by Dave Hodges
The Common Sense Show

The American economy is living on borrowed time through the infusion of massive amounts of “printed out of thin air” cash being printed by the Federal Reserve. Anyone with an IQ above room temperature knows that the inevitable economic crash is looming on the horizon.

The deficit is $19 trillion dollars, and soon-t0-be $21 trillion dollars, and that is the good news. The unfunded liabilities debt (e.g. Social Security, Medicare, etc.) is estimated to be $240 trillion dollars.

Finally, the derivatives debt that average citizens have been saddled with the burden of paying off through the infamous bailouts is now estimated to $1.5 quadrillion dollars. With the most optimistic estimates that the world’s GDP is less that $100 trillion dollars, it does no t take a rocket scientist to figure out that the ability to pay off the debt through taxation and the endless bailouts is simply not possible.

Civilian Asset Forfeiture

President Trump is way off base. He is doing great harm with his proactive support of civilian asset forfeiture.

The Federal Reserve and their colleagues know that the crash is coming. Your home, your pension, your bank account are all at risk when, not if, the crash comes. The only obstacle in the way of the public theft of private assets is the United States Constitution and the Fifth Amendment. The practice of Civilian Asset Forfeiture is setting the precedent that the government can steal all of your property.

When this practice began in the 1990’s, the amount of property stolen without due process was in the millions. Today, this practice has grown to a $4.5 billion dollar governmental criminal enterprise.

That Little Thing Called the Constitution and the Fifth Amendment

The Fifth Amendment asserts that no person shall “be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”. Given the intended narrow definition of the Fifth Amendment, this article will demonstrate that the concept of private property is on life support and that government is attempting to separate as many private assets from its citizens as possible. One of the primary ways that the government is accomplishing this goal is through the RICO statutes and this will be the exclusive focus of this article.

What Is RICO?

The new game in America is called theft by law enforcement and RICO is the name. Much of the growth of federal criminal procedures has been tied to the expanded use of RICO. RICO stands for the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act of 1970. RICO has succeeded in blurring the lines between state and federal law enforcement and in overturning the protections inherent in the guarantees of the U.S. Constitution, namely due process. As previously stated, the Fifth Amendment states that government cannot deprive citizens of life, liberty and property without due process of law. As the Patriot Act negates the Fourth Amendment protections, RICO does the same with the Fifth Amendment due process rights.

RICO is essentially the seizure of goods and assets obtained as a result of ACCUSED criminal activity.

Gangster Cops in Meridian MS.

During a traffic stop in Meridian, Mississippi, police found $360,000 tucked away in an obscure compartment of a man’s car. Certainly the amount of money in question would get our collective attention, however, the driver was let go. And if the Meridian city government has a problem with large amounts of cash, then pass a law forbidding the carrying of cash over a certain amount. Until then, this man committed no crime. In this case, the cops simply stole the man’s money.

Under RICO, law enforcement agency can seize your property, and it’s up to you to prove that the money isn’t connected to a crime. This is an obvious violation of the Fifth Amendment which requires the government to prove in court that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
This application of RICO is unconstitutional on its face and it is still being allowed. Why? Because RICO money is being used by the law enforcement agencies to enrich their department as well as to host lavish department/agency parties.

Your Property Is Not Safe

For those who think that the Meridian, MS. motorist got what he deserved because nobody should be carrying that kind of cash on them, consider the Russell Caswell case which demonstrates that, under RICO statutes, one can lose everything even when they have never been suspected of a crime.

Motives for RICO Enforcement

The money that law enforcement seizes, is money that goes towards the purchase of office equipment, new vehicles, larger expense accounts and the list goes on. However, agency assets are not the only destination for RICO obtained assets.

In a clear violation of the 10th Amendment, the Federal government has made local law enforcement partners in these crimes being perpetrated against the American people through the practice of “equitable sharing agreements” between the Department of Justice and local or state law enforcement. Just like a Mafia protection racket, the Feds typically are taking 10 to 20 percent of all profits connected to local seizures.

Re-instituting the Fifth Amendment

In only six states does the government assume the burden of proof that establishes the fact that the person is guilty in order to confiscate all types of property.  According to the Institute for Justice, in 38 states, the burden for all forfeitures, including one’s home, falls directly upon the owner.

The simple fix to this public theft of private assets is to simply follow the Constitution in which the government, before permanently seizing assets, must first establish guilt in a court of law.

On July 28, 2014, U.S. Congressman Timothy Walberg (R-Mich.) introduced a bill intended to reform federal asset civil forfeiture laws. In the Senate, Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) introduced S. 2644, the FAIR (Fifth Amendment Integrity Restoration) Act, which similarly seeks to change the way the government seizes property suspected of being involved in criminal activity. The bills failed.

The chances of passage of these parallel bills in the House and the Senate are slim and none. The radical Marxist factions presently running the Democratic party will prevent passage in the Senate. And even if the bill passed in the Senate, does anyone have any doubt that President Trump will have his veto pen ready?

President Trump Approves

In a recently recorded interview, President Trump threatened to destroy the political career of a Texas legislator by introducing legislation that would require a court action to seize property.

The bill in question in Texas is SB156 from Sen. Juan Hinojosa (D-Dist. 20).

Bills targeting “sanctuary cities” failed to pass the Texas Legislature in 2011 and 2015, but similar efforts this session have better chances of making it to Gov. Greg Abbott’s desk

by Julián Aguilar

The Legislature is gearing up for a fight over “sanctuary cities” bills — and not for the first time. The current debate was foreshadowed by one in 2011, but this time, chances are better that a bill could make it to Gov. Greg Abbott‘s desk.

Texas’ proposed 2011 ban on sanctuary cities, the common term for local entities that don’t enforce federal immigration laws, would have authorized local police to inquire about the immigration status of anyone they arrested or detained. It led to fears that immigrants wouldn’t report crimes and that officers could detain people based solely on skin color and turn them over to federal immigration officers.

“Texas Can Do Better” and “No Arizona Hate” were common mantras from critics of the legislation that reverberated around the State Capitol in 2011 — references to a controversial Arizona bill that expanded the immigration enforcement powers of local law enforcement and passed that state’s legislature in 2010.

The plan, marked as an emergency item by then-Gov. Rick Perry, failed to pass the Texas Legislature in 2011, and similar legislation died in the Texas Senate in 2015. As expected, Republicans are taking another crack at passing a bill this year, and Abbott and Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick have labeled the issue a “legislative priority.”

Bills filed in both chambers — Senate Bill 4 by state Sen. Charles Perry, R-Lubbock, and House Bill 889 by state Rep. Charlie Geren, R-Fort Worth — would allow local police to enforce immigration laws, but only if the officer is working with a federal immigration officer or under an agreement between the local and federal agency. It would also punish governments if their law enforcement agencies — specifically county jails — fail to honor requests, known as detainers, from federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers for sheriffs to hand over immigrants in their custodies for possible deportation. The punishment would be a denial of state grant funds.

This time around, one border Democrat has conceded that he could support the detainer component of the current proposals, especially if it means it will keep more extreme measures at bay.

Sen. José Rodríguez, D-El Paso, said data from ICE and testimony from county sheriffs earlier this year shows that county jail compliance isn’t the issue Republicans make it out to be.

“We had hearings, and all 254 counties [in Texas] were cooperating with ICE,” Rodríguez said, referring to out-of-session meetings held last year. “So if it [only has a detainer provision], nobody has a problem with that, as far as I can tell.”

The ICE component of the legislation has become a major focus for Republicans, especially after Dallas County Sheriff Lupe Valdez drew Abbott’s ire in 2014 after she said she would cooperate with ICE only on a case-by-case basis. New Travis County Sheriff Sally Hernandez added to the controversy when she was running for office last year, saying she wouldn’t cooperate with ICE. Valdez later said she had been taken out of context, but state officials had already jumped on the comments.

A Texas Tribune analysis of ICE data shows that Texas counties weren’t the main offenders when it came to denying federal requests. Only 146 of the country’s 18,646 declined ICE detainers between January 2014 and September 2015 came from Texas jails. Travis County was at the top of the list with 72, while Bexar County had 11. Valdez’s Dallas County Jail declined only two, according to the data. And two of Texas’ largest border counties – Webb and Hidalgo – recorded three, while El Paso County only recorded one. (A spokeswoman for the Webb County Jail said it didn’t deny those requests — the inmates were transferred to another county where they also faced charges.)

Though the legislation doesn’t apply to a person that is detained because they are a victim of or witness to a crime, Rodríguez said he still has concerns about the bill because it’s written so broadly that it opens the door to police enforcement.

“It’s consistent with an interpretation that their intent is to have local police ask about immigration status,” he said. “Because on the other hand, what they’re saying is that if you have a so-called sanctuary city that prohibits them from inquiring, they are going to be penalized and sanctioned with loss of funds. So obviously those two combined together suggests [they] want people to be checked.”

Sen. Perry’s office didn’t respond to requests for comment for this story. But Geren said it’s too early in the process to predict what the final bill will look like and said he is willing to talk to anyone who has concerns about the legislation.

“We haven’t vetted it through the committee process at this point,” he said. “I want to work with law enforcement to make sure that we’re not discouraging people from coming forward, so there is a still a lot to talk about.”

Geren was adamant that sheriffs needed to comply with ICE detainers.

“That’s a large portion of the bill that we want to pass. But obviously there are some sheriffs that have said that they are not going to do it, and that causes a problem,” he said. “But I understand that some of the rural counties, where ICE is not in the jail every day, could be a financial burden to do it.”

Lawmakers could also face some pushback from the business community because of a provision in the bill that permits a person to file a complaint with the attorney general if they think that a local government isn’t following the provisions of the bill.

“If you are a sheriff and I am running against you, all I have to do is to allege you are doing something nefarious, as I read the legislation, and then the [attorney general] has the authority to open an investigation,” said Bill Hammond, the former CEO and president of the Texas Association of Business and current president of consulting firm Bill Hammond and Associates. “I stand to be corrected, but a mere allegation not being substantiated could trigger and probably would trigger an investigation of an incumbent. That’s bad politics.”