Four things hit my attention today that reminded me of more
ALEC state nastiness that most people wouldn’t be aware of.
Like most times when pulling this together, I will rely on the
actual words of ALEC, rather than summarizing them for the reader. I do this because I want you to see the
actual ALEC’s nastiness and not me just reinterpreting on what could be ALEC
nastiness.
This entry really ended up morphing into two topics.
The EVIL of ALEC at
the state and federal level.
And subsequently
The new EVIL of
ALEC at the local – municipal – level.
First:
A recent article that was precipitated by the recent incidents in Ferguson Missouri
Which made me think of
this - - -
an old
petition:
End policing for profit in Minnesota
In Minnesota
every year, law enforcement agents seize millions of dollars from people during
traffic stops, simply by asserting that the money is connected to some illegal
drug activity. Frequently officers don’t have a warrant and never get a
conviction of criminal charges.
Innocent Minnesotans should not lose their property through
civil forfeiture.
Asset seizures often disproportionately impact those who can
afford it least—low-income African-American or Latino people whom the police
decide look suspicious and for whom the challenge of trying to get property
back is often prohibitively expensive.
ACT NOW: End policing for profit in Minnesota.
Which made me think of
this - - -
(my emphasis)
the most comprehensive national study to examine the use and
abuse of civil asset forfeiture and the first study to grade the civil
forfeiture laws of all 50 states and the federal government.
However, in most places, owners bear the burden of
establishing their innocence. In other words, with civil forfeiture, property
owners are effectively guilty until proven innocent.
In 2008, for the first time in history, the U.S. Department
of Justice’s Assets Forfeiture Fund (AFF) held more than $1 billion in net
assets—
State data reveal that state and local law enforcement also
use forfeiture extensively: From 2001 to 2002, currency forfeitures alone in
just nine states totaled more than $70 million.
Imagine being pulled over and a law enforcement officer
decides to take your car, cash or other personal property. The officer claims
that he has probable cause to believe not necessarily that you are guilty of
any illegal conduct but that your property was used to facilitate illegal
activity. Perhaps the officer thinks you are carrying a larger-than-normal
amount of cash or that your travel pattern is “suspicious.”
Once your property is taken, the government
will—perhaps—send you a notice letting you know that the burden is on you to
try to get your property back. If you do not respond within the right time
frame and in the proper manner, law enforcement automatically gets to keep your
seized property.
In 1984, Congress
amended portions of the
Comprehensive Drug Abuse and Prevention Act of 1970 to create the Assets Forfeiture Fund, into the most troubling
aspect of modern civil forfeiture laws is the profit incentive at their core.
After the 1984 amendments, federal agencies were able to
retain and spend forfeiture proceeds—subject only to very loose
restrictions—giving them a direct financial stake in generating forfeiture
funds.
1984 Ronald Regan was the President of the United States.
1984 US
Attorney General was William French Smith
From the 1984 ALEC
Annual Meeting program:
and (my emphasis)
Though President Reagan's schedule makes it impossible for
him to be with you, I want you to know that he personally salutes your
achievements and completely shares in the spirit of your celebration.
Faith Ryan Whittlesey,
Assistant to the President for Public Liaison
While I will be unable to attend the Eleventh Annual Meeting
personally, I want to again express to you and your fellow ALEC legislators my
appreciation for your continued interest in judicial reform issues. While
President Reagan has taken the initiative in proposing criminal justice reforms
at the Federal level, many ALEC legislators have been in the forefront of
enacting these same reforms at the state level. Your seminars and publications
on these issues have been an excellent reference for many. Best wishes for a
successful convention.
William French Smith,
Attorney General
At that same annual meeting you have this –
12:30-pm Lunch
Speaker: J. Kenneth Cribb, Jr, Assistant Counselor to the President
"The Reagan Administration and Criminal justice"
Which brought me to this
– from two years
earlier
1982
ALEC State
Factor newsletter distributed to all their members- including Congressional
Alumni and Federal Government agency employees who were sympathetic to ALEC governance
preferences:
RAISING REVENUE WITHOUT RAISING TAXES (part D)
second part of a three-part study series
OPTION ONE: FORFEITURE OF ASSETS
One very ingenious method of raising revenue is to enact a
"forfeiture of assets" amendment to state criminal justice statutes.
Simply stated, forfeiture is a proven method for law enforcement agents to
confiscate and sell at auction the goods and commodities traceable to a
criminal activity. The genius of a forfeiture amendment is that it does not
directly involve an alleged offender; law enforcement officers do not have to
prove that a person engaged in a criminal activity. Instead, forfeiture simply
requires authorities to prove "more likely than not" (not "beyond
a reasonable doubt") that a good or commodity was acquired because of a
criminal activity. The key to that distinction is writing the forfeiture
statute as part of civil law rather than criminal law. Authorities must still
demonstrate "probable cause," but the burden of proof (mentioned
above) is somewhat lighter.
Similiarly, [sic] Arizona
and Florida
officials were able to raise a combined $175 million after eighteen months'
enforcement of state pornography-related forfeiture laws.
The forfeiture [sic] statute allows authorities to
confiscate and sell boats, cars, equipment, bank accounts, houses, and any
other item
Collectively, a mass confiscation of all these items can be
worth billions of dollars. …for resale purposes; … Most
of the items can be sold for widespread purposes.
How do we know if this would have moved to the state level
without ALEC?
We don’t.
But - being that Florida and Arizona were involved initially - it's a pretty good guess. Historically, these states have brought lots of nastiness to ALEC to pass around the country.
But with the hidden, secret influence ALEC has held over
state legislature for the past 40 years – it is fair to believe that the state
enactment of forfeiture laws can be directly tied to ALEC.
1993
ALEC
COMPREHENSIVE ASSET FORFEITURE ACT
Seizure – without
process on probable cause
1998
Chicago
Annual meeting, Criminal Justice Task Force meeting
The Cato Institute's noted constitutional scholar, Roger Pilon,
will be discussing the Constitutional merits of ALEC's asset forfeiture
legislation.
Constitutional merits of ALEC's asset forfeiture
legislation - WTH?
1999
Enactment of the
Adopted by ALEC Criminal Justice Task Force at the States
and Nation Policy Summit
December 9, 1999. Approved by the full
ALEC Board of Directors January, 2000.
2011 Annual
Meeting in NOLA – Public Safety and Elections TaskForce meeting
(my emphasis)
ALEC has passed policy on civil asset forfeiture and will
consider a motion
to repeal the current model and replace it with an extended
version.
“Asset Forfeiture Process and Private Property Protection
Act”
Mr. Lee McGrath, Institute for Justice
To replace “ALEC Comprehensive Asset Forfeiture Act” (2000)
Importantly, this model does not change the authority of law
enforcement to seize property suspected of being associated with crime or limit
in any way prosecutors’ ability to charge and prosecute suspected criminals.
Moreover, it ensures that those individuals proven guilty of a crime do not
keep the fruits of their crime. In doing so, it strikes the right balance
between the individual property rights and public safety.
Later in 2011
November - Public Safety and Elections Task Force Agenda and minutes
The Subcommittee will consider policies and hold an advisory
vote on civil asset forfeiture and transparency in criminal law.
Motion to repeal
existing “Comprehensive Asset Forfeiture Act”; failed the public sector; Motion Failed. Motion to table the “Asset Forfeiture and
Private Property Protection Act”; passed the public sector; passed the private
sector; Bill Tabled.
The same guy that introduced the repeal of the
Comprehensive Asset
Forfeiture Act”;
which failed the
public sector; Motion Failed.
In 2011
Wrote this to ALEC members in the:
2012 Inside ALEC
| February
Civil forfeiture is one of the most serious assaults on property
rights in America
today. With civil forfeiture— unlike criminal forfeiture—law enforcement in
most states can take your property without even so much as charging you with a
crime, let alone convicting you of one.
ALEC adopted new model forfeiture policy in January.
ALEC’s Asset Forfeiture Process and Private Property
Protection
Act does the following three important things:
1. It ends civil forfeiture and replaces it with criminal
forfeiture;
(under civil
forfeiture, owners need not be convicted of any crime
to lose homes, cars,
businesses, cash or other property.)
2. It requires all forfeiture proceeds to be deposited in
the state
treasury and does not allow them to supplement the budgets
of local law enforcement; and
3. It shifts the burden to the state to prove that someone
whose
property has been seized and claims to be an innocent owner
did not have actual knowledge of the crime committed by
someone else with their property.
ALEC’s model policy allows law enforcement to hold seized
property for investigatory reasons
Proceeds to states from forfeiture now exceed $500 million
per year. In only eight states are the proceeds from forfeitures under state
law deposited in the state’s general treasury. In the other 42 states, local
law enforcement gets at least half of the proceeds including 26 states where
100 percent of the proceeds supplement the budgets of the law enforcement
agencies
The potential for abuse is rooted in this potential to make money.
As documented in legal cases found in
the past and recent press (for reasons other than the topic of this entry) – potential of abuse
– for monetary gain - can extend to
state legislative members of the American Legislative Exchange.
Which made me think of
this - - -
ALEC's Hatred of Municipal Money
As noted above in the 2012 article, the ALEC adopted new model forfeiture policy included:
“to be deposited
in the state treasury
and
does not allow
them to supplement the budgets
of local law
enforcement”
Think about that!
ALEC hates local control.
So in ALEC states where this new version of the forfeiture policy passes
they will basically be telling municipalities:
Turn over what you seize to the ALEC state legislature.
It’s the money
to the cities
It’s the ordinances
It the fines that they
collect that they get to keep and
It’s all about that
Keeping money out of local treasuries, regardless of how it
is obtained – is a goal of ALEC.
Which brings us to this -
- -
ALEC hates local control
and
they are actively seeking
and finding
city and county employees who are willing help them
destroy local
government.
ACCE
So - -
ALEC EVIL move throughout the system
How does that movement work?
From Federal law
Possibly to state law – pushed by ALEC state legislative
members
And now
To local laws – which will be pushed by municipal ALEC
members
#VoteNo2ALEC
ALEC is one nasty,
evil organization.
ALEC hates the
control of the Federal government.
ALEC hates control at
the local level.
They only want evil,
fascist ALEC state legislative members to have control.
Its why they refer to STATES rights
It's why they are concerned with STATE sovereignty.
