FREE SPEECH AND ASSEMBLY--IF YOU DARE!
IN MILITARY STYLE, police now sweep city streets and buildings for law-abiding protesters. And they have interrogated and arrested citizens who they believe were PLANNING to attend demonstrations. How far can law enforcement go to crush political dissent?
Police can now arrest, jail, and execute a citizen's right to "free speech and assembly." During the Republican 2000 Convention in Philadelphia, police squads arrested law-abiding protesters, bystanders, and tourists in streets and on private property to prevent them from attending demonstrations.
Even at the October 22nd Coalition protest against police brutality in Los Angeles, LAPD used clubs and rubber bullets to attack and run off lawful demonstrators (even though the Coalition had secured a city permit for the demonstration).
The Anti-Terrorist Act of 1996
Because the Anti-Terrorist Act of 1996 contains language which can charge law-abiding citizens with being agents or supporters of terrorist organizations, it appears aimed at public dissent. Broadly written, "intent to commit terrorist acts" is defined as "appeared to be intended toward violence or activities which could intimidate or coerce a civilian population, or to influence the policy of a government" (l8USC Sec.2331).
Any picket line or demonstration alleged by police to have blocked or obstructed public access could qualify as "terrorist activity" intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population. Police agencies may selectively charge a person or organization with either a low-level offense or a "terrorist offense" for the same illegal act. For example, a fist fight between several union demonstrators and persons crossing a picket line can be upgraded by police to charge union members with "terrorist acts" because the 1996 Act broadly redefines "terrorist acts" as "involving any violent act or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or any state." The violent or physical act need not cause bodily harm and can be used to target any group demonstrating for or against any issue. Secret hearings, secret witnesses, and secret jurors can be invoked by the government to allegedly protect national security, government investigations, jurors, and witnesses. When conviction for terrorist activities can result in long prison sentences, huge fines, execution, and/or government forfeiture of assets--secrecy is hardly in the best interests of a free society.
Police routinely purchase court testimony to convict defendants. The 1996 Act additionally allows prosecutors to use secret, paid informants and other hidden evidence to convict citizens of terrorist acts. Defense against these charges, even involving the death penalty, may be difficult when citizens have no access to know the alleged evidence against them or the right to cross-examine government secret witnesses.
Because the government can forfeit property involved in most felonies, a charge of "terrorist activity" at a demonstration would allow police to forfeit attending demonstrators' homes used for meetings and the vehicles they used for transportation to the event. Anyone--even a relative or spouse--could erroneously tell police that a demonstrator's property was involved in a felony and collect an "Informant Reward" as well as cause government forfeiture of the property.
Civil Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000
Rep. Hyde's Civil Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 expanded government forfeiture laws to include approximately 200 felonies, making more property subject to government forfeiture, even after the statute of limitations has passed for criminal prosecution. Property owners and heirs need not be personally involved in the felony that makes their property subject to government forfeiture. They need know only that someone, e.g., an employee, committed a felony involving their property. Even a 20-year-old crime may make property forfeitable. An alleged misrepresentation by the deceased on an FDIC Insured Loan Application can make an inherited home or its sales proceeds forfeitable by the government.
Property owners and real estate associations couldn't stop the US Senate from gutting the "Innocent Owner" protection provision that made government prove by "clear and convincing evidence" that an owner's property was subject to government forfeiture. As before, only a "preponderance of evidence" is required, not "clear and convincing evidence."
The ambiguous wording of the Act does not appear to protect "innocent owners" from government civil forfeiture. It requires that the owners "did all that could be reasonably expected under the circumstances to terminate such use of their property." A serious conflict of interest occurs when the same police agency that forfeits an owner's property may also determine what constitutes "did all that could be reasonably expected." Can we expect police agencies to be fair and impartial when they see a chance to substantially augment their revenue with property seizures?
The Act also did away with the statute of limitations. Police now have five years after learning an asset is subject to forfeiture to civilly forfeit it. The Act allows whistle-blowers, disgruntled present and former employees, and spouses to earn huge informant rewards by getting government agencies to civilly forfeit the assets of corporations alleged to have committed felonies, even after the statute of limitations has passed for criminal prosecution.
RICO Lawsuits
US District Court Judge William Rea ruled that citizens framed by the LAPD can use racketeering laws (RICO) to separately sue corrupt police and their government employers. One hundred criminal cases were overturned as a result of "LAPD corruption." Framed citizens may constitute a class to file class action RICO suits against the City of Los Angeles. Damages could exceed $900 Million, including treble damages. The time period to sue under RICO is 10 years. Injured citizens can use RICO to sue not only corrupt police agencies, but also private interests, and individuals who participate in criminal schemes.
Businesses are vulnerable to RICO and civil rights suits when they become involved in illegal schemes with US government agencies to injure citizens. When corporations or employees provide false information to help police frame opponents, both the police and the business become a criminal enterprise.
Foreign citizens may also use RICO to sue mercenary and other corporations doing business in the US and sue governments that support death squads in other countries which murdered citizens and workers and robbed defenseless people of their property.
Colombian human rights advocates should use RICO to sue in the United States any corporation or government agency doing business in the US and proven to support directly or indirectly Colombian Death Squads.
Colombian workers should use RICO to sue in the United States any corporation or government agency doing business in the US and proven to support intimidation or extortion of union and non-union workers.
--Ross Regnart is a researcher and writer. Since 1990, he has focused on free speech, forfeiture laws that threaten innocent owners, and human rights issues.