This in from Dale Gieringer of California's NORML (available on DrugSense):

The text of the newly proposed "Crack House Statute" amendment is now available on Thomas. It appears as Section 5131 of S. 22, the "Justice Enhancement and Domestic Security Act" of 2003, a comprehensive bill covering a potpourri of other law enforcement measures ranging from telemarketing fraud and gun control to anti-terrorism and victim restitution.

he bill is the same as last year's anti-RAVE act S. 2622, without the extensive findings denouncing raves. Its basic effect is to extend current federal law against owning or maintaining drug-involved premises to include renting, leasing and using.

At present, Section 416 of the Controlled Substances Act, 21 USC 856 a(1) makes it a federal crime to " knowingly open or maintain any place for the purpose of manufacturing, distributing, or using any controlled substance." (This is one of the statutes under which Ed Rosenthal has been charged).

The amendment would expand this to "open, LEASE, RENT, USE, or maintain any place, WHETHER PERMANENTLY OR TEMPORARILY"

Note that the owner/leaser must KNOWINGLY have the PURPOSE of using the premises for a controlled substance offense. Thus the act of leasing premises for rave parties where drugs happen to be used would arguably not be a crime. However, maintaining premises for medical cannabis clubs would be illegal (as under current law in the case of property owners).

The proposed amendment also provides for a new civil penalty of $250,000 for maintaining drug-involved premises; however, this doesn't add a lot to the present criminal penalties of a $500,000 fine and 20 years in prison.

Absent last year's inflammatory language against raves, the bill appears to be a less than radical, though still objectionable, extension of current law."

University of Illinois Law Professor Francis A. Boyle, who nominated former Illinois Governor George Ryan for a Nobel Peace Prize, has drafted a resolution to be introduced in the House of Representatives to impeach President Bush for high crimes and misdemeanors.

(Thanks to reader Paul for the link).

Update: Lisa English of Ruminate This has more on impeachment...

The Los Angeles Times is calling upon Congress to exorcise the 'Demon of Error' in death penalty cases and, for starters, pass the Innocence Protection Act, languishing in Congress for over a year.

Congress could start in this session by passing a long-ignored package of reforms to help ensure that only the guilty are condemned to death....

In separate investigations over the last four years, Chicago Tribune reporters and Northwestern University students and faculty members concluded that close to 200 Illinois inmates had been convicted of capital crimes on suspect evidence or represented by shoddy lawyers or could be exonerated with DNA evidence.

.... But even those who see the death penalty as fair retribution should be alarmed that it is applied unevenly, depending on the prosecutor's office, with too few safeguards against condemning the innocent.

The proposed Innocence Protection Act, supported by a number of groups on either side of the capital punishment issue, would raise the standards required of lawyers in death penalty cases and permit post-conviction DNA testing. Yet despite bipartisan support, the bill stalled after passing the Senate Judiciary Committee last year, and its fate in the new Congress may be bleaker.

This nation does have a problem with the death penalty, and it's time to start addressing it.

Three words: Innocence Protection Act. Now that the 108th Congress is in session, The Justice Projcet is getting ready for the reintroduction of the Innocence Protection Act (IPA) in the next few months. During the last Congress, the IPA gained support from more than half of the House of Representatives and was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee. Take a look back at the history of the IPA and get ready to help push it forward into law this year.

In an especially sneaky move, the Rave Act has been reintroduced in Congress. Under another name. Buried in S. 22, a popular omnibus domestic security bill proposed by Democratic Senator Tom Daschle. The Drug Policy Alliance, whose herculean efforts last year were instrumental in blocking the bill's passage, has all the info. Send a letter or fax to Senator Daschle now. Here are the major provisions of the new Rave Act:

"If enacted, the provisions would amend the federal “crack house law” to make it easier for federal prosecutors to fine and imprison business owners that fail to stop drug offenses from occurring. Businessmen and women could be prosecuted even if they were not involved in drugs – and even if they took steps to stop drug use on their property. The provisions would also undermine public health, endanger youth, and stifle free speech.

Property owners, landlords, hotel managers, promoters and other businessmen and women could be fined hundreds of thousands of dollars or face up to twenty years in federal prison if they hold raves or other events on their property. If the bill becomes law, property owners may be too afraid to rent or lease their property to groups holding medical marijuana festivals,
all-night dance parties, and other events - effectively stifling free-speech and banning raves and other musical events.

The “crack house” provisions would also make it a federal crime to temporarily use a place for the purpose of using any illegal drug. Thus, anyone who used drugs in their own home or threw an event (such as a party or barbecue) in which one or more of their guests used drugs could potentially face a $250,000 fine and years in federal prison. The provisions also effectively makes it a federal crime to rent property to medical marijuana patients and their caregivers, giving the federal government a new weapon in its war on AIDS and cancer patients that use marijuana to relieve their suffering.

Health advocates worry that the “crack house” provisions of S.22 will endanger our nation's youth. If enacted, licensed and law-abiding business owners may stop hosting raves or other events that federal authorities don't like, out of fear of massive fines and prison sentences. Thus, the law would drive raves and other musical events further underground and away from public health and safety regulations It would also discourage business owners from enacting smart public safety measures to protect their customers.

The S.22 “crack house” provisions punish businessmen and women for the crimes of their customers. The government can't even keep drugs out of its schools and prisons, yet it seeks to punish business owners for failing to keep people from carrying drugs onto their premises. If these provisions become law, federal authorities will have the ability to scare business owners away from using or renting their property for all-night dance events, as well as any other "politically incorrect" event."

What's wrong with the Rave Act? In a nutshell,

"The RAVE Act unfairly punishes businessmen and women for the crimes of their customers. The federal government can't even keep drugs out of its own schools and prisons, yet it seeks to punish business owners for failing to keep people from carrying drugs onto their property. It is a danger to innocent businessmen and women, especially restaurant and nightclub owners, concert promoters, landlords, and real estate managers. Section 4 of the bill goes so far as to allow the federal government to charge property owners civilly, thus allowing prosecutors to fine property owners $250,000 (and put them out of business) without having to meet the higher standard of proof in criminal cases that is needed to protect innocent people."

For the point-by-point analysis, go here.

This law could subject you to 20 years in prison. Help stop it now!

(Thanks to Pete Karas, of Progressive Racine Blog, for letting us know. Pete is our number one source for up to the minute news about Rave legislation and arrests.)

This is in technical terms, and will probably make all non-lawyer readers snore, so we apologize in advance, but we think it's important news for the criminal defense community and journalists who cover this beat, and this is the fastest way we know to get it out.

The following is taken verbatim from our Sentencing Guidelines Guru, Carmen Hernandez, Attorney-Advisor for the Defender Services Division Training Branch of the Federal Defenders Organization:

On Jan. 7, 2003, Rep. John Conyers and 20 co-sponsors introduced the Restoration of Fairness in Immigration Act in the House of Representatives. This "Fix '96" legislation amends the Immigration and Nationality Act with respect to due process in immigration proceedings, including due process in expedited removal proceedings, judicial review in immigration proceedings, and detention proceedings and detention alternatives. The bill is a repeat of H.R. 3894, which Rep. Conyers introduced last year.

We'd like to see it passed this year, so we are spreading the word. We'll have more details soon. Thanks to Kyle O'Dowd, Legislative director of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) for passing this info on to us.

"The legal community is battling a plan that would require lawyers to alert regulators if a corporate client is about to inflict financial harm, such as inflating profit."

"Under current ethics rules, lawyers would not be obligated to blow the whistle on their business clients. But the Securities and Exchange Commission could change that, under a proposed rule that would require lawyers to tell the SEC about problems that companies refuse to fix."

What's wrong with this? Susan Hackett, general counsel for the Corporate Counsel Association, the trade association for full-time, in-house company attorneys, gets it right: Lawyers are not policemen (or women). "Clients have to feel free to bring dirty laundry or problems or questions to their lawyer," Hackett said. "When a client doesn't know if the lawyer might take something to a regulator, the client is not likely to tell the lawyer anything significant."

There is a sanctity accorded the attorney-client relationship. A lawyer can only represent a client effectively if the client discloses all pertinent facts. What client is going to do this once he knows the lawyer might have to divulge his confidences to the SEC? We think it runs afoul of our Code of Professional Responsibility and our Canons of Ethics. We also think it's bad policy. So do the American Bar Association and many other organizations.

If a company fails to take corrective action, then an attorney should stop representing the company, they say. But they argue that lawyers shouldn't be forced to take two additional steps that the SEC's proposal would require. Those steps would be for lawyers to notify the SEC that they no longer represent the company and to make clear which documents filed with the SEC -- such as an annual report -- they believe are "tainted" or no longer accurate. These two steps amount to what the business community calls a "noisy withdrawal."

Think of "noisy withdrawal" like a red flag. Critics of the proposed rule say "its practical effect would be to turn lawyers into police who, by raising an alert, would be betraying their clients. That's because alerting the SEC to a problem usually leads to an investigation by the agency..."

Critics of the proposed rule argue that "if a lawyer learns that a company's annual report contains misleading statements, the lawyer's obligation is to alert the company, not the SEC."

"Critics also object to a federal agency imposing national conduct codes on states, which traditionally have set professional standards for lawyers based on model codes attorneys write for themselves. Hackett describes it as the "nose under the camel's tent" that could lead to more agencies seeking to turn lawyers into spies."

Our view: The Government's plan to turn lawyers into snitches, having already implemented a system under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines in which they apply enormous pressure upon our clients to become snitches, will render our criminal justice system morally bankrupt.

[comments now closed]

Political Wire reports that the 108th Congress convenes tomorrow. The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) and the ACLU will be following criminal justice and civil liberites issues closely, so check in with them frequently. TalkLeft will keep you up-to-date as well.

Oakland, California ushered in the New Year by becoming the 19th city to pass a resolution opposing the USA PATRIOT Act and urging the state’s Members of Congress to actively work for its repeal.

Michigan Governor John Engler has signed the bill approved by the state legislature that eliminates mandatory minimum sentences for drug crimes. The bill is effective March 1 and will apply to those already in prison.

Under the new law, Judges can use sentencing guidelines to impose sentences based on a range of factors in each case, rather than solely drug weight. The bill also replaces the lifetime probation requirement for the lowest-level offenders with a five-year term of probation. The board will have the discretion to grant early to some inmates.

The passage of this bill was years in the making. Major kudos are due FAMM (Families Against Mandatory Minimums). Laura Sagar, FAMM's executive director had this to say:

"Harsh mandatory minimums, originally intended to target drug "king pins" warehoused many nonviolent, low-level drug offenders at a very high cost to taxpayers. Now judges can use their discretion under sentencing guidelines to more closely fit the punishment to the crime and the offender."

"This change is being closely examined by states across the country as they grapple with the unintended consequences of their own mandatory minimum sentences."

"This historic act is also a victory for a grassroots movement for justice. "It is the culmination of years of grassroots lobbying efforts by thousands of FAMM members affected by mandatory minimums that were among the harshest in the nation. These families brought the human face of sentencing injustices to lawmakers and convinced member of both parties that change was urgently needed."

The bill was a bipartisan measure supported by groups such as the "Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan, the Michigan Judges Association, the Michigan Association of Drug Court Professionals, the Michigan Catholic Conference, Michigan's Children, and the NAACP (Detroit Branch), among many others."

Why did the prosecutors go along? David Morse, President of the Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan, said:

Michigan's prosecutors recognize that an effective drug policy is a combination of criminal justice strategies, readily available drug treatment programs, incarceration where appropriate, and prevention activities in schools, businesses, and homes. That is why we support a responsible approach to replacing the mandatory minimum sentences for drug crimes with sentences that are appropriate for the crime."

Former Michigan Republican Governor William G. Milliken has said his signing mandatory minimum drug sentences into law in 1978 was "the worst mistake of my career" and campaigned for their repeal.

This is FAMM's second win in Michigan. In 1998 they led the drive to repeal a law that mandated life without for anyone convicted of delivery or conspiracy to deliver 650 grams or more of heroin or cocaine.

FAMM's analysis of the new drug sentencing laws is here.

The Governor of Michigan is expected to sign legislation next week ending most mandatory minimum penalties for drug offenses. The legislation consists of three bills, which had wide bipartisan support and the support of Michigan prosecutors.

Michigan's laws are among the strictist in the country. "Someone possessing 50 to 224 grams of narcotics or cocaine in Michigan must be sentenced to at least 10 years and up to 20 years in prison. The bills would eliminate the 10-year minimum, allowing the judge to sentence an offender for any time up to 20 years."

Under the new law, drug offenders would become eligible for early. The final decision will be up to the board, but drug offenders have the highest rate of in Michigan--72%. Here is the fact sheet o n the new laws.

Possession of over 650 grams of cocaine in Michigan until a few years ago used to carry a mandatory life sentence. That's a little over a pound. As of July, 1998, 225 inmates were serving life terms under this statute.

For more details on the Michigan changes, and on the evils of mandatory sentencing in general, we recommend you visit -- FAMM--Families Against Mandatory Minimums. They have worked the hardest to overturn these draconian laws. Here is their update on Michigan.

The Bush administration is planning to propose that Internet service providers help build a centralized system to enable broad monitoring of the Internet and, potentially, surveillance of its users. This is one of many regulations contained in a new report by the Office of Management and Budget outlining post-9/11 regulations .

"Communications between inmates and their attorneys are monitored more closely. Authorities can detain illegal immigrants longer. And airline passengers are paying new fees and waiting while their baggage is screened. These are just a few of the 58 significant new federal regulations installed in response to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, a complete list of which is included in a report released yesterday by the Office of Management and Budget."

"Some changes prompted critics to complain of inappropriate curbs on civil liberties and unfair treatment of immigrants. Others said the government needs to do more to make the country less vulnerable to attack. Angela Kelley, deputy director of the National Immigration Forum, an immigrants rights group, said many of the new restrictions on immigrants were too onerous, including measures requiring registration and fingerprinting of some immigrants by the Immigration and Naturalization Service."

You can view the report here, but be forewarned, it's 163 pages.