From: Rex.Beard@f32.n373.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Rex Beard)
Newsgroups: hsv.general
Subject: Re: Drug seizures.
Date: Thu,  3 Sep 92 21:51:35 CDT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:373/32

 GC> ross@kaos.b11.ingr.com writes:
     
>>>Bush helped increase the size and intrusiveness of the government.
>>disagree.  I don't feel intruded on at all.  And he did this all by
>>himself, right?  Geez...
     
 GC> Just wait until the feds confiscate your house and car because 
 GC> a guest or yours gets caught with 5 grams of pot.  No charges 
 GC> and no trial - they'll simply *take* your house because *it* 
 GC> was "tainted" by drugs.  Then come back and tell me that!
     
 GC> [this *actually* happened in Detroit last year]

It gets worse than that. Far worse.

Ed Bradly's "Street Stories" just a few weeks ago had a good one.

A guy was arrested for Marijuana possesion (sale? I'm not certain.)

To get a lighter sentence the cops told him to give him name sof other
drug dealers and users. So he did. He gave them the names of his
neighbors. You see he didn't like his neighbors.

So the socialist government siezed the neighbors home. 
You're thinking, "So, the police got a warrant and searched the home
and found drugs?"

No. I mean they stole their home. They never searched the home. They
NEVER EVEN VISTED the home! The police never saw it!

They just took it. So you ask, "Wow, when does their case come to
court?"

Answer. It DOESN'T! They never even CHARGED these people with a crime.
They aren't in prison, they are just out one house.

How do they get their house back? First they hire a lawyer. Next
they pay some fee (I think it is 10% of the value of the home. They get
that money back if they win.). Next they file a suit against the government.
Next they PROVE that they are INNOCENT.

"What", you say, "You made a typo, Rex, it is innocent until proven guilty,
this isn't China, you know."

No. I made no mistake. They must PROVE INNOCENCE to get their home back.
The government doesn't even have to present the witness against them.
All they have to do is say that "someone said you were dealing drugs".

"Wait. Your wrong again, Rex", ,you say, "That is against the 6th
amendment. They have a 'right to be confronted with the wittnesses
against [them].'"

Nope. Not here.

How many more of these do you want? This might be the worst I've heard.
Or maybe it is the 39,000 they took from a maid. They never charged
her with anything, they just took it.
A newspaper verified that it was her money. She had made small deposits over
20 years time from her wages. The newspaper verified it with her bank.
The newspaper told the government about it.

But the government doesn't care. She hasn't PROVEN that she is innocent
in a court of law. Of course she can't afford a lawyer because the
government took all her money. And she won't be able to sue the
government until she can hire a lawyer.

But come on she must be guilty, right? After all she *is* black.
The only way for black people to have that much money is if they stole
it, right? THat is why the got her. She *looked* like a drug dealer.


If this stuff makes you *SICK*, then vote for the Libertarian ticket
this November. They are the only party that ants to stop it. The
Democrats and Republicans keep doing it. In fact they keep passing laws
making it *easier* to do that. Then they brag about  how they're keeping
drugs away from our kids.

Ever talked to a high schooler? It must be *their* kids their keeping
drugs away from cause it sure is present inthe public schools.

-rex-

Andre Morrou / Nancy Lord - Libertarians in '92

--- via Silver Xpress V2.28 [NR]
 * Origin: Internet/Fidonet gateway of Huntsville (HST/V32)
--  
 = Micro Magic, 830-2362,  Alabama's Usenet/Fidonet gateway.
 = Reply-To:  Rex.Beard@f32.n373.z1.FIDONET.ORG