Canadian Politician: You're Either In Favor Of Letting The Gov't Spy On Your Internet Usage... Or You're For Child Pornography
from the kicking-puppies dept
Up in Canada, they're pushing for a new "lawful access" bill, which is basically a "government can spy on your internet usage" bill. Michael Geist has a full and complete run down about the new effort and why it's crazy. But, the insane part came out of the introduction when Public Safety Minister Vic Toews apparently told people: "You can stand with us, or you can stand with the child pornographers," according to Dale Smith, a journalist who was present. In other words, like Lamar Smith here in the US, he's trying to push through a widespread internet surveillance bill by hiding behind claims that those against it are somehow "for" child porn.This is beyond ridiculous, and an incredibly cynical political move that assumes that people are stupid. These kinds of arguments may have worked in the past, but I'm increasingly skeptical that they'll continue to work in the future. More and more people are learning about the details of these kinds of bills, and making ridiculous claims and false dilemmas won't cut it, and only call more attention to the ridiculousness of what's actually in the bill.
And, thankfully, some of that pushback comes in the form of people openly mocking such ridiculous claims. Smith points to an amusing response from Lukas Neville: "You can stand with false dilemmas, or you can stand with kicking puppies." Count me in for kicking puppies.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: canada, internet, lawful access, spying, surveillance, vic toews
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Just like how Iraq had WMD's. They would have used them on the Americans, but it was stolen.
By who, you ask?
Well, you'll have to search around the world asking where Carmen Sandiego is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Carmen Sandiego
http://www.myspace.com/carmensandiego1
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And why did they find no WMDs? That was because during Gulf War 1 Iraq as part of their surrender agreement had to destroy all WMDs overseen by the UN and the United States.
The Americans sent UN weapon's inspectors to every dirt hole in Iraq they claimed could have WMDs. The Iraqi's were not always happy what with American involved spies but they did comply. The UN weapons inspectors did testify that Iraq had no WMDs. Colin Powell then give his speech to the UN which he now admits was the worst speech of his life.
So the United States well knew that Iraq was defenceless long before they invaded and carpet bombed Iraqi teenage conscripts trying to defend their country from the invaders. A glorious day for the United States to send them back to their loving family in bits.
Then once they had destroyed the former power in Iraq they had no plans to stabilize the region allowing every extremist to come to the front. Then in a genius act they removed one religion from power and put a rival religion in power which then triggered the first ever battles between the two religions in over 100 years.
Things in Iraq then got real nasty with regular bombings and an exodus of those fearing for their lives. Well at least the situation in Iraq has now improved.
Now before any Americans start moaning then remember this man went out of his way to deceive you and he lied to you hundreds of times. Remember the Iraqi Supergun that was nothing more than pipes used in their oil and gas production? Could a President backed up by experts have made such a mistake? Then we cannot forget how he used propaganda in a muck raking exorcise against Iraq. The CIA in their honesty and accuracy could not give him the dirt he wanted so he ordered his own Whitehouse staff to penetrate the CIA to turn up every unconfirmed and false rumour that could be used against them. Pure crap used to lie to millions of American voters and to the World.
I do directly claim that George W. Bush is a War Criminal and had he not been former President to the most powerful county in the World then he would soon be on trial for crimes against humanity and executed as the truly evil person he is.
This Iraq invasion caused well over 100,000 Iraqi deaths and 1.5 million refugees. Not to forget the 4485 US troops who lost their lives because their warmonger President lied to them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: stupid people
So while we're headed in the same direction as the US, we're not there yet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: stupid people
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: stupid people
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
:'(
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: :'(
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trying this again are they?
Pathetic part, they always use "child porn" as the trigger to get votes, but never mention how under CURRENT laws they have been busting people for actual child pornography WITHOUT invading the privacy of our homes!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Trying this again are they?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you have to mention it, you've lost the argument.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That would certainly promote the failed argument concept.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
While technology has evolved considerably since then, Canada's lawful access laws have not kept pace.
Yeah, my computer can draw circles, better update the math behind calculating the area of a circle.
Please. No updates needed. It is unlawful (and disgusting) to have child pornography in your home, in printed form, in film-negative form, in painted form, in video form etc.. why do you need to extend that to digital form? What, because it's in digital format somehow viewing child porn has changed in legality because the medium of delivery has changed?
I really hope the Supreme Court of Canada sets Mr Toews straight with that.
Last time I checked, the law stated you could not kill someone, not specifying what medium or method you chose to use, so no updating was required.
You're not allowed to possess or view child pornography, period. It is medium independent!
You can find it without reading our emails or intercepting our cellular signals or land line conversations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
How painted childs porn hurts children?
Did you heard about anime? All hentai and probably half ecchi can qualify as "painted childs porn". It may be disgusting, but it doesn't harm childrens in any way (well, maybe, if children are watching it).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It really depend on the level of ecchiness... Queen's Blade and The Qwaser of Stigmata isn't. >.>
*avid fan here*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
P P P PORN!!!!
"You can stand with us, or you can stand with the child pornographers,"
Hmm where have we heard that before:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpPABLW6F_A
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: P P P PORN!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: P P P PORN!!!!
Look, if I were a victim I wouldn't be happy to know people share the movie of my abuse, but I still think having all our Internet activities monitored is far worse.
Not to mention that, in the end, I think the part where I was raped would bother me far more than the part where the movie was being shared by perverts.
Also, no matter how many times the police take down the movie, I would never have peace of mind that it's gone from the Internet forever. Copies could still exist on other websites or on the hard drives of pedos, and from there the movie could spread again... Even if every single copy were destroyed, I would never be sure about that and thus I'd always assume copies still exist somewhere and a pedo is jacking of to it at that moment.
I'm fine with reasonable efforts to fight child porn, even though I don't think it really accomplishes anything (it doesn't make victims feel better and it doesn't prevent the movies from being made in the first place).
However, since fighting child porn is pretty much ineffective, I am completely opposed to drastic and extreme measures to fight it. Having my Internet monitored is not a sacrifice I'm willing to make.
Between the two extremes (legalizing child porn or giving up some of my most important rights), I'd prefer the first option. I don't want any of those, I want the middle ground, but if I'm only given a choice between two extremes, well that's the one I choose.
Also, Vic Toews must know that fighting online child porn accomplishes nothing, except making society feel better about itself ("We're a good country, we don't approve of child porn. We're not accomplishing much but at least we stand against it").
If he's not away of this, then he's a bad minister because he's taking on issues he knows nothing about.
But if he does know that fighting child porn online accomplishes nothing (or at most: very little), then he's either trying to establish a tyranny (he's passing this law to give the government control over the population) or he is doing it to gain popularity. And using the ordeal of rape victims to gain popularity is a disgusting thing to do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe a law should be enacted that requires politicians who use this claim must provide references to objective studies that support the statement or be forced to make a very loud and prominent apology for lying to the public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ethical debate law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ethical debate law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ugh
If he should be unwilling to sign such an agreement, that should just be evidence that catching child abusers is not the intent of this law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ugh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ugh
I kind of wish some psycho would snap and do it. Maybe then all the people who want to remove the rights and freedom of the entire population would think twice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Canadian Politician
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"The bill will require Internet service providers to store and to make available to the government and police forces information on the Internet activity of their customers.
Police will require a warrant to obtain that information. But the bill would also permit them to obtain IP addresses (which identifies someone on the Internet), email addresses, mobile phone numbers and other information without any warrant."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Did you not read the Patriot Act?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The USA PATRIOT Act is a set of laws in the USA, not Canada.
The USA is not in fact the entire world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
No, but its the best USA in the world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So, where's the browsing records for the politicians?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Surveillance for your safety
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Been there, done that
Nothing to do with the fact that the URL list was and would remain secret, thus giving the population no idea what was filtered and why (a great tool for dictatorships) and that a leaked version already contained a number of false positives, including a dentist in Queensland...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Been there, done that
Catching them -- which I support -- won't be done via grandstanding bills like this. It'll be done by hard detective work. But of course that doesn't generate headlines.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Been there, done that
The relevant (sic) minister down here, Sen. Conroy, affectionately renamed 'conboy' in some sectors, also had a similar play on the theme when asked his opinion of a fellow politician's 'opt in' amendment to his filter mumbled "well I'm not opting into child pornography" which was greeted with massive derision... particularly as the other politician was from his own party!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The Internet has provided us with the greatest freedom of our generation and we should not allow politicians to sign that away so easily.
Down with SOPA. Down with PIPA. Down with ACTA. Down with TPP. Down with Pro-IP. And the attack on our freedom goes on and on and on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Secret communist plants wouldn't particularly enjoy a horse whipping, so it is for our own national security that Mr Smith be horse whipped at once to disprove his involvement with shadowy forces inside Canada. Since we know he is a law-abiding man with no ulterior motives, I'm sure he'll be just ecstatic to hear that we have a means to prove that he is not a secret communist plant and will be volunteering every day to prove that he isn't.
Since he seems like such a law abiding citizen, I think we can just merge this provision with the lawful access bill and be done with it. Since the only reason someone should disagree is if they are a communist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Pretty bad mistake to make.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not to mention past 13 Privacy Commissioners and one Supreme Court of Canada if it survives Provincial Supreme and Appeal Courts where this will certainly end up if it's as bad as Geist says it will be though he is a reliable source.
And no, I'm not on the side of kiddy porn downloaders or kiddy porn of any description. Nor do I want to kick a puppy. The Honourable Minister's left kneecap does seem a tempting target at the moment though.
Oh well, given that this started in 1999 under a Liberal administration like, in the United States all we've proven now is that there is NO difference between our two main political parties. Not so much as a eyebrow hair.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There is a reason other than the absolute lulz, in the US you have a history of those screaming the loudest about the latest ill facing society being the biggest hypocrites on the subject. And well stupid knows no borders.
This also is keeping with my idea that when someone proposes a law like this that it should apply to those passing it first for at least a year. So they can work all of the kinks out of it. And well maybe to punish them for being short sighted, they claim it will only benefit and nothing bad will happen and I am willing to bet that tune would change rapidly when they figure out it applies to them as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Doesn't mean they don't try out the lastest and greatest technologies domestically. But please understand they're just tests. It isn't spying. We promise!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But, but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lobbyists are running the Cdn government
And what do Canadians do about it? Massive rallies like in Europe? No. Phoning/writing to their Member of Parliament to ask them WTF is going on? No.
We Canadians whine and bitch about just about everything, but do nothing about it except, well, bitch and whine.
Bend over Canadians, you're getting exactly what you fcuking deserve! Damn it I just shake my head and wonder how we came to a place where government works for corporations and not constituents. Unbelievable. Our government is trying to send us back to the early 20th Century. And that's not a Good Thing�.
Somebody bitch-slap us and wake us up...PLEASE!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lobbyists are running the Cdn government
�Child pornography is great,� the speaker at the podium declared enthusiastically. �It is great because politicians understand child pornography. By playing that card, we can get them to act, and start blocking sites. And once they have done that, we can get them to start blocking file sharing sites�.
http://www.tjmcintyre.com/2010/04/music-industry-says-child-pornography.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Only if there are large number of signatures that they might care.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
!!!!
It took over 2 years for it to be dropped. Good luck guys!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
it might even a bit more honest
"You can stand with us, or you can stand with the neofascists and corporate shills."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: it might even a bit more honest
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There coming for you...
Whom did you offend? Perhaps a politician or; was it something you blogged about?
It makes no difference, you will be dragged out, a black hood put over your head and told that someone like you; has no rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If...
Oh, and the website would be real-time, and it would be for any Internet account under any of their family.
If they don't accept that, then what are they hiding?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If not, they'd better get right on it ASAP.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ugh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wouldn't this proposal help pedos?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hidden wolves
General society and the Police well tackled Child Pornography long before these web filters came about. It is true to say that the real CP these days are on dark nets and well removed from the web.
I have in fact seen a CP censorship list thanks to Wikileaks and the whole thing is little more than one age questionable photo on an otherwise pure adult site. Then many site owners soon correct the problem themselves when it becomes apparent.
Let us never forget why web filters exist when it was the RIAA and MPAA pushing ISPs to web filter in the name of filtering CP to protest children. They did that so when the CP filter was active they could then abuse it to censor copyright infringement.
So I do certainly say that all censorship should be removed from ISPs and to tackle CP in more traditional ways. It helps none to sweep CP under the rug and to pretend that it does not exist when little boys and girls still get sexually violated if you want to see it or not.
Protecting the children is the morally lowest excuse in the book and one that is often employed in politics to stir the voters. So when they make such claims you do need to look closely to see their true intentions. And here we have one more person thinking about copyright infringement.
My last comment is one famous quote... The greatest threat to society are those people who speak with good deeds in mind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Censorship: either you are completely against it or you are for mass murder.
Sounds nice because that's precisely what happens in China and other countries that censor. They simply kill dissenting voices.
Shame on you Toews, shame on you. Beware of this mass murderer ppl ;))
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Harper Government
Canada under Harper is not Canada. I actually feel raw hatred for him and all his lackeys. Not even good enough to have them voted out. Thrown in the ocean with cement boots is a better idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Courtesy call
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
REALLY
THEY would not use this any abusive way now would they.
I NOW introduce you all to
apachefriends.org to host webservers your self ban port 80 and enable port 443 for ssl
then if you want a easy irc/bultin board like chat via that ssl
use this
https://blueimp.net/ajax/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stop child porn
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2012/02/02/toronto-internet-pornography.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So isn't this bill actually making it harder to find child pornographers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
CIA RUNS FACEBOOK????
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sThcwmx3rs&feature=youtu.be
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
plus since when have politicians ever told the truth?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
here is to Toews "You can stand with us, or you can stand with the child pornographers."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Vic Toews is shameful for using abused children
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
^enough said.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Canadian (Commons recent Bill C-30) would�give any Canadian police officer without a warrant�the power to request Internet service providers turn over customer information (see section 17 of C-30) cause the same loss of electronic privacy and civil liberties that British Government recently proposed�to spy on Brits� electronic communications. Is it coincidence the British and Canadian proposals appear to mirror legislation U.S. Government said it wanted passed in 2011 to spy on U.S. Citizens?
Overlooked by mainstream media is that Britain and Canada signed with the U.S Government an array of (Asset Forfeiture Sharing Agreements) to share with Canadian and British Police/Governments assets seized from Brits, Canadians and Americans that resulted from e.g, evidence or information gleaned from electronic surveillance of Citizens� communications, e.g., emails, faxes, Internet actively, phone records including GPS tracking.
Compare with U.S. Government�s proposal to electronically monitor, spy on Americans without a warrant�with Canada�s recent eavesdropping (Bill C-30) and British Government�s plan to spy on its Citizens� electronic communications.
U.S. Government wants the power to (introduce as evidence) in criminal prosecutions and government civil trials, any phone call record, email or Internet activity. That would open the door for Police to take out of context any innocent�hastily written email, fax or phone call record to allege a crime or violation was committed to cause a person�s arrest, fines and or civil asset forfeiture of their property. There are more than 350 laws and violations that can subject property to government asset forfeiture. Government civil asset forfeiture requires only a civil preponderance of evidence for police to forfeit property, little more than hearsay.
If the U.S. Justice Department has its way, any information the FBI derives from circumventing the Fourth Amendment, i.e. (no warrant searches) of Web Server Records; a Citizen�s Internet Activity, personal emails; fax / phone calls may be used by the FBI for (fishing expeditions) to issue subpoenas in hopes of finding evidence or to prosecute Citizens for any alleged crime or violation. Consider that neither Congress nor the courts�determined what Bush II NSA electronic surveillance, perhaps illegal could be used by police or introduced into court by government to prosecute Americans criminally or civilly. If U.S. Justice Department is permitted (No-Warrant) surveillance of all electronic communications, it is problematic state and local law enforcement agencies and private government contractors will want access to prior Bush II NSA and other government illegally obtained electronic records not limited to�Americans� Internet activity; private emails, faxes and phone calls to secure evidence to arrest Americans, assess fines and or civilly forfeit their homes, businesses and other assets under Title 18USC and other laws. Of obvious concern, what happens to fair justice in America if police become dependent on �Asset Forfeiture� to help pay their salaries and budget operating costs?
The �Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000� (effectively eliminated) the �five year statue of limitations� for Government Civil Asset Forfeiture: the statute now runs five years (from the date) police allege they �learned� an asset became subject to forfeiture. It is foreseeable should (no warrant) government electronic surveillance be approved; police will relentlessly sift through business and Citizen�s (government retained Internet data), emails and phone communications to discover possible crimes or civil violations. A corrupt despot U.S. Government can too easily use no-warrant�(seized emails, Internet data and phone call information) to blackmail Americans, corporations and others in the same manner Hitler utilized his police state passed laws to extort support for the Nazi fascist government, including getting parliament to pass Hitler�s 1933 Discriminatory Decrees that suspended the Constitutional Freedoms of German Citizens. A Nazi Government threat of �Property Seizure� Asset Forfeiture of an individual or corporation�s assets was usually sufficient to ensure Nazi support.
Under U.S. federal civil forfeiture laws, a person or business need not be charged with a crime for government to forfeit their property. Most U.S. Citizens, property and business owners that defend their assets against Government Civil Asset Forfeiture claim an �innocent owner defense.� This defense can become a criminal prosecution trap for both guilty and innocent property owners. Any fresh denial of guilt made to government when questioned about committing a crime �even when you did not do the crime� may (involuntarily waive) a defendant�s right to assert in their defense�the �Criminal Statute of Limitations� past for prosecution; any fresh denial of guilt 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 Americans, property and business owners are reluctant to defend their property and businesses against Government Civil Asset Forfeiture.
Re: waiving Criminal Statute of Limitations: see USC18, Sec.1001, James Brogan V. United States. N0.96-1579. U.S. See paragraph (6) at:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/96-1579.ZC1.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do you want the truth?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Concurrent with Obama�s proposed law legalizing and expanding cross-border police integration in North America, Canadians earlier this year discovered introduced (Commons Bill C-30 touted to protect children on the Internet�would also give any Canadian police officer�without a warrant�the power to request Internet service providers turn over customers� information (see section 17 of C-30); allow Canadian police to seek into Canadians� private computers. C-30 was strongly opposed by Canadians in April 2012. Canadians further discovered Canada had signed with the United States an array of (Asset Forfeiture Sharing Agreements) for Canada to share
Canadian and Americans assets civilly or criminally confiscated using Asset Forfeiture laws that resulted from U.S. and Canada sharing information gleaned from electronic surveillance of Canadian and American Citizens� communications, e.g., emails, faxes, Internet actively, phone records.
Compare: The Obama Government wants the power (without a warrant) to introduce as evidence in U.S. Civil; Criminal and Administrative prosecutions any phone call record, email or Internet activity. Police can take out of context any innocent�hastily written email, fax or phone call record to allege a crime or violation was committed to cause a person�s arrest, fines and or civil asset forfeiture of their property. There are more than 350 laws/violations that can subject property to Government forfeiture that require
only a civil preponderance of evidence.
The U.S. �Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000� (effectively eliminated) the �five year statue of limitations� for Government Civil Asset Forfeiture: the statute now runs five
years (from the date) government or a police agency allege they �learned� an asset became subject to forfeiture. It is foreseeable should (no warrant) government electronic surveillance be allowed; police will relentlessly sift through business and Citizens� (government retained Internet data), emails and phone communications to discover possible criminal or civil violations. History Repeats: A corrupt or despot U.S. Government/Agency can too easily use no-warrant�(seized emails, Internet data and phone call information) to blackmail Americans, corporations and others in the same manner Hitler used his police state no warrant passed laws to extort support for the Nazi fascist government, including getting members of German parliament to pass Hitler�s
1933 Discriminatory Decrees that suspended the Constitutional Freedoms of German Citizens. A Nazi Government threat of Asset Forfeiture of an individual or corporation�s assets was usually sufficient to ensure Nazi support.
Under U.S. federal civil asset forfeiture laws, a person or business need not be charged with a crime for government to forfeit their property. Most U.S. Citizens, property and business owners that defend their assets against Government Civil Asset Forfeiture claim
an �innocent owner defense.� This defense can become a criminal prosecution trap for both guilty and innocent property owners. Any fresh denial of guilt made to government when questioned about committing a crime �even when you did not do the crime� may (involuntarily waive) a defendant�s right to assert in their defense�the �Criminal Statute of Limitations� past for prosecution; any fresh denial of guilt even 30 years after a crime was committed may allow U.S. Government prosecutors to use old and new evidence, including information discovered during Civil Asset Forfeiture Proceedings to launch a criminal prosecution. For that reason: many innocent Americans, property and business
owners are reluctant to defend their property and businesses against Government Civil Asset Forfeiture. Annually U.S. Government seizes Billions in assets without filing criminal charges. Increasingly local police are turning their criminal investigations over to Federal Agencies to receive an 80% rebate of forfeited assets. Federal Government is not required to charge anyone with a crime to forfeit property.
Re: waiving Criminal Statute of Limitations: see USC18, Sec.1001, James Brogan
V. United States. N0.96-1579. U.S. See paragraph (6) at:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/96-1579.ZC1.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]