CONTENTS: June 27, 2000





California Brown Shirts>

SACRAMENTO, Calif., June 14 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Calling it a "disturbing invasion of family privacy," the Libertarian Party of California today attacked a bill in the state Legislature that would require children as young as five years old to be asked intrusive, personal questions such as whether or not their parents spank them, keep guns in the house, or watch violent television shows.

    The bill, AB 2068 by Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento), passed the Assembly by one vote on May 25 and is pending before the Senate Committee on Health and Human Services.

    "This has to be one of the most frightening bills I have ever seen introduced in the California Legislature," stated Libertarian state chair Mark Hinkle. "Forcing children to report 'suspicious' activity of their parents or neighbors is a strategy right out of the totalitarian playbook, not something that should even be considered in a free and civil society."

    AB 2068 adopts recommendations made by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) in a January 1999 Policy Statement entitled "The Role of the Pediatrician in Youth Violence Prevention and Clinical Practice and at the Community Level." In that paper, the AAP advises pediatricians to screen children for risk factors indicating violence, such as:

   -- Whether the parents or family members have substance abuse problems
   -- Whether the parents are employed
   -- Whether any family members are involved in gangs
   -- Whether the parents spank their children
   -- Whether the parents watch violent television programs or keep guns in the home.

    Under Steinberg's bill, the AAP guidelines would be used by the Child Health and Disability Prevention program, which is administered by county governments for poor families under the supervision of the state Department of Health Services. Nearly 2 million children are expected to be screened under this program next year.

    "None of these questions is the government's business. Children should never be put into the position of 'telling' on their parents - especially poor children who may have no other alternative for health screening than unpleasant, oppressive government programs," Hinkle said.

    "The Senate must kill this bill," concluded Hinkle, "and strike a blow for every family's right to privacy. Let's interrogate violent criminals, not innocent impoverished children.

J.A.I.L.  (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law)
Use header to subscribe/remove:
JAIL is a unique addition to our form of government.
JAIL is powerful! It is dynamic! It is America's ONLY hope!
Visit JAIL's informative websites, (& .net)
Other egroups may sign on at
JAIL's message is spreading across this nation vociferously!
Support JAIL @ P.O. Box 207, No. Hollywood, CA 91603
" does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate,
tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.."
                                                 --Samuel Adams     
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one
who is striking at the root."   -- Henry David Thoreau    <><


----- Original Message -----
From: "Para" <>
To: "Para" <>
Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2000 7:22 AM
Subject: Bad Problems in Brazil

From: Roger y Marianne <>
To: Para <> (and many others)
From: Jim Hamalainen <
To: Roger y Marianne <>
Sent: Monday, June 26, 2000 4:36 AM
Subject: Bad Problems

June 26, 2000

Brazilian congress is now voting on a project that will reduce the amazon forest to 50% of its size. The area to be deforested   is 4 times the size of Portugal and would be mainly used for agriculture and  pastures for livestock.   All the wood is to be sold to international markets in the form of  woodchips, by multinational companies.

The truth is that the soil in the amazon forest is useless without the forest itself. Its quality is very acidic and the region is prone to constant floods. At this time more than 160.000 square kilometres deforested with the same purpose, are abandoned and in the process of becoming deserts.

We cannot let this happen. Copy the text into a new email, put your complete name in the list below, and send to everyone you know. (Don't just forward it cos then it will end up with rows of 's ) If you are the 100th person to sign please send a copy to
< >

  Thank you.

Laws Sought To End Money Laundering

Associated Press © 2000 6/26/00

WASHINGTON (AP) - U.S. law enforcement groups told a congressional panel Friday that America's money laundering laws are inadequate and should be strengthened.

Smuggling illegal drug money to be laundered in another country isn't even considered a crime, said Mary Lee Warren, a Justice Department deputy assistant attorney general.

``It's illegal to smuggle diamonds. It's illegal to smuggle gold. But under the current law, it's not illegal to smuggle cash,'' she told the House Government Reform criminal justice, drug policy and human resources subcommittee Friday.

The only criminal offense associated with bulk money smuggling is the non-reporting requirement, which makes it illegal to move more than $10,000 across the border without informing the U.S. Customs Service, she said.

``It's not actually illegal to move the money,'' she said. ``The only thing that's illegal is not reporting it.''

Even that is considered a minor offense, Warren said, noting that the Supreme Court limited the fine in one case to $15,000 for a defendant caught trying to smuggle out $357,000 under the false bottom of a suitcase.

Money laundering involves exchanging or investing money earned from illegal activities, such as prostitution, gambling and drug trafficking, to conceal its source and make the money appear legitimate.

An international fight against money laundering intensified this week. A 26-nation task force put 15 countries, including Russia and Israel, on a ``blacklist'' Thursday for failing to crack down on money laundering.

Unless those countries improve their financial systems, the embarrassment of being on the list could be compounded by sanctions or increased scrutiny from other countries.

In the United States, drug dealers get about $63 billion in cash annually, much of which is smuggled out, officials said. The amount of money laundered worldwide could be as high as $1 trillion, they said.

Edward Guillen, chief of the Drug Enforcement Administration's financial operations section, said law enforcers seized more than $69 million last year as it was transported on U.S. highways alone. Between January and April this year, they already intercepted more than $19 million between on the roads, he said.

The arrival of the Internet brought a boom in electronic money laundering, and ``our laws have not kept pace,'' said Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md.

At the hearing, officials from Customs, DEA and the Justice and Treasury departments pushed for passage of stronger money laundering laws, including the Money Laundering Act of 2000, which would make money smuggling a crime.

That law also would tighten controls on money wire transfer businesses, increase U.S. courts' jurisdiction over foreign banks on U.S. soil and make it illegal to carry illegal gains. ``The current law does not make being a courier of dirty money a criminal offense,'' Warren said.

Customs also wants additional legislation to allow agents to search outbound international mail for smuggled currency and merchandise, according to John Varrone, acting deputy assistant commissioner of the agency's office of investigations. He said a 4-pound international letter-class mail package could contain more than $180,000 in cash.

``If we can successfully reduce the ability of drug dealers to launder the proceeds, the cartels and the smaller dealers would be forced to reduce the size and number of their transactions,'' subcommittee chair Rep. John Mica, R-Fla., said. ``This reduction will substantially reduce the amount of drugs available to our citizens.''


On the Net: House Government Reform subcommittee on criminal justice, drug policy and human resources:
Copyright © 2000 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.

Supreme Court Won't Limit Use of RICO Law

    WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court refused to bar use of a federal anti- anti-racketeering law against outside professionals accused of conspiring with a business client to commit fraud even if they did not help manage or operate the business.

    The justices, acting without comment Monday, let stand a federal appeals court ruling that gave a broad scope to the conspiracy provisions of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

    The appeals court's ruling in January left a law firm and investment banking firm potentially liable to investors who were defrauded out of millions of dollars by a now-bankrupt Indianapolis company.

    Firstmark Corporation is a holding company whose subsidiaries engaged in various financial services. Beginning in the mid-1980s, the financially shaky Firstmark allegedly sought to conceal its condition by increasing the margin between the quantity of notes sold to investors and those redeemed by investors.

    As explained by the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, those involved in the scheme ``are alleged to have deceived investors into purchasing new notes, rolling over current notes or otherwise refraining from redeeming their notes.

    ``The result was an ever-growing pyramid of debt that forced Firstmark into bankruptcy in 1988,'' the appeals court said, with investors owed $57 million.

    Many investors sued Firstmark and others - including the underwriting firm Raffensperger, Hughes & Co. and the Indianapolis law Barnes & Thornburg that had done work for Firstmark.

    A federal trial judge threw out the case against those two defendants, relying on a 1993 Supreme Court decision.

    In it, the nation's highest court said the RICO law cannot be used to sue outside professionals if they did not help manage or operate an allegedly fraudulent business. The law, aimed primarily at fighting mobsters, has both criminal and civil provisions. It is considered a potent legal weapon because, unlike federal securities anti-fraud laws, it offers successful plaintiffs triple damages.

    The 7th Circuit court, however, reinstated both firms as defendants and ruled that the 1993 Supreme Court decision does not govern allegations against outside professionals filed under RICO's conspiracy provisions.

    To be liable under those provisions, the appeals court said, ``one must knowingly agree to perform services of a kind which facilitate the activities of those who are operating the enterprise in an illegal manner.''

    Its decision said an illegal conspiracy ``is an agreement, not to operate or manage the enterprise, but personally to facilitate the activities of those who do.''

    In the appeal acted on Monday, lawyers for the law firm and underwriting firm said the 7th Circuit court's ruling allows all RICO plaintiffs to circumvent the liability limitation the Supreme Court imposed in 1993. ``It creates civil and criminal liability where Congress has not imposed it,'' the appeal said.

    The case is Raffensperger, Hughes & Co. v. Brouwer, 99-1637.
    For the appeals court ruling in Brouwer v. Raffensperger, Hughes & Co.: and click on 7th Circuit.

    The above was sent to JAIL by Attorney Laura Burton, who says, "Ron, I'm seeing a beautiful RICO case against the State Bar of Georgia. If I put this together, do you have some legal minds to review it and advise?  Laura Burton."
    Attorney Burton is heading up our Georgia JAIL Chapter along with Kimberley Brown. I ask those attorneys following JAIL, if you are in a position to give Laura the assistance she needs in reviewing her RICO complaint against the State Bar of Georgia, she many be reached at . Our thanks in advance.