Letters to the Editor • Police State
Is It Only Spy Powers The Justice Dept. Wants or Lock Down Of A Nation?
• NewsThe U.S. Justice Department’s—recently proposed forcing without warrants, all Electronic Communication Companies to retain permanently, user phone call records and Internet activity data. That would effectively trash the Fourth Amendment.
Government wants the power without a warrant, to
introduce as evidence in criminal prosecutions and government civil trials, any
phone call record or email. Alarmingly, that would open the door for Police to
take out of context, any innocent—hastily written email, fax or phone call
record to allege a crime or violation was committed to cause a person’s arrest, fines and or civil asset forfeiture of their property. There are more than
200 laws and violations that can subject property to government asset
forfeiture: Government civil asset forfeiture requires only a civil
preponderance of evidence for police to forfeit property, little more than
hearsay.
If the Justice Department has its way, any information the
FBI derives from e.g. no warrant electronic spying; (retention of Internet
Activity e.g. emails and phone call communications), may also be used for fishing expeditions, issuing
subpoenas to collect evidence against Americans to prosecute any alleged crime
or violation, circumventing the Fourth Amendment. Consider: neither Congress
nor the courts—determined what NSA electronic surveillance, perhaps illegal under Bush II,
currently or in the future could be used by police, or introduced into court by
a government agency to prosecute U.S. Citizens. If the Justice Department is
permitted warranted surveillance of all electronic communications, it is problematic law enforcement and private
government contractors will want access to telecom-NSA and other government
(retained electronic records) of Internet activity; emails and phone call
information to secure evidence to arrest Americans and or civilly forfeit their
homes and businesses under Title 18USC and other laws. Of obvious concern, what
happens to fair justice in America if police become dependent on “Asset
Forfeiture” to help pay their salaries and budget operating costs?
The “Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000”
(effectively eliminated) the “statue of limitations” for Government Civil Asset
Forfeiture: the statute now runs five years from the date police allege they
“learned” that an asset became subject to forfeiture. It is foreseeable should
(no warrant electronic surveillance) be approved; police will relentlessly sift
through businesses and Citizens’ (permanently retained Internet data), e.g.,
emails to allege a crime or violation. A corrupt U.S. Government, could use no
warrant (retained Internet data and phone call information) to extort America’s
biggest corporations and others in the same manner Hitler used his 1933 passed
Discriminatory Decrees to force corporations and the wealthy to support totalitarian
legislation—voiding the Constitutional Freedoms of Citizens.
Under federal civil forfeiture laws, a person or business
need not be charged with a crime for government to forfeit their property. Most
U.S. Citizens, property and business owners that defend their assets against
Government Civil Asset Forfeiture claim an “innocent owner defense.” This
defense can become a (Catch 22) criminal prosecution trap for both guilty and
innocent property owners. Any fresh denial of guilt made to government when
questioned about committing a crime “even when you did not do the crime” may
“involuntarily waive” your right to assert in your defense—the “Criminal
Statute of Limitations” past for prosecution; any fresh denial of guilt even 30
years after a crime was committed may allow Government prosecutors to use old
and new evidence, including information discovered during a Civil Asset
Forfeiture Proceeding to launch a criminal prosecution. For that reason many
innocent property and business owners are reluctant to defend their property
and businesses against Government Civil Asset Forfeiture.
Re: waiving Criminal Statute of Limitations: see USC18, Sec.1001, James Brogan V. United States. N0.96-1579. U.S.