THE FOURTH REICH
                 Toward An American Police State

Extracted from an article written by Donald S. McAlvany,
published in: The McAlvany Intellegence Advisor, January 1993
edition.   Subscription office: PO Box 84904, Phoenix, AZ 85071
USA. Tel:(602) 252 4477, or (303) 259 4100. US$56 for 6 months
(in USA), US$72 for 6 months (Foreign)

   America's draconian asset seizure laws are being quietly and
devastatingly enforced.  The media silence on this issue is
alarming in itself. Read this and pray that Australia does not
follow, yet again, in America's footsteps.

THE EXPLOSION OF GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS.

    Congress passed almost 2,500 new laws in 1992. Most of
these laws carry both criminal and civil penalties for
violations. These laws are turned over to any of several dozen
applicable federal agencies (i.e., FDA, EPA, BATF, SEC, IRS,
OSHA, FCC, FAA, DEA, etc.) which write tens of thousands of
federal regulations each year to implement and enforce these
new laws. These agencies employ close to 121,000 faceless
bureaucrats to write the new regulations and enforce these laws
and regulations.
    There were 67,715 pages of new regulations written and
published (in fine print) in the Federal Register in 1992 and
that suffices as legal public notice of the new laws and
regulations. The public are responsible for following every one
of those. It would take a large battery of Philadelphia lawyers
to interpret and keep up with this avalanche of new
regulations; but each US citizen is considered to be
responsible to know, understand, and abide by these new laws
and regulations.
    Heavy fines and/or jail sentences are associated with
violation of many of these laws and regulations, and tens of
thousands of Americans are now sitting in jail, or have been
heavily fined, or had their businesses closed for violation of
these new laws and regulations. In many instances, agents from
the various agencies run stings against unsuspecting citizens
or businesses, and entrap them into violating the new law or
regulation, A high profile example is then made of the new
criminal, or violation, along with the fines, prison sentences,
and media publicity, to intimidate the public, or other related
businesses into going along with the regulations.
    America has more people in prison per capita today than
South Africa, Albania (and most of Eastern Europe), or even Red
China. We jail 6 times as many people per capita as Denmark,
and almost 11 times as many per capita as Japan.  These
dictatorial new laws and regulations are costing Americans
literally hundreds of billions of dollars per year, and are
hamstringing tens of thousands of small businesses which
literally cannot afford the paperwork, red tape, and expenses of
compliance, and are therefore forced out of business. One small
example: The Agriculture Department has made it a crime to sell
peaches or nectarines which do not meet the minimum size of
2-7/16" and 2-3/8" in diameter respectively. This new regulation
(passed in 1992) will condemn to rot over 500 million perfectly
edible peaches and nectarines per year.
    The US Attorney General has already filed for a federal
injunction and a $100 per box fine against California's largest
nectarine and peach farmer, who was selling the forbidden fruit
at a bargain price of under $10 per box to thankful inner city
residents. The farmer is now a criminal who will be fined
heavily for his crime. But meanwhile, the Agriculture
Department has asked the California Nectarine Administrative
Committee to undertake market research to determine the effect
of fruit size on consumer preferences.

ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS.

    These may be the most dangerous of all, because the Clean
Water Act, Clean Air Act, and a host of other environmental
laws and regulations passed in recent years give the government
draconian, dictatorial controls over virtually every business
and person, over every piece of private property, every car,
and every action of every American in the US.  Even as
thousands of murderers and rapists are turned loose by our
justice system each year on technicalities, room is being made
in our jails for honest law-abiding citizens, A case in point
is a Vietnam vet. and environmental consultant, Bill Ellen, who
is now serving a six month prison sentence for a 'wetlands'
violation. (The US attorney had pushed for a three year
sentence but the judge was more lenient.)
    What was Ellen's crime? In 1987, Ellen who had a strong
background as a conservationist, agreed to do a project to
construct 10 ponds for migrating geese and wildlife
on the Eastern shore of the Chesapeake Bay
in Maryland, Ellen was to build the $7 million
103 acre wildlife sanctuary on a 2,000 acre private estate.
Ellen, who knew environmental laws well, got all the proper
permits, and complied with all those laws and regulations as
written 1987, However, in 1988, the definition of 'wetland' was
expanded to include potholes that collect water during rains.

    Ellen, who already had permits, was unconcerned with the
new regulations because the land was so dry that workers had to
wear dust masks.  However, Ellen was indicted for 'wetlands'
violations after one government agency told him he could
continue landfill work and another told him he could not.
Acting on the former, he hauled in two more loads of landfill
(i.e., dirt). Angry federal environmental bureaucrats toured
the land after three days of heavy rains and indicted Ellen for
"desecration of wetlands". He was sentenced to six months in
jail where he now sits. The owner of the estate escaped jail as
an accomplice to an environmental ('wetlands') crime by paying
a $1 million fine and making another $1 million donation to the
National Fish and Wildlife Federation.

POLICE STATE TACTICS

    US military and National Guard personnel have been
undergoing training and exercises for several years for
house-to-house searches (presumably for drugs or guns), for
crowd control, and for domestic 'counter-terrorism measures'.
Roadblocks are being randomly set up on highways around America
by local, state, or federal officials to conduct driver's
licence checks or warrantless spot checks of cars or their
occupants for drugs, liquor, or firarms; local or state police
of military helicopters are, with greatly increased frequency,
overflying cities, towns, neighbourhoods, and individual houses
at low levels (looking for drugs, for surveillance or for
intimidation purposes).
    In late '91, an 'urban warfare training exercise' by the US
Marines brought a dozen military helocpters swooping low over
San Francisco rooftops, prompting hundreds of frightened calls
to radio stations and the local police, who denied any
knowledge of the exercise. Hundreds of military vehicles (black
and with no markings) are being observed in various parts of
the US, in many instances manned by personnel in black uniforms
(with no insignias). Denial of any knowledge of these
helicopters, vehicles or personnel from local, state, and
federal officials almost always follows frightened enquiries
from citizens.
    Over the past two years, as training and enforcement
exercises have increased, SWAT teams in black Ninja suits and
other government marshals and enforcement teams have had an
increasing nember of shootouts with innocent victims who are
characterised by the government as 'religious fundamentalists',
'white supremacists', 'left or right wing extremists', 'tax
protesters', etc.
  In August '92, a mob of Federal agents surrounded the remote
Idaho home of Randy Weaver (wanted on a misdemeanour warrant)
and his family, and in a ten-day seige shot and killed his wife
and 14-yr-old son. In October '92, a 'drug raid' against a
61-year old wealthy, partially blind Ventura County, California
resident, Donald P. Scott, resulted in Scott being shot dead by
Los Angeles County Sheriff's deputies. No drugs were found, nor
did Scott resist arrest.
  The general tactic (whether used by local of federal police
officials, or both) is to overwhelm (and intimidate) the
'suspected' money launderer, environmental or financial
'criminal', gun law violator, etc. by invading his home or
business with a SWAT team and/or federal marshals or agents
numbering 10 to 20 or 30 people. Guns are often drawn and if
the 'victim' of the attack makes any sudden move, he is often
shot.
  This writer personally knows of at least a dozen endividuals
(none ever convicted of a traditional crime such as murder,
rape, robber, etc.) who have had their homes or businesses
invaded by local, state or federal law enforcement SWAT teams
in this manner. The experience is terrifying for the
individual, families, or employees involved. Shades of Nazi
Germany, Red China, or the old Soviet Union!

 TOWARD A STATE OF NATIONAL EMERGENCY

  Over the past few years, a number of references to a State of
National Emergency (or martial law) have been hinted at or
suggested by government officials, congressmen, etc. usually to
fight the drug war, crime, etc. Indeed, martial law was imposed
in Los Angeles (and was begged for by the public) to quell the
massive riots in the spring of '92, and could have been
declared nationally had the riots continued to spread during
the summer of '92.
  MARTIAL LAW, by definition, is "A system of government under
the direction of military authority. It is an arbitrary kind of
law, preceding directly from military power and having no
immediate constitutional or legislative sanction. It is only
justified by necessity, and supersedes all civil government.
Martial law is built on no settled principle, but is arbirary
and in truth no law."  Suspension of the writ of habeas corpus
(i.e., right to trial by judge and jury and protection from
illegal imprisonment) is a major element of martial law. As
Justice Blackstone wrote: "In this case, the nation parts with
a portion of its liberty and suspected persons may then be
arrested without cause assigned."

  The potential for a State of National Emergency or martial
law in America over the next three to five to seven years
(perhaps to deal with riots, the war on crime or drugs, a
financial/banking crisis or some manufactured crisis) is a very
real possibility. Indeed aspects of a state of emergency (or
martial law) and the suspension of constitutional rights
already exist in America today! Over a dozen Executive Orders
have been passed by Congress over the past few decades giving
the President total dictatorial control over every aspect of
American life if  the President decides to trigger and
implement same. FEMA would then go into action, firearms would
be confiscated, and many (if not all) constitutional rights and
guarantees would be suspended.
  Under a full state of emergency, tens or hundreds of
thousands of Americans (guilty of hate, environmental,
financial, or gun control 'crimes') are likely to be
imprisoned. Perhaps this is why George Bush moved in recent
years to double US prison capacity, and why under a national
security directive called "Rex 84", signed in 1984 by President
Reagan, eleven huge federal detention centres were activated in
California, Arizona, Arkansas, Wisconsin, New York,
Pennsylvania, Virginia, Georgia and Florida.

ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE AND COMPUTERISATION OF THE PUBLIC

  Computers and other high-tech breakthroughs over the past few
years have given the US (and other governments) the ability to
listen to, monitor, track, and keep citizens under surveillance
(from the cradle to the grave) that were not available to
Hitler in Nazi Germany or to the communists in Russia, China or
the East bloc until very recently.
  In 1974, the government had 3.9 billion records of
individuals stored in the personal data systems of 97 federal
agencies. The Department of Health, Education and Welfare had
693 separate data systems with 130 million personal records
including marital, financial, health, etc. data stored.  The
Treasury Department had 910 data systems with 853 million
records; the Justice Department 175 data systems with 181
million records, the Defense Department 2,219 data systems with
312 million records stored, etc.
  These numbers (from US News and World Report) are 20 years
old. The computer files on Americans today are probably ten
times larger and are linked together between most government
agencies. Like it or not, your life is now an open book. Using
your Social Security number, any government agency, or agent
(local, state, or federal) can now tap into dozens (or
hundreds) of computer data bases on every American. A total and
comprehensive computer profile exists on virtually ever adult
American.
  Now the government has developed a DNA (genetic) data base on
1.5 million US military servicemen and is experimenting with
same on federal prisoners.  Most Americans are not aware that
their phone calls, telexes, faxes and certain US mail are
regularly monitored by federal agencies.
  Phones can now be made 'hot on the hook'  (i.e., turned into
microphones even when hung up and not in use). According to a
1992 report by the General Accounting Office entitled "FBI
Advanced Communication Technologies Pose Wiretapping
Challenges", it is the intention of the FBI to tap all phones
in America.
  Every square inch of the earth's surface can now be
monitored by satellite so that all persons and activities can
now be watched. The government, in conjunction with AT&T,, has
developed computerised voice recognition on phones and also
picks up and records (through the National Security Agency) key
words from conversations, which trigger the NSA tape recorders.
  Several years ago, US passports were made computer-readable.
Now, US, Canadian, Australian, German and other European
authorities are installing computers in airports which will not
only read passports, but also hand prints via infrared security
readers. This means data banks of computerised hand prints will
be developed over the next few years and linked to other
governmental data bases, so that an instant computer record of
an individual will be flashed on a screen simply by waving a
person's hand over a grocery store-type infrared scanner. Does
this sound farfetched? This system is being set up at the
Kennedy and Newark airports and airports in the aforementioned
coutries at this writing.
  Biometric identification systems are now exploding onto the
scene with computerised fingerprint comparisons, identification
cards, debit and smart cards, driver's licences, proposals for
a biometric national ID card, a biometric card to replace
welfare cheques and food stamps, biometric passports, and
biometric booking of prisoners by law enforcement officers.
Biometric technologies include fingerprint comparison, retina
scanning, DNA analysis, vioce recognition, hand geometry, body
odour, body heat patterns and brain wave analysis. In other
words, 1001 ways of tracking the earth's inhabitants are
emerging via new high technology.
  Cars can be tracked via small implanted computerised
receiving devices linked with government satellites. The US
government has actually spent $3 billion over the past 15 years
to develop this people/vehicle tracking system. Now the exact
location of trucks, police cars, and other vehicles is
beginning to be tracked in the US via this method.

TOWARD A CASHLESS SOCIETY: THE WAY ON CASH AND PRIVACY

  Present US government attitudes toward cash and people who
use it are reminiscent of Nazi Germany. Police agencies
nationwide consider anyone carrying a large quantity of cash to
be involved in criminal activity unless they can prove
otherwise. For example, an Iowa man stopped for a traffic
ticket pulled his driver's licence out of his wallet, which
also contained $7,000 in cash. He was on his way to a sale that
required cash - much like the government's own auctions of
seized property. The policeman confiscated the cash because he
didn't think that a man dressed in overalls should be carrying
that much cash.
  A subscriber from New Jersey recently described the following
incident in a letter to your editor. He was recently driving
down the New Jersey Turnpike in an 18-foot Hertz rental truck.
He stopped at the last toll booth at the end of the Turnpike
near Wilmington, Delaware, and paid the toll with a $50 bill -
the only cash he had on him. The attendant told hinm to wait a
minute and then went to the front of the truck and wrote down
the licence plate number, a description of the subscriber (who
was driving) and his son (a passenger in the truck). While the
driver asked about this, the attendant stapled the $50 bill to
the government form and told him that this was the procedure
for anyone paying with a $50 or $100 bill.
  In Florida, The Orlando Sentinel recently carried a series
entitled: "Highway Robbery on I-95", which described how police
sieze your cash for even monor traffic violations on the basis
that the cash is "probable proceeds of drug transactions". At
airports, ticket agents and security personnel are alert to
anyone carrying large quantities of cash. Why? Because if their
tipoff leads to a seizure, they get a finder's fee of 10-25%.
In a seizure recently described on 60 Minutes, a DEA agent
testified in court that the person he seized cash from was
carrying $100s, $50s, $20s and $10s, "which were all widely
used in the drug trade." Of course, this only leaves $1s and
$5s for everone else.
  Drug residue on your cash provides 'probable cause' for its
seizure. Tens of thousands of cash seizures are made each year
because dogs allegedly identified the cash as containing drug
residue. And yet, according to the DEA's own lab studies, it is
the government itself (i.e., the Federal Reserve) that
contaminates most cash in its currency sorting operations.
Rollers on the Fed's cash sorting machines are contaminated
with cocaine residue (20 to 100 times higher than those [sic]
found on the average bill). Various studies dating back to 1985
show that anywhere between 80% and 97% of cash circulating has
drug residue on it.
  What happens to the seized cash? It's deposited into a
government bank account to be recirculated. No effort is made
to take it out of circulation, according to affidavits from 21
agencies that participate in cash seizures. If you want your
cash back, you must go to court to prove that the funds were
earned legitimately. If you win, the government always appeals
under the strategy that they will litigate until you run out of
money. So, does this make carrying cash illegal? In effect it
does!
  Illustrative of the government attitude toward cash was the
November '92 article by David Warwick in 'The Futurist'
magazine, entitled "The Cash Free Society". The article claims
that "cash has been the root of much of the social and economic
evil. Ridding society of its cash could make most criminal
activity disappear, from purse-snatching to drug trafficking,
Electronic money systems promise to lead the way to a cash-free,
crime-free society."
  The article admits that there are $300 billion in legitamate
cash transactions in America each year, but argues that the 40
million Americans who primarily use cash must adjust. Warwick
recommends the instituting of a federal debit card system for
all transactions, down to buying gum or a newspaper, paying for
a parking meter or toll phone call, of even leaving a tip.
Electronic transfers would "constitute legal tender". There
would be no such thing as a "withdrawal", only a "transfer". A
recent trial run was the government use of debit cards for
food stamps and the paying of Marines at Paris Island via debit
cards.

 MONEY-LAUNDERING LAWS

  In the former Soviet Union, if the government wanted to
apprehend and imprison someone who had committed no crime, they
charged him with the catch-all crime of 'hooliganism'. In
America, the catch-all crime used against organised crime
figures or other Americans has for years been RICO statutes or
simply 'conspiracy'. But in recent years the government has
created a new catch-all crime, punishable by imprisonment,
confiscation of property, heavy fines, or all of them. It is
called 'money-laundering'.
  Most Americans suppose 'money-laundering' refers primarily to
the hidden, laundered, movement of cash profits from drug
deals. Wrong! It refers today to almost any 'financial crime',
broken financial regulation, use of cash, avoidance of
government cash reporting laws, unreported foreign bank
accounts, unreported transfer of funds, or virtually anything
the government bureaucrats want it to mean. The definition is
vague and ever-expanding.

  IRS agents are greatly accelerating money-laundering cases in
situations where there is obviously no criminal intent, and
certainly no involvement whatsoever with drugs or drug money.
Remember, the IRS considers mmoney-laundering to be any effort
you make to disguise your assets or avoid completeing a federal
currency transaction or border-crossing form.
  If a tax case can be called 'money-laundering', it is no
longer civil, but criminal, with large potential criminal
sentences and fines. The government's growing and expanding
money-laundering laws are becoming the basis for a total
financial dictatorship in America, all under the guise of
fighting the drug war. The first thing the Nazis did in the
1930s to establish control over their population was to
establish 'money crimes' that were punishable by forfeiture
and imprisonment. Half a century later, the same thing is
happening here. The war on drugs is a classic government power
grab.
  The Treasury Department has published a booklet entitled
"Money-Laundering: A Banker's Guide to Avoiding Problems",
which contains a list of suspicious activities that the
Treasury Department says fit the profile of a
'money-launderer'. These activities include: 1) Paying off a
delinquent loan all at once; 2) Changing currency from small
to large demoninations; 3) Buying cashier's cheques, money
orders, or traveller's cheques for less than the reporting
limit (i.e., under $10,000); 4) Acting nervously while making
large transactions with cash or monetary instruments; 5)
Opening an account and using it as collateral for a loan; 6)
Presenting a transaction that involves a large number of $50s
and $100 bills; and 7) Presenting a transaction without
counting the cash first.
  Any non-reporting of cash transactions over $10,000 on a form
8300 (THAT NOW INCLUDES CASHIER'S CHEQUES, MONEY ORDERS OF ANY
KIND AND TRAVELLER'S CHEQUES) by a banker, stockbroker,
car dealer, jeweller, coin dealer, or any business accepting
cash (or the above-listed cash equivalents) is considered a
money-laundering violation and can result in heavy fines. and
even imprisonment. Personal cheques, money market fund cheques
and bank wires are not presently reportable on form 8300s. [NB:
Murder, rape, and armed robbery now result in smaller and less
frequent jail terms or fines than the new federal crime of
money-laundering. In fact, the penalties for money-laundering
are 10 times more severe than the same crime prosecuted as tax
evasion.]

 BUSH'S INTERNATIONAL STRUCTURING AND EXPANDED FORFEITURE LAW

  The November '92 issue of 'Low Profile', written by Mark
Nestmann (P.O. Box 84910, Phoenix, AZ 85071) carried an ominous
article on America's latest money-laundering legislation. On
29/10/92, George Bush, who pushed through more
money-laundering, anti-currency, and anti-privacy legislation
in his single term than any other US president, signed the
"Annunzio-Wylie Anti-money-laundering Act" which: 1) Prohibits
a bank or financial institution from disclosing to a depositor
the fact that their account is the subject of a
money-laundering operation; 2) Requires all financial
institutions or others who sell or redeem monetary instruments
(cash, cashier's cheques, money orders, or traveller's cheques)
or transmit funds by wire, to maintain records of any
international transactions, and make them available for
warrantless inspection; 3) Permits the Treasury to require
financial institutions to report "suspicious transactions" that
could involve a violation of any law or regulation. The
institution is not allowed to notify the "suspect" of the
report; 4) Permits the government to seize monetary instruments
or financial accounts even if it cannot specifically identify
the property allegedly subject to forfeiture (in other words,
any other property of the "accused" can be seized); 5)
Prohibits any action to structure or assist in structuring the
transfer of monetary assets across US borders in any effort to
avoid reporting the transfer. Any property involved in any
structured transaction is subject to forfeiture. 6) Applies the
weight of the anti-money-laundering laws to those who conspire
to violate them, even if no violation takes place; 7) Permits
any federal agency to share any data it holds with any other
federal agency; 8) Permits the government to consfiscate the
assets of people even if they are held in foreign countries
(this is the culmination of years of negotiations with other
countries); 9) It allows the US government to prosecute foreign
banks who use US banks to launder money; and 10) It empowers
banking regulators to revoke the charter of institutions
convicted of money-laundering. These provisions are designed to
terrorise bankers and force them to become the money police for
the government.
  As Mark Nestmann wrote in his 10/92 Low Profile newsletter:
"This bill greatly strengthens the government's hand in
money-laundering and forfeiture cases. The 'vague'
international structuring ban is particularly frightening. In
theory, anyone transferring more than $10,000 in monetary
instruments in installments below that amount across a US
border without notifying the Customs Service could be
illegally structuring their transactions. They would then be
subject to criminal penalties and forfeiture."

WHEN MONEY-LAUNDERING MEETS THE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICE

  Mark Nestmann wrote in a recent Low Profile newsletter: "The
July 1992 ABA Banking Journal describes how the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) can use money-laundering laws against
lenders that provide money to corporate polluters. The Crime
Control Act of 1990 permits the EPA to apply money-laundering
laws in criminal violations of most federal air and water
pollution legistlation. A lender may be convicted of
money-laundering if it advances more than $10,000 to a company
that it knows or has reason to believe has violated
environmental laws. Violators may be fined $500,000 or twice
the value of the property involved, whichever is greater. A
maximum 20-year prison sentence may also apply to the
individual(s) approving the loan."
  "The courts have defined 'proceeds' as moneys that may have
been co-mingled with other, legitimate funds. As a result, all
receipts coming from a facility violating environmental laws,
property acquired from such receipts, and perhaps even the
company controlling the facility, may be 'proceeds'. All are
subject to forfeiture under federal law".
  "The article suggests that lenders shold adopt 'due
diligence' measures to avoid lending to companies in violation
of environmental laws; make personnel aware of environmental
and money-laundering laws."

 STRUCTURING LAWS

  'Structuring' is defined by the IRS as any effort to avoid
reporting cash or other monetary transactions over $10,000 by
breaking them down into smaller 'related' transactions over any
12 month period (defined by USC 31, Sec. 5322-5324
Money-Laundering Control Act of 1986, as amended). A
structuring violation carries with it a criminal penalty with a
mandatory prison term, heavy fines, and confiscation of
structured funds and money 'connected' to them. (A civil
penalty of $25,000 fine with confiscation of structured funds
also exists.) Monetary instruments included in structuring are
cash, cashier's cheques, money orders, and traveller's cheques.
  'Structuring' is now defined as money-laundering, and is a
criminal offence. You can now go to jail for dealing in cash to
protect your financial privacy, if the IRS thinks you're trying
to hide or structure your transactions or monetary instruments.
Furthermore, it's against the law for a bank or merchant to
tell you that you might be violating the law. This can get him
prosecuted as part of your structuring 'conspiracy'. If they
think your behaviour is suspicious, they may fill out a form on
you without telling you and file it with the IRS who will
promptly audit you, or begin a criminal investigation.
  A few examples of structuring violations include a series of
related withdrawals or deposits over $10,000 (i.e., several in
any 12-month period) in monetary instruments without filing a
cash reporting report (CTR) to the government, or making
payments of $10,000 or more in monetary instruments on an
installment loan without filing a CTR. One illustration this
writer is familiar with is a high school principal who lived in
the South, whth no criminal record, no history of drug usage or
dealing, or even a speeding record - he simply believed in
privacy. About two years ago, he purchased $62,000 worth of
krugerrands from a coin dealer and several days later mailed
nine separate cashiers cheques to the dealer, of sizes varying
between $6,000 and $9,000.
  He had accumulated $62,000 in cash (after taxes) over a 15 or
20 year period, believing that privacy and Amendment IV of the
US Constitution were still in effect. He was wrong, they are
not! The man went to nine separate banks to buy cashier's
cheques, three of them (33%) turned him in to the IRS, the man
was indicted on 16 counts of criminal violation of Title 31 of
The Bank Secrecy Act of 1986; was found guilty; fined $200,000;
had his $62,000 forfeited to the IRS; and was sentenced to five
years in the federal penitentiary, all for the new federal
money-laundering crime of buying nine cashier's cheques with
his own cash. That is structuring laws in action and that
sounds more like Nazi germany than the America most of us grew
up in.
  If the government's case is shakier (or less clear cut) than
the principal's case (which, unfortunately, was a classic
textbook Title 31 violation), their ploy will be to drop the
criminal charges if you allow your assets to be seized without
going to trial, and/or pay a stiff fine. This is now very
common in drug kingpin cases. The drug dealer goes free, the
police keep his assets. 'Structuring' is a strict liability
statute. That means that even if there's no criminal intent,
even if you earned the money legitimately, unless you can prove
that the transactions were unrelated, the government keeps your
assets.
  If the government decides to prosecute you criminally, in
adddition to the mandatory prison sentence and fine, they can
legally confiscate not just the money involved in the
transaction, but any assets associated with the 'structured'
funds. For example, if you 'structure' a withdrawal of $10,000
in cash (over any 12 month period) from a $1 million bank
account, the government can seize the entire $1 million. The
seizure can proceed even without a criminal conviction or
indictment, just like the forfeiture laws.

  The average person might say, "Well, the government would
never come after anyone who was totally innocent." But that's
not true, he misses the point! The IRS admits that 85% of the
people accused of 'structuring' committed no other crime than
seeking to protect their privacy. The courts have upheld
numerous criminal structuring convictions for violations that
concealed no criminal activity. If the government wins the
conviction, the judge must sentence the criminal "to a
mandatory prison sentence".
  This gives the lie to the argument that money-laundering/
structuring laws are enforced to get drug dealers and fight the
war on drugs. The fact is that it is far easier to convict an
honest law-abiding citizen and confiscate his property than to
go after a real drug dealer who has a battery of high-priced
lawyers and accountants, and who might even shoot back.
  In US vs Aversa, a federal judge delivered a scathing
critique of the government's use of the 'structuring' statutes.
Aversa's 'crime' was initiating a secret loan to help keep
information about his wife's infertility private. The loan
triggered reports of 'suspicious transactions' in his bank
account.
  In conclusion, money-laundering and 'structuring' laws have
little if anything to do with the war on drugs. That is simply
the excuse. They are a legal way for the socialist government
bureaucrats to plunder and confiscate the peoples' assets (as
in Nazi Germany or Russia), they are a way to enrich the
government's debt-ridden coffers, they are a way to drive us
toward the cashless society, and they are a way to place
Orwellian-type controls on the American people.
  This trend is likely to get worse under Bill Clinton, judging
by a recent speech he gave in Michigan to a group of
prosecutors (as reported by Money-Laundering Alert): "If we
really want to get the big criminals, we can focus more on the
money-laundering aspects of their operations, and use the
federal authorities to deal with financial transactions that
cross state lines, that deal with federally insured
institutions, that deal with those things that the states will
never be competent to deal with, That is what the federal
government ought to focus on, go after the money!"

ASSET FORTEITURES: HOW THE GOVERNMENT PLUNDERS THE PEOPLE VIA
SEIZURE LAWS

  George Orwell's 1984 has arrived in the USSA. Just as in Nazi
Germany in the 1930s and in Russia from 1917 to 1990, any
government agent or agency in America today can confiscate or
seize almost any property from any American and there is very
little the citizen can do to protect himself. We are witnessing
the death of property rights in America, human rights and all
other freedoms will follow.
  In 1984, government seizures of so-called 'illegal assets'
totalled $30 million. In 1991, these seizures totalled $644
million (not including IRS levies) for a net increase of
2,047%. (Seizures in 1992 probably exceeded $750 million.) A
total of $2.6 billion in US citizens' assets have been seized
since 1885, the Government Asset Forteiture Office proudly
boasts. Eighty percent of these seizures never resulted in an
arrest or conviction, indicationg that most are being taken
from innocent people.
  According to USA Today, there are now 1,000 forfeitures per
week in the US, or 52,000 per year. Assets seized in order of
frequency are: 1) cash or other monetary instruments; 2)
vehicles, boats, planes; 3) bank and brokerage accounts; 4)
real estate (including your home); and 5) pension and
profit-sharing plans.
  Police or government seizures now pose a seemingly random,
but still, very real and terrifying threat to everything we
have worked so hard to earn and save over the years. It is
frightening to realise that if your teenage son or daughter
hosts a party at your house, and one of the guests brings a few
joints of marijuana, you can lose your entire house and
everything in it under many local or state forfeiture laws.
(Federal forteiture laws will apply only if the substance is
present in saleable quantities.)
  Asset forfeiture is an unconstitutional process (though
considered legal according to new socialist laws and
regulations) which allows the government or any police agency
to simply 'accuse' or 'suspect' you of a crime (but not
formally charge you), and then seize your property. In most
instances there is no arrest, no trial and no conviction. You
are presumed guilty until you can prove yourself innocent. The
plain fact is that the great majority of people who have
property seized from them by the police are innocent and
law-abiding. One study showed that in 80% of the seizures, the
police never even filed charges against the victims of the
seizures, or, in some cases, filed charges and then dropped
them.
  The police need no warrant to seize your car, you cash, your
business, your house, your bank account, your investments, your
retirement plan, or your personal property, with no due
process. They don't even have to formally charge you with a
crime. There are hundreds of local, state and federal laws and
thousands of regulations on the books under which the
government can seize your property.

  Furthermore, as Financial Privacy Report (P.O. Box 1277,
Barnesville, MN 55337) says, there's no cap on the value of the
seized assets. They can take expensive cars and homes for even
the most minor 'suspected' violation. You might be under
suspicion of violating some statute for which the maximum
penalty, if convicted criminally in a court of law might be a
$500 or $1,000 fine. But under these laws, the police or
government can seize your property worth 100 or even 1,000
times as much as the maximum fine, and they don't need to
convict you to do it.
  Three fraternities on the University of Virginia campus found
out the hard way when federal agents raided them and
confiscated a small amount of marijuana worth, at most, a few
hundred dollars. Criminally, this would have been treated as a
youthful first transgression of a few teenagers. But under the
seizure laws, the police took the fraternity houses
themselves, which were worth about one million dollars.
  In Iowa, a woman accused (not convicted) of shoplifting a $25
sweater saw her $18,000 car (which had been specially equipped
for her handicapped daughter) seized as the potential 'getaway
vehicle'. In Portland, Oregon, the police raided a bar and
arrested a bartender (not the owner) on suspicion of
bookmaking. There was zero evidence pointing to the bar owner's
involvement - the police documents didn't even mention him. But
the police seized his business anyway. The deputy district
attorney in charge said she didn't have evidence to press
criminal charges against the owner "so we seized the business".

 PROBABLE CAUSE

  The government or police do not have to show any more than
'probable cause' that a crime has been committed, the same
standard which for centuries has been applied to search
warrants. So the police can now sieze your home with no more
evidence than it once took to search it.
  'Probable cause' can be when the police or government agency
'suspects' racketeering (which is broadly defined, it can mean
almost anything), drug possession, drug trafficking,
money-laundering (See section IIA above), robbery, murder, tax
evasion, extortion, environmental crimes, violation of the
Trading with the Enemy Act, violation of the Emergency Economic
Powers Act, gun control violations, and more than 100 suspected
unlawful activities named in legislation.
  Some specific examples of 'probale cause' in the current
avalanche of government seizures: 1) a tip from a paid
informant (with a finder's fee of 10-25% of the value of the
seized property paid); 2) a tip from an airline ticket sales
person or airport security guard (with a finders' fee paid of
10-25% of the value of the seized property); 3) any trace of
any controlled substance (i.e., drugs) on any person or
property (zero tolerance is allowed); 4) any trace of any
controlled substance (i.e., drugs) on cash or other monetary
instruments; 5) any specified unlawful activity in which
probable cause indicates you are guilty (i.e., firearms
violations, unpaid speeding tickets, etc.); 6) making an effort
to avoid filling out a cash reporting form at the bank; 7)
innocently doing business with a person that the government
believes you should have suspected of comitting a crime.
  Bill and Karen Munnerlyn, recently profiled on 60 Minutes,
are classic examples of (7) above. Bill Munnerlyn used to own a
Las Vegas air freight service. But on 19/3/89, Bill flew an old
man and four padlocked blue plastic boxes to a California
airport. Unknown to Bill, his passenger was a convited cocaine
trafficker, and the boxes contained nearly $3 million in cash
from a drug deal An informant tipped off the DEA as to the
nature of the cargo and passenger, and both the passenger and
Bill were arrested upon arrival. The jet, the blue boxes, and
even $8,500 in cash Bill's passenger had paid for the flight
were seized.
  Bill was released three days later with no charges, but the
DEA kept the plane, and the US Attorney prosecuting the seizure
said it was justifiable because the plane flew into the Los
Angeles area which is "known as a center of illegal drug
activity" and that was sufficient 'probable cause' to seize the
plane. In October '90, Bill took the government to court and
won a jury trial. But the judge overturned the jury's verdict.
  The DEA then demanded that Bill pay a $66,000 fine (which he
did not have) to get the plane back. Meanwhile, the plane had
incurred $50,000 in damage while in government custody. In the
meantime, under DEA pressure, the FDA revoked Bill's flight
certificate. Bill never got the plane back, His business is
gone, and he now drives a truck to support his family. But, the
informant whose tip led to Bill's jet being seized is eligible
for a reward up to 25% of the value of the plane.
  According to a recent article in USA Today, in 1992, 65
informants made over $100,000 each by simply alleging to
police agencies that their friends, neighbours, and/or business
associates had committed crimes. And no, when you go to trial,
you don't have the right to confront the informant in court.
The reason: it's a civil, not a criminal proceeding.
  To seize your property, the government need not accuse you of
a crime. All that is necessary is that the judge agree with a
prosecutor that 'probable cause' indicates that a crime was
committed in or on your property. Or a policeman, or sheriff,
or federal drug agent can make that determination on the spot
and seize your car, your boat, your home, your bank accounts,
etc. According to The Pittsburgh Press, over 80% of the victims
of 25,000 such seizures they analysed were never accused of any
crime.

 LOOKING SUSPICIOUS CAN GET YOUR ASSETS SEIZED

  A 'suspicious' customer or transaction at a bank or financial
institution goes to the top of the seizure list. There is a box
on the top of the CTR (cash reporting form) and if a person
looks nervous, or protests having the form filled out, or is
too inquisitive about the form, that box may be checked. The
bank is supposed to notify the Treasury Department but cannot
tell you, they're just supposed to spy. Should the Treasury
Department find your actions suspicious, it can freeze your
account and it's up to you to prove the seizure is improper.

  In the largest effort of this type, Operation Polar Cap, the
Treasury froze more than 700 'suspicious' accounts. Ultimately
only about 10% of these were shown to be possibly tied to
illegal activity. The other 90% were erroneously (but
'legally') confiscated. Yet each depositor whose account was
wrongfully seized had to prove, at their own expense, that
their assets had been earned by legitimate means.
  As the Financial Privacy Report writes, "Forfeiture laws were
expanded in 1984 to allow the government to take possession
without first charging the owner. The proceeds finance more
investigations and are helping to finance the financial
shortfall of local, state and federal governments. Eliminating
the need to prove a crime has moved most action to civil court,
where the government accuses the item, not the owner, of being
tainted by crime. As a result, jury trials can be refused,
illegal searches condoned, and rules of evidence ignored.
  "In up to 80% of the cases, no charges are ever filed. If
they are filed, you have plenty of time to fight them. But you
only have a very limited time to fight a seizure. In
California, for example, you only have 10 days to file your
challenge to seizure. There you are: you have been thrown out
on the street, you home and bank accounts seized, no money to
pay a lwayer, and you have to prepare your case.
  "You also usually have to file a bond with the court. That
bond is about 10% of the value of the property seized. Where do
you get the money for the bond, if they have seized all of your
financial assets (as they did to a friend of this writer)? But
if you don't come up with the money for the bond, your property
is gone. And what is the bond for? It's hard to believe, but
it's to cover THEIR cost of fighting YOU in court. They seize
your property without a trial, and then force you to finance
their case against you. It's like being sentenced to the firing
squad, but your executioners make you pay for the bullets and
the burial, and dig you own grave."

 YOUR RIGHTS IN A HEARING ABOUT A POLICE SEIZURE ARE VERY
 LIMITED

  As the Financial Privacy Report points out, "in some states,
you have no right to trial by jury. Your case is heard by a
judge who often has a direct financial stake in the seizure. If
they take your assets, and you can't afford a lawyer, that's
your tough luck. You don't have a right to a court-appointed
attorney. In some cases you do not get to testify on your own
behalf. Hearsay evidence, not admissible for criminal cases,
can be used against you. You do not have the right to confront
your accusers.
  "And worst of all, there is no presumption of innocence.
These 'forfeiture' hearings, which harken back to the days of
the Spanish Inquisition, work the other way - you are presumed
guilty until you prove your innocence."

 WHO PROFITS FROM THE PRESENT SEIZURE LAWS

  Certainly local, city and fedral government(s) are helping to
cover some of their financial shortfall from the loot they steal
from their victims. Informers and spies are profiting
handsomely from seizures, with some airline ticket clerks,
security guards, bank clerks, etc. comfortably supplementing
their income with finder's fees for tips leading to seizures.
Typically, informants (snitches) get 10-25% off the top. There
are some snitches with horrible criminal records who are now
millionaires from these seizures and 'snitch fees'. You will be
happy to know that no Form 1099s are issued on these fees, so
the 'snitches' are apparently enjoying tax-free income.
Incredible!
  More than 90% of the search warrants granted to law
enforcement agencies are based on information supplied by
informants. The government pays out more than $60 million per
year in finder's fees to informants. One wonders who is more
corrupt, the informant or the bribing officials?  In 1984,
'bounty hunter' provisions were added to the federal forfeiture
laws that permit local police to keep most of the proceeds of
the property they seize under federal authority. Since then,
government seizures have soared 2,047%, a Congressional report
has noted (approvingly).

  The laws governing how the seizure booty is split up vary
from state to state. A typical state split for the balance
(after paying the informant's finder's fee) might run 70% to
the local police, with the district attorney's office, judges'
chambers and the Feds splitting the balance. In Louisiana, for
example, every official involved in 'justice' is given a direct
financial stake in upholding the seizure. The police bringing
the case get 60%; the prosecuting DA's office gets another 20%;
and the judge signing the forfeiture order gets the remaining
20% for his or her court fund.

 THE INNOCENT OWNER DEFENCE

  In a case now before the Supreme Court, the Justice
Department is seeking to virtually eliminate what is called the
'innocent owner defence' in federal forfeiture cases regarding
seizures of real estate, cash, vehicles, bank accounts, etc.,
allegedly tainted through drug activity or any of more than 100
other 'crimes'.
  A 1984 law states that federal ownership of property begins
the instant an activity punishable by forfeiture takes place
on it. Now, the Department of Justice interprets that wording
as allowing it to deny the claim of any innocent owner to whom
the property is later transferred. In other words, the alleged
illegal act eliminates any subsequent rights to the property by
any party other than the US government.
  The Justice Department holds that once property is tainted by
a crime, it is tainted forever. The implications of the
elimination of the 'innocent owner defence' are staggering.
Example: a series of say, 3, 4, or 5 owners of real estate,
property, a vehicle, a plane, a boat, etc. have bought and paid
for the property or item in good faith, and are unaware of any
prior criminal activity related to that property. But if owner
1 or 2 dealt or kept drugs on that property ( or did any other
illegal activity) or even transported them in the car, boat,
plane, etc., the Justice Department claims that it owns the
property (via forfeiture/seizure lwas) from the point in time
that it "became tainted with the crime" and that all subsequent
owners have no rights. It also claims that it is entitled to
all income from that property from the time it was "tainted
with the crime" until the seizure and forfeiture, whether the
lapse was a year, or ten years. The Department of Justice
holds that buyers 3, 4, or 5 who legally paid for the property
and hold title to it, can have it seized from them at any point
in the future.
  Imagine how many of us own a home or vehicle which may have
had a former owner who was a drug dealer (or who violated any
one of the more than 100 laws for which forfeiture is
permitted). The Department of Justice says that we do not have
good title to that home or vehicle, that the government can
seize it at any time. Mortgage lenders, real estate brokers (or
investors), title companies, landlords, are going to freeze in
their tracks when they begin to understand the implications of
this. There may be no such thing as clear title in the US as
the Department of Justice declares literally millions of
properties vulnerable to potential forfeiture.
  There is a five-year statute of limitations in federal civil
forfeitures (although the government is now arguing in a case
before the Supreme Court that there is no statute of
limitations, whatsoever). So, if the government gets the
'innocent owner defence' thrown out, it has five years after
the first alleged illegal use to make a claim against the
property, no matter how many times the property has changed
hands in the interim. The last owner gets burned, but he will
sue all prior owners for not having gotten the good title he
thought he got.
  Let's look at a large example. Let's say that in 1989, XYZ
Company dealt drugs out of its offices on the 32nd floor of the
Empire State Building, which is owned by R Corporation. The
Empire State Building is later sold in 1991 to Japanese
interests (J Corporation). XYZ Company officials are arrested
and indicted on drug charges in 1992. At that point who legally
has title to the Empire State Building?   According to the
Justice Department, not R Corporation and not J Corporation.
The government owns it from the time the crime occurred in 1989
and can seize it in forfeiture when it wishes.

CONCLUSION

  We are entering an unconstitutional quagmire of seizures,
forfeitures, and lawsuits of incredible dimensions. It is
almost beyond belief to this writer to see what is happening in
America today. The government encourages Americans to spy on
one another for pay; the government and police
unconstitutionally seize and confiscate private property of
innocent American citizens; Americans who believe in the
Constitutional guarantees to privacy, or simply the use of
cash, are impoverished, jailed, or both.
  A growing number of our police and government officials no
longer necessarily represent justice and protection, but are
being corrupted with their new-found power and ability to
share in the loot; and everyone is beginning to be suspicious
of everyone else, and especially of the police and government
officials - a growing number of whom are beginning to look and
act more like their Gestapo and KGB counterparts every day.
This is not the America this writer grew up in! Welcome to the
USSA - a branch of the New World Order!