Subject:         Privacy alerts; civil asset forfeiture
   Date:     Wed, 9 Feb 2000 17:59:42 -0500
   From:    JBJ
 

[Several issues are coming to the forefront in Congress.  Importantly, the civil asset forfeiture reform bill that passed overwhelmingly on the House side is now stalled in the Senate Judiciary Cmte.  Medical and financial privacy remain hot topics.  Updates from the Liberty Study Cmte, ACLU, LP...

Also, the Financial Times reported February 4, 2000 (Latin America no better off now, says World Bank) that the US Treasury's attempt at a more sophisticated form of gunboat diplomacy is alive and well, "During the one-day meeting, held on Mexico's Caribbean coast where drug trafficking has surged in recent years, the ministers agreed ... to launch a South American Financial Action Task Force [aiming] to provide recommendations on specific actions that governments should take," according to US Treasury Secretary Larry Summers.  The FATF was used by US officials to badger other countries to adopt measures rejected here such as the hated Know Your Customer proposal.  "Recommendations" from a nuclear power to smaller Latin countries... As I've reported earlier, this resentment is setting the stage for trade disputes and other diplomatic problems.  One US official even complained that countries not following his dictates should be brought to task for "trying to export their sovereignty," ie, set their own laws!  JBJ]

Kent Snyder, Executive Director of the Liberty Study Cmte, http://www.libertystudy.org sends this:

Dear friend of liberty,

Your private medical records and those of your children will soon be an open file - without your consent or knowledge!  This is no joke.

"An unconstitutional and dangerous rulemaking procedure by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is underway and greatly threatens the health care privacy and freedom of Americans," Congressman Ron Paul (a practicing physician himself) stated recently.

The mainstream media have been touting the medical privacy regulations proposed by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), but what they have not told you is that under the proposed regulations the following people and organizations (to name a few) will have access to your medical records and those of your children without your consent or knowledge:

     1.  law enforcement officials (no warrant needed)
     2.  medical researchers and students
     3.  governments agents
     4.  banks in order to process health care payments and premiums
     5.  government health data systems.

"The proposed regulations do not guarantee true protection of  medical privacy.  In fact, they are the first step toward creating a centralized database for electronic medical records,"  according to a special report published by Institute for Health Freedom.

HHS will accept comments from the public about their proposed rules until February 17, 2000.  Please help stop this unbelievable yet true plan of our national government.

Every American needs to know what you now know.  Please help with this nationwide, grassroots effort.  Go to  http://www.StopBigBrother.org today.

Government officials and bureaucrats, regardless of nation or time in history, work to increase their power when the populace is complacent during times of prosperity or humble during times of adversity.

Please don't be complacent.  Go to http://www.StopBigBrother.org  now.  Please forward this message to family and friends.
-----------------------------------
 

TO: ACLU Action Network
FR: Jared Feuer, Online Organizer
DT: February 8, 2000

     1. Secret Evidence
     2. Senate must stop law enforcement from seizing American's property!
     3. Update on Medical Records Privacy

     1. On Thursday, February 10, a House Judiciary subcommittee will consider legislation that would force the government to stop its increasing use of "secret evidence" to unfairly detain otherwise legal immigrants.

 Currently, about two dozen people are being held in American prisons solely on the basis of evidence that neither they or their lawyers have been able to review and dispute. This completely un-American process was authorized in 1996 as part of a wave of anti-immigrant hysteria.

 In one of the most prominent secret evidence cases, the ACLU represents Nasser Ahmed, a 37-year-old Egyptian immigrant who had been separated from his family, detained, and denied a claim of political asylum based on evidence that the government refuses to disclose. After more than 3 and a half years in immigration detention -- most of which was spent in solitary confinement -- the INS released Mr. Ahmed. The immigration judge reviewing his case said the secret evidence was unreliable because, among other things, it was double or even triple hearsay.

 ACT NOW! Urge the House of Representatives to vote on and pass the "Secret Evidence Repeal Act," HR 2121, which was introduced by Reps. Tom Campbell, R-CA, and David Bonior, D-MI, to ensure that no immigrant is deported or denied any benefit under the Immigration and Nationality Act based on secret evidence.

 Send a FREE FAX to your Representative from the ACLU website at:  http://aclu.org/action/secret106.html

2. Abuses in law enforcement's ability to seize your property have become a nightmare for many Americans.  Under a system called "civil asset forfeiture," federal law enforcement officials have the right to seize your home, your car, your business - even when you haven't even been convicted of a crime!

 Asset forfeiture is currently used by federal law enforcement officials as a way to fill their coffers by seizing assets allegedly used in a crime.  Yet in many cases, even when the accused citizens are found innocent, they face an expensive struggle with government bureaucrats as they seek to recover their property. Many times they are ultimately unsuccessful in getting their homes, cars or cash returned.

 Last year, the House of Representatives passed strong civil asset forfeiture reform legislation, but the Senate has yet to act. Late last year, Sens. Orrin Hatch, R-UT, and Patrick Leahy, D-VT, introduced S.1931, the "Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act."

 TAKE ACTION! Urge your Senators to vote on this bill NOW, before the chance to pass this important legislation is lost in election year politics. Send a FREE FAX to your Senators from the ACLU website at:  http://aclu.org/action/assets106.html

     3. Thanks to you, our new call for comments on the President's medical records privacy is a huge success!  Since launching the new feature five days ago, more than 6,000 people have submitted comments - and more continue to pour in.  The volume has actually overwhelmed the computer server for the Department of Health and Human Services website on several occasions.

To help those who have problems utilizing the HHS comments area, we have created a "workaround" option to allow the public to submit comments even when the HHS server is down.

For those of you who have not yet submitted comments on any of the three areas that are in need of strengthening, you have just 10 more days! The full ACLU medical privacy campaign can be found at:   http://www.aclu.org/action/medregs
 

 =============================================

 URGENT ACTION ITEM!
 FROM THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY

 ===============================================
 Watergate Office Building   2600 Virginia Avenue, NW, Suite 100    Washington DC 20037
 Phone: (202) 333-0008 Ext. 222   E-mail: ggetz@CompuServe.com
 For information about the party: (800) ELECT-US
 ===============================================
 February 8, 2000
 ===============================================
 

 U.S. Senate vote expected on bill to reform civil asset-forfeiture laws
 

         Immediate action required!  Telephone Senators on the below list immediately!

         The U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee is expected to vote this week on a bill that would dramatically reform civil asset-forfeiture laws, which allow the government to confiscate the property of innocent Americans who aren't even accused of a crime.

         We are asking everyone whose Senator(s) sits on the Judiciary Committee to telephone them *immediately* and ask them to support S.1931, The Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act, sponsored by Sens.Orrin Hatch and Patrick Leahy. (A list of Senators on the Judiciary Committee is provided below.) Though a vote is not certain to occur, we are asking you to act now because by the time a vote is certain, it may be too late to notify you.

         BACKGROUND:

         Last June we asked you to telephone your House representative and ask him or her to support HR 1658, The Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 1999, sponsored by Rep. Henry Hyde, R-IL. With your help, that bill passed the House by an overwhelming vote of 374-48.

         Now the Senate version of that bill, S. 1931, is expected to come up for a vote in the Judiciary Committee. The Judiciary Committee vote is crucial because the panel is much more resistant to asset-forfeiture reform than the full Senate. The committee is stacked with former prosecutors and other politicians who are generally anti-civil liberties and pro-drug war, like Sens. Charles Schumer, Strom Thurmond, Teddy Kennedy, and Jeff Sessions.

         Our Capitol Hill sources predict that this legislation could sail through the full Senate by a lopsided vote just as in the House --  but first it has to get through the Judiciary Committee.  That's why  it's important to put the pressure on now, using the momentum from the House victory.

         And though this legislation is not perfect, it may be our only chance to significantly reform asset forfeiture laws, which police routinely use to confiscate the possessions of thousands of innocent Americans without producing a search warrant, arresting them, or charging them with a crime.  Shockingly, these laws force Americans who want their property back to go to court to "prove" they haven't committed a crime, and even to post a bond before they are granted the "right" to contest the seizure.

         Currently there are over 200 asset forfeiture laws on the books, most of which were spawned by the Drug War. Thanks to these laws, the cops have literally become *worse* than the robbers. Case in point: According to the U.S. Department of Justice, bank robbers stole assets worth a total of $28 million in 1994. But during the same year, federal prosecutors confiscated $2.1 *billion* in cars, boats, homes, and other property -- according to writer James Bovard. That means that government "criminals" confiscated 75 times as much property as private criminals!

         So let's seize this chance to stop the government from seizing our property.

         S.1931 would dramatically reform current law by:

         * Forcing the government to prove by a "preponderance of evidence" standard that property is subject to forfeiture. (Current law requires only a "probable cause" standard.)

         * Allowing property owners to sue the government for destruction of seized property while in its possession.

         * Awarding interest payments to property owners who successfully get their property back.

         * Eliminating the requirement that a property owner file a 10 percent bond to challenge a seizure.

         * Providing for an "innocent owner" defense, so that people who were unaware that their property was being used unlawfully could have it returned.

         * Requiring the government to notify in writing anyone whose property has been seized, and forcing the government to return the property if such notice is not given.

         * Forcing the government to pay reasonable attorneys' fees for prevailing property owners and to pay for the appointment of counsel for the indigent.

         Of course, Libertarians would immediately abolish asset forfeiture laws rather than reforming them, but until we elect enough Libertarians to do that, we will support legislation that dramatically improves current laws, and S. 1931 would do that.  Please pick up the phone *immediately* and complete this action item!

         WHAT TO DO:

         Look at the list below to see if any of the Senators from your state sit on the Judiciary Committee. If so, call the Congressional switchboard at 202-225-3121 or 202-224-3121. Then ask to speak to the office of your Senator. The switchboard is open 24 hours, and most Senate offices have voice mail, so please make the call as soon as you get this message.

         WHAT TO SAY:

         (1) Identify yourself and let them know you are a voter in their state. Leave your name, address, complete with ZIP code, and phone number. Please be brief, especially if you are leaving a message.

         (2) Ask them to vote YES on S. 1931, The Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act, sponsored by Senators Hatch and Leahy.

         (3) Ask them to vote AGAINST any other asset-forfeiture bills, and AGAINST any weakening amendments.

         (4) Ask them to write you a letter confirming their position.

         Is there anything else you can do? Yes! Forward this E-mail to a friend, and ask them to call their Senator, too, if his or her name is on the list.  Thank you for your help!

        Sincerely,
Steve Dasbach  National Director  Libertarian Party
 

         List of Senators on the Judiciary Committee:

         Orrin Hatch, R-UT
         Strom Thurmond, R-SC
         Charles Grassley, R-IA
         Arlen Specter, R-PA
         Mike DeWine, R-OH
         Jon Kyl, R-AZ
         Spencer Abraham, R-MI
         John Ashcroft, R-MO
         Jeff Sessions, R-AL
         Bob Smith, R-NH

         Patrick Leahy, D-VT
         Ted Kennedy, D-MA
         Joe Biden, D-DE
         Herb Kohl, D-WI
         Dianne Feinstein, D-CA
         Russell Feingold, D-WI
         Bob Torricelli, D-NJ
         Charles Schumer, D-NY
 
 

[The Treasury had a briefing on Monday for banking staffers to by us for $2 billion on FIDNet and other parts of the "Critical Infrastructure Assurance Office."  Some conspiratorial types posit that the internet shutdown of Yahoo, eg, was perpetrated by the government to justify such surveillance programs.  Since the shutdown was successful, I'm suspicious that the government could have been behind it.  After all , in the Bank of New York money laundering "scandal," these guys wasted six months before initiating an investigation after a request from British law enforcement tracking a kidnapping case.--JBJ]

From Declan's politech list (http://www.well.com/~declan/politech/):
http://slashdot.org/yro/00/02/09/1445242.shtml

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_638000/638041.stm
 

Surveillance bill under fire - At issue is the burden of proof

 The UK Government came under fire on Thursday from the internet community after it published a Bill to regulate covert surveillance.

 The critics say the legislation, if passed, could lead to innocent people being sent to jail simply because they have lost their data encryption codes.

======================================================================

Please distribute this memo widely. Ask your family and friends to visit http://www.forfeiture.org as soon as possible. Thanks!

Total number of letters sent to U.S. senators since February 10, 2000:

                                  ZERO

 When is the Senate Judiciary Committee expected to vote on S. 1931?

                               FEBRUARY 24
 

======================================================================

 As you may know, historic forfeiture reform legislation has passed in the U.S. House of Representatives (H.R. 1658) and is now pending in the U.S. Senate (S. 1931).

 Unfortunately, S. 1931 is in danger of stalling in the Senate. If it doesn't pass this year, then it's back to square one when the next Congress convenes in January 2001.

 Incredible as it may seem, current law allows federal agents to take your property without convicting you of -- or even charging you with -- a crime. (Under current law, government agents can seize your property if they believe there is "probable cause" that the property was used in a crime. Then, to get your property back, you must prove that your property is "innocent"!)

 In 85% of federal asset forfeiture cases, the owner of the property is never charged with a crime, yet government officials can -- and usually do -- keep the seized property for their own use.  This is nothing short of "legal theft."

 Please write to your two U.S. senators and ask them to vote for S. 1931 which, among other things, would require the government to prove that property was used to commit a crime before it can be forfeited.

 Would you please visit http://www.forfeiture.org as soon as possible?  A national coalition of prestigious organizations has come together to support forfeiture reform in Congress, but we will not be able to pass S. 1931 unless your two U.S. senators hear from you and your friends, colleagues, and family.

 With the click of a couple of buttons, you can send a pre-written letter to your two U.S. senators in less than two minutes. Thank you!

======================================================================

 PROJECT #1

 Please visit http://www.forfeiture.org as soon as possible to send a letter of support to your two U.S. senators. Time is of the essence.

======================================================================

 PROJECT #2

 Would you please forward this entire e-mail message to your friends, family, and colleagues? Thanks in advance.
 
 

[It's an election year--must be time to "do something" about drugs...how about yet another attack on financial privacy in the name of combatting money laundering.  Well, right on time, we have a hearing on the "crisis."   Below is a quotation from Larry Summers followed by my annotated summary of the written testimony--JBJ]

 "Americans should have the opportunity to participate in the modern means of electronic payments and receipts without subjecting themselves to behavioral profiling. Just as they would not expect a letter carrier to read their mail or record their correspondence, they do not expect a bank processing a check to record, store and evaluate their personal behavior."
Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, October 5, 1999
 "Toward a 21st Century Financial Regulatory System,"
 Women in Housing and Finance, Washington, DC

 Again, Rep. Ron Paul has introduced three financial privacy related bills, HR 516, HR 517 and HR 518:
 http://www.house.gov/paul/privacy

 Oddly, one European admirer of my list has set up a privacy index to archive the posts of interest there:
 http://www.gic.ch/git/brad.htm

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

 http://www.house.gov/judiciary/3.htm

Statement of John C. Varrone, United States Customs Service
http://www.house.gov/judiciary/varr0210.htm

 "During Fiscal Years 1998 and 1999, our money laundering investigations resulted in the arrest of over 2,100 violators and the seizure of more than $600 million dollars."   [From 1987-1996, banks filed more than 77 million Currency Transaction Reports (CTRs) with 7,300 defendants charged but only 580 convictions, according to JoD figures--531 pounds of paper per conviction!  Rather than give inflated "arrest" numbers (so much for assuming innocent until proven guilty!), were are the conviction numbers? Of the hundreds of millions of dollars conviscated, how much was from innocent people who were never even charged with a crime much less convicted?]
 

John J. Byrne, American Bankers Association
http://www.house.gov/judiciary/byrn0210.htm

 "[The] banking industry has had to comply with the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA).   This law, enacted in 1970 (PL 91-508), was created 'to require certain  reports or records where they have a high degree of usefulness in criminal, tax, or regulatory investigations or proceedings' ...  Whether or not the benefits have been worth the resource allocation is an issue that should continue to be addressed.  [See notation above]

 "In 1993, Mr. Chairman, I authored a law review article on the subject of BSA burdens on our industry and their relative lack of utility. I pointed out that the BSA regulations have not always been consistent with the 1970 goals mentioned above, and that subsequent changes to the Act 'have resulted in a patchwork of regulations and laws that have saddled financial institutions with many responsibilities' that have 'never been subject to any thorough analysis of whether they have (or will) fulfill the intended purpose of the BSA.'

 "If there is no change, ABA would recommend that after a reasonable period of time additional changes to the filing of routine CTRs should be considered, such as increasing the threshold for reporting.  [No mention here that he personally lobbied Congress against the Paul-Barr-Campbell amendment to HR 10 that would have partially adjusted the reporting threshold for inflation.]

 "..the forfeiture laws are yet another example of well-intended laws having negative and harmful effects on legitimate commerce. ABA, and many other business organizations, have lent their support to H.R. 1658, a bill that would, for the first time, place the burden of proof in a civil forfeiture case on the government instead of the individual or company.  That measure has overwhelmingly passed the House and is now being considered in the Senate. (We support a similar measure, S. 1931 that is also receiving extensive backing by the business community.)"

David B. Smith, co-chair of the Forfeiture Abuse Task Force of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers but representing only himself   http://www.house.gov/judiciary/smit0210.htm   "The Administration bill you are considering today is by and large a forfeiture bill. Many of the provisions in this bill are also found in the Senate bill introduced by Senator Sessions on behalf of the Department of  Justice as an alternative to the Hyde bill.  [The House approved the Hyde bill (HR 1658) by a vote of 375-48.]  The Sessions bill, S. 1716, is, as I write, in competition with S. 1931, the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act sponsored by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch and Senator Leahy, the Ranking Member. S. 1931 is basically the Hyde bill--albeit some of its more far-reaching provisions are watered down to smooth passage through the Senate. The Sessions bill contains none of the reforms found in the Hyde bill, which the House Judiciary Committee approved by a vote of 27-3. Instead, the Sessions bill is merely a DoJ wish list for expanding its forfeiture powers with only a whiff of procedural reform thrown in. The bill you have before you today has the forfeiture-expanding provisions of the Sessions bill--along with many other provisions designed to aggrandize the government's forfeiture powers--and no forfeiture reforms whatsoever.

 "[the DoJ] wants line prosecutors to be able to threaten defendants with these draconian penalties for 'money laundering' in virtually every case, regardless of how inappropriate they are.  That makes it easier to exact onerous guilty pleas.  Unlike the RICO statute, which is also so broadly written that it can be used in almost any criminal case, the DoJ has never significantly restricted the line prosecutor's ability to charge money laundering whenever he sees fit.  Because DoJ keeps a tight, central rein on the RICO statute, there are only about 75 federal RICO prosecutions each year, compared with thousands of money laundering indictments.  Yet the money laundering statute is even more easily abused than the RICO statute.  That is why it has become the newest darling in the prosecutors' nursery.

 "It is not only defense attorneys who object to this oppressive, freewheeling use of the ill-conceived money laundering statutes.  The courts have also become increasingly concerned about the government's over-use of the money laundering laws. Some courts are allowing steep downward departures from the sentencing guidelines for money laundering or even mandating the use of the guideline for the less severely punished predicate offense to prevent what they regard as a manifest injustice. The best case to read on this important issue is U.S. v. Smith, 186 F.3d 290 (3d Cir. 1999). In Smith, the Third Circuit explains how the money laundering guidelines were written with the most serious, large-scale drug money laundering activity in mind--the type of activity the government told Congress the statute was designed to combat. The actual use of the money laundering statute as an indiscriminate blunderbuss weapon against the typical small-time defendant has been radically different from how the Commission expected the statute to be used. The statute has been misused to impose wildly disproportionate punishment on countless individuals and companies."