Wait for fascist Senate to torpedo this one! CIA
Clinton will do everything in his power to stop this one. Doubtful that
his veto can be over-ridden even if the Senate goes along....Lloyd
PS Too good to come to pass.
-----Original Message-----
From: Divinewill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Friday, June 25, 1999 3:16 PM
Subject: [Reality_Pump] Hyde's Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act Passes House
From: Divinewill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Friday, June 25, 1999 3:16 PM
Subject: [Reality_Pump] Hyde's Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act Passes House
Hyde's Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act
Passes House
Easily
(press release from the Drug Policy Foundation,
http://www.dpf.org)
WASHINGTON, June 24 -- The Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act
of 1999, a bill sponsored by Reps. Henry Hyde (R-IL), John
Conyers (D-MI), Bob Barr (R-GA) and Barney Frank (D-MA),
sailed through the House of Representatives by a 375-48
margin at 5:05pm today.
"This is the most important property-rights legislation to
come out of the House this year," said Drug Policy
Foundation Senior Policy Analyst Scott Ehlers. "Americans
are a step closer to being protected from some of the worst
abuses of police power."
Ehlers said that proponents of the bill were hoping that it
would pass by a wide enough margin for the Senate to take
notice. "The House has clearly and resoundingly said that
property rights are important and that the Senate should
pass this bill."
An amendment by Reps. Asa Hutchinson (R-AR) and Anthony
Weiner (D-NY), which would have watered down H.R. 1658 and
strengthened civil asset forfeiture laws, failed by a 268-
155 vote. H.R. 1658 would make numerous changes to civil
forfeiture law, including:
* Forcing the government to prove that seized property is
related to a crime, as opposed to the current practice of
the owners' having to prove that their property is not
guilty;
* Creating an "innocent owner" defense, whereby property
owners unaware of criminal activity occurring on their
property could recover their property;
* Providing indigent defendants with appointed counsel; and
* Eliminating the cost-bond requirement, which currently
requires property owners to pay up to $5,000 or 10 percent
of the seized property's value in order to contest the
seizure in court.
(Thanks to the many of you who responded to our asset
forfeiture alerts. We will alert you when there is a bill
to lobby for in the Senate. Visit http://www.fear.org for
further information.)
================
Easily
(press release from the Drug Policy Foundation,
http://www.dpf.org)
WASHINGTON, June 24 -- The Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act
of 1999, a bill sponsored by Reps. Henry Hyde (R-IL), John
Conyers (D-MI), Bob Barr (R-GA) and Barney Frank (D-MA),
sailed through the House of Representatives by a 375-48
margin at 5:05pm today.
"This is the most important property-rights legislation to
come out of the House this year," said Drug Policy
Foundation Senior Policy Analyst Scott Ehlers. "Americans
are a step closer to being protected from some of the worst
abuses of police power."
Ehlers said that proponents of the bill were hoping that it
would pass by a wide enough margin for the Senate to take
notice. "The House has clearly and resoundingly said that
property rights are important and that the Senate should
pass this bill."
An amendment by Reps. Asa Hutchinson (R-AR) and Anthony
Weiner (D-NY), which would have watered down H.R. 1658 and
strengthened civil asset forfeiture laws, failed by a 268-
155 vote. H.R. 1658 would make numerous changes to civil
forfeiture law, including:
* Forcing the government to prove that seized property is
related to a crime, as opposed to the current practice of
the owners' having to prove that their property is not
guilty;
* Creating an "innocent owner" defense, whereby property
owners unaware of criminal activity occurring on their
property could recover their property;
* Providing indigent defendants with appointed counsel; and
* Eliminating the cost-bond requirement, which currently
requires property owners to pay up to $5,000 or 10 percent
of the seized property's value in order to contest the
seizure in court.
(Thanks to the many of you who responded to our asset
forfeiture alerts. We will alert you when there is a bill
to lobby for in the Senate. Visit http://www.fear.org for
further information.)
================
Click Here!
