Thanks, Leon, for pointing out this website to us. 

The audio clip for the debate worked when I checked it out tonight.  I had 
adament objections to some of the things Steffan Casella said, and voiced them 
loudly to my computer (to no avail).  Eric Blumenson did a great job of debating 
him on the policy issues, but didn't have the forfeiture defense litigation 
experience to reply to some of Steffan's bogus arguments. If I had time I would 
listen to this again and write up my responses.  But I'm overextended as it is 
in my volunteer job being FEAR board president, along with my real job.  

Off the top of my head, here are a couple of points that were missed:

The doctrine of "standing" prevents many people from even defending their 
property at all.  When property is seized because of one spouse's crimes 
(typically the husband's), the children always lose because they have no 
"standing" to defend their home.  If their mother isn't married to their father 
and/or the marital home is only in the criminally charged spouse's name, the 
innocent spouse will usually be denied the right to defend the family home, 
using "standing" principles.  Even if the property is in the name of an innocent 
owner, they often claim that person is really a "straw owner" and that the 
criminal defendant is the real owner.  There are complicated rules for 
determining standing.  That's currently the biggest shell game in forfeiture 
litigation, in my opinion.

Casella's whole explanation of the probative value of drug sniffing dogs is 
totally bogus in my opinion.  Dogs are not scientific equipment.  Steffan 
Casella thinks they only react to a certain chemical, but we know from 
experience as pet owners that dogs react to a lot of things including the need 
for approval.  The drug dog sniff has been used as the Magic 8 Ball by police in 
cash forfeiture cases since the late 1980s. Certainly by now sophisticated drug 
dealers would know better than let their cash get contaminated by dusting it 
with cocaine. Why would they ever let their cash get into close proximity with 
their product?  

The chemical test which the DEA's own chemistry lab performed on currency back 
in 1989 or so showed that large percentages of the U.S. currency in circulation 
was contaminated with cocaine, and concluded that the belts of the sorter 
machines used by the Federal Reserve to sort and count currency are 
contaminating other bills with the residue.  If drug sniffing dogs were 
machines, I might buy the idea that the equipment has become more specific and 
error-free over time.  But dogs are man's best friend, eager to please, no 
matter how they're treated.  And they don't speak English and can't hold a 
pencil, so you can't make them take a proficiency exam.

All these complaints aside, the audio clip is certainly worth listening to.  We 
need more debates like this on the internet, where people can hear them.

There are several bad links on this web page, and one link which works ("The 
Asset Forfeiture Manual") goes to a website sponsored by a paralegal group which 
gives incorrect advice.  I sent the webmaster a message alerting them to this 
problem. 

I told the webmaster I would give them other legitimate and useful websites 
dealing with forfeiture issues.  If anybody has any suggestions for such links, 
please send them to Leon, and I'll have him pass them on.

Brenda Grantland
> Please go to the site,
> <http://www.justicetalking.org/viewprogram.asp?progID=159> and take the
> poll, "Is the taking of property of suspected drug dealers an effective
> deterrent or just a financial windfall for government?"
> 
> Right now, 76% of the respondents say that it is a "financial windfall for
> government".
> 
> Of course our government could care less what we think in this country even
> though it is widely rumored that our country is somewhat of a democracy.
> 
> While you are at the site, you might try listening to the debate between
> Stefan Cassella, one of your "civil servants", and Eric Blumenson, a
> professor at Suffolk University Law School. I tried but got an error. The
> title of the debate is, "Confiscation Casualties of The Drug War", which
> apparently was aired on NPR back in November, 2000.
> 
> Leon
> 
> 
> 
> ******************************************************
> FEAR also offers an unmoderated discussion list and digests for all lists

> List unsubscribe: mailto:fear-list-request@mapinc.org?Body=unsubscribe
> Swap to digest: mailto:owner-fear-list@mapinc.org?subject=digest
> ******************************************************