----- Original Message -----
Subject: VERY IMPORTANT ELECTION INFORMATION
Dear Friends and Family,
First of all, this e-mail letter might be a little long, but
I
emplore you to PLEASE READ IT. Normally I would not dream of trying
to
influence your actions in political matters. This year however, I
feel
I must ask you to vote No to Initative B. This is an issue of
critical
importance to justice and decency in our state. A man named
George
Soros, a billionaire from the west coast who has been called the
"Daddy Warbucks of drug legalization", has funded a citizen's
initiative
which has been placed on the Utah ballot this year. This
initiative would severely curtail the effectiveness of virtually every
aspect of criminal interdiction in Utah and would allow Organized
Crime of all descriptions to flourish and prosper in our state.
[David
R. Bishop]
This
assertion is patently false. In the vernacular "it just ain't
so".
The
initiative
is misleadingly titled, The Utah Property Protection Act
and is also known as Initiative B. The scariest part of this issue
is
that the only language appearing on the ballot to describe the
initiative sounds greaton the surface and seems to make the matter a
common sense issue.
[David
R. Bishop]
If
it "seems to make sense" it does! Common sense and
common
meaning of the English language can't be distorted
too
much.
Please, DO NOT BE
DECEIVED! As the saying goes, "THE DEVIL IS IN THE DETAILS".
I have
read the entire initiative as it appears in the Utah
Voter Information Pamphlet and as it would be enacted into law if
adopted. This initiative should be properly titled, The Criminal
Profits
Protection Racket and Organized Crime Sponsorship Initiative. If you
have any doubts I urge you to read it yourself.
[David
R. Bishop]
I
urge you to read it too!
You can obtain a
copy of the non-partisan pamphlet (which covers all of the Utah election
information on the ballot) from your local county clerks office or
at:
then click on the
Voter Information Pamphlet icon. The sponsors of the initiative
claim
they
are simply protecting innocent property owners from having their
property unfairly seized or forfeited by the government (police) without
any due process. If you simply read the ballot language of the
initiative it looks like that is exactly what it does. However the
fact
of the
matter is, we already have all the legal protections we need to that
effect.
[David
R. Bishop]
These
legal protections you claim requires the citizen to pay
for
court access to appeal a police action! If the action appealed
is
improper is it fair to subject the citizen to the time and money
required
to right the wrong?
I'm sure you remember
studying the Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendments to the U.S. Constitution which specifically address the
issues of search and seizure and due process rights of all U.S.
Citizens. Furthermore, The Utah Constitution is nearly identical in
this area. Utah law is very good in protecting us from any
unreasonable seizure or forfeiture by the government.
[David
R. Bishop]
There
is a difference between seizure and forfeiture. The biggest
problem
is seizure prior to court scrutiny. You may be guaranteed it
by
the constitution but you just might not get it under current law and
police
practices. The assumption that the police always play by the
rules
can't be taken for granted. As you are also aware the Constitution
is
also worded in general terms that requires interpretation to establish
proper
boundaries. This interpretation comes from court decisions an
legislated
law.
Let's not forget
that Utah was founded by a people who had NO trust in the
government.
[David
R. Bishop]
Now
Utah citizens nearly worship government. Our founding
leaders
would roll over in there graves if they could see us now.
There has NEVER been a
single documented case where an
innocent Utahn has had property or assets forfeited by state or
local authorities of Utah without the full due process of the courts.
[David
R. Bishop]
This
assertion is improvable on its face. I have seen money
seized,
held in limbo for years and then returned because it
could
not be proven that it was the fruits of drug dealing.
I
have also seen money abandoned and "forfeited" by agreement to
drop
criminal actions. Here we could parse the definition of
the
word "forfeit". Money that does go before the court and is
"forfeited"
has indeed been thru the legal requirement. My
big
concern is the money that doesn't go thru the judicial review.
Currently, Utah law enforcement uses criminal asset forfeitures
prudently and properly as stated in a comprehensive audit performed by
the Utah State Legislative Auditor General and released
November 1999. Proceeds from criminal asset forfeiture shift the
cost
of criminal interdiction from taxpayers to criminals.
[David
R. Bishop]
Don't
think for a minute police departments know how to hide the
improper
use of forfeited assets. Auditors just don't know the inner
working
of police departments and neither do the Stansfield's.
Law
requires money forfeited by drug dealers to be used exclusively in the
so
called drug war. What has developed out of this are
"elite" units that
drive
the best cars, drink the best whiskey, chase the prettiest women
have
the best equipment and thru their arrogance divide the police effort.
When
I supervised narcotic officers I found widespread abuse of
"chit"
(expenditure
reports) money that came from forfeitures. For example an
agent
would verify he had spent $600 for operational expenses. What this
really meant
is
he used $600 to buy his own lunches, drinks in the bar for himself and
"suspects"
or friends. It is impossible under the current system to insure the
integrity of
the
police while working in narcotics.
There
is a great deal of competition for agents to "make the biggest
bust" usually
defined
by amount of drugs and money seized. This can have serious
consequences.
Here
is a real example. I was working with the DEA and knew when and
where to
seize
a kilo of cocaine thus taking it off of Utah's streets. A kilogram
is a lot of coke.
The
DEA wanted me to "let the coke pass through" so we could monitor
the dealers and
seize
a bigger shipment and more money in the future. Incredible isn't it!
Instead of arresting
the
suspect the DEA wanted to "farm" him for greater future assets.
What so you suppose
would
happen to the cocaine that got through? Yep, It would go right up
the noses of our citizens.
I
took down the kilo and dealer and earned the animosity of the DEA.
If
this isn't a corruption of good police work in the interest of forfeiture
money I'll eat
my
hat!
This should be
done more, not less. Moreover, the following disastrous consequences
WILL result if the Initiative passes;
Criminals who would normally be subject to asset
forfeiture could
recover the seized property to be sold or traded for the legal
expenses of their criminal defense to any related
criminal
charges. (Example, A drug king pin who has no visible means of
income
other than the drug trade, who drives a different
Rolls Royce each
day of the week is arrested with all seven cars loaded on a
Mercedes car-transport truck, all of which are
stuffed to the hilt
with drugs of all manner and description. The cars and the drugs all
have the drug dealer's DNA and finger prints on
them and he was
driving the truck with the car keys hanging from his belt when he
was arrested. He gets to sell the cars and
the truck so he can
hire Johnny Cockrin, F. Lee Bailey, Allan Derschowitz, Judge
Whopner, Judge Judy or whomever he would like as
his legal defense
council, all now legally funded by his illegal drug profits.)
Individual police officers and police agencies
who make any
forfeiture error would be subject to criminal prosecution even for
errors made in good faith.
Criminals could obtain immediate release of
seized property if they
can demonstrate that it creates a specified hardship situation. (I
thought that taking the profit out of crime and
creating hardships
for the criminals was the whole point in the first place.)
The effectiveness of police anti-drug efforts
would be almost
non-existent. Interagency cooperation would be illegal including
specialized anti-drug units like the Salt Lake
Metro Narcotics
unit. Salt Lake City Police Narcotics Unit and most every other
narcotics unit in the state would likely be
disbanded due to NO
available funds.
[David
R. Bishop]
This
just isn't true. These units aren't run exclusively of off
forfeitures
most
of their money (90%) comes from legislative appropriations. Check
their
budgets out and you'll see it's true. I know from first hand
experience
this is just plain scare tactics.
Currently, almost all Utah
law enforcement in
the narcotics field is funded through federal
grants and matching
funds related to, and predicated upon asset forfeiture of criminally
obtained or crime related property and assets.
Loophole after legal loophole would be
opened, like a can of worms,
making it nearly impossible to take any part of a criminals ill
[David
R. Bishop]
If
it is legal it isn't a "loophole. What on earth is meant here
other
than "don't confuse me with the facts I know who is guilty".
gotten profits or property for any reason.
Even forfeitures or seizures related to poaching
wild game which
had been allocated to the State Wildlife Resources Account could
not be used for that purpose.
It would be Illegal for ANY forfeiture funds to
be allocated to the
following areas which they currently supply; The Wildlife
Resources Account; The State's General Fund; The
Drug Forfeiture
Account; The Financial Fraud and Money Laundering
Forfeiture Account; The Department of Public
Safety for training
peace officers, funding public awareness programs and aiding
efforts to combat drug trafficing and financial
criminal activity;
an agency requesting the funds for drug enforcement; and a local
government that prosecuted a gambling violation.
[David
R. Bishop]
This
is a good idea because law enforcement has neglected other
strategies and
ethical conduct by chasing the narcotic dollar.
An
example: Narcotic officers routinely compete to see who can
seize the
most
expensive car. If the seizure is forfeited or abandoned the agent
seizing
it
is allowed to drive it. The problem here is I have seen dealers
targeted
for
investigation for the car they drove rather than the damage they did to
the community.
You
see, cops like to take trophies (anything of value to a criminal)
and use
it
themselves. Thus they are able to remind the criminal that they, the
police, are really in charge.
It
is a primordial uncivilized practice that flourishes in the Police
sub-culture.
Sponsors of the initiative claim that Utah law enforcement is corrupt
and that there is a profit motive in asset forfeiture for the police.
[David
R. Bishop]
It
is the truth! corruption doesn't necessarily mean everyone
involved
is on the take. It means the systems motivations aren't
always
guided by a "moral compass",
That
is an out and out LIE which insults anyone who supports the efforts of
our local police in Utah. Criminal asset forfeiture is a viable and
legitimate tool for law enforcement in combating criminal enterprise.
Criminal asset forfeiture was developed to meet four major
objectives:
[David
R. Bishop]
Asset
forfeiture can be one tool in the arsenal to fight crime
but
it must be done ACCORDING TO MORAL UNDERSTANDABLE
FAIR
RULES.
1.To keep criminal resources from being used for future
criminal
activities
2.To discourage criminal activity by removing it's profit
motive
3.To keep "dirty money" from corrupting legitimate
businesses
4.To direct criminal profits into restitution to the
community for
it's losses
Initative B would effectively defeat every one of those objectives.
The EVIL deception of the sponsors attempts to appeal
to the noble
motives of Utahns by claiming that all asset forfeiture funds
would go toward the Utah Uniform School fund (after expenses of
course). If you look carefully, you'll notice there aren't any
school
officials backing the initiative, hoping for the promised funds. That's
because they know that the truth is: there WILL BE NO
FORFEITURE FUNDS AT ALL.
[David
R. Bishop]
This
statement may or may not be accurate but in any case means nothing
at
all. There probably would be fewer forfeitures if the money went to
the
Uniform
School fund. The reason why is simple and proves the very corruption
I
have talked about. If the police don't get the money they won't go
after it. Says
something
about motives don't you think?
Additionally, the estimated
fiscal impact to
the state begins at $1.5 million in lost yearly revenue, a
minimum of $50,000 a year in new state court costs and the loss of $10.6
million per year in federal funds will be sacrificed if Initiative B
passes. There's no time to waste in this, the 11th hour of the
election. Most Utahns simply don't have the facts on this issue!
PLEASE, VOTE NO! TO INITIATIVE B and spread the word to
every eligible voter you know. Forward this e-mail to everyone on
your
mailing list
who resides in this state.
[David
R. Bishop]
Thank
goodness there are some Utahans who can think for themselves
rather
than relying on the police special interest groups for their cue.
The latest polls show
support FOR the
Initiative near the
80% range!
