From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Should TELECOMS Pay “Your Defense Costs” to fight NSA Illegal-Wiretap Evidence?
Perhaps the only thing that has stopped U.S. Government from broadly using “illegal telecom assisted wiretap evidence” against ordinary Americans and international corporations calling from the U.S. is that Telecoms don’t have immunity from being sued by charged criminal and civil asset forfeiture defendants.
Perhaps the only thing that has stopped U.S. Government from broadly using “illegal telecom assisted wiretap evidence” against ordinary Americans and international corporations calling from the U.S. is that Telecoms don’t have immunity from being sued by charged criminal and civil asset forfeiture defendants. Currently no bill introduced by the U.S. Senate or House clearly state what illegal electronic surveillance can or can not be used by police or introduced into court by Government. Police may soon be free to sift though millions of illegally seized electronic communications to make that decision.
Any “telecom immunity bill” passed by Congress should include laws that force TELECOMS to pay “a defendant’s legal defense costs” when a defendant is forced to fight illegal NSA or other illegal government wiretap evidence in court—if the Telecom broke the law assisting government illegal wiretaps.
Depending on the kind of “Immunity” Congress gives the Telecom Industry for spying on its Citizens, could set NSA/FBI free—to share that “illegally collected wiretap information” with local, state and federal police in order to initiate almost any kind of criminal investigation.
It is problematic Law enforcement agencies will want to use NSA/FBI illegal wiretap evidence and other surveillance to go back perhaps decades to arrest Americans and/or civilly forfeit their homes, inheritances and business using only a "preponderance of civil evidence" under Title 18 of the United States Code.
The Patriot Act specifically mentions provisions passed in Rep. Henry Hyde’s bill HR 1658 "The Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000." HR 1658 included a "retroactive asset forfeiture provision" that applies retroactively to “assets already subject to government forfeiture”, meaning "property already tainted by crime" provided “that property” was already part of or later connected to a criminal investigation in progress" when HR.1658 passed.
In 2000 after HR1658 passed the “old statute of limitations” died that gave government “five years” to seize property from the actual date a “property” was involved in crime. Police now have five-years to seize property from “whenever police claim” they learned a “property” was made subject to civil asset forfeiture. There are over 200 U.S. laws and violations that can subject property to civil asset forfeiture. For example a misrepresentation on a federally insured mortgage loan application can cause the federal forfeiture of your home.
Most property and business owners that defend their assets against Government Civil Forfeiture claim an “innocent owner defense.” This defense can become a criminal prosecution trap for both guilty and innocent property owners. Any fresh denial to the government when questioned about committing a crime “even when you did not do it” can “involuntarily waive” your right to assert in your defense—that the “Criminal Statute of Limitations” has passed for prosecution. Any fresh denial of guild, even 30 years after a crime was committed may allow Government prosecutors to use old and new evidence, including information discovered during a Civil Asset Forfeiture Proceeding to launch a criminal prosecution. For that reason many innocent property and business owners are reluctant to defend their property and businesses from Government Civil Asset Forfeiture. Re: waiving Criminal Statute of Limitations: see USC18, Sec.1001, James Brogan V. United States. N0.96-1579.
Imagine NSA sharing its illegal-domestic surveillance information with countless police agencies that are increasingly dependent on forfeiting Citizens’ property to pay their department’s operating costs. Police can too easily take an innocent person’s hastily written email or phone call out of context to allege a crime was committed. Imagine Police using the Patriot Act’s low standard of proof “a civil preponderance of evidence” to judge NSA illegal domestic wiretap information, perhaps to go back before 2000 to civilly seize a Citizen's home, business or other property. No conviction is required for U.S. Government to civilly forfeit a Citizen’s home or business.
Under the USA Patriot Act, witnesses can be kept secret while being paid part of the assets they cause to be forfeited.
Any “telecom immunity bill” passed by Congress should include laws that force TELECOMS to pay “a defendant’s legal defense costs” when a defendant is forced to fight illegal NSA or other illegal government wiretap evidence in court—if the Telecom broke the law assisting government illegal wiretaps.
Depending on the kind of “Immunity” Congress gives the Telecom Industry for spying on its Citizens, could set NSA/FBI free—to share that “illegally collected wiretap information” with local, state and federal police in order to initiate almost any kind of criminal investigation.
It is problematic Law enforcement agencies will want to use NSA/FBI illegal wiretap evidence and other surveillance to go back perhaps decades to arrest Americans and/or civilly forfeit their homes, inheritances and business using only a "preponderance of civil evidence" under Title 18 of the United States Code.
The Patriot Act specifically mentions provisions passed in Rep. Henry Hyde’s bill HR 1658 "The Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000." HR 1658 included a "retroactive asset forfeiture provision" that applies retroactively to “assets already subject to government forfeiture”, meaning "property already tainted by crime" provided “that property” was already part of or later connected to a criminal investigation in progress" when HR.1658 passed.
In 2000 after HR1658 passed the “old statute of limitations” died that gave government “five years” to seize property from the actual date a “property” was involved in crime. Police now have five-years to seize property from “whenever police claim” they learned a “property” was made subject to civil asset forfeiture. There are over 200 U.S. laws and violations that can subject property to civil asset forfeiture. For example a misrepresentation on a federally insured mortgage loan application can cause the federal forfeiture of your home.
Most property and business owners that defend their assets against Government Civil Forfeiture claim an “innocent owner defense.” This defense can become a criminal prosecution trap for both guilty and innocent property owners. Any fresh denial to the government when questioned about committing a crime “even when you did not do it” can “involuntarily waive” your right to assert in your defense—that the “Criminal Statute of Limitations” has passed for prosecution. Any fresh denial of guild, even 30 years after a crime was committed may allow Government prosecutors to use old and new evidence, including information discovered during a Civil Asset Forfeiture Proceeding to launch a criminal prosecution. For that reason many innocent property and business owners are reluctant to defend their property and businesses from Government Civil Asset Forfeiture. Re: waiving Criminal Statute of Limitations: see USC18, Sec.1001, James Brogan V. United States. N0.96-1579.
Imagine NSA sharing its illegal-domestic surveillance information with countless police agencies that are increasingly dependent on forfeiting Citizens’ property to pay their department’s operating costs. Police can too easily take an innocent person’s hastily written email or phone call out of context to allege a crime was committed. Imagine Police using the Patriot Act’s low standard of proof “a civil preponderance of evidence” to judge NSA illegal domestic wiretap information, perhaps to go back before 2000 to civilly seize a Citizen's home, business or other property. No conviction is required for U.S. Government to civilly forfeit a Citizen’s home or business.
Under the USA Patriot Act, witnesses can be kept secret while being paid part of the assets they cause to be forfeited.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network
(See http://www.securityfocus.com/news/5452
WASHINGTON (AP) - "U.S. reviewing old, secret surveillance files in terrorism investigations." “4,500 files.” By, Ted Bridis, The Associated Press 2003-06-04.
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/04/07/18586797.php
Obama Embraces Bush Position on Warrantless Wiretapping
DOJ Claims Illegal Surveillance Protected by "Sovereign Immunity", Keeps Straight Face
The federal government has finally responded to Jewel v. NSA, a lawsuit against dragnet warrantless wiretapping filed last September by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF).
In a motion filed on Friday, April 3rd, the Obama Dept. of Justice (DOJ) demanded that the entire lawsuit be dismissed based on both the Bush administration's claim that a "state secrets" privilege bars any lawsuits against the executive branch for illegal spying, as well as a novel "sovereign immunity" claim that the Patriot Act bars any lawsuits of any kind for illegal government surveillance, unless there was "willful disclosure" of the illegally intercepted communications.
According to EFF senior staff attorney Kevin Bankston, "this is the first time [the DOJ] claimed sovereign immunity against Wiretap Act and Stored Communications Act [SCA] claims. In other words, the administration is arguing that the U.S. can never be sued for spying that violates federal surveillance statutes, whether FISA, the Wiretap Act or the SCA."
Since at least 2001, AT&T and other major telecommunications carriers have apparently been engaged in a massive operation allowing the NSA to eavesdrop and record all voice and data communication. On Sept. 18th, 2008, San Francisco-based EFF filed a lawsuit in federal court against the NSA on behalf of five California AT&T customers to stop the ongoing surveillance of their telephone and internet communications. The plaintiffs are also suing the President, Vice President and other officials who ordered or participated in the warrantless wiretapping.
March 31, 2010
Government found liable for damages wiring tapping without warrant. Damages may include defendants legal fees.
See New Your Times Story: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/01/us/01nsa.html?ref=us
See: The Criminal NSA Eavesdropping Program
By Glenn Greenwald
Published 04/02/10
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=740&discuss=1#discuss