The 1996 Anti-Terrorist Act
Ross | 17.12.2000 13:22
U.S. ANTI-TERRORIST ACT-OR ANTI-FREE SPEECH and ASSEMBLY ACT?
has wide reaching forfeiture provisions. The Act utilizes the broad term (supporting organizations that transcend boundaries). Any organization or group networking with or advocating support for an organization within a U.S. jurisdiction, or across a state line, or in another country, is considered by U.S. Government to be (transcending boundaries). Consequently, any environmental group or organization is vulnerable to being charged with supporting (terrorist activity) should any member of an organization they supported--be charged by the U.S. or other government, with having (intimidated or coerced a civilian population; or influenced the policy of a government). Please see USC18 2991:
U.S. Government can now seize the assets of innocent supporting organizations and/or members alleged to have supported an organization, group, or person(s) committing a terrorist activity. Excessive government property forfeiture provisions are tied to the 1996 Anti-Terrorist act: U.S. Government can forfeit SOURCE ASSETS that supported terrorist activity. So if a person for example uses income from their business to support an organization or members that the U.S. Government later alleges committed or supported terrorist acts, the U.S. Government may seize the contributor\'s business as a SOURCE ASSET. Keep in mind, mere intimidation may qualify as a terrorist act. So if the press or U.S. Government has already criminalized an organization, the presence of the organization\'s members at a demonstration can be considered (intimidation of a civilian population.)
CONCERN: Innocent demonstrators, who are present at an event, may be charged with terrorist acts as well, i.e., with supporting the criminalized group. Innocent demonstrators in effect, start out guilty, having to prove they were not supporting terrorist activity or the criminalized demonstrators. CONCERN: A corrupt government and/or its paid operatives, may too easily cause the arrest of innocent demonstrators and/or cause government forfeiture of their assets. Note: It is easy for the U.S. Government to seize a demonstrator\'s assets using property forfeiture laws since conviction is not necessary for government to forfeit an owner\'s property. For U.S. Government to civil forfeit a citizen\'s assets, only a (Preponderance of Evidence) is now necessary to prove property was involved in a felony that would make it subject to forfeiture.
200 felonies can now cause property forfeiture thanks to Republican Congressman Henry Hyde. Mr. Hyde got passed in Congress (The Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000) HR 1658. The statue of limitations, the time period police have to civilly forfeit property, begins five years from the time police claim to have learned an asset was made subject to forfeiture.
Note: Corporate security and private intelligence companies now work so closing with U.S. police agencies, they appear to merge. Private security corporations by working closely with U.S. police agencies are in a position to influence local and federal police as to which political opponents should be arrested, or have their assets forfeited. Note: Neither charged defendants, nor anyone else, can use the Freedom of Information Act to penetrate corporate security information banks to learn if a corporation illegally obtained information and/or shared it with police. This is a very dangerous trend in the United States. Government agencies using private police to usurp citizen rights. And corporations using real police agencies to violate citizens’ rights.
Once U.S. Government or police charge a person or organization under 18USC 2991, (International Terrorist Activity) the U.S. Government may use secret witnesses, secret jurors, secret testimony, and other hidden evidence to convict a defendant and/or forfeit their assets. The same police agencies involved in the investigation may get to share the citizen\'s forfeited assets. This is especially dangerous since police routinely purchase testimony. Persons charged under the 1996 Anti-Terrorist Act, may have difficulty defending themselves even against the death penalty--when they may not be allowed to know the secret evidence against them, or cross examine government\'s secret witnesses. Such Star Chamber Courts do not serve the interests of a free society.
Had the 1996 Anti-Terrorist Act been in effect during the days of COINTELPRO, 1960 through the 1980\'s, many citizens and foundations with assets, to avoid today\'s risks, would have given their financial contributions to organizations the U.S. Government approved of, not organizations or persons that would dare question or confront government policies or attempt to legally stop corporate polluters. The 1996 Anti-Terrorist Act in the 1960’s and 1970’s would have chilled many citizens from lawfully participating in political issues that the U.S. Government may have found objectionable.
By the way, COINTELPRO RED SQUADS are back.
has wide reaching forfeiture provisions. The Act utilizes the broad term (supporting organizations that transcend boundaries). Any organization or group networking with or advocating support for an organization within a U.S. jurisdiction, or across a state line, or in another country, is considered by U.S. Government to be (transcending boundaries). Consequently, any environmental group or organization is vulnerable to being charged with supporting (terrorist activity) should any member of an organization they supported--be charged by the U.S. or other government, with having (intimidated or coerced a civilian population; or influenced the policy of a government). Please see USC18 2991:
U.S. Government can now seize the assets of innocent supporting organizations and/or members alleged to have supported an organization, group, or person(s) committing a terrorist activity. Excessive government property forfeiture provisions are tied to the 1996 Anti-Terrorist act: U.S. Government can forfeit SOURCE ASSETS that supported terrorist activity. So if a person for example uses income from their business to support an organization or members that the U.S. Government later alleges committed or supported terrorist acts, the U.S. Government may seize the contributor\'s business as a SOURCE ASSET. Keep in mind, mere intimidation may qualify as a terrorist act. So if the press or U.S. Government has already criminalized an organization, the presence of the organization\'s members at a demonstration can be considered (intimidation of a civilian population.)
CONCERN: Innocent demonstrators, who are present at an event, may be charged with terrorist acts as well, i.e., with supporting the criminalized group. Innocent demonstrators in effect, start out guilty, having to prove they were not supporting terrorist activity or the criminalized demonstrators. CONCERN: A corrupt government and/or its paid operatives, may too easily cause the arrest of innocent demonstrators and/or cause government forfeiture of their assets. Note: It is easy for the U.S. Government to seize a demonstrator\'s assets using property forfeiture laws since conviction is not necessary for government to forfeit an owner\'s property. For U.S. Government to civil forfeit a citizen\'s assets, only a (Preponderance of Evidence) is now necessary to prove property was involved in a felony that would make it subject to forfeiture.
200 felonies can now cause property forfeiture thanks to Republican Congressman Henry Hyde. Mr. Hyde got passed in Congress (The Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000) HR 1658. The statue of limitations, the time period police have to civilly forfeit property, begins five years from the time police claim to have learned an asset was made subject to forfeiture.
Note: Corporate security and private intelligence companies now work so closing with U.S. police agencies, they appear to merge. Private security corporations by working closely with U.S. police agencies are in a position to influence local and federal police as to which political opponents should be arrested, or have their assets forfeited. Note: Neither charged defendants, nor anyone else, can use the Freedom of Information Act to penetrate corporate security information banks to learn if a corporation illegally obtained information and/or shared it with police. This is a very dangerous trend in the United States. Government agencies using private police to usurp citizen rights. And corporations using real police agencies to violate citizens’ rights.
Once U.S. Government or police charge a person or organization under 18USC 2991, (International Terrorist Activity) the U.S. Government may use secret witnesses, secret jurors, secret testimony, and other hidden evidence to convict a defendant and/or forfeit their assets. The same police agencies involved in the investigation may get to share the citizen\'s forfeited assets. This is especially dangerous since police routinely purchase testimony. Persons charged under the 1996 Anti-Terrorist Act, may have difficulty defending themselves even against the death penalty--when they may not be allowed to know the secret evidence against them, or cross examine government\'s secret witnesses. Such Star Chamber Courts do not serve the interests of a free society.
Had the 1996 Anti-Terrorist Act been in effect during the days of COINTELPRO, 1960 through the 1980\'s, many citizens and foundations with assets, to avoid today\'s risks, would have given their financial contributions to organizations the U.S. Government approved of, not organizations or persons that would dare question or confront government policies or attempt to legally stop corporate polluters. The 1996 Anti-Terrorist Act in the 1960’s and 1970’s would have chilled many citizens from lawfully participating in political issues that the U.S. Government may have found objectionable.
By the way, COINTELPRO RED SQUADS are back.
Ross
