Wil Ferguson orn en.ma.us To UUCP:All To FidoNet: %d
CosYour Reality Check Is In The Mail otives"! c.s.m.vision) ssage
Unkno14 Sep 91 15:00:08 y y D
D


UFGATE newsin 1.27
From: wil@fiver (Wil Ferguson)
Date: 14 Sep 91 12:29:39 GMT
Organization: Fiver Communications, Fremont, Ca
Message-ID: <1991Sep14.122939.6021@fiver>
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal

Howdy people...

I was going to print this in my newsletter, One Eight Two, and just
leave it at that. However, I felt that the subject matter contained
in this rather long post was too important to let sit in just a
newsletter.

So, I bring it to you, brothers and sisters of the Net. The author
requests that you pass it on to as many people you know (which would
engender the folks who aren't fortunate enough to have Internet
access, think Adam-12 is true to life, or believe in the Constitution
with unquestioning resolve).

- wil
avalanche@stratos.oet.uhf.com
uunet!fiver!stratos!avalanche

------ cut here -----------------------------------------------------------

Your Reality Check Is In The Mail
=====================================

by Elliott Finesse (elfin@stratos.oet.uhf.com)

"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence - it is force! Like fire
it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master; never for a moment should
it be left to irresponsible action"

- George Washington

We got trouble, friends, right here in River City. It is a dangerous
time to be engaging in "unacceptable" behavior. In fact, it's dangerous
even to look "like the type known to engage in..." unacceptable behavior.
This alone is sufficient to ruin your life. Big Brother is back, and boy
is he pissed off.

I intend to show that there are people with power who will stop
at almost nothing to control what you say, believe, and do. The lengths
to which they are willing to go has no relationship to the danger posed
by those actions or thoughts.

There is a dark side to this nation's "personality" that is virtually
unknown to the middle class and rarely mentioned in history books. It is
a side that is usually experienced first hand - if at all.

Many in the middle class don't believe it exists or that it has been
exaggerated. When a member of the middle class does experience and comes
back to tell others about it, it's too late - you are suspect. You did
something to deserve it. Where there's smoke...It is easier and more
comforting to believe the victim really isn't like us than to believe
we could be next.

If I convince you of only one thing I hope it is this:

If we don't hang together we will surely hang separately.

Wait. Don't type-cast me as just another Armageddon monger - not
yet, anyway. I'm not inclined toward consparicy theories, Amway Pyramids,
or New Age power crystals. Nor am I of the "up against the wall" political
persuasion. What I say I don't say casually. My perspective, what I have
to compare this with, comes from the Sixties, from being on the wrong
side of Nixon over Viet Nam. It comes from memories of the Cuban missile
crisis. I KNOW how it feels to think the world is comming to an end - or
completely insane.

Since you may see my column here from time to time, I should probably
state what my guidlines will be:

- I will attempt to make clear distinctions between opinions and
facts. As you may have noticed, many people either don't know
or can't tell the difference.

- I won't pretend to know something when I don't.

- Finally, I won't expect you to take my word for anything. Faith
is for the gullible or the religious. Since you aren't stupid and
I ain't God, faith won't be necessary.

SURVIVAL TACTICS: EXERCISE #1
==============================

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to
the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the
State wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which
shall abridge the privlidges or immunities of citizens of the United
States; not shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, and
property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within
it's jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

- Amendment XIV, Section I of the Bill of Rights. 1790

"We (the feds) seize money, real estate, cars, etc. I have even seized the
cash value of life insurance policies. All that federal law requires is
that the property either be the proceeds of criminal activity or that it
have been used in to facilitate a criminal activity. Property is sold, cash
and the proceeds of sales we share with state and local law enforcement
agencies that assist in developing the criminal case..."

- Amendment XIV, updated 1990.
Text taken from a message posted on a BBS by an agent of the FBI.

Step outside yourself and examine your activities as someone might
who doesn't like you. Look at your activities, habits, your style of life.
Try and give your activity the worst possible interpretation. Can you be
made to look bad from this perspective? Can you be made to look like
a criminal?

I'm not trying to be funny here. History has shown that if they want
you, they're going to get you. Len Rose, and the victims of Operation
Sun Devil, got a rather unpleasant civics lesson on the true meaning and
the scope of the Bill of Rights. That lesson is: EVERYTHING YOU KNOW IS
WRONG. You can't be made to testify against yourself. WRONG. You are
presumed innocent until proven guilty. WRONG. A right to a fair trial,
no punishment without due process, search warrants needed, probable cause,
privacy protection - WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, and WRONG.

I realize these are radical statments. Even the most cynical would
probably find it hard to accept this as literal truth. I CERTAINLY HOPE
SO. I would have serious reservations about the mental abilities of
anyone who would take my word for it.

"The sanctity of marriage and the family relation are the corner of our
American society...which polygamy and Mormonism have imperiled."

- Rutherford B. Hayes
State of The Union Address
Dec 6, 1880.

The practice of polygamy by Mormons so incensed Congress, more than
a hundred years ago, they passed laws that allowed for the legal
confiscaction of their churches, temples, and even private homes - all
without due process. Sound vaguely familar? Only the Church's absolute
disavowal of polygamy prevented the complete and utter destruction of
Mormonism in this country. Plural marriage wasn't an option for them,
or some kind of lecherous "quid pro quo" pay off for piety. It was
an unalterable and fundamental requirement in attaining the highest
glory. It was an imparitive that came directly from God.

As you might expect, polygamy wasn't so easily eradicated. And
although the church's official repudation of the practise halted the
wholesale seizures and imprisonment, polygamy continued underground. For
the next seventy years, the government, in what can only be described as
a vendetta, agressively pursued and prosecuted practitioners of a religious
belief that was, at worst, a victim-less "crime".

The culmination came in the early 1950's when a remarkable historic
event occurred, almost completely forgotten about today. The entire town
of Shortcreek, Arizona - men, women, and children - were arrested. In what
was reminiscent of a cattle round-up, numbers were applied to women and
children, and photos taken of each little "herd" for evidence. The wives
were told they would never see their children again in an effort to force
them to testify against their husbands.

This is not an isolated example, friends. Many skeletons exist,
hidden deep in the back of the national closet.

JUSTICE FOR ALL
=========================

"The state may not, consistently with the spirit of the First Amendment,
contract the spectrum of available knowledge. The right of freedom of
speech and press includes not only the right to utter or to print,
but the right to distribute, the right to recieve, the right to read...
and freedom of inquiry, freedom of thought, and freedom to teach."

- Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas.

Most people apparently think that our Constitutional protections
have existed from their inception pretty much as they do today; well,
not exactly. For instance, before the landmark decision on the First
Amendment, from which the above quotation is taken, government considered
shrinking "...the spectrum of available knowledge," and limiting the
free expression of ideas, a reasonable tactic. That this was an accepted
and quite legal government weapon, during the same decade that this
country put men on the moon, may surprise some. It shouldn't.

The intent of the First Amendment, most historians believe, was to
prevent the government from practicing "prior restraint" of the press,
except in the most extreme cases of national security. They believe this
because the authors of the Constitution found the English system - which
required final approval of everything, by either church or state before it
went into press - so distasteful. Despite this unequivocal First Amendment
protection, government could - and did - legally restrain, prior to
publication, whatever they deemed "dangerous". The rationaled was called
"killing the serpent in the egg." This rather elegant metaphor could
prevent publication of embryonic word serpents too "dangerous" for the
people to hear. But who decides what "dangerous" means?

SHOOT-OUT AT THE CREDIBILITY GAP
==================================

There are things or situations than any sane person would call
dangerous. But there are other times when it becomes a judgement call. A
shark is dangerous. A hand grenade is dangerous. A hacker is dangerous.
A hacker is dangerous? You don't have to prove that a shark is dangerous.
And if the right people say it often enough, you don't have to prove that
a hacker is dangerous either. That's what I call dangerous.

When it gets right down to it, our Constitutional protections only
mean what the Supreme Court says they mean. Time and again government has
said to the people: The xyz problem is so important, so immediate, and so
very dangerous that "we all gotta give up some rights so we can deal
with it." Sooner or later another problem will arrive, or be fabricated,
and, "If we can suspend civil liberties in the first case, why can't we
do it here too?" That's a damn good question. In fact, I believe a
direct casual link between the "war on drugs" and the current crackdown
on hackers can be shown.

The concept of "probable cause" was included in the Bill of Rights
to prevent the Government from going on "fishing expiditions" ie: searching
everybody in hopes of catching a few bad guys. Well, the Supreme Court
recently decided that probable cause wasn't necessary when it comes
to drunk driving. The majority opinion said, in effect, the infringement
on the rights of non-intoxicated drivers was acceptable when weighed
against the danger posed by drunk driving. Lower courts said pretty
much the same thing about drug testing.

How do you reply to someone who argues: "Hey, it's such a minor
inconvienance, and if it helps catch drunk drivers or drug pushers,
why not?" If you're innocent, you shouldn't mind. "What have you
got to hide?"

If someone ever lays that shallow, self-righteos homily on you,
try this. First, congratulate him on his civic-mindedness. Now ask
HIM a few questions. A good topic is sex, but there are others. Start
slow and get progressively more personal. "Are you married? Do you
have sex with your wife? Extramarital sex?" Pretty soon he's going
to say something like: "that's personal" or "That's none of your
business." Smile and say, "NOW you understand."

Some real non-thinkers may respond, "But that isn't the same thing
at all!" Give him the other barrel, something like: "Don't you know we
have an INCREDIBLE sex crime problem in the country? Do you know how
may women and children are RAPED, beaten and KILLED every year?? You
shouldn't mind answering a few questions if you're innocent. After all,
WHAT HAVE YOU GOT TO HIDE??"

Congratulations, you may have just smartened up a chump (maybe).
There is a more important reason why I detailed this little idiot trap
of an argument. It was to demonstrate just how easy it is to justify
giving up almost any Constitutional protection.

Although the privacy of phone conversations is protected from
government surveillance, without court order, the CIA quite legally
maintains geo-synchronous satellites, at this minute, sitting 25,000
miles above our heads, that monitor phone conversations transmitted
by microwave - meaning just about everyone. They employ billions of
dollars in computing power listening for key words. Suspicious calls
are then monitored. Of course this is only to catch spies and the like.
But, as the Soviet Union self destructs, and the "dangers" of hacking
or of drugs become greater in the public mind, ask yourself how hard it
would be to turn this technology toward other ends.

Ronald Reagan's legacy, if you can call it that, is a country that
has been financially and morally eviscerated. One aspect of this - one
that is becoming more obvious - was his "packing" of the Supreme Court.
By "packing" I don't mean putting Republicans on the bench. Earl Warren
was a Republican, but Reagan did his best to choose idealogues - knee
jerk reactionaries, if you will, who would never let pangs of fairness
cloud their politically based decisions. In his article in "The Nation",
Jamie Kelvin states, "Never before have the criteria selection been so
narrowly ideological. And never before have those criteria been applied
in so disciplined and unrelenting a fashion."

For example, one of Reagan's nominees, Robert Bork, thinks that the
First Amendment's protection of free speech should apply only to speech
that "contributes" to the "political process!" In his own words Bork
has stated, "There is no basis for [the courts] to protect any other
form of free expression, be it scientific, literary, or that variety
of expression we call obscene or pornographic." And even in the category
of political speech, he would deny protection to anyone advocating the
violation of ANY LAW. Compare this to the words of Chief Justice William
O. Douglas. Do you feel a little safer, knowing that Congress rejected
Bork by the largest margin for the Supreme Court?

IT'S NOT JUST FOR DRUGS ANYMORE
==================================

"I smelt a rat"

- Patrick Henry on why he did not attend the Constitutional convention

Of all the thousands of words written about Operation Sun Devil, one
aspect was never explained. At least I never saw it mentioned. It seems
also to be the most puzzling aspect of the whole affair: how could the
Government confiscate computer systems and tens of thousands of disks,
and, as yet (to my knowledge) never charge the owners with any crime, and
never return the hardware or software to the owners? My curiosity lead
to a story that has relegated Operation Sun Devil to virtually microscopic
signifigance by comparison.

The story was on the front page of the San Francisco Examiner for
four days, August 25-29th. Under the headling, "Seizure Laws: License
to Loot?" Are you sitting down? The first two sentences read:

"Police in the U.S. can take your cash or your car or your home.
You don't have to be guilty of a crime or even charged with one."

It goes on to state:

"Eighty percent of the people who lost their propert WERE NEVER
CHARGED WITH CRIMES."

Impossible you say? Unconstitutional? In fact, from the details
outlined in the article, seizure laws would appear to violate the 4th,
5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, and 14th Amendment to the Constitution. Before you
throw up your hands, thinking I don't have both chop sticks in the
chow mein, I'll quickly describe, in general, how it works:

Constitutional protections apply only to CRIMINAL LAW, where life
or liberty is at stake. CIVIL LAW, the dominion of law suits, where
"only" property is at stake, HAVE NO SUCH PROTECTIONS. Federal and
state seizure laws are ALL WRITTEN IN CIVIL LAW, NEATLY CIRCUMVENTING
CONSTITUTIONAL SAFEGAURDS. These laws, originally designed to strip
drug barons of ill gotten loot, are snaring innocent people as well -
thousands of innocent people.

During the mid-1980's, laws were passed allowing the government
to take the possessions of big drug dealers without convicting them of
a crime or even charging them. To get their property back, the suspected
drug dealer would have to prove his belongings weren't bought with drug
money. The local police got to keep up to 80% of the proceeds. The money
was supposed to go for "law enforcement purposes", but with no accounting
required, police departments used the money for just about anything -
uniforms, recreation equipment, air conditioners, fringe benifit pay,
are but a few.

Maybe we should have seen it coming. I didn't, that's for sure.
Eliminating Constitutional restraints, coupled with a strong financial
incentive and no accountablility, transformed a well intended idea
into a frenzied nightmare of greed and misery.

Wht have 80% of the people who lost property to the government
NEVER BEEN CHARGED WITH ANYTHING? Think about that for a moment. I
believe this is the key issue.

It's improbable, though possible, the entire 80% actually were
drug people. Maybe the police didn't have enough evidence to charge
them. Maybe these were the people the seizure laws were designed to
catch. Maybe. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, they all were
somehow involved in drugs. That 80% represents an enormous number of
bad guys that were never even charged with a crime, let alone tried
and convicted.

Another theory, one I find less improbable, is that the police,
impatient to reap the financial fall-out, ignore a suspect's civil
rights. The evidence might still hold up in court but it it didn't,
it was no big deal. Their goal was to grab his assests for themselves.
It might work like this: (This is a tentative hypothesis only) police
are tupped off to a big dealer. They had no probable cause for a search
warrant, but raided his house anyway. Since they had no search warrant
they couldn't use anything taken as evidence against him in a criminal
trial. But they could keep his house, car, cash, and anything of value
for themselves - legally. And the dealer gets to walk away (with
empty pockets). ****** Waiting to build a case would make it less
certain that the assests would still be available for seizure some months
in the future. Other departments would likely get involved, so assets
would have to be shared. Stake-outs are extremely expensive to maintain -
I mean, why wait? Look at it from their point of view: "We could lose him
and the assets too, and there's no guaruntee the scumbag will even do
time." A bird in hand, after all. The only differences between this
scenario and the stereotypical New York narc of old, shaking down a
street dealer, is that now the shakedowns are better organized - and
funded - and of course, completely legal.

There is compelling evidence many of the 80% were completely
innocent. Either way, there seems to be no good reason why 80% of those
who lost property were never charged with a crime. An inventory of items
seized also tends to support the theory that many were innocent.

EVIDENCE: Only 17% of the goods seized were big ticket items like
boats, limos, jewelry or other drug baron's toys. Most of the things
seized were homes, cars, and savings accounts - things more typical of
ordinary people.

Arrest records seem to support this also.

EVIDENCE: Narcotics arrests in California, after increasing every
10 years, have taken a sudden and unexpected down turn. In 1989, roughly
1 year after the implementation of the State seizure law, drug arrests
began to decline. ****This year are down an additional 18%. So
signifigance is the decrease, the state will probably scrap their EIGHT
BILLION DOLLAR prison construction master plan. In the same period,
seizure money, going to local police is up by...20%

Maybe you aren't worried because you can prove your house, car,
and other possessions weren't purchased with drug money. Even putting
aside the question of why you should have to prove anything, proof
may not help very much. PROOF DOESN'T STOP THEM INITIALLY SEIZING YOUR
HOUSE, YOUR CAR, BANK ACCOUNT OR ANYTHING ELSE!

In fact, the only chance you have of getting your property back is
to show that the MAJORITY OF THE EVIDENCE PROVES YOUR PROPERTY IS NOT
RELATED TO DRUGS - not easy to do. According to the California Deputy
Attorney General, Gary Schons, it would require, "...voluminous financial
records." And without these records, innocent or not, you've lost your
property forever! You have also lost 10 to 20 thousand dollars in legal
fees.

Ask Mrs. Juana Lopez who was stopped in a downtown bus station last
October 9th. Even though she had receipts for every cent of the 4750.00
she had, it was taken from her at the bus station and, so far anyway,
it hasn't been returned.

Ask Grady McClendon, age 53. He, his wife, their two children, and
two grandchildren were returning from a family reunion in Georgia. When
he made a wrong turn down a one way street, he was stopped by local police
who asked to see his ID and permission to search his car. Within minutes
suitcases and purses were dumped out and searched. Shortly thereafter,
the police "started waiving a little stick they said was cocaine." He
and his family were hauled in to the station and held for six hours.
Finally they were released. And though no charges were filed, the police
kept their car, $2500 in cash, their jewelry, and everything else they
had of value.

Mr. McClendon hired an attorney who ended up battling the state for
11 months, just to get them to produce the lab test results on the
"cocaine". Although legal fees went well beyond the value of his
posessions, McClendon continued in order to remove the cloud of suspicion
he felt hanging over him. Finally, after months of struggle his lawyer
forced the DA to provide a copy of the lab test. The "cocaine" turned
out to be bubble gum. After nearly a year a judge finally ordered his
possesions returned.

Consider yourself warned.

More information will be forthcoming in future issues. Verify
what I've said. Verify Verify Verify!


CODA
==============

"There's the King's messanger, he's in prison now, being punished; and
the trial doesn't even begin till next Wednesday; and of course, the
crime comes last of all."

"Suppose he never commits the crime?", asked Alice.

"That would be all the better, wouldn't it?" the Queen responded...

Alice felt there was no denying that. "Of course it would be all the
better," she said; "but it wouldn't be all the better his being punished."

"You're wrong..." said the Queen. "Were you ever punished?"

"Only for faults," said Alice.

"And you were all the better for it, I know!" the Queen said triumphantly.

"Yes, but then I had done the things I was punished for," said Alice.
"That makes all the difference."

"But if you hadn't done them," the Queen said, "that would have been
better still; better, and better, and better!" Her voice went higher
with each "better" till it got quiet to a squeak...

Alice thought, "There's a mistake here somewhere..."

- Lewis Carroll

HOW'S YOUR PROFILE?
====================

This assessment is primarily directed toward those who may be
innocently targeted by a Law Enforcement Officer (LEO). Those not
so innocent should be very worried: 1 or 2 cute little pot plants
in the back yard is enough for them to seize your house, and keep it.
If more than just a few of the following traits apply, consider
re-examining your habits.

A) ASSETS: Do you have anything to lose? You can't lose what you don't
have with one BIG exception. The property of friends, relatives, and
others can be seized and must be considered a seizable asset in this
discussion if near-at-hand or used by a Law Enforcement Target (LET).

Property can be seized if:

1) It has been used in a crime.

2) Used to facilitate a crime.

3) Purchased with the proceeds of a crime.

CASH with detectable drug traces is seizable. Unfortunately, almost
all American money does have trace drug residue.

You can expect the above factors, vague and open to interpretation
as they are, to cover almost anything as an aggressive LEO wants it to
cover. REMEMBER They don't have to PROVE ANYTHING. Just the appearance
of the suspicion above can be enough.

DANGER SIGNALS: LEO look for:

TRAVEL: If you frequent airports, train stations, bus depots, or
major highways between large cities. Your risk increases if you are
young, Mexican, Asian, Black, if you pay in cash, if you carry a lot of
cash while travelling.

LIFESTYLE: Non establishment look or demeanor. Expensive jewelry,
cars, clothes, YOUNGER PEOPLE with these things, paying with or carrying
too much cash while traveling

ETHNIC GROUPS: Mexican, Asian, and Black.

APPEARANCE: young, Mexican, Asian, Black, long hair. Beepers, pagers,
Cel-phones, LOOKING OUT OF PLACE.

LOCATIONS: Almost anywhere.

ATTITUDE: Nervousness, not making eye contact, walking too fast/
too slow.