December 2007 FEAR-list bulletins

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

******************************************************
From:   owner-fear-list@mapinc.org on behalf of Judy Osburn [4beatgait@gmail.com]
Sent:   Monday, December 31, 2007 12:37 PM
To:   FEAR-list
Subject:   FEAR: Canada's Civil Forfeiture Act "double-edged weapon"

House seizures a double-edged weapon in the fight against
*...*<http://www.straight.com/article-126129/house-seizures-a-double-edged-weapon-in-the-fight-against-organized-crime>
Georgia Straight - Vancouver,British Columbia,Canada
Police raids have resulted in the *forfeiture* of an estimated seven to nine
homes since the Civil *Forfeiture* Act took effect in April 2006. *...*

House seizures a double-edged weapon in the fight against organized crime
By Travis Lupick

Police raids have resulted in the forfeiture of an estimated seven to nine homes since the Civil Forfeiture Act took effect in April 2006. "Many more" properties are frozen pending litigation, according to the civil forfeiture office, which is part of the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General.

But while officials–including members of a new regional antigang task force–say the legislation is a valuable tool, some lawyers and professors have their concerns.

Rob Kroeker, the civil forfeiture office's executive director, said that his team recommends that the Crown pursue a forfeiture whenever there is evidence that property has been obtained through criminal activity or is being used to commit a crime.

"I think any time you take tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars out of criminal organizations, it's got to have an impact," Kroeker said in a telephone interview with the Georgia Straight.

According to Kroeker, as of December 19 the civil forfeiture office has been involved in 102 cases with a value of "well over" $10 million in assets.

The Civil Forfeiture Act states that property may be forfeited on the basis of unlawful activity, "even if no person has been charged with an offence that constitutes the unlawful activity". Forfeitures do not go to a criminal trial, but are dealt with in civil courts.

David Butcher is a criminal lawyer who has gone up against the Civil Forfeiture Act. In the case of British Columbia v. Tse, Butcher's client was found in his home with one kilogram of cocaine, $17,000, and "a number of illegal drugs, knives, a replica handgun, and other items", according to court documents.

On July 6, Justice Paul Williamson ruled that "it is not 'an unreasonable inference' that the illegal drug activities carried on in the residence contributed to its purchase." He froze the property until a trial for its forfeiture could be convened.

"The standard required at [a civil] trial is much lower than it would be in a criminal case, because the standard is balanced probabilities, rather than proof beyond a reasonable doubt," Butcher said.

Robert Gordon, director of SFU's school of criminology, told the Straight that in criminal proceedings, the burden of proof is on the Crown to prove its case. In civil cases, the burden is usually on the plaintiff. "So the onus is shifted to the person who owns the property to prove that they have it legitimately," he said.

Gordon argued that a potential outcome of reverse onus is innocent people losing their property because they might not have the resources to fight the forfeiture in court. However, Gordon said that while the Civil Forfeiture Act may be open to misuse in theory, it works "quite well" in practice.

Amid a spate of gangland-style killings in 2007, the Civil Forfeiture Act made headlines when it was used to take control of a Hells Angels' clubhouse in Nanaimo in November. In that case's interim ruling, Justice Daphne Smith wrote: "The…clubhouse operates as a place where criminal planning is conducted in secrecy during weekly 'church meetings' that are attended by full patch members."

The Angels' clubhouse has been frozen and, pending a trial, could be forfeited. But no arrests have been made in relation to the case.

Speaking generally, Kroeker claimed that with cases involving the forfeiture of residences, "virtually every one" involved criminal charges. In cases involving assets such as cash or a vehicle, "It's more 50-50," he added.

The Supreme Court of Canada granted an appeal this month to an Ontario man who is arguing that police had no right to seize grow-op paraphernalia and money found in his car because he was never charged with a criminal offence. Butcher predicted that it was only a matter of time before a similar constitutional challenge was brought before the B.C. Supreme Court.

He said that when the Civil Forfeiture Act is used properly, it is in the public's interest. But Butcher questioned if the law is being applied in such a way that someone can own a home for many years, and then commit one crime in that home and have it taken away.

The civil forfeiture office maintains that checks and balances exist, but Butcher argued that there is a problem with the burden of proof being on the defendant. "That, to me, is a statute that is open to abuse," he said.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

******************************************************
From:   owner-fear-list@mapinc.org on behalf of Judy Osburn [4beatgait@gmail.com]
Sent:   Monday, December 31, 2007 12:36 PM
To:   FEAR-list
Subject:   FEAR: More Frankel story

*More Frankel story:*

**

Mississippi to share in Frankel assets
<http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071228/NEWS/71228010>
Jackson Clarion Ledger - Jackson,MS,USA
A federal court in the District of Connecticut has ordered that funds and
assets in *forfeiture* accounts were the property of the
receivers/liquidators of *...*

******************************************************
From:   owner-fear-list@mapinc.org on behalf of Judy Osburn [4beatgait@gmail.com]
Sent:   Monday, December 31, 2007 12:35 PM
To:   FEAR-list
Subject:   FEAR: Equitable sharing…Frankel assets

Equitable sharing…

State gets cut of Frankel assets<http://www.sunherald.com/218/story/269768.html>
Biloxi Sun Herald - MS, USA
He said a federal judge in Connecticut recently ordered that funds and
assets in *forfeiture* accounts were the property of the
receivers/liquidators of the *...*

* *

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

******************************************************
From:   owner-fear-list@mapinc.org on behalf of Judy Osburn [4beatgait@gmail.com]
Sent:   Monday, December 24, 2007 11:03 AM
To:   FEAR-list
Subject:   FEAR: 9th Cir.: US v. Plunk (28 USC 2465 compensation in lieu of property return)

*U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, December 21, 2007*
US v. Plunk, No.06-35269
<http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0635269p.pdf>
*
In property forfeiture proceedings brought against defendant in connection
with his conviction for drug-related offenses, a decision awarding defendant
compensation in lieu of property to be returned under 28 U.S.C. section 2465
and calculating the amount due based on the sale proceeds of the property is
affirmed where: 1) contrary to defendant's claim, section 2465 does not
require that he receive consequential damages; and 2) there was no error in
the lower court's calculation of damages. Read
more...<http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0635269p.pdf>

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

******************************************************
From:   owner-fear-list@mapinc.org on behalf of Brenda Grantland [bgrantland1@comcast.net]
Sent:   Saturday, December 22, 2007 6:17 PM
To:   fear-list@mapinc.org
Subject:   FEAR: OH: Editorial: Guilty Until Proven Innocent

Editorial: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
The Lima News, Lima Ohio
12/21/2007

http://www.limaohio.com/story.php?IDnum=47152

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

******************************************************

From:   owner-fear-list@mapinc.org on behalf of Judy Osburn [4beatgait@gmail.com]
Sent:   Thursday, December 13, 2007 7:52 AM
To:   FEAR-list
Subject:   FEAR: US Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property Act 2007 (more asset forfeiture laws)

INTERNET LAW -
US Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property Act 2007

IBLS INTERNET LAW - Irvine,CA,USA

http://www.ibls.com/internet_law_news_portal_view.aspx?s=latestnews&id=1934

In a major coup for the recording and pharmaceutical industries, the
U.S. Congress is trying to strengthen Intellectual Property Rights
laws with a new Bill that has garnered widespread support from both
Democrats and Republicans. Led by veteran legislator and Judiciary
Committee chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.), the House wanted to create
a bill giving the Government more weapons in the war against
Intellectual Property theft.

...
...Further, any computer or network used to create copyright fraud, or
"facilitate" a copyright crime can be confiscated by the Feds and
auctioned off. The Justice Department can keep the proceeds of such
sales as part of the budget, being a type of civil asset forfeiture.
Most surprisingly, the computer's owner does not have to be convicted
of any crime for this forfeiture and sale to be legal. So, should the
Feds conclude that a person is a copyright thief, even though they do
not believe they have evidence that would stand up in court, they can
still sell the computer and related equipment used in the copyright
theft.

The most detailed aspect of the PRO IP Act is its stipulation for the
creation of a new federal bureaucracy within the President's ambit
called the White House Intellectual Property Enforcement
Representative, or WHIPER. ...

INTERNET LAW - U.S. Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property Act 2007

Kelly O'Connell, IBLS Editor
Monday, December 17, 2007

In a major coup for the recording and pharmaceutical industries, the U.S. Congress is trying to strengthen Intellectual Property Rights laws with a new Bill that has garnered widespread support from both Democrats and Republicans. Led by veteran legislator and Judiciary Committee chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.), the House wanted to create a bill giving the Government more weapons in the war against Intellectual Property theft. Conyers commented upon it, saying "By providing additional resources for enforcement of intellectual property, we ensure that innovation and creativity will continue to prosper in our society." The title of the bill is the Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property ("PRO IP") Act of 2007.

If passed, the law will not only strengthen criminal and civil penalties for infringement of copyright and trademarks, but also create the "Office of the United States Intellectual Property Enforcement Representative (USIPER)" at the White House and also make a separate IP-protection unit at the Justice Department and authorize the drafting of IP officers to work with other countries to help protect U.S. IP rights.

The most important parts of the Act include: Beefed up fines for copyright cases where compilation copyright frauds are at issue. Currently, for an entire album being stolen, there is a maximum fine of $30,000 for non-intentional infringements. But the new bill would allow damages of $30,000 for each track on an album.

Another part of the Act encourages maximum penalties for repeat copyright offenders. The current law states anyone "willfully" infringing on a copyright by selling or distributing more than $1,000 of materials has committed a crime. But the new PRO IP Act keeps static the 10-year prison term for the worst-case repeat law breakers, but gets rid of the current demand that a repeat offender must have distributed more than 10 copyrighted works within 180 days.

Further, any computer or network used to create copyright fraud, or "facilitate" a copyright crime can be confiscated by the Feds and auctioned off. The Justice Department can keep the proceeds of such sales as part of the budget, being a type of civil asset forfeiture. Most surprisingly, the computer's owner does not have to be convicted of any crime for this forfeiture and sale to be legal. So, should the Feds conclude that a person is a copyright thief, even though they do not believe they have evidence that would stand up in court, they can still sell the computer and related equipment used in the copyright theft.

The most detailed aspect of the PRO IP Act is its stipulation for the creation of a new federal bureaucracy within the President's ambit called the White House Intellectual Property Enforcement Representative, or WHIPER. The head of WHIPER would be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The model for the WHIPER appears the U.S. Trade Representative. This Agency's leader will be the president's top advisor and spokesman for intellectual property rights, and will articulate descriptions of those countries that refuse to protect IP rights can be named, called-out and confronted, if necessary. There will be an official seal of office, and the WHIPER will bring down a royal wage, as well, hauling in $186,600 in 2007, which is on the same level as the Secretary of State and Defense Secretary.

A major aspect of the WHIPER's tasks will be assembling a "Joint Strategic Plan" that will identify those who traffic in pirated goods. Perhaps the WHIPER will create a top-ten offender's roll not unlike the Most Wanted FBI list to put a face on the crime and an onus for their criminality. An annual report will be delivered every year to Congress by December 31, and ten "intellectual property attaches" will be sent to prominent embassies around the world.

A final and very promising change to the law will be a revamp of the U.S. Justice Department's intellectual property enforcement machinery. Part of this will be creation of an "Intellectual Property Enforcement Division," to help fight computer-related crimes and will be funded with $25 million to start off.

.
******************************************************

From:   owner-fear-list@mapinc.org on behalf of Judy Osburn [4beatgait@gmail.com]
Sent:   Tuesday, December 11, 2007 9:02 AM
To:   FEAR-list
Subject:   FEAR: Court-Appointed Special Master Recommends Best Friends Animal Society for Placement of 22 American Pit Bull Terriers from Vick Civil Forfeiture Action

Court-Appointed Special Master Recommends Best Friends Animal Society for Placement of 22 American Pit Bull Terriers from Vick Civil Forfeiture Action

A favorable ruling from U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson would mean that the dogs will be relocated from various shelters in the Virginia-Washington D.C. area to the animal sanctuary operated by Best Friends on 33,000 acres near the town of Kanab in southwestern Utah.

(Vocus/PRWEB ) December 6, 2007 -- A guardian/special master appointed
by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia has
recommended that 22 of the 48 American pit bull terriers connected
with the Michael Vick civil forfeiture action be placed with Best
Friends Animal Society (www.bestfriends.org).

A favorable ruling from U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson would mean
that the dogs will be relocated from various shelters in the
Virginia-Washington D.C. area to the animal sanctuary operated by Best
Friends on 33,000 acres near the town of Kanab in southwestern Utah.

Valparaiso University School of Law Professor Rebecca J. Huss, in a
Summary Report to the United States Attorney for the Eastern District
of Virginia, recommended that 47 dogs (one has been euthanized for
medical reasons) be placed with eight organizations, with Best Friends
receiving the most dogs (22). The next largest group would be placed
with Bay Area Dog Lovers Responsible About Pit Bulls (BAD RAP) of
Oakland, Calif. (10). Other organizations that would receive dogs are
Richmond Animal League of Richmond, Va. (4); Georgia SPCA of Suwanee,
Ga. (3); SPCA of Monterey County, Calif. (3); Recycled Love Inc. of
Baltimore, Md. (3); Animal Rescue of Tidewater, Chesapeake, Va. (1);
and PACK (Pit Bull Advocates for Compassion and Kindness), San
Francisco, Calif. (1).

"We are hopeful that the court will grant Best Friends the opportunity
to do what it does best—provide a caring, rehabilitative home for
these abused, homeless animals," said Paul Berry, chief executive
officer of Best Friends. "They deserve the very best that we can give
them, and we are prepared to provide a safe place for them to stay for
the rest of their lives."

Founded in 1986, Best Friends is home to approximately 2,000
displaced, homeless dogs, cats, birds, horses and other domestic
animals. Among the more than 600 dogs that reside at Best Friends are
160 special needs dogs that receive expert, compassionate care. Best
Friends was responsible for helping to rescue 6,000 dogs and cats
during Hurricane Katrina. Following earthquakes in Peru and floods in
Mexico, the organization dispatched rapid response animal rescue teams
to help, and continues to rescue animals from emergency situations
throughout the United States.

"The pit bull is easily the most misunderstood breed of dog in the
U.S.," Berry said. "Unfortunately, it is the very loving and loyal
nature of these dogs that makes them prone to exploitation."

Huss expressed confidence in Best Friends and the other rescue
organizations recommended for placement. "For the dogs that may need
to remain in a sanctuary environment, although there will certainly be
a period of adjustment, I believe that these dogs will not just
survive, but thrive in that environment."

The report was prepared during multiple visits by Huss to Virginia,
where she interacted with the dogs and their caretakers, and spoke
with animal control officers and numerous rescue organizations,
including Best Friends.

In July, the United States filed a civil forfeiture action relating to
approximately 53 American pit bull terriers located on the property of
Michael Vick. The court appointed Huss as guardian/special master of
the 48 surviving dogs.

"Kindness to animals builds a better world for all of us"

******************************************************

From:   owner-fear-list@mapinc.org on behalf of Judy Osburn [4beatgait@gmail.com]
Sent:   Tuesday, December 11, 2007 8:59 AM
To:   FEAR-list
Subject:   FEAR: U.S. can't tie client to drugs, attorney says

U.S. can't tie client to drugs, attorney says

Steve Meshbesher dared the feds to file a criminal charge against a man arrested with cash allegedly tainted by cocaine.

*By Dan Browning <http://www.startribune.com/bios/10644516.html>,*
Star Tribune

Last update: December 6, 2007 - 11:36 PM

The attorney for a Chinese man who was stopped at the Minneapolis-St. Paul
International Airport in July with a satchel of allegedly drug-tainted cash
said his client did nothing wrong and wants the money back.

Johnny Zin Chan told authorities that he was dropping off his two teenage
daughters for an intensive language camp at Concordia College, and that he
was carrying $90,000 in cash to buy copier machines in Illinois for export
to China. Tests found what authorities described as an "unusually high
concentration of cocaine residue" on the money.

Chan, who has addresses in Los Angeles and in Hong Kong, has not been
charged with any crimes related to the seizure. But the government filed a
civil complaint Monday in Minneapolis to keep the cash.

Steve Meshbesher, a Minneapolis lawyer, was infuriated when he read about
the complaint in the Star Tribune. He gave a reporter copies of letters he
had sent in August to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
officials and the U.S. Attorney's Office in Minneapolis asking to be
notified of any criminal charges or civil forfeiture proceedings.

"I invite them to arrest him and charge him criminally," Meshbesher said in
an interview Thursday. "This guy, there's nothing -- absolutely nothing --
to implicate him in a criminal proceeding ... whether they like his story or
not."

According to a sworn statement by ICE special agent Travis Hamblen, Chan
changed his story about the origin of the cash several times in different
interviews.

"This is nothing," Meshbesher said. "We plan on fighting this thing with
full force and effect, and we look forward to our day in court."

Meshbesher said that Chan was stopped only because he was Chinese and the
airport security screeners were curious. Chan did not look or act like a
terrorist and was carrying no weapons, he said.

"Then, in an improper search, they find all this cash. And my response is:
So what?" Meshbesher said. "Yeah, there might have been cocaine residue, but
he had no idea of that and they have no evidence that he did. My point is,
he's not a drug dealer."

Jeffrey Paulsen, chief of the U.S. Attorney's criminal division, said that
Hamblen's affidavit, filed in support of the forfeiture complaint, "speaks
for itself. It is our policy not to comment on the possibility of future
criminal charges in any case."

Records show that Chan was convicted of transporting controlled substances
in California in 1998 and of extortion in 1993, Hamblen said in his
affidavit. He said other records, including two arrests for kidnapping,
indicate that Chan was involved in organized crime.

Meshbesher said he didn't know the details about the 1998 drug conviction.
And he said the kidnapping arrest may have to do with the way business is
done in China. He said federal authorities have found nothing to charge him
with criminally.

By filing a civil action, Meshbesher said, prosecutors have altered the
burden of proof. In a civil case, the government would only have to prove
its allegations by a "preponderance" of the evidence rather than beyond a
reasonable doubt.

Dan Browning • 612-673-4493

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment: http://mapinc.org/temp/29LN_4PnuNHUI.html

Attachment: http://mapinc.org/temp/image001.png
******************************************************

From:   owner-fear-list@mapinc.org on behalf of Judy Osburn [4beatgait@gmail.com]
Sent:   Tuesday, December 11, 2007 8:57 AM
To:   FEAR-list
Subject:   FEAR: Law officers put seized assets to work for them

Law officers put seized assets to work for them

By SOPHIA VORAVONG
svoravong@journalandcourier.com

December 10, 2007

Tippecanoe County sheriff's deputy Jon Lendermon and his new dog,
Marco, have been on dozens of calls since the Dutch shepherd joined
the force in mid-October.

Marco, trained in narcotics detection, tracking and apprehension, has
been made available to the Lafayette and West Lafayette police
departments and even to help search for a robbery suspect in Fountain
County.

"We've now got a bomb dog and four other canines," Lendermon said of
the sheriff's department. "That makes one of us available 24/7."

Marco was purchased by the Tippecanoe County prosecutor's office
through its asset forfeiture program, which seizes money and property
from people arrested with drugs. The funds are used for crime-fighting
efforts.

About $50,000 has been brought in this year under prosecutor Pat
Harrington, who took office in January.

"When I took office, I wanted asset forfeiture to be a priority," he
said. "The goal was to ramp up the revenue from that source. We've
brought in an average of $1,000 a week. That exceeded my
expectations."

Harrington said state law allows the prosecutor's office to file a
civil complaint against anyone arrested with narcotics to seize cash
the criminals have on them or vehicles they are driving. Prosecutors
also may seize any property, such as electronics, that the criminals
say they purchased with drug proceeds.

Otherwise, the money would be returned to the offenders, he said. Any
money seized must go toward purchasing equipment or paying for
training for law enforcement.

"Why should we let drug dealers benefit from their illegal activity?"
Harrington said. "Through this, we can relieve some of the burden on
taxpayers. Every penny helps."

As Harrington's chief deputy prosecutor, one of Kristen McVey's main
duties is to review cases in which assets may be seized. She's
instructed to go after cash amounts big and small.

McVey said this requires strong communication with the county's law
enforcement agencies because filings must be made within six months.

Earlier this year, Harrington said he asked each police department
head for wish list-items their agencies needed.

The sheriff's department asked for another dog, which was purchased in
August. Harrington also recently bought a dog for the Purdue
University Police Department. Each cost $10,900.

About $6,300 was used in March and April to buy GPS tracking devices
for the state police and the Indiana Department of Natural Resources
for use in their vehicles.

The Lafayette Police Department received 13 Taser guns, which cost
about $14,000. Officers recently went through training on how to
properly handle the devices, which use an electric impulse that can
leave a suspect motionless for several seconds.

"It's a valuable tool in our use of force continuum," Lafayette Chief
Don Roush said. "We would eventually have had to use dollars from
other accounts over a great length of time. We definitely would not
have been able to purchase them as quickly."

Tippecanoe County Sheriff Tracy Brown said the new dog has benefited
his agency by allowing Lendermon and Marco to work during the day and
assist on those calls. Typically, canine teams worked nights.

"In the day of shrinking budgets, we're limited in what we can buy,"
Brown said. "This funding came as a very good time for us. Even better
is that the source of that money is generated as revenue from drug
arrests."
******************************************************

From:   owner-fear-list@mapinc.org on behalf of Judy Osburn [4beatgait@gmail.com]
Sent:   Tuesday, December 11, 2007 8:56 AM
To:   FEAR-list
Subject:   FEAR: Drug money duel

Drug money duel

By TOM MORTON
Star-Tribune staff writer

[oas:casperstartribune.net/news/wyoming:Middle1]

A man charged in Washington state with conspiracy to distribute more than a
ton of marijuana still wants the $3.3 million in cash the government seized
from his pickup after a traffic stop on Interstate 80 near Cheyenne on April
7, according to court documents.

In response to a federal civil forfeiture lawsuit filed by the Wyoming U.S.
attorney, Rusty Boschee claimed the government violated his constitutional
rights when the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency seized the cash in 56
vacuum-sealed packages in eight suitcases, according to documents filed in
U.S. District Court last week.

The DEA kept the cash and five cell phones, because it infers large mounts
of money may be involved in criminal activity if the person who has it can't
readily explain its origin, U.S. Attorney's Office spokesman John Powell
said.

The inference might have been right.

On Sept. 5, a federal grand jury in the Western U.S. District of Washington
charged Boschee and Farren Dean Docter with conspiracy to distribute more
than 1,000 kilograms -- about 2,200 pounds -- of marijuana in that state and
elsewhere from an unknown time in the past five years to April 27, according
to the indictment filed in the Washington District of federal court.

The indictment did not specify how much marijuana was involved, if and where
it was found, or its origin.

The penalty for conspiracy to distribute such a large amount of marijuana
carries a mandatory minimum sentence of between 10 years and life
imprisonment.

If Boschee and Docter are found guilty of the felony drug conspiracy charge,
they shall forfeit any property related to the crime including the
$3,322,230, according to the indictment.

Boschee lived in Elk Grove, Calif., which required federal court action in
central California, too.

On Sept. 25, U.S. Magistrate Judge Margaret Nagle in central California
ordered Boschee detained without bond because of the seriousness of the
crime, potential flight risk to Costa Rica where he also lived, his drug
use, and possible threat to public safety.

Docter is out of custody on a personal recognizance bond.

A trial is scheduled for Feb. 19 in federal court in Seattle.

The saga began early April 7 when Wyoming Highway Patrol Trooper Benjamin
Peech pulled over Boschee and passenger Michael Burns, for traveling 79 mph
in a 75 mph zone on I-80 near Cheyenne.

While it was initially reported as a routine traffic stop, Peech was
collaborating with the DEA, according to court documents.

A search of Boschee's silver 2007 Dodge pickup uncovered suitcases
containing the cash and cell phones. Neither Burns nor Boschee claimed
ownership of the cash, but Boschee told authorities the rightful owner would
be unhappy if it was not delivered.

Because Boschee and Burns had no outstanding warrants at the time,
authorities released them. Burns was later identified as a government
informant.

Since then, the U.S. attorney's office in Wyoming filed a civil forfeiture
lawsuit to keep the $3.3 million.

Boschee responded with a claim to recover the money.

He asserted the DEA violated his Fourth Amendment rights against
unreasonable searches and seizures, his Fifth Amendment rights to not be
deprived of property without due process of law and just compensation, and
his Eighth Amendment rights barring excessive fines and cruel and unusual
punishment, according to his answer filed Nov. 27 through his lead attorney,
James Bustamante of San Francisco.

Neither Bustamante nor representatives of the U.S. attorney's office in
Seattle returned phone calls seeking comment.

In October, the Wyoming Highway Patrol fired 10-year veteran Peech for his
alleged improper covert actions when he pulled over Boschee on April 7.
Allegations included phoning in a bogus drunken driving complaint just
before the bust and pressuring a dispatcher to omit his name from the call
log.

Peech's supporters claimed his firing resulted from his efforts to organize
troopers in a union, an assertion strongly denied by Wyoming Department of
Transportation officials.

Boschee did not mention Peech's actions in his court filings.

In November, Powell said he didn't know whether Peech's actions will be a
factor in the civil forfeiture case.

Likewise, Powell didn't know whether the drug conspiracy count against
Boschee -- and the criminal forfeiture demand for the $3.3 million if the
defendants are convicted -- would affect the civil forfeiture case, he said
Wednesday.

"Whether there's a criminal indictment or not, we still stand by this,"
Powell said.

Reach Tom Morton at (307) 266-0592, or at Tom.Morton@trib.com.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

From:   owner-fear-list@mapinc.org on behalf of Judy Osburn [4beatgait@gmail.com]
Sent:   Tuesday, December 11, 2007 8:55 AM
To:   FEAR-list
Subject:   FEAR: Fwd: Fear list- editorial

Pursue asset forfeiture, but guard rights

December 11, 2007

Pursuing and apprehending drug dealers in our community brings a
variety of social benefits.

The advantages include decreased crime rates, increased home values
due to safer neighborhoods and at least a temporary reduction in the
local drug supply.

There are also financial benefits. This year, the Tippecanoe County
prosecutor's office stepped up its use of the asset forfeiture
program, which confiscates proceeds -- usually money and property --
from drug busts.

So far, about $50,000 has been brought in -- an average of about
$1,000 a week, according to Prosecutor Pat Harrington.

State law allows such seized assets to help pay for law enforcement
training and equipment. On the surface, it sounds like a suitable way
to pay for much-needed extras for law enforcement agencies.

And why shouldn't the authorities -- and the community at large --
benefit from the ill-gotten gains of drug dealers?

Why not, indeed?

Well, there's a problem with the state's asset forfeiture law.

Chiefly, there's no requirement that a conviction be obtained before
authorities seize someone's property and money.

That undermines a basic foundation of American law: the concept that
one is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

In the past, some jurisdictions across the country, have used asset
forfeiture as a weapon against the accused.

Give up your assets, some prosecutors have hinted, and we'll drop the
charges we've filed against you.

The Tippecanoe County prosecutor's office says that in 99 percent of
its forfeiture cases, "companion" criminal cases have been filed.

That's reassuring.

This year, seizures helped pay for the purchase of a new canine deputy
for the Tippecanoe County Sheriff's Department at a cost of $10,900.
The money also paid for 13 Taser guns for the Lafayette Police
Department ($14,000) and GPS tracking devices for vehicles owned by
the state police and the Indiana Department of Natural Resources
(about $6,300).

The federal Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act makes it more difficult
to seize property without evidence of wrongdoing.

Currently, Tippecanoe County is pursuing rights to a $28,000 seizure
through federal courts. If successful, the county stands to gain about
$22,000, while the federal government gets the rest.

No question, crime costs communities.

No question, local law enforcement agencies spend millions to fight it
-- much of it on drug interdiction and the consequences drugs levy on
communities. Cleaning up just one meth lab drains about $5,000, the
Indiana Criminal Justice Institute says. On average, drug users cost
taxpayers about $22,000 before receiving treatment, according to the
Commission for a Drug-Free Indiana.

No question, it is gratifying that some of that is coming back to help
offset those costs.

However, asset forfeiture cases must be carefully and ethically pursued.

They must be paired with cases where prosecutors have a reasonable
expectation of criminal conviction.

Above all, they must not be filed at a cost to individual rights.

******************************************************

From:   owner-fear-list@mapinc.org on behalf of Judy Osburn [4beatgait@gmail.com]
Sent:   Monday, December 10, 2007 1:44 PM
To:   FEAR-list
Subject:   FEAR: FEAR's exciting new Continuing Legal Education (CLE) project

FEAR's exciting new Continuing Legal Education (CLE) project:

The team that produced FEAR's Asset Forfeiture Defense Manual has
assembled additional creative minds to develop the first in a series
of DVD asset forfeiture law training Continuing Legal Education (CLE)
programs.

The federal government spends vast sums of money prosecuting
forfeiture cases. Their prosecuting forfeiture attorneys are well
trained, yet the forfeiture victim is often forced to defend his case
without a lawyer.   Judges don't always know they can (or in some
cases must) appoint counsel to defend owners of seized property. Even
when they do, there is a shortage of experienced forfeiture counsel
willing to accept the court appointments.

One of the key provisions of the federal Civil Asset Forfeiture Act of
2000 (CAFRA), for which FEAR lobbied for eight years, requires courts
to appoint counsel to represent owners of seized homes who cannot
afford a lawyer, upon request of the forfeiture victim. But what
happens if no one at the court tells the victim about his rights under
this statute?

Can you imagine trying to defend against summary judgment pro se, when
the well trained federal prosecutor argues such things as collateral
estoppel, the relation back doctrine, standing, or that the forfeiture
is remedial and therefore the Excessive Fines clause does not apply?
Forfeiture has a difficult learning curve, even for attorneys.
Blunders by well-meaning, but untrained, lawyers handling their first
forfeiture cases often cause irreparable damage. Successful litigation
requires knowledge of civil and criminal procedure, substantive
criminal law, property law, and constitutional law – in addition to
forfeiture law.

An Internet search for forfeiture law courses revealed only one CLE
course on the subject offered anywhere in the United States (a
three-unit "overview" of asset forfeiture law); plus many dozens of
extensive forfeiture training courses currently being offered by
government agencies exclusively to prosecutors and law enforcement
officers.

Without well-trained attorneys, forfeiture victims are helpless to
defend themselves. In the seven years since FEAR won the battle for
federal legislation requiring courts to appoint counsel to certain
classes of victims who cannot afford a lawyer, only a small
handful—out of thousands of forfeiture cases—have received
court-appointed counsel now required by law. Even in the rare
instances where judges appoint counsel to represent owners of seized
property, Criminal Justice Act panel attorneys and Federal Public
Defenders often don't know how to defend civil forfeiture cases.

FEAR's exciting new DVD program will qualify for CLE credit for
lawyers in the 43 states that require continuing legal education, and
will vastly increase the number of qualified forfeiture attorneys
available nationwide, and assist lawyers handling their first
forfeiture cases.

Our anecdotal evidence suggests that many victims entitled to counsel
are not being told of that right—even now, seven years after the CAFRA
reforms that we successfully lobbied for took effect on August 23,
2000.   By now, there should be thousands of cases where counsel was
appointed under CAFRA provisions. CAFRA assigned the Legal Services
Corporation (LSC), in Washington, D.C., the responsibility of
providing counsel to claimants whose homes were seized. LSC admitted
that only $4,000 to $5,000 in attorneys fees had actually been paid
out under that provision during the first five years after CAFRA took
effect! The Congressional Budget Office projected that enforcement of
the right to counsel provisions would cost the federal government $1
million per year.

FEAR did not lobby Congress for eight years for forfeiture reform only
to have CAFRA's key provisions ignored!
With your help, FEAR's new forfeiture defense CLE program will expand
the pool of qualified forfeiture lawyers nationwide.

Please consider making a charitable donation to help fund FEAR's new
forfeiture defense training CLE program. FEAR Foundation is a
501(c)(3) charitable organization. All donations to this project are
fully tax-deductible. FEAR's federal tax ID number is 52-1847763.

******************************************************

From:   owner-fear-list@mapinc.org on behalf of Judy Osburn [4beatgait@gmail.com]
Sent:   Saturday, December 08, 2007 7:24 PM
To:   FEAR-list
Subject:   FEAR: More re: Judiciary Committee Chairman Conyers Opposes DEA Tactics threatening landlords with forfeiture and prison

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Tony Bowles <tonebowles@sbcglobal.net>
Date: Dec 8, 2007 6:09 PM
Subject: DPFCA: Fwd: [asa] Judiciary Committee Chairman Conyers
Opposes DEA Tactics
To: dpfca@drugsense.org

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Judiciary Committee Chairman Conyers Opposes DEA Tactics
Pledges to Question DEA During Oversight Hearings

As many of you know, DEA recently launched an entirely new tactic in their
continued efforts to undermine the effective implementation of medical
marijuana laws in California. They have sent hundreds of letters threatening
prosecution and asset forfeiture against property owners who rent to legal
medical cannabis collectives – a strategy that could have ramifications for
medical marijuana programs nationwide.

ASA Government Affairs Director Caren Woodson has been talking to House
Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers' (D-MI) staff and other Democratic
leadership to encourage them to oppose these tactics and stand up for patients
in states where medical cannabis is legal. Today, Chairman Conyers issued at a
statement saying:

"I am deeply concerned about recent reports that the Drug Enforcement
Administration is threatening private landlords with asset forfeiture and
possible imprisonment if they refuse to evict organizations legally dispensing
medical marijuana to suffering patients. The Committee has already questioned
the DEA about its efforts to undermine California state law on this subject,
and we intend to sharply question this specific tactic as part of our oversight
efforts."

In conjunction with more than fifty raids at medical cannabis collectives in
California this year, the asset forfeiture threats against property owners
represent the most serious challenge to patients' access in the United States
today. Conyers' support signals the first significant Congressional opposition
to the DEA's attempted end run around voters and state lawmakers.

ASA welcomes this statement and we look forward to working with Chairman
Conyers to finally end DEA interference in state medical marijuana laws.

Congratulations to the hundreds of ASA members who helped put grassroots
strength behind our work! Keep your eyes open for an Action Alert next week to
put even more support behind Conyers' initiative, and visit
<http://www.AmericansForSafeAccess.org/Donate> to make a contribution to
support our effective advocacy today.

Thank you,

Steph Sherer
Executive Director
Americans for Safe Access

See Chairman's Conyers statement at
<http://judiciary.house.gov/newscenter.aspx?A=889>.

Americans for Safe Access is the nation's largest organization of
patients, medical professionals, scientists and concerned citizens promoting
safe and legal access to cannabis for therapeutic use and research.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

From:   owner-fear-list@mapinc.org on behalf of Judy Osburn [4beatgait@gmail.com]
Sent:   Saturday, December 08, 2007 7:21 PM
To:   FEAR-list
Subject:   FEAR: Rep. Conyers concerned about DEA threats to private landlords

Conyers concerned about DEA threats to private landlords

By Staff, Washington Continent
http://www.washingtoncontinent.com/TWCstories/TWCnewspages2007/conyers_concerned_about_dea_thre_07_091000213.htm

Dec. 8, 2007, 12:00 a.m.— House Judiciary Committee Chairman John
Conyers, Jr., Michigan Democrat, yesterday released a statement about
reports that the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) is threatening private
landlords for housing legal medical marijuana facilities.

      "I am deeply concerned about recent reports that the Drug
Enforcement Administration is threatening private landlords with asset
forfeiture and possible imprisonment if they refuse to evict
organizations legally dispensing medical marijuana to suffering
patients," Conyers said.

      He said the Committee has already questioned the DEA about its
efforts to undermine California state law on this subject, adding, "We
intend to sharply question this specific tactic as part of our
oversight efforts."

******************************************************

From:   owner-fear-list@mapinc.org on behalf of Brenda Grantland [bgrantland1@comcast.net]
Sent:   Wednesday, December 05, 2007 9:08 AM
To:   fear-list@mapinc.org
Subject:   FEAR: Washington, D.C.: Setting the Record Straight on FISA

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act gave the administrative branch
sweeping powers to spy on citizens, and the Bush Administration is
pushing to stretch it even farther. Rep. John Conyers Jr., who was one
of our champions during our 8 year battle for forfeiture reform, is
pushing this corrective legislation to reform FISA.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject:    Setting the Record Straight on FISA
Date:    Wed, 05 Dec 2007 08:49:10 -0500
From:    Congressman John Conyers <info@johnconyers.com>
Reply-To:    info@johnconyers.com
To:    bgrantland1@comcast.net

John Conyers for Congress
Setting the Record Straight on FISA

Dear Brenda,

In recent weeks, there has been lot of conflicting information floating
around about efforts by House Democrats to protect the country by
adopting rules for intelligence gathering that are both flexible and
constitutional. This week, President Bush suggested that my legislative
alternative to this summer's hastily-enacted Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act (FISA) reform, the "Protect America Act," would take
away important tools from our intelligence community. He characterized
as "obstruction" the skepticism that many of us have about granting
amnesty to telecommunications carriers who may have cooperated in
warrantless surveillance. I was disappointed that the President did not
propose any concrete steps to improve our capabilities or protect our
freedoms -- he just repeated his demand for immunity.

This comes close on the heels of a recent controversy concerning the
House Democrats' FISA legislation stemming from Joe Klein's column in
Time Magazine on November 21st, in which his Republican sources seem to
have spun a tale that led Mr. Klein to characterize our efforts as "more
than stupid."

I believe that it is time for a comprehensive and detailed response to
the President's accusations of obstruction, the misinformation in the
Time Magazine column, and the debate over warrantless surveillance.
Below is that response. Please let me know what you think, and feel
free to pass along to your friends and colleagues.

Joe Klein's recent column
<http://images.myngp.com/LinkTracker.aspx?crypt=IVi0ax2%2b6UBSinc%2fCPYaKQePNa0TUu6Z0uv0xf%2f%2b5vAYg%2bsWX32AtzDiu47CzPr%2b%2f3ss21kw3tU5%2bXcBOsdzC5SzGY2YmNTc1edOUtFTovA7%2f08MtePF6pVKpKJRuStrlKafT46kOhYoskY%2fquPS1jNW248YBIUeBEM6DLk0B5c%3d>
deriding the House-passed FISA legislation, along with his subsequent
stumbling
<http://images.myngp.com/LinkTracker.aspx?crypt=IVi0ax2%2b6UBSinc%2fCPYaKQePNa0TUu6ZO288Nc2PDcphRDv%2fhNFhPeeTctmBv7Si2N%2bqJXCqKdDsIPLdjyh7vMpqjg00gA08XpDFccN080XAt5sSv5Vlmmc1McypeBsFEgfH5A0BCrTNKTjNADdNOJlt%2fVzViXJ%2bUL1JT2VfCMqV7l1qqK4%2b9w%3d%3d>
efforts
<http://images.myngp.com/LinkTracker.aspx?crypt=IVi0ax2%2b6UBSinc%2fCPYaKQePNa0TUu6Z0uv0xf%2f%2b5vAYg%2bsWX32At6X6OnRsQ4ji%2blosYrvaFGE7XDH6Sk1sxOA5GbnebH8mGwouJLVQ29W5WTbtb%2bia7l%2bWEAsIny6LlPhEXuPuQF0JhDuL9Ao8fa%2f%2br34X6ZF%2flLY4%2bCWDTBA%3d>
to clarify its intent, and Time Magazine's failure
<http://images.myngp.com/LinkTracker.aspx?crypt=IVi0ax2%2b6UBSinc%2fCPYaKdsUC%2b7YM7yz56q0Mnk80uLAvP0hs5y6vidA%2bp%2bm1c3yz7g20xAKQYwG2%2f1RejBiJUqpCMsOFH7pDKLMmdCINRnBnAEFQ9jbwNbmjakZKJQl1rg7ZtzYlvGJhVMslN61LmfDjwvhSQzT%2f9Xym%2fHCiEtKHPF6hnm15A%3d%3d>
to publish the protests my Democratic colleagues and I had regarding its
many inaccuracies are only the most recent manifestation of
disinformation put forth concerning the Bush Administration's
warrantless surveillance program and legislative efforts to modify the
law. As the lead author, along with Silvestre Reyes, of the RESTORE Act
<http://images.myngp.com/LinkTracker.aspx?crypt=IVi0ax2%2b6UBSinc%2fCPYaKaG9A9Gd%2b2R0mq3f9bC%2b9b02Lbbadp5SuPWlb5AipUNVvrV9%2fGgGkPzUj8r3Wq0XdIcjbMAFAcEzr1jwlhm2X63Hk6VpKjtYHM1WnCSrTwwT5qtksrtRWOX1eFMSgWV9xwquD9Ipe%2bEl>,
allow me to set the record straight once and for all.

First, contrary to GOP and media spin, the RESTORE Act does not grant
"terrorists the same rights as Americans." Section 105A of the RESTORE
Act explicitly provides that foreign-to-foreign communications are
totally exempt from FISA – clearly, this exception for foreigners such
as members of Al Qaeda does not apply to Americans. In cases involving
foreign agents where communications with Americans could be picked up,
Section 105B of the legislation provides for liberalized "basket
warrant" procedures by which entire terrorist organizations can be
surveilled without the need to obtain individual warrants from the FISA
court. Again, this new authority is aimed at foreign terrorists, not
Americans.

Mr. Klein appears to base much of his criticism of our bill on our use
of the term "person" to describe who may be surveilled, based on the
suggestion of a Republican "source" that this risks an interpretation
that terrorist groups would not be covered. The truth is that under
FISA the term person has been clearly defined for almost thirty years to
include "any group, entity, association, corporation, or foreign
power." It is also notable that both the RESTORE Act, and the
Administration's bill passed this summer, contain the exact same
language that Mr. Klein questions, yet we've never heard an objection to
the Administration's bill on this score.

Second, I must strongly disagree with Mr. Klein's assertion that the
Speaker "quashed ... a bipartisan [compromise] effort." As the Chairman
of the Committee with principal jurisdiction over FISA, the House
Judiciary Committee, I am aware of no effort to prevent bipartisan
compromise on this issue. As a matter of fact, last summer, beginning
in July, Democrats tirelessly negotiated with Director of National
Intelligence (DNI), Mike McConnell, to develop consensus legislation to
address the Administration's stated concerns about our intelligence
capability.

We addressed every one of the concerns Mr. McConnell raised
<http://images.myngp.com/LinkTracker.aspx?crypt=IVi0ax2%2b6UBSinc%2fCPYaKaG9A9Gd%2b2R0mq3f9bC%2b9b02Lbbadp5SuPWlb5AipUNVvrV9%2fGgGkPzUj8r3Wq0XdO3enkwvGg8bwSr61jtE%2buHy2iyAKNHY1NWAjA09lzx6Ejfq%2bt3RbnV5wIo8ug5XbqnMGhbOR1OZ>.
He said he needed to clarify that a court order was not required for
foreign-to-foreign communications -- our bill did just that. McConnell
said he needed an assurance that telecommunications companies would be
compelled to assist in gathering of national security information – our
bill did that. The DNI said he needed provisions to extend FISA to
foreign intelligence in addition to terrorism – the bill did that. He
asked us to eliminate the requirement that the FISA Court adjudicate how
recurring communications to the United States from foreign targets would
be handled – the bill did that. McConnell insisted that basket warrants
be structured to allow additional targets to be added after the warrant
was initially approved – again, the bill did that. When this
legislation was described to DNI McConnell, he acknowledged that "it
significantly enhances America's security.''

Yet, suddenly, on the eve of the vote, Director McConnell withdrew his
support after consultation with the White House. If the media wanted to
identify over-the-top partisanship, they could begin by citing the
declaration of David Addington, Vice President Cheney's Chief of Staff,
that "We're one bomb away from getting rid of that obnoxious FISA
Court," and DNI McConnell's assertion that by merely having an open
debate on surveillance, "some Americans are going to die."

Third, the RESTORE Act legislation is badly needed to provide
accountability to the Bush Administration's unilateral approach to
surveillance. The warrantless surveillance program has been riddled
with deceptions that only began to come to light when The New York Times
first disclosed the existence of the program in 2005. The program itself
appears to directly violate FISA and the Fourth Amendment, as a federal
court
<http://images.myngp.com/LinkTracker.aspx?crypt=IVi0ax2%2b6UBSinc%2fCPYaKdaJwsMh0V5KnXpbYo0o6utX86L3sFx15Vi9cMLb3xHK2WHe6gSfh8N%2bYVHgB%2f2HLxMxLj9%2fBLJuK0O4rbi04WoIvRWWll2elzSNUuhq4a9MpBjHyZaGnYgRPct1Vp5vwSpKOKCA5q66Y4hTM6qvGNm20NnmJbNKKp%2fMEEPtmeaNRQedPgvX%2f5zbD5q8kuMM2titX8cLceeFOvHilL2ykVA%3d>,
the non-partisan Congressional Research Service
<http://images.myngp.com/LinkTracker.aspx?crypt=IVi0ax2%2b6UBSinc%2fCPYaKTA%2fVzAf3rfs8AVJo7rZuBnZgcc53XFoeptZP3EqXsfLX%2bgvbOjjpVZz3UWsENomt5ktl76NtjSyhtGPirKTFjmPiIRoY3DV%2fZs9Uh543b80fRooWpeaqos%3d>,
numerous Republican legislators
<http://images.myngp.com/LinkTracker.aspx?crypt=IVi0ax2%2b6UBSinc%2fCPYaKTA%2fVzAf3rfs8AVJo7rZuBlbstz33zQjkIGMXuTM9x3UO7REjXXA3gn2nhWy97gOZJZH8iEFO1TEsH6ldpVQ9pXAOsQUiLSbliEb2y%2fySivPFAUgQE75VHsPWvHLp7ausQ%3d%3d>,
and independent legal scholars
<http://images.myngp.com/LinkTracker.aspx?crypt=IVi0ax2%2b6UBSinc%2fCPYaKULIORGt1Sfo0smUpjvFjAZ%2fNVs2NsXDc3l73BtQ5mpoxj8OUgkSYiPfVD2WJ3hkyv4H%2fcnxT2MWh9fDroZqu1F5oYtTM4mHTRtcZQ%2b3JoMONKhbMufVdWS57fO5Xk374nTOiKdR8CJ0>
have found.

The Administration has also mischaracterized the existence, degree,
extent and nature of the program itself as well as how much information
it has shared with Congress. For instance, compare the President's
speech in 2004
<http://images.myngp.com/LinkTracker.aspx?crypt=IVi0ax2%2b6UBSinc%2fCPYaKQJzHIHquTBKZHP3tuvmys4Qtsl41Ya0MqX7laluzqxbpJ6UcwGmySBowe%2bL6tg50yBlRX8T0eGEhsv84rbzrwJUIOZf1MtV%2bPSkQ6ZiiKL3WG39lhvwy4Y%3d>
with his admission that there was indeed a program of warrantless
surveillance
<http://images.myngp.com/LinkTracker.aspx?crypt=IVi0ax2%2b6UBSinc%2fCPYaKQWGKGEhYSAym6%2fXLkBNFnSjWUkb1MquCcKo8Cvl38XTPaiuHKT9yArDtkn1aEQchsSllJZAiieuc1ZmRIxT757hVXYO64uPDXmMw305ifv4jpVXy%2f2qY8u7OL1OziRiFs8hjdWj3xKaR6CY%2bAA0IXY%3d>.
When high-ranking DOJ officials found the program lacking, the White
House went to absurd, if not comical lengths, to convince a dangerously
ill and hospitalized Attorney General Ashcroft to overrule them
<http://images.myngp.com/LinkTracker.aspx?crypt=IVi0ax2%2b6UBSinc%2fCPYaKcJW5Sl02kEkIP0ZhGtDuLb9CB3oz0bDZSq3WSc5HI8kepnKqOzYA2R5j5%2bVgAKkegFIYqVX85Ww2QPAAlcXqZecSAPSXhYrRjyF9cZMtgdRL2kNTt1q640g7c1Zsg4nzToLaP4VhqGCs4dqWbRvNq526Bvg2%2bl5Ld%2b2BZitMBVcDrAkaHCI7d8%3d>.
Even today, the Administration continues to obscure its own past
misconduct with extravagant claims that the "state secrets" doctrine
bars any legal challenges whatsoever - a position that has been rejected
by the Court of Appeals
<http://images.myngp.com/LinkTracker.aspx?crypt=IVi0ax2%2b6UBSinc%2fCPYaKRxXXd%2buqNV6aZUpRTzN1PgB3k0bVaPP19nQ0W4CiZP%2bX5%2bzArzGkWsXUf8hxZCsgKzU8NRT0NORi7z8%2bcggK3tNKKYPtGTGGoKHGkFaYfIdGBpdYPnsdKlCYacRa8BcHKDl%2fgwpO23u%2bdpZob%2bRWG%2bJs5MThapPeecnilpqweBGMCwpXaYXAKb4NoJCYiHn9gE2sQ0%2blY%2fdEMA7kjE7New%3d>.

The Administration's hastily enacted legislation, signed this summer, is
little better. Instead of being limited to the stated problem of
foreign-to-foreign electronic surveillance, it could apply to domestic
business records, library files, personal mail, and even searches of our
homes
<http://images.myngp.com/LinkTracker.aspx?crypt=IVi0ax2%2b6UBSinc%2fCPYaKdaJwsMh0V5KnXpbYo0o6usZtK9Y8WBD26FCpnSKcBma3dRzAfkWXgf8RbGgamhMxjKgw0gKgPFIN8rd2MPYDxcfwB1uRoYSeSHjVDh1MgWuUyj6A6vbhi%2f1qctkakvzmG%2fO2oNGLpEodJTUzKFecpRMQ72m5Ae9fJ7dMaJh%2fLjJ>.

Against that backdrop, it is clear we need a new law with the critical
oversight provisions included in the RESTORE Act, such as requiring the
Administration to turn over relevant documents to Congress, mandating
periodic Inspector General reports, and acknowledging that the
Administration is indeed bound by FISA.

Finally, the Administration has yet to explain why offering retroactive
immunity to telephone giants who may have participated in an unlawful
program is vital to our national security. Under current law, the phone
companies can easily avoid liability if they can establish they received
either an appropriate court order or legal certification from the
Attorney General.   Asking Congress to grant legal immunity at a time
when the Administration has refused to provide the House of
Representatives with relevant legal documents for more than eleven
months is not only unreasonable, it is irresponsible.

Civil liberties and national security need not be contradictory
policies, rather they are inexorably linked. Perhaps nowhere is this
interrelationship more true than in intelligence gathering, where
information must be reliable and untainted by abuse to be useful. So
when we discuss FISA, the first thing we need to do is drop the partisan
rhetoric, and stick to the actual record. Under the RESTORE Act, the
intelligence community has the flexibility to intercept communications
by foreign terrorists without obtaining individual warrants, and the
Court and Congress are given the authority to perform their
constitutional oversight roles. The only parties who lose in this
process are the terrorists, and those who want the executive branch to
have absolute and unreviewable power.

Rather than being, in Mr. Klein's words, "well beyond stupid," the
RESTORE Act offers a smart and well balanced approach to updating FISA
and reining in the excesses of an unchecked executive branch.

Your Friend,

John Conyers, Jr.

    <http://images.myngp.com/LinkTracker.aspx?crypt=IVi0ax2%2b6UBSinc%2fCPYaKfHt%2b6u4f%2bb%2bg5bhPiE9wmpQnHWMw3zBLCSbXlK9v1l7j%2fyP7iztO5cLBS97hreJJ4HmcaNGuVRPCejvi2bxXEY%3d>
    <http://images.myngp.com/LinkTracker.aspx?crypt=IVi0ax2%2b6UBSinc%2fCPYaKfHt%2b6u4f%2bb%2bg5bhPiE9wmpQnHWMw3zBLCSbXlK9v1l7j%2fyP7iztO5cLBS97hreJJ4HmcaNGuVRPCejvi2bxXEY%3d>


johnconyers.com
<http://images.myngp.com/LinkTracker.aspx?crypt=IVi0ax2%2b6UBSinc%2fCPYaKfHt%2b6u4f%2bb%2bg5bhPiE9wmpfB9TB%2ffYVOPtX4N7gPdcNNHSbGAYOo2Gm5DDVO8J0tLLB0kKpnuZqOa9SW8E4M2k%3d>

Paid for by the Conyers, John

Conyers for Congress
1831 Bay Street, SE
Washington, DC 20003

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

December 2007, FEAR bulletins with associated articles

Drug-ring leader forfeits home

INTERNET LAW - U.S. Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property Act 2007