By Eapen Thampy, on October 17th, 2011% Excellent coverage! Let me excerpt briefly here:
Under federal law, a property owner can face 20 years in prison if prosecutors can prove the owner knowingly allowed illegal drugs to be used or sold on his premises—even if he isn’t directly involved.
James Tebeau learned first-hand. For years, he has been the owner and operator of a 350-acre concert venue in rural Missouri called Camp Zoe. Weekend concerts routinely drew thousands of music fans. Mr. Tebeau, a member of a Grateful Dead tribute band, also performed there.
…
Defenders of Mr. Tebeau say his case is an example of government overreach, given the ubiquitous use of drugs at many music concerts.
“If they can charge Jimmy Tebeau, they could charge just about any concert venue owner with these crimes,” said David Roland, director of litigation at the Freedom Center of Missouri, a nonprofit law firm focusing on constitutional law issues.
U.S. Attorney Richard Callahan, whose office in St. Louis is prosecuting the case, disagreed: “Our office is a capable of distinguishing between a music festival with incidental drug use and a drug festival with incidental music.”
As someone whose office would profit directly from a successful forfeiture action against Camp Zoe, and who has tried to bankrupt Jimmy Tebeau before he could obtain representation, Richard Callahan cannot represent impartiality in the conduct of his prosecutorial duties. We can only hope the federal judiciary recognizes this fundamental conflict, and the unconscionable overreach of law enforcement looking for profit, and reject this scurrilous prosecutor and his greed.
By Scott Alexander Meiner, on October 12th, 2011% We ask you to join Americans for Forfeiture Reform and the Drug Policy Alliance in registering your opinion on H.R. 313 by clicking on our Facebook/Popvox links. Your opinion will be delivered to your congressperson.
“To amend the Controlled Substances Act to clarify that persons who enter into a conspiracy within the United States to possess or traffic illegal controlled substances outside the United States, or engage in conduct within the United States to aid or abet drug trafficking outside the United States, may be criminally prosecuted in the United States, and for other purposes.”
And would amend Section 406 of the Controlled Substances Act ( 21 U.S.C. 846) by inserting:
”Whoever, within the United States, conspires with one or more persons, or aids or abets one or more persons, regardless of where such other persons are located, to engage in conduct at any place outside the United States that would constitute a violation of this title if committed within the United States, shall be subject to the same penalties that would apply to such conduct if it were to occur within the United States.”
It is our belief that H.R. 313 would chill your rights to free speech, assembly, and due process. It is ripe for selective enforcement. It is a dangerous expansion of federal power. It will harm your ability to acquire adequate counsel, encourage corruption in law enforcement, suppress voter intent, and is generally just bad law.
H.R. 313 represents a dramatic expansion of federal power. As David Roland, Director of Litigation at the Freedom Center of Missouri, explains,
“When Matt Stone and Trey Parker wrote “Team America: World Police,” it was supposed to be a joke! HR 313 tries to make that concept our official policy. Under this law, the U.S. government is claiming the power to strip citizens of their liberty and their property simply for talking with someone else about events that might well be perfectly legal where those events would take place.”
Given the extraordinary expansion of jurisdiction and the infeasibility of prosecuting all conspiracy charges, H.R. 313 is particularly ripe for selective prosecution. Ample evidence exists to show racial bias. Tenaha, TX has become the poster child for racial bias and asset forfeiture abuse but it happens throughout the United States. Further evidence exists to show targeted prosecution for political ends including a DEA Administrator bragging about the arrest of Marc Emery as a significant blow to the political efforts of legalization movements. One need not share Emery’s cause to be outraged that arrest and seizure power is being used to suppress political speech. But prosecutors needn’t even get a conviction or a successful forfeiture to chill speech. The very threat of a vague, overbroad conspiracy charge is likely to chill speech in public health, science, decriminalization, and legalization communities by scaring involved parties from being able to express their opinions for fear that it will ensnare friends and family in leveraged conspiracy charges.
It will chill our assembly rights by potentially putting third parties at risk for knowingly associating with and/or tolerating the positions of those who wish to commit civil disobedience and/or test the constitutionality of this legislation. The charges need not stand up to legal challenge to pry forfeiture settlements and/or to quell dissent. It will suppress voter intent by expanding administrative forfeiture revenue streams that circumvent the legislative budget and appropriation process. This is contrary to the basic framework of checks and balances that have protected our republic. When we cede the power of the purse, we lose the ability to compel our law enforcement to be properly responsive and subordinate to the wishes of the people. This is a bill that is uniquely insidious. We would like to think that the House of Representatives would quickly vote this legislation down. Sadly, that does not appear to be the case. Congressmen Adam Schiff (D-CA) and Lamar Smith (R-TX) have successfully pushed H.R. 313 through the House Judiciary Committee by a 20-7 vote and it is headed to a floor vote. We vehemently oppose this legislation and call upon anyone who values their freedoms to join us in a vigorous opposition to H.R. 313.
By Eapen Thampy, on December 22nd, 2010% Yesterday, Don Marsh of St. Louis Public Radio led a roundtable discussion on civil asset forfeiture and the Camp Zoe seizure. Attorney Dave Roland of the Freedom Center of Missouri had some comments that I thought were worth reposting; here is an excerpt from the roundtable coverage in the Riverfront Times:
But we’re not really alone. Yesterday, St. Louis Public Radio also devoted some time to the Camp Zoe seizure in its Legal Roundtable. Leading KWMU’s discussion was host Don Marsh; the point man on the Camp Zoe issue was David Roland, director of litigation for the Freedom Center of Missouri.
In the discussion, Roland outlined many of the points that Hamilton has made in blog posts, including the fact that Missouri law enforcement is using the federal, rather than state, asset forfeiture process. The state process, he explained, does not allow law enforcement to seize assets unless the owner has first been convicted of a crime; federal law has no such safeguards. Also, Roland added, the feds “kick back proceeds to state law enforcement agencies,” while state law requires that proceeds go to fund public schools.
But Roland also mentioned something we didn’t know. Apparently, he explained, Missouri’s constitution expressly bars an “estate” from being subject to forfeiture. Law enforcement can (and does) seize “cars, guns, and cash,” but the process is “rarely used against real property. The Missouri Constitution does not tolerate attempts to claim real estate,” Roland said.
Roland mentioned that he’s been in touch with lawyers for Jimmy Tebeau, the musician who owns Camp Zoe. And while he’s not directly involved with the case at this point, he says he sees great potential for a test case. “I would love to be able to advance constitutional claims on this,” he told host Marsh.
You can listen to the discussion here, and here is more on the Camp Zoe seizure.
|
|
|
