EDITORIAL SELECTIVE ENFORCEMENT OF OVERBROAD FORFEITURE LAWS: A Weapon Prone To Abuse --Brenda Grantland, Esq., F.E.A.R. Chronicles, Vol. 1 No. 2, (June, 1992) For years the Justice Department has been lobbying Congress for expansion of its forfeiture powers, for broader definitions of property subject to forfeiture, and for procedures which give the government greater and greater advantages over claimants. Their lobbying has produced the current statutes, which put the burden of proof on the claimant, make claimants pay in advance the government's costs of forfeiture proceedings, and in all other ways imaginable put a heavy thumb on the scales of justice in favor of the government and to the detriment of the claimant. The feds have used their powers to the fullest, declaring "ZERO TOLERANCE" to be their policy. Zero Tolerance means no sympathy for innocent owners of ships -- such as the Monkey Business (of Gary Hart fame) or Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute's floating lab that surveyed the ruins of the Titanic -- when a crew member is found by raiding customs agents to be in possession of personal use quantities of drugs. Zero tolerance also means parents, grandparents, spouses, friends, business partners, finance companies, landlords and all manner of unsuspecting people get caught up in forfeiture proceedings because of something someone else did which is beyond their control. Although the statutes are supposed to protect innocent third parties -- according to the hype the Justice department is feeding us -- in reality innocent people are losing property as often as criminals. These overbroad powers give law enforcement the unlimited discretion to destroy the financial lives of innocent citizens, to take away from them their status achieved over a lifetime of hard work and "upward mobility." These overbroad powers are often used to discriminate between the powerful and the powerless. As a prime example of this, consider the case of Assistant U.S. Attorney Leslie Ohta of Hartford, Connecticut -- the Iron Matron of forfeiture. As head of her office's asset forfeiture unit she was ruthless and extremely successful, with her unit netting more than $26 million since 1986. According to the Hartford Courant, "Ohta's aggressive pursuit of these asset forfeiture cases has won her national recognition in the ranks of federal prosecutors, and she frequently lectures them on how to apply the law." (3-22-92). As head of her unit, Ohta mercilessly pursued Zero Tolerance, making innocent parents and grandparents pay for the wrongdoings of their offspring. The Hartford Courant reported that on several occasions Ms. Ohta argued that "people should know what goes on in their own homes." (3-22-92). Presumably Ohta knew what was going on in her own home when her son Miki began using and selling drugs. The Hartford Courant reported that the first incident happened in 1989 when Miki allegedly sold marijuana to an undercover informant from his parents' home. Miki had another scrape with the law in December 1991, when he was arrested for allegedly selling 50 "hits" of LSD from his parents' car on September 3, 1991, and for possession of marijuana when stopped by police, again in his parents' car, on September 29, 1991. In the September 29 incident, his companion was allegedly in possession of two "hits" of LSD. Was Mrs. Ohta's property forfeited? No. As a result of relentless pursuit of this issue by the Hartford Courant, and an article by the Connecticut Law Tribune, the ironies of this situation did not escape public notice. The U.S. Attorney's Office transferred Leslie Ohta to another unit, at least temporarily. In the end, however, the U.S. Attorney's Office decided that forfeiture of Ohta's property would be "inappropriate". Most of the forfeiture defense attorneys interviewed by the Hartford Courant agreed that Ohta's assets should not be forfeited -- not because she was a well-connected flag-waving forfeiture- winning Assistant U.S. Attorney, but because, in principle, neither she nor any of the innocent people she so hypocritically forfeited property from should be punished for the actions of their children, grandchildren or acquaintances. I agree except for the double standard. If the people prosecuting these forfeiture laws are held to the same standard as the people they have prosecuted, either Leslie Ohta's house and car should be forfeited or the government should be forced to give back the property it took from other innocent parents, grandparents and third parties. This should include all the innocent victims in the country since the main Justice Department gave the blessing to excuse Ohta for her son's crimes. We want to follow up on this and make sure justice is done. Please write us if you have any information about Ohta cases or other Zero Tolerance victims. Send us your opinion (or share it through the computer bulletin board) on whether Mrs. Ohta's treatment should also be the standard for forfeiture victims not employed by the Justice Department. If you want to share your thoughts with the Connecticut U.S. Attorney's Office, write U.S. Attorney Albert Dabrowski, Esq., 450 Main Street, Room 328, Hartford, CT 06103, or you can write Leslie Ohta herself at 2273 Hebron Ave., Glastonbury, CT. -------------------------- Source articles: The Hartford Courant and Connecticut Law Tribune news clippings relied upon for this editorial are available for computer download through ICSBBS under the filename OHTAW.ZIP OR OHTAA.ZIP. They are: Rule Lawyer Upholds Might Focus On Her, Lynne Tuohy, Hartford Courant staff writer, 3-22-92; Feds Reorder House As Forfeitures Hit Home, Andrew Houlding, Connecticut Law Tribune, 3- 23-92; Let Innocent People Keep Assets; Toss Out Unjust Rules, Denis Horgan, Hartford Courant Columnist, 3-25-92; Haunted By the Law She Enforced, editorial Hartford Courant, 4-29-92; Prosecutor Won't Lose Property in Son's Drug Arrest, Lynne Tuohy, Hartford Courant staff writer, 4-23-92.