March 2007, FEAR bulletins with associated articles

Because most news media links are short lived, for educational purposes we have attached the full text of each article over two weeks old linked in the FEAR-List Bulletins below.

Sarisota Herald-Tribune, FL:

Forfeiture Contracts Still Being Used

FEAR.org:

"Contraband Confiscation Agreement" circumstances ruled unconstitutional violation of due process: judge orders Bradenton police to return $10,200 or use court system to file forfeiture proceedings.
Bradenton Police Department continues policy of bypassing court system by coercing victims into signing forfeiture contract waiving right to day in court.

Gulf Times - Doha,Qatar:

Asset forfeiture effective way to fight global crime

ABC News:

Report Says FBI Violated Patriot Act Guidelines

Muskogee Daily Phoenix editorial:

Vehicle forfeiture sounds like unusual punishment

<>Las Cruces Sun-News - Las Cruces, NM:

<>Fewer vehicle seizures a sign anti-DWI program is working

Int'l forfeiture: Belgrade:

Assets forfeiture conference

Times Record News - Wichita Falls,TX

"The Corporation" leader Jose Miguel Battle, Jr. sentenced

Associated Press:

Senate Limits Gonzales' Hiring Authority

Associated Press:

Lawmakers Warn FBI It Could Lose Broad Spying Power Following Revelations of Abuses

Anderson Herald Bulletin - Anderson, IN:

The attorney representing the state in the John L. Neal civil case could end up reaping a windfall — if he’s ultimately successful.

Yakima Herald-Republic, WA:

Toddler denied cash, but may get car in drug forfeiture case

From: "Judy Osburn" <openi420@starband.net>
To: "FEAR-list" <fear-list@mapinc.org>
Subject: FEAR: Herald Tribune letter: Forfeiture contracts still being used
Date: Friday, March 02, 2007 1:06 PM

February 21, 2007
Forfeiture contracts still being used
http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070221/OPINION/702210402/1029

I am Delane Johnson's attorney, who just obtained a favorable ruling from
Judge Peter Dubensky regarding the Bradenton Police Department's Contraband
Forfeiture Agreement procedures.

Friday, I finished a deposition of Detective Mike Skoumal of the Bradenton
Police Department. He testified at a deposition, unrelated to the Johnson
case, that as late as last week (Thursday) he used the "contract" to take
someone's property.

It was reported in your paper that Mayor Wayne Poston said, "Obviously,
we'll do whatever the judge says. If he says we ought not to do (the
waivers), that's fine."

It was also reported that Police Chief Michael Radzilow-ski said, before the
judge's ruling, "I want to follow the law."

The ruling was signed by the judge on Feb. 9. I wonder why it has taken so
long for the judge's opinion to sink in on the mayor and the chief of police
and for the two of them to communicate to employees the doubts expressed by
the judge.

Whatever the case, the judge's ruling regarding these contracts has had
little effect, if any, on the manner in which the Bradenton Police
Department takes people's property and twists the law!

Varinia Van Ness

Sarasota

From: "Judy Osburn" <openi420@starband.net>
To: "FEAR-list" <fear-list@mapinc.org>
Subject: FEAR: Judge orders return of $10,200; Bradenton police continue unconstituional confiscation
Date: Friday, March 02, 2007 2:53 PM

New article at www.fear.org

"Contraband Confiscation Agreement" circumstances ruled unconstitutional violation of due process: judge orders Bradenton police to return $10,200 or use court system to file forfeiture proceedings.
Bradenton Police Department continues policy of bypassing court system by coercing victims into signing forfeiture contract waiving right to day in court.

Bradenton Police Department continues policy of bypassing the court system
by coercing victims into signing forfeiture contract waiving their right a
day in court.

by Judy Osburn

Each year police in Bradenton, Florida side-stepped judicial oversight
provided in Florida's Contraband Confiscation Act by intimidating hundreds
of people into signing roadside agreements to give up property such as cash
and cars and waive all rights to contest the confiscation in court.
"Imagine having to choose between signing over your cash or going to jail,"
Tampa Bay defense attorney Denis DeVlaming said earlier this year. "That's
the situation that these people face. It's a scary proposition."

Twenty-year-old Delane Johnson was not arrested when he consented to a
search outside his apartment in July, 2006, and police coerced him into
handing over $10,200 and signing Bradenton's Contraband Confiscation
Agreement. On February 9, 2007, state Circuit Judge Peter Dubensky rejected
the city of Bradenton's motion to dismiss Johnson's legal challenge of the
waiver agreement, and ordered police to either return Johnson's cash or file
suit for forfeiture against the money in state court. The court determined
that the contract signed by Johnson "and the circumstances surrounding the
making of the contract fail to comply with even the rudimentary elements of
due process."

Though his ruling applies only to Johnson's case, the judge wrote a scathing
criticism of Bradenton's waiver agreement policy: "Taken to its logical
extreme," Dubensky wrote, the police "could present this agreement to any
citizen stopped for any reason and request forfeiture of any item of
property" in exchange for signing the document. The judge continued, "It is
not remotely conceivable that the citizenry would countenance such a state
of affairs."

Bradenton police spokesman stated the his department had not yet decided
whether to return Johnson's money to him or file suit for forfeiture.
However, the department stands little chance of prevailing in a state
forfeiture proceeding, as the statutory deadline for filing a notice of
intent to forfeit under Florida law passed last October.

Attorney Varinia Van Ness, co-counsel for Johnson, questioned the impact
Dubensky's favorable ruling will have on the police department, stating,
"I'm hoping they will no longer use these agreements to take people's
property." But if the department continues to go by its policy rather than
state laws she may file a motion to reconsider the future of the
department's policy. "I would hope they would start obeying the law of the
land, so, in the future, this doesn't happen to other people," she said.

Earlier this year at a January meeting about the legal challenge to the
controversial waiver agreement policy Bradenton Police Chief Michael
Radzilowski told Florida's Herald-Tribune Editorial Board members that he
was "really looking forward to the judge for guidance," stating, "I want to
do the right thing, and I want to follow the law." But then four days after
the judge's strongly worded guidance the Bradenton Police Department
announced that it will continue to follow its policy of completely bypassing
the court system, claiming department's unique contraband forfeiture
agreement supersedes the state law that provides property owners a chance to
contest the confiscation in court.

In a letter to the Bradenton Herald published February 21, Attorney Van Ness
wrote:

Friday, I finished a deposition of Detective Mike Skoumal of the Bradenton
Police Department. He testified at a deposition, unrelated to the Johnson
case, that as late as last week (Thursday) he used the "contract" to take
someone's property.

It was reported in your paper that Mayor Wayne Poston said, "Obviously,
we'll do whatever the judge says. If he says we ought not to do (the
waivers), that's fine."

It was also reported that Police Chief Michael Radzilow-ski said, before the
judge's ruling, "I want to follow the law."

The ruling was signed by the judge on Feb. 9. I wonder why it has taken so
long for the judge's opinion to sink in on the mayor and the chief of police
and for the two of them to communicate to employees the doubts expressed by
the judge.

Whatever the case, the judge's ruling regarding these contracts has had
little effect, if any, on the manner in which the Bradenton Police
Department takes people's property and twists the law!

Bradenton Police Maj. William Tokajer responded to Judge Dubensky's ruling
by continuing to back the policy, and gave no indication whether the
department will default to the state forfeiture laws any time in the future.
"We will review the judge's ruling and consult with our legal counsel to
determine which action we will take. ...We suspended the policy last year
while it was being reviewed by our attorneys. Minor changes were made and
the civil agreement was deemed legal by our counsel," Tokajer said.

The minor change gives victims of Bradenton police piracy policy five days
to cancel the agreement, making it null and void-still completely bypassing
the court system and still far short of "even the rudimentary elements of
due process."

From: "Brenda Grantland" <bgrantland1@comcast.net>
To: <fear-list@mapinc.org>
Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2007 4:22 PM
Subject: FEAR: Qatar: US DOJ uses Equitable Sharing program to spread forfeiture internationally

> This article has some new statistics about the extent to which the US is exporting forfeiture laws to other countries.
>
> "From 1989 through January 2007, it transferred, with the
> concurrence of the State Department, more than $228mn to 35 countries
> that helped the United States in asset forfeiture cases."
>
> ...
>
> "More countries -- 17 in all -- officially announced
> anti-money laundering and counterterrorist financing laws for the first
> time in 2005, the time period covered in the report."
>
> Asset forfeiture effective way to fight global crime
> <http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=135932&version=1&template_id=46&parent_id=26>
> Gulf Times - Doha,Qatar
> WASHINGTON: Asset forfeiture and sharing is an effective way to combat money
> laundering and terrorist financing, say US officials. ...

Asset forfeiture effective way to fight global crime
Published: Saturday, 3 March, 2007, 09:09 AM Doha Time

By Eric Green
WASHINGTON: Asset forfeiture and sharing is an effective way to combat money laundering and terrorist financing, say US officials.

The most important goal is “to take the criminal proceeds away from the criminals,” according to US Department of Justice official Lester Joseph.

Under asset forfeiture, governments confiscate assets from money laundering and other crimes. The United States is sharing the proceeds from this process with other nations, the Justice Department says.

From 1989 through January 2007, it transferred, with the concurrence of the State Department, more than $228mn to 35 countries that helped the United States in asset forfeiture cases.

“Asset sharing enhances international forfeiture co-operation by creating an incentive for countries to work together, regardless of where the assets are located or which jurisdiction will ultimately enforce the forfeiture order,” Joseph said.

A joint publication by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) defines money laundering as the disguising of money derived from illegal sources or activities, including narcotics trafficking and terrorism.

In contrast, terrorist financing involves the provision of financial support to terrorists or pro-terrorist groups, and funding for terrorism may originate from legitimate sources. Money laundering and terrorist financing often display similar features, mostly having to do with concealment and disguise.

“International efforts against money laundering grew stronger and more effective in 2005,” according to the State Department’s 2006 International Narcotics Control Strategy Report.

More countries — 17 in all -– officially announced anti-money laundering and counterterrorist financing laws for the first time in 2005, the time period covered in the report. The State Department’s 2007 report is due this month.

Dennis Lormel, the former chief of the anti-terrorism financing unit at the FBI, said in an interview that international co-operation against money laundering and terrorist financing is extremely important but also challenging because of the differences in legal and financial systems around the world.

One particular problem, he said, is in defining ‘terrorism’. Reaching a global consensus on what the term means can be very difficult, said Lormel, who now is senior vice president on anti-money laundering for a Reston, Virginia, firm called Corporate Risk International.

US Treasury Department official Patrick O’Brien said last month at a conference in Miami on money laundering that the “collective efforts” of the US government with its international partners to identify and combat illicit finance have seen “impressive results all over the world.”

For example, O’Brien said US and Colombian law enforcement agencies working together dismantled a drug trafficking empire led by two brothers, Gilberto and Miguel Rodr?guez Orejuela, who once controlled an estimated 80% of Colombian cocaine exports to the United States.

The brothers pleaded guilty in November 2006 to their crimes, were sentenced to 30 years in prison and ordered to forfeit $2.1bn in assets made from their narcotics trafficking, said O’Brien, who is Treasury’s assistant secretary for terrorist financing.

O’Brien told the conference, sponsored by the Florida International Bankers Association (FIBA), that the successful dismantling of that drug ring was a “clear example of the ... benefits that result from strong regional co-operation.”

To that end, he announced that a US-Latin America Private Sector Dialogue will be held from April 18 to 20 in Cartagena, Colombia. The event will bring together representatives of the US and Latin American financial sectors to discuss issues related to measures against money laundering and terrorist financing.

In addition, another conference on money laundering is scheduled for March 15-17 in Hollywood, Florida, sponsored by the Miami-based Alert Global Media.

Treasury official William Baity, acting director of the agency’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), said financial institutions around the world “want to do their part in protecting their markets and their countries.” But he added that these institutions need to know that the information they provide about suspicious financial activity “is not going into a black hole.”

The Egmont Group of Financial Intelligence Units, he said, provides a centre for information exchange on such suspicious activity. The group encompasses the United States and 100 other countries and jurisdictions.

Lormel, the former FBI official, said the Egmont Group can play an especially vital role if the countries’ various financial intelligence units can reach a consensus on the “really critical” issue of information sharing. Sharing the “lessons learned” in cases involving suspicious financial activities, he said, will have a “tremendous impact on our ability to deal with” the problems of terrorist financing and money laundering. – USINFO

From: "Judy Osburn" <openi420@starband.net>
To: "FEAR-list" <fear-list@mapinc.org>
Subject: FEAR: 9th Circuit: CAFRA does not require government to disgorge interest from seized funds returned through administrative forfeiture claim
Date: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 7:35 PM

Ohel Rachel Synagogue v. US, No. 04-56894 (9th Cir. March 06, 2007)
In the context of the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act (CAFRA), 28 U.S.C. section 2465(b)(1)(C) does not require the government to disgorge interest earned on seized currency when the government returns the currency rather than initiating judicial forfeiture proceedings.
[To view the full-text of cases you must sign in to FindLaw.com.] http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0456894p.pdf

From:    owner-fear-list@mapinc.org on behalf of Brenda Grantland [bgrantland1@comcast.net]
Sent:    Friday, March 09, 2007 6:20 PM
To:    fear-list@mapinc.org
Subject:    FEAR: Washington, D.C.: FBI abused Patriot Act provisions

Report Says FBI Violated Patriot Act Guidelines
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/030907J.shtml
The FBI repeatedly failed to follow the strict guidelines of the Patriot Act when its agents took advantage of a new provision allowing the FBI to obtain phone and financial records without a court order, according to a report to be made public Friday by the Justice Department's inspector general.

Report Says FBI Violated Patriot Act Guidelines

    By Brian Ross and Vic Walter
    ABC News

    Thursday 08 March 2008

    The FBI repeatedly failed to follow the strict guidelines of the Patriot Act when its agents took advantage of a new provision allowing the FBI to obtain phone and financial records without a court order, according to a report to be made public Friday by the Justice Department's Inspector General.

    The report, in classified and unclassified versions, remains closely held, but Washington officials who have seen it tell ABC News it documents "numerous lapses" and describe it as "scathing" and "not a pretty picture for the FBI."

    FBI Director Robert Mueller is scheduled to brief Congress on the report at noon.

    The officials say the inspector general found the FBI underreported by at least 20 percent the use of the controversial provision, known as National Security Letters, NSLs, in required disclosures to Congress.

    The Patriot Act gave FBI agents the ability to demand telephone, bank, credit card and library records by issuing an administrative letter, bypassing the need to seek a warrant from a federal judge.

    Civil liberties groups have long opposed the provision, saying the lack of oversight could lead to the kinds of problems apparently uncovered by the inspector general.

    In a report last year, the Justice Department said there were 9,254 NSL requests on 3,501 persons in the calendar year 2005.

    Some officials say the actual number is substantially higher.

    The inspector general's report reportedly found "systemic" failures in the issuance, tracking and accountability of the controversial NSLs, although a Justice Department official said there was no finding of "willful or criminal misconduct."

    FBI officials said they could not comment until the report was made public but said the FBI welcomed the findings because several of the reported problems were unknown to senior management.

    "Expect a weekend firestorm," said one Justice Department official.

From:    owner-fear-list@mapinc.org on behalf of Brenda Grantland [bgrantland1@comcast.net]
Sent:    Monday, March 12, 2007 7:35 PM
To:    fear-list@mapinc.org
Subject:    FEAR: OK: Muskogee editorial opposes car forfeiture for uninsured motorist bill

This Muskogee Daily Phoenix editorial -- opposing a forfeiture bill for motorists who can't produce proof of insurance during a traffic stop -- hits the nail on the head: such forfeitures would be excessive punishment.

It's time to recognize that forfeiture is not the magic bullet that solves every law enforcement challenge. Sometimes the most effective solution is traditional policing -- but that doesn't raise money!

Vehicle forfeiture sounds like unusual punishment
<http://www.muskogeephoenix.com/opinion/local_story_070191815.html?keyword=topstory>
Muskogee Daily Phoenix - Muskogee,OK,USA
That is exactly what is going to happen if a bill passes that allows the seizure
and forfeiture of vehicles during traffic stops when drivers can’t produce ...

Vehicle forfeiture sounds like unusual punishment

While we want egregious lawbreakers to face tough penalties, we have to be careful we don’t allow laws to excessively penalize citizens who generally are law-abiding but a little forgetful or negligent.

That is exactly what is going to happen if a bill passes that allows the seizure and forfeiture of vehicles during traffic stops when drivers can’t produce a proof of insurance form.

The state Senate last week approved the bill, which was proposed by Sen. Patrick Anderson, R-Enid. Anderson introduced the bill after family members of one of his assistants was injured in an accident caused by an uninsured driver.

Uninsured motorists are a problem. They cause financial grief for those who obey the law and insure their vehicles.

But this bill, if it becomes law, will end up hurting the people it seeks to protect more than it will those who consistently drive without insurance.

Many law-abiding citizens simply forget to put their insurance verification form into their vehicles. Many law-abiding citizens are late paying their bills, but some insurance companies provide a grace period for good customers.

But according to this law, you could lose your car, or at least have it towed and be subject to expensive towing and storage charges, for being a little forgetful.

Anderson said a law goes into effect next year that requires maintenance of a data bank for those carrying liability insurance, which would protect those who forget to put their cards in glove boxes.

That resolves some objections, but not all.

The bill is an example of a law with punishment out of proportion to the offense. Letting insurance coverage lapse for a day or two, which probably many Oklahomans are guilty of, should not result in the loss of a vehicle or even the hassle and expense of getting a car out of lock up.

And don’t forget that forfeiture laws are subject to abuse. There have been an abundance of complaints of forfeiture laws being abused by police and prosecutors regarding drug laws.

We can see abuse of this law, too, by small towns just as some small towns have profited excessively from speed traps under the excuse of upholding the law.

From:    owner-fear-list@mapinc.org on behalf of Jody Neal-Post [jodynealpost@sprintmail.com]
Sent:    Monday, March 19, 2007 11:49 AM
To:    Fear
Subject:    FEAR: New case law

US v. 6 Fox St., Windham, NH (03/15/07 - No. 05-2744)
Summary judgment for the United States in a civil forfeiture action is
affirmed over the property owner's arguments that: 1) the Government's
forfeiture complaint was barred by the statute of limitations; 2) he was
denied effective assistance of counsel; and 3) the U.S. perpetrated a
fraud on the court.
[To view the full-text of cases you must sign
<http://login.findlaw.com/scripts/case_login?dest=http://laws.lp.findlaw
.com/1st/052744.html> in to FindLaw.com.]
http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/1st/052744.html
available here

From:    owner-fear-list@mapinc.org on behalf of Jody Neal-Post [jodynealpost@sprintmail.com]
Sent:    Tuesday, March 20, 2007 7:59 AM
To:    Fear
Subject:    FEAR: NM car forfeitures "working"

Fewer <http://www.lcsun-news.com/news/ci_5468923> vehicle seizures a
sign anti-DWI program is working
Las Cruces Sun-News - Las Cruces,NM,USA
More than 700 vehicles have been confiscated through the city's DWI
Vehicle Forfeiture Program since it began in 2005, according to the Las
Cruces Police ...

Fewer vehicle seizures a sign anti-DWI program is working

By Jose L. Medina Sun-News reporter
Article Launched: 03/19/2007 01:00:00 AM MDT

LAS CRUCES — The declining number of vehicles seized from drunken drivers is a sign of success, a Las Cruces official said.
More than 700 vehicles have been confiscated through the city's DWI Vehicle Forfeiture Program since it began in 2005, according to the Las Cruces Police Department.

"We're very pleased by the success of the program," said city attorney Fermin Rubio, whose office prosecutes DWI offenders. "... Hopefully what we are doing is sending a message regarding the use of alcohol and driving."

The program seizes vehicles from drivers who have been convicted a second time for driving while intoxicated, driving with a suspended license because of a DWI arrest, or for a drug violation related to a vehicle's interlock system.

In the first year, 367 vehicles were seized, police said. In 2006, the number dropped to 331.

So far this year, 30 vehicles have been seized. If the trend continues, about 220 vehicles will be confiscated in 2007.

An additional 141 vehicles are awaiting a final forfeiture judgment for auction.

"You want to give people a chance to rehabilitate and do the right thing," Rubio said. "... It's a problem that we attack and attack and attack and people just don't get
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment: http://mapinc.org/temp/23CRoi3NJVEGw.html
******************************************************
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
******************************************************
From:    owner-fear-list@mapinc.org on behalf of Jody Neal-Post [jodynealpost@sprintmail.com]
Sent:    Tuesday, March 20, 2007 8:00 AM
To:    Fear
Subject:    FEAR: No kidding, police "profit" from forfeitures...

Police
<http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/story/6422163p-5724255c.html>
agencies can profit from civil forfeiture laws
TheNewsTribune.com (subscription) - Tacoma,WA,USA
The state's civil forfeiture laws are "a significant tool in our
arsenal," says Don Pierce, executive director of the Washington
Association of Sheriffs and ...

<http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ncl=http://www.thenewstribune.com/new
s/local/story/6422163p-5724255c.html> See all stories on this topic

From:    owner-fear-list@mapinc.org on behalf of Jody Neal-Post [jodynealpost@sprintmail.com]
Sent:    Tuesday, March 20, 2007 8:01 AM
To:    'Fear'
Subject:    FEAR: Int'l forfeiture: Belgrade

Assets <http://www.b92.net/eng/news/comments.php?nav_id=40153>
forfeiture conference
B92 - Serbia
BELGRADE -- Special Prosecutor's Office, the OSCE and US embassy in
Belgrade organized an international conference on asset forfeiture. ...

Assets forfeiture conference

        15 March 2007

     BELGRADE -- Special Prosecutor's Office, the OSCE and U.S. embassy in
Belgrade organized an international conference on asset forfeiture.

      U.S. Ambassador to Serbia Michael Polt said that the U.S authorities
confiscated illegally attained assets of criminals in order to impede their
activities.

      "The U.S.'s approach is very simple: rob the criminals of their assets
so as to stop the crime itself," Polt said at the opening of the conference.

      The U.S. Ambassador said he believed asset forfeiture was important in
order to obstruct criminal organizations whose members had been taken into
custody, even in cases when individuals cannot be put on trial due to lack
of evidence.

      "The measure targets corrupt officials," Polt said, voicing his
satisfaction with investigations recently launched in Serbia against people
who "illegally pulled out Serbian tax payers' money in order to invest in
their private business projects."

      "The money U.S. obtains through assets forfeiture is used to combat
crime. The portion of the money is also given out to the states that helped
the confiscation," Polt concluded.

      Head of OSCE Mission to Serbia Hans Ola Urstad said he hoped that the
U.S. and Italian analyses for confiscating illegally attained assets would
prove useful for Serbian prosecutors, police and judges.

      Urstad stressed that asset forfeiture was an effective measure that
debilitates criminals in their future actions.

      Italian Ambassador to Serbia Alessandro Merola underlined that the
permanent assets forfeiture was very important as a long-term measure to cut
down on crime.

      He also stressed that the later distribution of confiscated property
was yet another issue, adding that "the public must understand that
forfeited assets ought to be used to tackle crime and serve no other
purpose."
     Send your comment

     Comments: 2

Comments
Number of comments:
2
a.. If governments are sure that assets were obtained illegally, wouldn't
that constitute the proof required to prosecute. Otherwise, it would seeem
that the presumption of innocence should be applied and assets not seized.
(amerikanac, Friday, 16 March, 2007, 03:41)
b.. This is a very important step and I hope the Serbs adopt this method
quickly. Also, we need to establilsh monopoly laws here as well. How else
can we stop the complete destruction of Serbia by all Milosevic's cronies
who have just been hidden but never caught.
(lollee, Friday, 16 March, 2007, 09:28)

From:    owner-fear-list@mapinc.org on behalf of Jody Neal-Post [jodynealpost@sprintmail.com]
Sent:    Tuesday, March 20, 2007 8:06 AM
To:    Fear
Subject:    FEAR: So Florida sentences "Cuban Godfather"

<http://www.timesrecordnews.com/trn/home/article/0,1891,TRN_5670_5428179
,00.html> "The Corporation" leader Jose Miguel Battle, Jr. sentenced
Times Record News - Wichita Falls,TX,USA
As part of the sentencing, US District Court Judge Alan S. Gold ordered
the forfeiture of $642 million. Battle, Jr. is the son of Jose Miguel
Battel, Sr., ...

"The Corporation" leader Jose Miguel Battle, Jr. sentenced

March 19, 2007

R. Alexander Acosta, United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, Charles E. Hunter, Acting Special Agent in Charge, Internal Revenue Service, Criminal Investigation Division, Miami Field Office, and Edgar Moreno, Special Agent in Charge, U.S. Department of State, Diplomatic Security Service, announced that defendant Jose Miguel Battle, Jr., a leader in "The Corporation" ("the Corporation"), a large organized crime syndicate, was sentenced today to 188 months in prison following his conviction on various racketeering charges. As part of the sentencing, U.S. District Court Judge Alan S. Gold ordered the forfeiture of $642 million.

Battle, Jr. is the son of Jose Miguel Battel, Sr., the Corporation’s undisputed head, who was named by the President’s Commission on Organized Crime as "The Cuban Godfather." The evidence at trial established that the Corporation conducted extensive illegal gambling operations through the use of violence and intimidation, including the commission of multiple murders. These murders included the death of a 3 year-old child who was killed in a fire, the death of a former Corporation hit man who was gunned down in the 1970's after turning against the Corporation, and a Corporation rival who was killed in a hospital by an assassin disguised as a nurse. These murders were authorized and committed by members of the Corporation in furtherance of their racketeering conspiracy. Battle, Jr. oversaw sophisticated money laundering schemes in various domestic and foreign locations, including Peru, Spain, Panama, Switzerland, the Cayman Islands, Curaçoa, the Dominican Republic and the British Virgin Islands.

Mr. Acosta commended the Internal Revenue Service, the U.S. Department of State, Diplomatic Security Service, the Office of the District Attorney for Kings County, New York, the Broward and Monroe County Sheriffs Offices, and the Miami Dade Police Department, for their work in this Organized Crime and Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF) case. The sentencing was handled by Assistant United States Attorneys Tony Gonzalez and David Haimes of the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area Task Force, Alison Lehr of the Asset Forfeiture Section, and Special Assistant U.S. Attorney Patricia McNeill of the Kings County (Brooklyn) District Attorney’s Office.

A copy of this press release may be found on the website of the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida at http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/fls. Related court documents and information may be found on the website of the District Court for the Southern District of Florida at http://www.flsd.uscourts.gov or on http://pacer.flsd.uscourts.gov.

Technical comments about this website can be e-mailed to the Webmaster. PLEASE NOTE: The United States Attorney's Office does not respond to non-technical inquiries made to this website. If you wish to make a request for information, you may contact our office at 305-961-9001, or you may send a written inquiry to the United States Attorney's Office, Southern District of Florida, 99 NE 4th Street, Miami, Fl. 33132.

From:    owner-fear-list@mapinc.org on behalf of Judy Osburn [openi420@starband.net]
Sent:    Tuesday, March 20, 2007 4:21 PM
To:    FEAR-list
Subject:    FEAR: New: 2007 FEAR-List Bulletins and full-text article index

Check out our new FEAR-List Bulletins archive of posts from this list for 2007. For educational purposes we are including the full text of linked articles (up to two weeks old as "fair use" of copyrighted material) wherever possible. Click on FEAR-List Bulletins on the fear.org website or go straight to
http://www.fear.org/list.html

Since news media companies often drop linked articles from their websites only a couple of weeks after they first publish stories, our new indexed 2007 FEAR-List Bulletins archive with full texts of articles will become an important tool for those of us who want to refresh our memories in preparing to lobby legislators, find specific facts to accurately spice up letters to the editor or legal briefs, or simply verify the specifics of a vaguely remembered outrageous forfeiture story.

I plan to keep web archives of FEAR-list Bulletins and linked articles updated every two weeks throughout the year, gradually building a complete archive -- from 2007 until we eventually succeed in accomplishing the changes in law needed to make FEAR obsolete as the historic organization that led the restoration of our nation's constitutional liberties of property rights, due process and protection from the cruel and unusual punishment of excessive forfeiture.

We also have a few assorted indexes of FEAR-List Bulletins from previous years listed at the bottom of the same web page. Please reply to me if you would like to help us by indexing archived FEAR-List Bulletins and available linked articles from previous years.

--Judy Osburn

From:    owner-fear-list@mapinc.org on behalf of Brenda Grantland [bgrantland1@comcast.net]
Sent:    Tuesday, March 20, 2007 11:09 PM
To:    don kearney; fear-list@mapinc.org
Subject:    FEAR: Good news about the US Attorney firing fiasco

== This may sound off-topic but it isn't. It's vitally important to our
cause. Please cross-post to other lists.   ==

The Bush administration's attempt to further upset the balance of powers
got dealt a big setback today on the firing of the US Attorneys issue.

... "With a 94-2 vote, the Senate passed a bill that canceled a Justice
Department-authored provision in the Patriot Act that had allowed the
attorney general to appoint U.S. attorneys without Senate
confirmation...." according to the article below. The bill still has
to pass in the House.

The firing of the US Attorneys, apparently with the intent that they
would be replaced unilaterally by Attorney General Gonzales, is yet
another affront to our Constitutional system of government arising from
a "little known provision of the PATRIOT Act."

When we first heard that the Bush administration had suddenly fired
eight US Attorneys, despite their high regard by the public, we thought
it alarming -- and highly suspicious. US Attorneys head up each of the
federal prosecutor's offices in the country and decide whose property to
seize and who to prosecute criminally. There couldn't be a more
outrageous place to have partisan politics at play than in the decision
of who the government goes after in criminal and forfeiture
prosecutions.   Prosecutors are supposed to be neutral. Their job is to
"do justice" - that is, to serve the best interests of the American
public in enforcing the laws and the Constitution - not the political
agenda of the president.

Fortunately, this story sprouted legs. The public and the news media
wondered what's up with that?

Why would the Bush administration fire US Attorneys it chose itself, and
who had all passed the Senate confirmation process while the Senate was
still controlled by Republicans? If the Bush administration fired them
for lack of loyalty to the administration's partisan policies and
re-interpretation of the Constitution -- as it appears given the
evidence that surfaced this week -- then how did the administation
expect to get a more loyal bunch through the Senate confirmation process
when the Senate was controlled by Democrats?

It seems pretty clear that they intended to use this little known
provision of the PATRIOT Act to have Gonzales appoint them without
Senate confirmation.

It's ironic that, now the plan has been foiled, whoever replaces the
fired US Attorneys will have to be subjected to scrutiny from a Senate
controlled by the opposite party -- for the first time in 6 years!

It's also ironic that the PATRIOT Act is finally being re-examined as a
result. September 11 happened in 2001. The PATRIOT Act was passed in
haste, before Congressmen actually read its provisions. At this late
date there should not be any more surprise expansions of the federal
bureaucracy's power, justified by "little known provisions of the
PATRIOT Act."   The entire PATRIOT Act needs to be repealed.

Brenda Grantland
President, Board of Directors
Forfeiture Endangers American Rights Foundation
www.fear.org

Senate Limits Gonzales' Hiring Authority by 94-2 Vote
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/032007S.shtml
The Senate voted overwhelmingly Tuesday to end the Bush administration's ability to unilaterally fill US attorney vacancies. The vote was a backlash to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' firing of eight federal prosecutors

Senate Limits Gonzales' Hiring Authority

    By Pete Yost and Lara Jakes Jordan
    The Associated Press

    Tuesday 20 March 2007

    Washington - The Senate voted overwhelmingly Tuesday to end the Bush
administration's ability to unilaterally fill U.S. attorney vacancies as a
backlash to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' firing of eight federal
prosecutors.

    Amid calls from lawmakers in both parties to resign, Gonzales got a morale
boost with an early-morning call from President Bush, their first conversation
since a week ago, when the president said he was unhappy with how the Justice
Department handled the firings.

    With a 94-2 vote, the Senate passed a bill that canceled a Justice
Department-authored provision in the Patriot Act that had allowed the attorney
general to appoint U.S. attorneys without Senate confirmation. Democrats say
the Bush administration abused that authority when it fired the eight
prosecutors and proposed replacing some with White House loyalists.

    "If you politicize the prosecutors, you politicize everybody in the whole
chain of law enforcement," said Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-
Vt.

    The bill, which has yet to be considered in the House, would set a 120-day
deadline for the administration to appoint an interim prosecutor. If the
interim appointment is not confirmed by the Senate in that time, a permanent
replacement would be named by a federal district judge.

    Essentially, the Senate returned the law regarding the appointments of
U.S. attorneys to where it was before Congress passed the Patriot Act,
including the unilateral appointment authority the administration had sought
in the wake of the 9/11 terror attacks.

    The vote came as Gonzales and the White House braced for more fallout from
the firings. The White House also denied reports that it was looking for
possible successors for Gonzales. "Those rumors are untrue," White House
deputy press secretary Dana Perino said.

    Bush called Gonzales from the Oval Office at 7:15 a.m. EDT and they spoke
for several minutes about the political uproar over the firings of eight U.S.
attorneys, an issue that has thrust the attorney general into controversy and
raised questions about whether he can survive. The White House disclosed
Bush's call to bolster Gonzales and attempt to rally Republicans to support
him.

    Meeting later with reporters, White House press secretary Tony Snow
characterized Bush's call to the attorney general as "a very strong vote of
confidence."

    Snow said Bush believes the firings were justified.

    "Let me put it this way: Nobody was removed for reasons of partisan
recrimination; nor was anybody removed for the purposes of trying to influence
the course of ongoing investigations," Snow said.

    He called reports that Bush was seeking a replacement for Gonzales "just
flat false, period."

    Former House Republican Leader Tom DeLay had said earlier Tuesday that the
scandal "is just a taste of what's going to be like for the next two years."

    "And the Bush administration sort of showed their weakness when they got
rid of Don Rumsfeld," the Texan said on NBC's "Today" show. "... This is a
made up scandal. There is no evidence of wrongdoing whatsoever.... They ought
to be fighting back."

    Bush's call came as congressional investigators sifted through 3,000-pages
of e-mails and other material concerning the dismissal of the prosecutors.
Some of the documents spelled out fears in the Bush administration that the
dismissals of eight U.S. attorneys might not stand up to scrutiny.

    The documents were not the end of the inquiry. House and Senate panels
later in the week expected to approve subpoenas to White House aides Karl
Rove, former counsel Harriet Miers and others. Miers' successor, Fred
Fielding, was to tell the Judiciary Committees later Tuesday whether and under
what conditions Bush would allow the officials to testify.

    But the documents told more of the story of the run-up to the firings and
the administration's attempt to choreograph them to reduce the bloodletting.
It didn't work out that way - the prosecutors were shocked and angered by the
dismissals, the lack of explanation from the Justice Department and news
reports that the administration fired the eight for performance reasons.

    The documents that Congress will focus on in the coming days show that
Gonzales was unhappy with how Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty explained
the firings to the Senate Judiciary Committee in early February.

    "The Attorney General is extremely upset with the stories on the US
Attorneys this morning," Justice spokesman Brian Roehrkasse, who was traveling
with Gonzales in South America at the time, wrote in a Feb. 7 e-mail. "He also
thought some of the DAG's statements were inaccurate."

    In a statement Monday night, Roehrkasse said he was referring to Gonzales'
concerns over the firing of Bud Cummins in Little Rock, who he believed was
dismissed because of performance issues. At the hearing, McNulty indicated
Cummins was being replaced by a political ally.

    Neither of the two most senior Republicans on the Senate Judiciary
Committee are stepping forward to endorse Gonzales, but likewise are not
calling for his ouster. Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania said he will
reserve judgment until he gets all the facts. Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah has not
given interviews on the subject, his spokesman said.

    Speculation has abounded over who might succeed Gonzales if he doesn't
survive the current political tumult. Possible candidates include White House
homeland security adviser Frances Fragos Townsend, Homeland Security Secretary
Michael Chertoff, former Solicitor General Ted Olson, Assistant Attorney
General Kenneth Wainstein, federal appeals judge Laurence Silberman and
PepsiCo attorney Larry Thompson, who was the government's highest ranking
black law enforcement official when he was deputy attorney general during
Bush's first term.

From:    owner-fear-list@mapinc.org on behalf of Jody Neal-Post [jodynealpost@sprintmail.com]
Sent:    Wednesday, March 21, 2007 7:14 AM
To:    Fear
Subject:    FEAR: Cutting back governmental powers???

<http://alm.rsys1.net/servlet/cc5?HtuUQTWBQTVrhKPgLHtihklxkijpgluHptQJhu
VaVTT> Lawmakers Warn FBI It Could Lose Broad Spying Power Following
Revelations of Abuses
The Associated Press

Republicans and Democrats warned the FBI on Tuesday that it could lose
its broad power to collect telephone, e-mail and financial records to
hunt terrorists after revelations of widespread abuses of the authority
detailed in a recent internal investigation. Their threats came as the
DOJ's chief watchdog, Glenn A. Fine, told the House Judiciary Committee
that the FBI misused its authority in illegally collecting the
information from Americans and foreigners through so-called national
security letters.

Lawmakers Warn FBI It Could Lose Broad Spying Power Following Revelations of Abuses

Julie Hirschfeld Davis
The Associated Press
March 21, 2007

Republicans and Democrats sternly warned the FBI on Tuesday that it could lose its broad power to collect telephone, e-mail and financial records to hunt terrorists after revelations of widespread abuses of the authority detailed in a recent internal investigation.

Their threats came as the Justice Department's chief watchdog, Glenn A. Fine, told the House Judiciary Committee that the FBI engaged in widespread and serious misuse of its authority in illegally collecting the information from Americans and foreigners through so-called national security letters.

If the FBI doesn't move swiftly to correct the mistakes and problems revealed last week in Fine's 130-page report, "you probably won't have NSL authority," said Rep. Dan Lungren, R-Calif., a supporter of the power, referring to the data requests by their initials.

"From the attorney general on down, you should be ashamed of yourself," said Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif. "We stretched to try to give you the tools necessary to make America safe, and it is very, very clear that you've abused that trust."

If Congress revokes some of the expansive law enforcement powers it granted in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, Issa said, "America may be less safe, but the Constitution will be more secure, and it will be because of your failure to deal with this in a serious fashion."

The FBI's failure to establish sufficient controls or oversight for collecting the information constituted "serious and unacceptable" failures, Fine told the committee.

Democrats called Fine's findings an example of how the Justice Department has used broad counterterrorism authorities to trample on privacy rights.

"This was a serious breach of trust," said Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., the Judiciary chairman. "The department had converted this tool into a handy shortcut to illegally gather vast amounts of private information while at the same time significantly underreporting its activities to Congress."

Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., said Congress should revise the USA Patriot Act, which substantially loosened controls over the letters.

"We do not trust government always to be run by angels, especially not this administration," Nadler said. "It is not enough to mandate that the FBI fix internal management problems and recordkeeping, because the statute itself authorizes the unchecked collection of information on innocent Americans."

Some Republicans, however, said the FBI's expanded spying powers were vital to tracking terrorists.

"The problem is enforcement of the law, not the law itself," said Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, the panel's senior GOP member. "We need to be vigilant to make sure these problems are fixed."

Fine said he did not believe the problems were intentional, although he acknowledged he could not rule that out.

"We believe the misuses and the problems we found generally were the product of mistakes, carelessness, confusion, sloppiness lack of training, lack of adequate guidance and lack of adequate oversight," Fine said.

"It really was unacceptable and inexcusable what happened here," he added under questioning.

Valerie Caproni, the FBI's general counsel, said she took responsibility for the abuses and believed they could be fixed in a matter of months.

"We're going to have to work to get the trust of this committee back, and we know that's what we have to do, and we're going to do it," she said.

In a review of headquarters files and a sampling of just four of the FBI's 56 field offices, Fine found 48 violations of law or presidential directives during between 2003 and 2005, including failure to get proper authorization, making improper requests and unauthorized collection of telephone or Internet e-mail records. He estimated that "a significant number of ... violations throughout the FBI have not been identified or reported."

The bureau has launched an audit of all 56 field offices to determine the full extent of the problem. The Senate Judiciary Committee is to hear Wednesday from Fine on his findings, and will likely question FBI Director Robert Mueller on it at a broader hearing March 27.

In 1986, Congress first authorized FBI agents to obtain electronic records without approval from a judge using national security letters. The letters can be used to acquire e-mails, telephone, travel records and financial information, like credit and bank transactions.

In 2001, the Patriot Act eliminated any requirement that the records belong to someone under suspicion. Now an innocent person's records can be obtained if FBI field agents consider them merely relevant to an ongoing terrorism or spying investigation.

Fine's review, authorized by Congress over Bush administration objections, concluded the number of national security letters requested by the FBI skyrocketed after the Patriot Act became law in 2001.

Fine found more than 700 cases in which FBI agents obtained telephone records through "exigent letters" which asserted that grand jury subpoenas had been requested for the data, when in fact such subpoenas never been sought.

Copyright 2007 Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

From:    owner-fear-list@mapinc.org on behalf of Jody Neal-Post [jodynealpost@sprintmail.com]
Sent:    Saturday, March 24, 2007 12:58 PM
To:    'Fear'
Subject:    FEAR: Case Law: Reversal of forfeiture summary judgment

US v. Real Property Located at 3234 Washington Ave. N. (03/22/07 - No.
06-1983)
In a forfeiture action involving property which has acted as a clubhouse
for the Minnesota chapter of Hell's Angels Motorcycle Club, summary
judgment for the government is reversed where conflicting witness
testimony created genuine issues of material fact regarding the
existence of a substantial connection between the property and alleged
drug activity.
[To view the full-text of cases you must sign
<http://login.findlaw.com/scripts/case_login?dest=http://caselaw.lp.find
law.com/data2/circs/8th/061983p.pdf> in to FindLaw.com.]
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/8th/061983p.pdf
available here

From:    owner-fear-list@mapinc.org on behalf of Brenda Grantland [bgrantland1@comcast.net]
Sent:    Tuesday, March 27, 2007 9:21 PM
To:    fear-list@mapinc.org
Subject:    FEAR: IN: County prosecutor promised a contingency fee on what he forfeits

Just when you thought you'd heard everything they could possibly come up
with to abuse forfeiture laws...

It seems Henry County Indiana contracted with an attorney -- a
"forfeiture specialist" -- to prosecute its asset forfeiture cases for a
contingency fee. If successful the special prosecutor gets to keep 30%
of the forfeited assets -- 40% if the case goes to trial. That's a big
deal in this case, where the seized assets added up to $3.7 million.

According to Henry County prosecutor Kit Crane, "the amount is typical
in seizure cases."

No, it's not. This is the first time we have ever heard of a prosecutor
having a contingency agreement to prosecute forfeiture cases. It seems
like a clear violation of legal ethics, the basic principles of law
enforcement, AND the Due Process clause.

If it has happened before, we want to hear about it.

State’s lawyer in Neal case may get 30 percent of assets ...
<http://www.theheraldbulletin.com/local/local_story_086211952.html>
Anderson Herald Bulletin - Anderson,IN,USA
Most prosecutors don’t have the litigation expertise to handle civil forfeiture
cases, especially ones under Indiana’s RICO statute, or Racketeer Influenced ...

Published March 27, 2007 09:19 pm -

The attorney representing the state in the John L. Neal civil case could end up reaping a windfall — if he’s ultimately successful.

9:19 p.m.: State’s lawyer in Neal case may get 30 percent of assets if successful

Shawn McGrath

shawn.mcgrath@heraldbulletin.com

The attorney representing the state in the John L. Neal civil case could end up reaping a windfall — if he’s ultimately successful.

J. Gregory Garrison stands to earn 30 percent of all the assets seized and forfeited from the case in the expansive Neal case, according to a contract he entered into with former Madison County Prosecutor Rodney Cummings. If the case goes to trial, and Garrison is successful, he gets 40 percent of the seized property.

In Neal’s home alone, investigators seized roughly $1.7 million, and police have said they discovered nearly $2 million in various bank accounts. And that estimate doesn’t take into account the number of taverns, vehicles and various other property seized in September in the raids.

Garrison’s contract is dated Feb. 15, 2006. And along with a percentage of the seized property, he’s also reimbursed for all out-of-pocket expenses. Any expense over $500, however, must first be approved by the prosecutor.

Henry County Prosecutor Kit Crane, the special prosecutor selected to handle the massive criminal case against Neal and the many codefendants, re-affirmed Garrison’s contract after Cummings lost his re-election bid in November.

Garrison did not return a message seeking comment.

Crane defended Garrison’s contract, saying the amount is typical in seizure cases. Most prosecutors don’t have the litigation expertise to handle civil forfeiture cases, especially ones under Indiana’s RICO statute, or Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations.

“It’s very common,” Crane said. “I don’t have the resources to adequately have a good forfeiture program. We haven’t had the resources required.

“It might sound steep, but the prosecutor’s office doesn’t have the resources or expertise to tackle those civil cases.”

Crane said he’s had a standing contract with Garrison to handle Henry County’s forfeiture cases for the last several years. But in those, the money seized, minus Garrison’s compensation, covered only the cost of any investigation into the original criminal acts.

“It’s 60 percent that we wouldn’t have received,” he said. “Sixty percent is better than zero. And it’s a good tool.”

The state has two forfeiture laws dealing with criminal activity: a general forfeiture statute and the RICO statute.

Under the general forfeiture law, the money seized is first used to reimburse the costs of any criminal investigation and an attorney’s fees if one is hired to handle the case. What’s left over is supposed to go into Indiana’s common school fund, to help pay for the education the state’s students.

But what happens to money seized using the state’s RICO act isn’t as clear.

The statute reads “... the court shall ... order the property forfeited to the state and specify the manner of disposition of the property, including the manner of the disposition if the property is not transferable for value.”

That meaning is pretty clear to University of Notre Dame law professor Jimmy Gurule, a former undersecretary for the U.S. Department of Treasury and co-author of a book on the law of asset forfeiture.

Gurule said the statute means the judge decides how the assets are to be disposed, and that the resulting money goes to Indiana.

“It goes to the state treasury,” he said.

But Cummings said the seized money would go into the Madison County prosecutor law enforcement fund. As its name suggests, the money is used for law enforcement activities and equipment.

“It’s in the RICO statute,” he said. “You can do whatever you want with it. (But) you still have to have expenditures approved by the county council.”

According to the Madison County Auditor’s Office, there’s currently slightly less than $1,200 in the fund. At the start of the year, the fund had a balance of about $3,300. The fund is budgeted to cover $22,000 in expenses for this year.

The money in the fund can be spent on salaries, computers and office equipment — and even cars, if there’s enough funding, Cummings said.

“Anything related to law enforcement,” he said, adding the fund’s been in existence for about a decade. “We’ve collected money into that fund from drug seizures for years.

“You can buy anything you want, but the council has to approve it.”

But Gurule believes the money shouldn’t go to the prosecutor’s office because it creates “unseemly appearance.”

“Why I don’t like that is it creates an appearance of impropriety,” Gurule said. “It creates an appearance of conflict of interest.”

During Gurule’s two-year stint with the U.S. Department of Treasury, he had oversight responsibilities for the U.S. Secret Service, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network and the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, among others. He’s also worked as an assistant U.S. Attorney, serving as deputy chief of the Major Narcotics Section of the Los Angeles U.S. Attorney’s Office.

By having the money go to the prosecutor’s law enforcement fund — and not the state treasury — it gives the impression that investigators and prosecutors are acting in their own interest — and not the state’s — when seizing assets, Gurule said.

“I think the prosecutor should be motivated by ... enforcing the law and seeing that justice is done,” he said. “There shouldn’t be this secondary motivation. It creates a very unseemly appearance.

“Forfeiture money shouldn’t be money in a cookie jar that the prosecutor divvies up as he sees fit. I’m uncomfortable with that. I don’t see that in the statute.”

From:    owner-fear-list@mapinc.org on behalf of Brenda Grantland [bgrantland1@comcast.net]
Sent:    Thursday, March 29, 2007 8:58 PM
To:    fear-list@mapinc.org
Subject:    FEAR: WA: Toddler denied cash, but may get car in drug forfeiture case

Toddler denied cash, but may get car in drug forfeiture case
<http://www.yakima-herald.com/page/dis/347259369103658>
Yakima Herald-Republic - Yakima,WA,USA
Under forfeiture laws, the city of Sunnyside seized the cash, the BMW and
another $9300 found in Torres' pants pocket during the autopsy. ...

Published on Thursday, March 29, 2007

Toddler denied cash, but may get car in drug forfeiture case

By CHRIS BRISTOL
YAKIMA HERALD-REPUBLIC

A toddler whose father was slain in a drug deal two years ago in Sunnyside is not entitled to keep nearly $58,000 in drug money seized by police, a Yakima County judge has ruled.

But Superior Court Judge F. James Gavin, in a ruling issued Wednesday, said the son of Jesus Jaime Torres does have a valid "innocent owner" property claim to his dead father's car, a 1997 BMW that also was seized by police.

The controversial case appears to be without clear precedent, and lawyers have said Gavin's ruling potentially has limited but far-reaching effects on drug forfeiture laws.

The case stemmed from a spectacular shootout at the Parkland Homes trailer court in Sunnyside on June 28, 2005. As many as 80 shots were fired at almost point-blank range involving five men, including Torres, who was there allegedly buying drugs. All five were wounded, two of them fatally.

At the scene, police found five kilos of a substance that appeared to be cocaine but turned out to be ground-up gypsum, also known as wallboad or Sheetrock. When police inspected another package apparently of cocaine, it turned out to be to be a stack of cash totaling $57,990 -- the street price of five kilos of cocaine.

Under forfeiture laws, the city of Sunnyside seized the cash, the BMW and another $9,300 found in Torres' pants pocket during the autopsy.

A month before the shooting, Torres' girlfriend, Lorena Contreras, had given birth to a baby fathered by Torres. She wanted to get the BMW back, but since the couple wasn't married, she had no legal standing.

Instead, her attorney, Todd Harms of Kennewick, appeared in court to represent the son and argued in a hearing in Yakima last week that Torres' son was entitled as his father's heir to the car -- and the cash -- on the basis of an "innocent owner" exception to forfeiture laws.

Gavin, in his ruling Wednesday, agreed that the exception partly applied in the case and that the boy, now almost 2, has a legal claim to the car under probate law.

But the judge also said the $57,990 in "buy money" was not part of Torres' estate because he had already consummated the drug deal before the shooting began.

"The money was turned over, and the alleged drugs were delivered," Gavin wrote. "By doing so, Mr. Torres relinquished ownership of the money to the person from whom he was buying the drugs.

"He no longer owned the money."

Harms said he was still digesting Gavin's ruling and was unsure if he would appeal. Last week he vowed to take the case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, but he was more circumspect Wednesday.

"You never know what an appeals court would do," Harms said. "They could decide that Judge Gavin is incorrect on other parts, and we could potentially lose ground."

Mark Kunkler, city attorney for Sunnyside, was not available for comment.

No one was ever charged in the Parkland Homes shooting, though one man, Alvaro C. Perez, is now facing an unrelated murder charge in the Los Angeles area.

Police later surmised the gun battle was the product of a drug rip-off and that Torres, 24, had driven over from Pasco with a friend to buy the cocaine. The buy money apparently was his.

At the conclusion of last week's hearing in Yakima County Superior Court, Gavin immediately awarded the child the $9,300 found in Torres' pocket. The judge ruled there was no evidence the smaller amount of cash was part of the drug deal.

* Chris Bristol can be reached at 577-7748 or cbristol@yakimaherald.com.

MORE ON THE WEB

Download the ruling in thiscase at: yakimaherald.com/pdf/032807drug_seizure_case.pd