In Forma Pauperis 
(in for'-ma  paw'-pur-is)

     - Brenda Grantland, Esq., F.E.A.R. Chronicles, Vol 1. No. 3,
(August, 1992)

     In case you don't know these Latin words, they stand for the
very important legal principle that the poor are entitled to equal
protection in the courts, and if they cannot afford to pay the
normal court fees, the fees must be waived to make the courts
available to them.

     This principle is often totally ignored by federal law
enforcement agencies when they demand that the property owner pay
them a cost bond of 10% of the value of the property seized in
order to have any judicial remedies.  

     Most forfeiture claimants who have property seized and are
truly indigent cannot afford a lawyer.  So far, no court has
required the government to provide court appointed counsel for
indigents before they strip them of all their worldly possessions.*

     With these people basically stuck trying (unsuccessfully) to
represent themselves, you would think the government agencies could
at least have the decency to tell them their options, in language
they can understand.  Instead, the notices of forfeiture used by
DEA, FBI, and INS are so confusing that lawyers without forfeiture
expertise often can't decipher them.  

     Until recently, I have had a pretty good success rate in
getting our IFP's (in forma pauperis petitions) accepted by the FBI
and DEA.  

     Recently, however, it seems the DEA and INS have declared ZERO
TOLERANCE on poor people.  In two of my cases this summer the DEA
and the INS have refused to waive the cost bond for two clients
that are too indigent to raise the cost bond.  (They're not paying
me what they owe me either.)

     In one case, I was told the DEA had secret information that
they refused to disclose to me, on which they based their denial. 
They also said he was not indigent because of the value of his car,
which they had seized and were trying to forfeit.

     In the other case, the INS (which had seized my immigrant
client's work permit at the same time they took his truck) claimed
he didn't qualify for waiver of the bond because the truck was
owned free and clear.  Too bad INS had the truck, they said.  Also
too bad he has a dependent wife and several children, and can't
work without his work permit which has not been revoked, just
seized without due process.  

     In federal cases, failure to pay the cost bond deprives the
property owner of any judicial hearings. It's like losing by
default for failing to answer a complaint in a lawsuit, except that
you can't later move to vacate the default.  

     If you don't post a cost bond or get the agency to agree to
waive it, no judge ever reviews the government's probable cause to
seize, because you have to pay the bond or get IFP status in order
for your case to even get to court, and if you don't that's the end
of that. 

     The DEA and INS are now trying to go a step further and say
you can't get a judge to review their decision to deny you IFP
status.  

     This bullying is so clearly unconstitutional that if there
were any public interest legal aid agencies still funded these
days, they would jump on this in no time.  Unfortunately, the
government knows they have us over the barrel. 

     You would think that the government would be required to
provide court appointed counsel before they could take away
everything someone owns.  But no -- the law doesn't work that way. 
Under the current standards in the Supreme Court, indigents could
never be entitled to court appointed counsel (paid for by the
government) in forfeiture cases.  The standard for obtaining free
counsel is:  when the punishment could result in incarceration. 
The only time court appointed attorneys would ever defend
forfeitures is in cases where a criminal defendant has his/her
forfeiture count joined in as part of the criminal case.  Ironic
isn't it, that when a drug kingpin is prosecuted and his ill-gotten
are gains joined in the same case for criminal forfeiture, he would
be entitled to a court appointed attorney, paid for by taxpayers,
but an innocent owner could never get court appointed counsel.

     FEAR needs to get funding to represent people in test cases
and assemble and train public interest lawyers in every region of
the country so they can help represent some of the people who are
made instant indigents when they are stripped of every last shred
of their life's accumulation of property.

     FEAR also needs public interest groups to make a commitment to
take on some of these cases, and needs attorney/members with
expertise in forfeiture law to volunteer to help out with the
indigent forfeiture victim problem, whether through assistance with
assembling pro se materials, volunteer duty days where they give
advice, or training and consultation to legal aid agencies who
agree to take on some of the forfeiture cases.  

     Most of all, we need funding.  If you know of any foundations
or wealthy donors that might be willing to contribute to this very
worthy cause, please let the FEAR officers know.