|
Senate GOP
Leaders Join Accountability Utah in Opposing Shurtleff's
View of Federal Forfeiture!
(News
for 4/18/04)
Summary: In a letter to
Republican county delegates in Sen. Chris Buttars' district
(the sponsor of Senate Bill 175), the Utah Senate Republican
Leadership unanimously admit that federal forfeiture
proceedings lack due process. They also attempt to justify
their passage of SB 175.
Topics:
1. Senate GOP
Leadership Admits Its Own Guilt
2. Confused
Authors & Unclear Authorship
3. Fuzzy Facts
4. Misuse of
Official Capacities for Partisan Campaigning
5. An Exercise
in Manipulation
1. Senate
GOP Leadership Admits Its Own Guilt
In a
letter to Republican
county delegates, the Senate Republican Leadership (SRL)
finally admitted what Accountability Utah has been saying all
along:
"It is true that federal
forfeitures lack appropriate safeguards."
This statement contradicts the
propaganda campaign of General Mark Shurtleff's deputy,
Kirk Torgensen:
"Forfeiture
has been part of the law for
centuries. There is nothing about it which is unconstitutional
or lacking in due process."
Source: "Forfeiture
law rightly denies criminals their ill-gotten gains," Kirk
Torgensen, Salt Lake Tribune, July 6, 2003.
Note: In
his
2000 campaign literature,
Shurtleff himself sang a different tune:
"Forfeiture is an important crime fighting
tool, but must only occur within Constitutional limits.
While I oppose civil forfeiture [which is the only forfeiture
being debated], I support criminal
forfeiture, once an individual has been found guilty."
If the SRL's admission is
accurate (which it is), then it cannot simultaneously be
accurate that Senate Bill (SB) 175 "establishes vital due
process protections for property owners" as the SRL also
claims. SB 175 authorizes state prosecutors to transfer
seized property to federal agencies (not courts), where
appropriate safeguards are admittedly lacking!
In these federal proceedings,
for example, property owners are guilty until proven innocent:
- (d) Innocent Owner
Defense.
- (1) An innocent owner's
interest in property shall not be forfeited under any civil
forfeiture statute. The claimant shall have the burden of
proving that the claimant is an innocent owner by a
preponderance of the evidence.
Source:
Title 18, Section 983, U.S. Code.
For additional analysis of SB
175 and the lack of due process at the federal level, read
an analysis
of SB 175 & Confiscation Statutes/Abuse by Mr. Arnold
Gaunt, volunteer with Forfeiture Endangers American Rights,
at the recent debate at BYU (cited in the SRL's letter).
Top
2.
Confused Authors & Unclear Authorship
It is unclear why two of SRL,
Senate Majority Leader Michael Waddoups and Senate Majority
Whip John Valentine, signed this letter. Both of
these senators voted against SB 175.
Sen. Valentine, in particular,
passed out a video to his fellow senators that urged them to
vote against SB 175. He also privately told many
citizens throughout the state that SB 175 was wrong and
assured them that he was staunchly opposed to it.
This letter, however, praises SB
175 as,
"...Essential legal
weaponry in Utah's fight against crime and drugs in our
neighborhoods."
Is it possible that Senators
Valentine and Waddoups suffered serious head injuries shortly
after the legislative session?
In addition, it is unclear who
the "I" referred to in the letter. For example, in the
third paragraph, it states:
"The only other public
hearing of which I am aware..."
Did Sen. Buttars write this for
their signature? If the letter is from the SRL, shouldn't it
say "we"?
Top
3. Fuzzy
Facts
The SRL refers to over 7 hours
of public committee hearings. What they fail to disclose is
that less than one hour of this time was provided for citizens
opposing SB 175's attack on due process and property ownership
rights.
The letter states that a meeting
was held at West Jordan and that, "No one supporting SB 175
was allowed to speak." In fact,
the attendees of the meeting voted to
allow SB 175 supporters to
speak, but that they had to wait their
turn (which many of them did not appreciate).
Kirk Torgensen,
chief deputy to General Mark Shurtleff,
did speak for some time. Sen. Buttars did not attend the
meeting.
If Sen. Buttars was responsive to his constituents, he never
would have sponsored SB 175. Which of his constituents asked
him to sponsor this legislation or was involved in drafting
it? Sen. Buttars admitted to Accountability Utah team members
that he was carrying water for SB 175's former sponsor, Lyle
Hillyard. He was obviously also working with General
Shurtleff's office.
The failure of the SRL to get
things right isn't limited to their misrepresentations
regarding SB 175 and their failure to stop this legislation.
They refer to "a Janet Jensen", while the person who wrote the
letter to the delegates was Janet Jenson (last name spelled
with an "o", not an "e"). They also state that, "she claims to
have authored" Initiative B. In fact, she was the
drafter of Initiative B, and her billing accounts verify that.
The SRL doesn't provide any
factual information regarding the harm done to innocent
property owners by SB 175 presented by Janet Jenson in her
letter. Is this because they have no response?
Top
4.
Misuse of Official Capacities for Partisan Campaigning
The author(s) of the letter
purport that:
"This letter was not
produced or mailed at taxpayer expense."
The letter does, however, list
the official address of the Utah State Senate Majority
Leadership as the return address. It also lists the four
alleged authors in their taxpayer-funded positions.
Is this appropriate for such a
letter? Were the Minority Leadership asked to
participate in this endorsement of SB 175?
Top
5.
Tired of Being Manipulated?
If the SRL wishes to support SB
175 and Sen. Buttars, they should not misrepresent and provide
incomplete and inaccurate information on the bill and the
facts surrounding it. And half of them certainly should not
have voted against it.
Feel free to contact the authors
of this letter and let them know how you feel:
For additional contact
information for other officials, visit our
Elected Officials Contact Information page.
Additional Resources:
Again, for a very different analysis of SB 175 from that of
the SRL, read an analysis
of SB 175 & Confiscation Statutes/Abuse by Mr. Arnold
Gaunt, volunteer with Forfeiture Endangers American Rights,
at the recent debate at BYU (cited in the letter). To
learn more about this ongoing battle, see the
Property Rights section of our Issues & Alerts page.
Top
Accountability Utah
recipe: Take our information and opinion, research their
information and opinion (if it is available), and then examine
the law and draw your own conclusions. If you have comments or
suggestions, please email us at
info@accountabilityutah.org.
|
.jpg)