LEGISLATIVE ALERT
Congressman Henry Hyde is moving to amend the Civil Forfeiture Bill by removing the 1997 compromise, HR 1965, and replacing it with provisions of his original HR 1835. Both HR 1965 and HR 1835 threaten business and property owners, unions, and employees.
HR 1835 "Innocent Owner Provision" states that in order to escape forfeiture, owners must prove that they, "in a timely fashion, revoked permission for those engaging in illegal conduct to use the property or took reasonable actions in consultation with a law enforcement agency to discourage or prevent the illegal use of the property."
Under both bills, to avoid possible civil forfeiture of property, citizens must establish that they are "innocent" owners by incriminating their own property as potentially guilty. If property or business owners had "knowledge" or were "led to believe" their property was used for illegal conduct, they must report to "appropriate law enforcement agencies" their tenants, their home occupants (including family members), their employees, property and business. Law enforcement then may interview tenants, employees, management, neighbors, friends, etc. and rebut the claim of innocent owner by determining that the owner did not give "a timely notice" of the illegal conduct. Innocent property and business owners could be bankrupted by legal costs defending themselves against erroneous information.
Put simply, innocent property and business owners would have to deliver their assets to law enforcement's front door, then ask, "Did I give you 'a timely notice' or are you going to forfeit my property?" Law Enforcement need not respond for the 5-year statute of limitations. Once owners incriminate--taint--their property, they may not have clear title to sell or borrow against their reported assets for five years.
Conflict of Interest? The same law enforcement that alleges an owner did not give a timely notice, also receives part of the forfeited property.
What do innocent owners have to do to "discourage or prevent illegal use of their property"? Law enforcement has no uniform definition of the vigilance required to discover civil forfeitable offenses, or of what must be done to reduce or eliminate the illegal activity.
What constitutes a "timely notice"? Under HR 1835 and HR 1965, "timely" may always be in the eye of the law enforcement beholder.
What "information" or hearsay should be reported to police? Law enforcement is empowered to seize an owner's property if the owner had information "that led the owner to know" the property was used or would be used for a forfeitable offense.
Owners and managers will have to become Thought Police and distinguish between alleged criminal hearsay and real information which has to be reported. Senior citizens often view the importance of information alleging illegal activity differently than a 25-year-old police officer. Does the informant sound believable? Does the informant have an ax to grind against another tenant or employee, a former spouse or relationship?
HR 1835 encourages neighbors, employers, employees, to become government informants to get government perks, which may lead to a stampede of informants reporting to police the supposed criminal information about citizens, ruining careers, personal and business reputations, quality of life.
Employees could earn informant commissions by reporting employers, union members, and landlords.
Unscrupulous employers could destroy employment careers by using erroneous or "created" information. They could claim that they had to report known erroneous information about their employees to law enforcement out of fear of losing their innocent owner status. Under the provisions of HR 1835, an employee, tenant or owner does not have to be convicted for their property to be forfeited.
Owners and employers could live in fear of failing to report to police every alleged illegal thing they hear or are told about a tenant or employee. For example, at present, employees are afforded confidentiality in the workplace as an incentive to seek rehabilitation for illegal drug use. What will happen when the same employer has to consider this same confidential information reportable to law enforcement?
Former FBI Chief J. Edgar Hoover's famous files on Americans may be dwarfed in comparison to the law enforcement files HR 1835 will create.
Just 60 years ago Germany's Hermann Goering used similar forfeiture laws to secure alleged information, which was then followed by the Gestapo seizing and forfeiting properties and businesses.
If HR 1835 or its twin provisions in HR 1965 do not represent your vision of America's future, call its author, Henry Hyde at (202) 225-4561. For a copy of HR 1835, call U.S. Government Bill Room (202) 226-5200. See Innocent Owners' Provision Sec. 2, 5A through 6.