you need something, you can utilize those funds to purchase it."

ghunter@detnews.com">ghunter@detnews.com The Detroit News' Bridget Baulch and Mike Wilkinson contributed.

How seizures work

Legally known as forfeitures, police seizure of property is permitted under state and federal laws.

# There are two types: criminal and civil forfeitures. Criminal forfeitures act as punishment for a crime after conviction, while civil cases typically are enacted before the case goes to court and can occur whether or not charges are filed.

# People whose property is forfeited under civil laws may appeal the seizures, although the burden of proof is on the citizen.

# Police may legally seize property for several offenses, including drug possession, soliciting prostitutes, drunken driving, gambling, environmental crimes and drag racing.

# Law enforcement agencies use a combination of federal and state laws to seize property.

# Police in Michigan must put all proceeds from criminal drug forfeitures back into drug enforcement, but aren't required to account for how revenue raised from other types of forfeitures is spent.

[DennisLeeWilson]

Due Process?

For 200+ years the U.S. government has claimed "it" would NOT kill us without "due process". Lately, "due process" has been re-defined to be: "When a faceless bureaucrat advises the president that a U.S. citizen 'might' be a threat, and the president orders a 'hit'."

The President has declared himself "outside and above the law". He answers to no one. He kidnaps, tortures, and murders without limit. And he can delegate that authority to thousands of federal agents.  Just as in any dictatorship, no one is safe.

U.S. REP. DENNIS KUCINICH submitted a bill to Congress "guaranteeing" [as if the Fifth Amendment needed explanation] Americans couldn't be assassinated by Uncle Sam without due process, a year before the drone assassination of American imam Anwar al-Awlaki -- and 6 weeks later his 16 yr-old American son. Only six of the 535 public servants would support it.  529 of them apparently thought that murdering the folks they are supposed to serve and who elect and pay them is just fine.

The U.S. OFFICIALLY now has the same respect for "right to life" as any third world dictatorship. Are we safer? What makes America different from all the other governments? Were the Founding Fathers wrong to try and limit government? Is this new UNLIMITED government better? Can a government that decides its own limits be limited in any meaningful sense? Are we free? Were we ever free?