Home
 Fighting the Good Fight
Hope
Seizing property and assets
A movement that just keeps growing
Confronting government regulations
Exposing search and seizure abuse
Defending the public interest
Defending home schooling families
Civilianizing the military
The much maligned Father Divine
Battling the degrading war
Operation Self-Defense
Allied to prevent loss of liberties
Rutherford's work is never done
Ending the drugging of children
Black pride and business
An indispensable business
Beware the tyranny of conformity
Uniontown entrepreneur
A victory in the battle against race preferences
Quotas take another hit
Turning the tide of illegal workers
Abuse of eminent domain
Preventing the seizure of assets
Making the most of opportunities
Opposing feminist malice
Do medicated children make for happy teachers?
Whose property is it anyway?
An Internet victory
No place for 7 watts of religion
Small victories
Homeschooling
Seizing property for private gain
The end of forced "diversity"?
More private property battles
Ending racial bean-counting
Foreign law or the Bill of Rights?
School choice: Milwaukee's successful battle
An old-fashioned Sagebrush Rebellion
The abuse goes on
How they did it; a grassroots success story
Renegade firefighters save their town
Grit and survival
Land in real estate limbo
Losing the battle for privacy
Playing with FIRE
The Sawgrass Rebellion struggles on
A place to live
Two victories
The corrupting influence of asset forfeiture
A noble gesture
A good ruling against a bad law
A victory and more work ahead
Reducing a source of votes and cheap labor
Smoke is not enough
Incremental amnesty
Using "blight" to seize property
More campus suppression of speech
Enemies of school choice
Getting a second chance
When charges are treated like verdicts
Doing it the old-fashioned way
Patriot resistance
Another step forward
Free speech to fit a gazebo
Winning free speech rights on campus
How long will this go on?
Good intentions, bad consequences
Speech codes and apologies
Beyond the bounds
Eminent domain: the nationwide epidemic
Another day, another victory
Japan for the Japanese
When judges don't judge
Trying to be tougher than the next guy
Another victim of eminent domain
Mixed opinions on southern heritage
Chipping away at set asides and quotas
Prosecution for profit
His name was lost, but not his deeds
The memorial vs. Goliath
Subverting "diversity"
A biased administration forced to uphold free speech
Incremental loss of freedom
Getting real with "replacement" populations
Flattering words lead to a lawsuit
Devising new tricks to confiscate property
Free speech allies
Shedding light on history
Pay up, shut up, and be ignored
Getting closer to real "diversity"
Winning some battles in Leviathan's war
Five more years for your thoughts
Cruel and irrational
Encouraging illegal immigration
Turning women into warriors
Liberated from Jackson
Utah's "hate crimes" lobby tries again
A lost battle in the war against "hate crime" laws
A small, but effective army
The enemies have already prevailed
The battle for immigration reform heats up
A populist movement subverting the elites
Taking the heat, but not backing down
Environment is not destiny
 
Printer-friendly versionView Printable Format
Contact Issues & Views
(Also enter "Subscribe" to receive free Biweekly Updates)

Preventing the seizure of assets

Fighting the good fight

[Reprinted from Issues & Views December 10, 2001]

An update on asset forfeiture from Forfeiture Endangers American Rights (FEAR):

It seems unthinkable that the American Civil Liberties Union would be on the same side as former Rep. Jack Metcalf, R-Wash., one of the most conservative members of the U.S. House in the late 1990s. But asset forfeiture is not a practice that people of good conscience can support, regardless where they stand politically. Metcalf and the ACLU are collecting signatures to force a ballot initiative that, if approved by Washington voters, would ban the seizure of property until after the owner has been convicted of a crime.

In Washington, as in many other states, law-enforcement agencies legally can seize the property of a suspected criminal--and, even if found not guilty, he may never get it back. The accused can file a lawsuit, if he can afford the legal fees, but the burden is on him to convince the court that it should be returned.

When initially proposed, asset forfeiture laws were portrayed as a means to "hit big drug dealers where it hurts most--in their pocketbooks." Police would confiscate their yachts, which probably were purchased with money obtained illegally anyway, and use the sales proceeds for manpower and equipment to catch more criminals. But, in most states, forfeitures haven't been limited to drug dealers--or necessarily to those guilty of anything. In too many cases, police agencies have resisted returning property to those found innocent. The loss of personal property is acceptable, as part of a court-ordered punishment for a crime. But it is unacceptable purely as a revenue-raising scheme.

Metcalf and the ACLU don't have much time. They must collect nearly 200,000 votes by January 4, 2002. If they are able to explain the issue properly, and voters aren't too distracted by the war on terrorism, the initiative probably will make the ballot and be passed overwhelmingly.

For more information on asset forfeiture, visit FEAR
- and -
The Kansas City Star's special site on journalist Karen Dillon's award-winning articles on the subject.

Copyright © 2010 Issues & Views


Printer-friendly version
Printer-friendly version

home | printable  

Copyright © 2010 Issues & Views
All rights reserved.
Email the webmaster with comments on the site design.
Last updated: Fri Aug 13 09:41:07 2010 AKDT

?>