Home Blog Page 657

Kindergarten registration Feb. 4 in Homer 33C

0

News Release

Homer CCSD 33C

Goodings Grove Luther J. Schilling William E. Young William J. Butler

Hadley Middle Homer Jr. Highchildren

Contact: Charla Brautigam, Communications/Public Relations Manager
cbrautigam@homerschools.org | 708-226-7628
 
 
For Immediate Release:
Nov. 13, 2015
Kindergarten registration Feb. 4 in Homer 33C
Do you have a child who will turn 5 on or before Sept. 1, 2016? It’s nearly time to register him or her for kindergarten.
Homer School District 33C will conduct Kindergarten Registration from 4 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. Thursday, Feb. 4 at Hadley Middle School, 15731 Bell Road.
Parents are asked to bring the following documentation:

Child’s original birth certificate
Proof of residency
Any court documents related to guardianship
To prove residency, parents/guardians are asked to bring three documents. They should include one of the following:
Most recent property tax bill
Current closing papers
Mortgage statement
Signed/dated lease with two rent receipts
Parents/guardians should also bring two of the following documents to prove residency:
Driver’s license/State ID
Voter’s Registration Card
Cable, phone, gas, electric, water or credit card bill
Public Aid Card
Vehicle registration or insurance statement
Homeowner’s or renter’s insurance premium receipt
The average wait time to complete Kindergarten Registration is 15-30 minutes.
It’s not necessary to bring the child to registration, but they are welcome to attend.
Please visit the district website at www.homerschools.org for more information or to complete the pre-registration form. The form can be found under the “Registration” tab on the left-hand side of the homepage.

Some Democrats work for the people

0

Dunkin votes against Democrats’ effort to challenge Rauner on child care

You need Flash to watch this video.Sorry, your browser doesn’t support Flash, needs a Flash update, or has Flash disabled.
Dunkin votes against Democrats' effort to challenge Rauner on child care
A democratic state representative has once again broken from the ranks of his party.

A Democratic state representative has once again broken from the ranks of his party – Ken Dunkin did not vote with other Democrats on a key bill in the budget stalemate.
State Rep. Dunkin is the most controversial lawmaker in Illinois.
“I am not a puppet for Mike Madigan, for the governor. I work for the citizens of this district and across the state,” he said.
The Chicago Democrat on Tuesday did not support his party’s effort to reduce the power of Republican Gov. Bruce Rauner to change rules affecting who qualifies for state-subsidized child care. The Democrats, led by House Speaker Michael Madigan, needed all 71 of their supermajority to pass the bill. Dunkin is the one lawmaker who did not fall in line.
“The facts are people are sick and tired of us down in Springfield who are under the thumb of Mike Madigan,” Dunkin said.
Dunkin said Tuesday’s vote was pure politics because he negotiated with Rauner and convinced the governor to restore the child care benefits reduced last summer.

“We should be celebrating the fact that children can now go back to daycare,” Dunkin said.
“The idea that I just issue unilateral rules day in and day out is pretty laughable,” Madigan said.
The wounded Madigan – who said Dunkin has strayed repeatedly – was asked if he’ll support the South Sider’s re-election.
“That’s something that we’ll consider as we move along,” Madigan said.
“He let the people down as well as the Democratic Party,” said Andre Smith, a democratic candidate who has set out to challenge Dunkin.
Activist Smith has noted Dunkin’s independence and has already launched a democratic primary campaign to unseat the seven-term incumbent.
“Ken Dunkin, he makes backroom deals and he’s an undercover Republican,” Smith said.
“I wasn’t sent down there to be a Democrat, to be a Republican. I was sent down there to serve the people of my district and throughout the state,” Dunkin said.
Dunkin insisted he has not been promised nor has he received personal favors from Rauner. He says only that partisan politics has run its course in Springfield.
“What’s wrong with negotiating with each other whether you’re Republican or Democrat? It makes no difference. People want to see functionable government,” Dunkin said.
Dunkin says he’s not the only democratic lawmaker who wants an end to partisan politics. The others, he says, are afraid to speak out – intimidated by party leadership.

Experimental Cholesterol Vaccine: Better Than Statins?

0

Image: Experimental Cholesterol Vaccine: Better Than Statins? (Copyright DPC)
By Nick Tate   |   Wednesday, 11 Nov 2015 05:02 PM From Newsmax
U.S. scientists have developed an experimental cholesterol-lowering vaccine that could prove to be more effective and cheaper than statin drugs.
The vaccine led to reductions in “bad” LDL cholesterol in tests involving mice and macaques, and holds promise in treating people, according to research published in the journal Vaccine by scientists from the University of New Mexico and the National Institutes of Health.

“One of the most exciting things about this new vaccine is it seems to be much more effective than statins alone,” said Dr. Bryce Chackerian, who helped conduct the study.
Cholesterol is produced by the body to make vitamin D, some hormones, and molecules that help us digest food. It is also found in foods. But if a person has too much LDL cholesterol, the arteries can become blocked, leading to heart disease and stroke.

According to the CDC, 73.5 million Americans have high LDL cholesterol. While diet and exercise can keep it in check, millions of people worldwide take statins to lower their cholesterol. Statins have potentially serious side effects, such as muscle pain, an increased risk of diabetes and cognitive loss.

  

But the new vaccine could provide an alternative to statins, by targeting a protein called PCSK9 that controls cholesterol levels in the blood, without posing those side effects. A single vaccine was able to reduce cholesterol levels dramatically in laboratory animals, suggesting it could be an effective treatment in humans.

“Statins are still the most commonly prescribed medication for cholesterol. Although they are effective in many people, do have side effects and don’t work for everyone,” said Dr. Alan Remaley, one of the authors of the study from the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health. “The results of our vaccine were very striking, and suggest it could be a powerful new treatment for high cholesterol.”

ACTION ALERT – 2nd Amendment –

 
ACTION ALERT – 2nd Amendment –
YOUR IMMEDIATE ACTION NEEDED

facebook_event_1462704984037946
GUN GRABBING COOK COUNTY BOARD ATTACKS LAWFUL FIREARM OWNERS

Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle officially announced today her intention to pass the county’s first round of ammunition taxes during this Friday’s county board meeting. This initial tax will slap a penny a round on rimfire ammo and a nickel a round on centerfire ammo. According to Preckwinkle, the tax is being levied on gun owners in order to “…improve public safety.” As a gun owner, you know what a joke that is.  This week’s tax on ammo will kick off what is certain to be a string of taxes on guns and ammo designed to suppress your right to keep and bear arms. The intent of this tax and those to follow is to make shooting too expensive for the average citizen.

HERE IS WHAT YOU NEED TO DO TO DEFEND YOUR RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS:

Call each of the following numbers beginning tomorrow and continue to call them throughout the week as many times a day as you can and deliver this simple message to whomever answers the phone, “NO AMMO TAX”:

a)Cook County Switchboard (312) 603-5542
b)Cook County Board Switchboard (312) 443-5500
c)Commissioner Richard Boykin, Phone: (312) 603-4566 AND Phone: (312) 603-4566
d)Commissioner Robert Steele, Phone: (312) 603-3019 AND Phone: (773) 722-0140
e)Commissioner Stanley Moore, Phone: (312) 603-2065 AND Phone: (773)783-2412
f)Commissioner Deborah Sims, Phone: (312) 603 6381 AND Phone: (312) 603 6381
g)Commissioner Joan Murphy, Phone: (312) 603-4216 AND Phone: (708) 389-2125
h)Commissioner Jesus Garcia, Phone: (312) 603-5443 AND Phone: (312) 603-5443
i)Commissioner Luis Arroyo, Phone: (312) 603-6386 AND Phone: (773) 417-4454
j)Commissioner Bridget Gainer, Phone: (312) 603-4210 AND phone: (773) 561-1010
k)Commissioner John Daley, Phone: (312) 603-4400 AND Phone: (312) 603-4400



Jim Komaniecki
President

               

Hadley Middle School students, staff pay tribute to veterans

0

 
 
Nov. 10, 2015
 
 
 
   Hadley Middle School students, teachers and staff paid tribute to veterans on Tuesday with a special assembly in the school gymnasium.
Veterans Day 2015 Hadley school
In attendance were more than a dozen veterans representing each branch of the military.
 
“For more than 200 years, brave men and women have worn the uniform of the U.S. military in order to defend our freedom,” Principal Kristen Schroeder told students as they welcomed the servicemen and women with a standing ovation.
 
“These heroes have answered our nation’s call and served with honor a dignity,” she continued. “In return for their service, they deserve our respect, our gratitude and our profound appreciation for their dedication and sacrifice. We can never fully repay the debt of appreciation owed to our veterans, but we can continue to recognize and honor their service.”
 
Students placed their hands over their hearts as the veterans presented the Colors and the school choir sang the National Anthem.
 
Next, the sixth-grade chorus introduced each branch of the military by singing the Armed Forces Medley, followed by a selection of patriotic tunes, including “Over There.”
Veterans Day Hadley School
“There is nothing we can say or do for a veteran that can begin to repay them for their sacrifices,” said Schroeder. “Although our soldiers deserve it, they never expect to receive any gratitude.
 
“They are heroes even more brave than those in movies or comic books,” she continued. “They walk our streets without capes or super powers. They are the heroes with the strength and courage to change our world. Without reservation, they protect us. They are the foundation that makes our country great.”
 
Veteran David Kemp from the American Legion Post 111 in Orland Park was invited to the podium to read the touching poem “I Am a Veteran” by Andrea Brett.
 
Students then presented Trisha Ruzzini, a volunteer with Operation Care Package, with two cartloads of items they collected for troops stationed overseas, including socks, razors, protein bars and Slim Jims.
 
“The kids are really driving this,” said Hadley social worker Mary Beth Rebollar who helped organize the collection effort and assembly.
 
Boxes were placed around school in the weeks leading up to Veteran’s Day, encouraging students to donate an item or two.
 
“Oh my goodness. You didn’t tell me I’d have to bring a U-Haul,” Ruzzini told students as their donations were wheeled out during the Veteran’s Day assembly.
 
 
 
 
 

 Veterans joined students and staff for a Veteran’s Day Program at Hadley Middle School on Nov. 10.


Oregon County Nullifies All Unconstitutional State and Federal Gun Laws

0

Written by 

Citizens of Coos County, Oregon, decided on November 3 that they consider their right to keep and bear arms beyond the reach of the federal government.
Specifically, voters approved a bill that authorizes the Coos County sheriff to interpose between the people of his county and any state or federal act that would infringe upon the rights protected by the Second Amendment.
The text of the ordinance declares as null and void “any regulation of the right to keep and bear arms.” It also empowers the county sheriff to ascertain whether any regulation — local, state, or federal — infringes unconstitutionally on the right of citizens to be armed.
Perhaps most importantly, the new law forbids the expenditure of county funds or other resources on the executing of Oregon’s recently reinforced background checks for anyone attempting to purchase a firearm.

According to the story in The Oregonian, over 60 percent of voters support the Second Amendment Preservation Act. The proposal made its way to the ballot as a result of dedicated efforts by advocates to secure the signatures of a sufficient number of registered voters to put the measure before the people.
The principal proponent of the measure is retired optician Rob Taylor. In an interview with The Oregonian, Taylor said he was confident that despite the recent armed assault at Umpqua Community College that resulted in nine deaths and the wounding of nine others, voters would show up and support their right to arm themselves.
“I’m so confident that this Second Amendment measure will pass, I’m not spending one dime,” said Taylor, as quoted in The Oregonian.
Taylor’s trust was borne out in the overwhelming percentage of his fellow citizens of Coos County that recognize the right to keep and bear arms and the authority of the county’s highest elected constitutional officer to protect that right.
Voters in Wheeler and Wallowa counties have approved nearly identical bills. On June 2 of this year, the county commission of Lane County voted 4-1 “that local government could not afford to investigate violations of the new law, and affirmed the ‘right of the people to keep and bear arms’ under the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment,” Reuters reported on June 4.
With the constant danger to unrestricted gun ownership coming from all corners of government, the voters of all four of these counties are to be congratulated on their nullification of all those threats, whether they be from the White House or the state House.
The most effective weapon in the war against small and large tyrannical attacks on liberty is nullification. Nullification occurs when a state, county, city, or other local entity holds as null, void, and of no legal effect any act of any government body that exceeds the boundaries of its constitutional powers.
As the Coos County ordinance demonstrates, the law of agency applies when one party gives another party legal authority to act on the first party’s behalf. The first party is called the principal and the second party is called the agent. The principal may grant the agent as much or as little authority as suits his purpose. That is to say, by simply giving an agent certain powers, that agent is not authorized to act outside of that defined sphere of authority.
Upon its ratification, the states, as principals, gave limited power to the central government to act as their agent in certain matters of common concern: defense, taxation, interstate commerce, etc.
The authority of the agent — in this case the federal government — is derived from the agreement that created the principal/agent relationship. Whether the agent is lawfully acting on behalf of the principal is a question of fact. The agent may legally bind the principal only insofar as its actions lie within the contractual boundaries of its power.
Should the agent exceed the scope of its authority, not only is the principal not held accountable for those acts, but the breaching agent is legally liable to the principal (and any affected third parties who acted in reliance on the agent’s authority) for that breach.
Under the law of agency, the principal may revoke the agent’s authority at will. It would be unreasonable to oblige the principals to honor promises of an agent acting outside the boundaries of its authority as set out in the document that created the agency in the first place.
Imagine the chaos that would be created if principals were legally bound by the acts of an agent that “went rogue” and acted prejudicially to the interests of the principals from whom he derived any power in the first place. It is a fundamental tenet of the law of agency that the agent may lawfully act only for the benefit of the principal.
Inexplicably, this is the position taken by those who argue that the states may not nullify unconstitutional federal acts and refuse to be bound by an agent that repeatedly exceeds its authority. Not only does this agent (the federal government) habitually breach the agency contract, but it does so in a manner that irreparably harms the principal (the states).
Congress is full of lawyers. Many presidents are lawyers. All federal judges are lawyers. Yet somehow when it comes to the relationship between the federal government and the states, they conveniently forget the basic principles of contract and agency law that are understood by second-year law students.
You don’t need a law degree, however, to understand that if the basic principles of the laws of contract and agency are applied to the relationship between states and general government, the states’ right of nullification becomes laughably simple and (to borrow another phrase from Jefferson) “self evident.”
What we do need, however, is a generation of conscientious Americans committed to repairing the barricades our Founders placed around our God-given rights, including the right to keep and bear arms.
What so many voters in these Oregon counties and others around the country seem to understand is that of all our fundamental rights, this particular right is under constant assault, likely because those would rob of us of all our liberty understand that it is the key to protecting the continued enjoyment of the others.
Today we need the millions of constitutionally minded Americans to band together in launching a multi-pronged approach to restoring this Republic, specifically the right to keep and bear arms.
First, we must elect only those candidates for federal office upon whom we can rely to be true to their oaths of office and uphold the Constitution.
Second, we must elect state lawmakers who will perform their duty to interpose between a tyrannical central government and the people. These legislators must do as James Madison counseled and refuse “to cooperate with officers of the union” when those officers are attempting to enforce acts that exceed the constitutional boundaries of federal authority.
Finally, sheriffs must resist the enticement of the federal government and remain dedicated to upholding the Constitution, bucking against the current trend to become subordinate to this or that federal agency in exchange for billions in supplies, vehicles, and weapons.

Big Business knows that when the deal’s going down, you’ve got to grab a seat at the table to protect your interests

The Cozy Relationship Between Big Business and Climate Change Activists

Why are some big companies—outfits like Walmart, Apple, Google, Costco, Bank of America, Best Buy, and Coca-Cola—lining up in support of the administration’s efforts to reach an international agreement to cap and cut greenhouse gas emissions? (Photo: Marc Larkin/LFI/Photoshot/Newscom)

http://https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdE-umto0FY

Polls bear it out: When it comes to climate change, the world isn’t much interested in taking action. Most folks, it seems, are reluctant to embrace expensive, lifestyle-changing, ineffective “solutions” to a non-evident problem.
But some big companies are gung-ho about “fighting” climate change. Well, at least they’ve jumped on the Obama administration’s climate-treaty bandwagon, backing an as yet unwritten pact to be hammered out next month in Paris.
Big Business knows that when the deal’s going down, you’ve got to grab a seat at the table to protect your interests. That’s especially true when you know the deal will impose job-killing, growth-stunting regulations: sitting at the table, you can make sure they’re crafted in a way that will damage your competitors—domestic and international—at least as much as they wound you.
Market share matters to Big Business, but most people aren’t interested in absorbing damage in the name of climate change. And that holds true for people in the developing world who, the Obama administration constantly claims, will be hurt most by climate change.

 
__________________________________________________

The United Nations “My World” survey asks people around the world to identify the issue that matters most to them. More than 8.58 million people responded to the latest survey, and “action taken on climate change” came in dead last—both overall and among those countries ranked lowest on the Human Development Index.
In the United States, the level of concern is similar. Earlier this year, a Pew Research Poll found that action on climate change ranked twenty-second out of twenty-three on the list of public policy priorities. Only global trade ranked lower.
The lack of urgency is understandable. Though the climate has changed, it always has. And the threat does not appear to be as clear, present, and catastrophic as the federal government makes it out to be. Observed data have proved that the climate models the government relies on to justify regulations restricting the use of coal, oil, and natural gas run too hot, predicting more warming than has actually occurred.
More problematic, the proposed “solutions” will do little, if anything, to mitigate global warming. The far more profound effect will be to raise energy costs, reduce economic output, and lower levels of prosperity in both developed and developing countries.
So why are some big companies—outfits like Walmart, Apple, Google, Costco, Bank of America, Best Buy, and Coca-Cola—lining up in support of the administration’s efforts to reach an international agreement to cap and cut greenhouse gas emissions? Several reasons present themselves, none of them good for American households.
Because conventional fuels produce the overwhelming majority of power for the world, a treaty forcing cuts in carbon emission will inevitably raise energy prices and the cost of doing business. If an international agreement imposes these restrictions on other countries, businesses will see it as “leveling the playing field.” They will also claim that it provides them with certainty.
But the only certainty here is that those higher costs will be passed on to consumers. The real bottom line is that everything we pay for, whether it’s made here or abroad, will cost more.
The best way to level the playing field and create business certainty is for policymakers to reject climate regulations altogether. If businesses want to be climate-conscious, invest in renewable energy, or invest in more energy-efficient technologies, they should do so on their own, not be forced into it.
Another reason Big Business may support domestic and international climate regulations is that it disproportionately hurts smaller businesses. Climate regulations are one of many problematic policies harming small business growth and entrepreneurship in the United States. Big businesses that have a seat at the table can negotiate for exemptions and exclusions and can more easily manage higher energy bills.
On the other hand, small businesses are largely left out of this special interest game. Instead, they face the same higher prices for energy and other products as homeowners. This makes it harder and harder for Main Street businesses to compete against the mega-corporations.
President Obama’s climate regulation push has won support from some of the big boys, but small businesses and American families are the ones that will be left out in the cold. That’s a typical result when Big Business and Big Government collude. And when it’s Big International Business and Big International Government cutting the deal, the damage can be even worse.
Originally published in The National Interest.

Against the Current With Dan Proft & Bruce Dumont

0

Fellow White Sox season ticket holder, Bruce DuMont, discusses his 35 years hosting “Beyond the Beltway” (“from coast to coast”), how he took an idea to the reality of the Museum of Broadcast Communications in Chicago, and the more pedestrian matters of city and state politics — could we have a Republican mayor? Will Rauner be a one-termer?– including his not-so-secret Mike Madigan tapes.

Property owners fight for the return of cash, cars and real estate seized by law enforcement

A Look Inside the Philadelphia Courtroom Where Property Owners Fight the Government to Get Back Their Cash, Homes and Cars

In Courtroom 478 in Philadelphia City Hall, property owners fight for the return of cash, cars and real estate seized by law enforcement. (Photo: Melissa Quinn)

PHILADELPHIA—On a September day in 2014, Leandro Banks saw his money disappear in an instant.
Banks, an independent contractor, left the bank with $1,858 in his pocket. The money came from his paycheck of nearly $5,000, Banks says.
Some of it he deposited, some he shared with an employee, and the rest—the $1,858—he says he intended to keep at home.
But in between the bank and his house, Banks stopped on the street to talk with some friends. Police said they saw him make a “transaction” by passing marijuana to another man in exchange for cash.

In an interview with The Daily Signal more than a year later, Banks, 46, says he simply was exchanging a handshake.
When officers with the Philadelphia Police Department approached Banks, though, he took off running.
They caught him three blocks away and said they found two ounces of marijuana and nearly $2,000 in a pocket of his blue shorts.
The officers seized the cash under Pennsylvania’s civil asset forfeiture laws, believing it was connected to the marijuana. Banks contended the money came from his paycheck.
“I was upset,” Banks recalls. “Even though it was a year ago, that’s my money. I worked hard for that. I said, ‘I got to fight it.’”

“That’s my money. I worked hard for that. I said, ‘I got to fight it.’”—Leandro Banks

So Banks began his foray into Philadelphia’s civil asset forfeiture machine, beginning in a small, rectangular room in City Hall called Courtroom 478.
There, the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office attempted to settle with Banks, first offering him $1,500 and then lowering its bid to $500. The contractor says he declined.
Banks told the city he would be happy to go to court to show the cash came from honest work. And he had the pay stub to prove it.
Inside Courtroom 478
Civil asset forfeiture is a tool that gives law enforcement the power to seize property and money suspected of being related to a crime. Originally, it was a way for police to target drug trafficking and money laundering.
Law enforcement officials in Philadelphia contend today that asset forfeiture is vital for eliminating the profit incentive for those in the drug trade.
 
Over the past few years, though, law enforcement agencies across the nation have faced growing criticism for what is seen as their abuse of forfeiture. Philadelphia, in particular, is the target of substantial backlash.
For citizens such as Banks whose cash, houses, or motor vehicles are seized by police in Philadelphia, the journey to get their property back begins in Courtroom 478, located halfway down a long hallway.
On a Thursday morning in July, the dimly lit hallway is nearly empty. A man passes by, his footsteps echoing, and he ducks into another courtroom further along.

Chart: Kelsey Lucas/Visualsey

Every so often, one of the city’s assistant district attorneys walks through the doorway of Courtroom 478 and into the hall, followed by a confused-looking property owner gripping paperwork.
The prosecutors sometimes converse with the property owners in hushed tones, discussing the details of proposed settlements or instructing them on what additional forms they need to fill out.
Inside the courtroom, wooden chairs are arranged in rows along the back wall. On this day, half the seats are filled. The occupants sit with their arms tightly crossed against their chests.
Courtroom 478 typically is busy on Wednesdays, when people whose vehicles were seized are summoned to appear.
Fridays, by contrast, are much slower. That’s when people who had less than $50 seized by law enforcement get their day in Courtroom 478.
For many of those property owners, fighting for the return of under $50 isn’t worth the hassle of spending a morning—and possibly several more—in Courtroom 478. On a Friday in July, only one person is listed on the docket, and that person doesn’t show up.
Darpana Sheth, a lawyer with the Institute for Justice who is leading a class action lawsuit against Philadelphia, says her group has seen forfeiture petitions for as little as $7 or $9. Going to Courtroom 478 to fight for such a low amount may seem futile, she says, but it’s those small sums that boost the city’s forfeiture revenue.
“If that’s what’s been taken from you, it’s a rational, economic decision that it’s not worth your time to go fight over that,” Sheth says in an interview with The Daily Signal. “But it’s important to know that it’s through this kind of accumulation of small-dollar amounts that most of Philadelphia’s slush fund of forfeiture revenue has been accumulated.”
Of the nearly $6 million—an average—forfeited annually by action of the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office from 2002 to 2012, $4.5 million came from cash seizures, according to an analysis conducted by the Institute for Justice.
The American Civil Liberties Union foundin its own investigation that half of cash forfeitures in Philadelphia between 2011 and 2013 involved amounts of less than $192. Just 10 percent were more than $1,000. The ACLU examined a random sample of 351 cash forfeitures over that three-year span.
In the weeks following The Daily Signal’s visit, the district attorney’s Public Nuisance Task Force—which oversees the process—decided to prohibit forfeitures of less than $50. Also ended were forfeitures tied to low-level misdemeanors.
Waiting to Meet a Prosecutor
For those summoned to Courtroom 478 on this Thursday, waiting to meet with an assistant district attorney is an hours-long affair.
The prosecutors often meet directly with property owners and help guide them through the process. Such involvement has earned the criticism of Sheth and other forfeiture opponents, who argue the lack of a neutral party violates due process.
 
David Earley had $150 in cash and three cell phones seized in June, when police arrested him for possession of cocaine, he tells The Daily Signal. The case was dropped and the charges dismissed.
Earley, 36, says he doesn’t care about the cash—it’s one of the cell phones he wanted back. He waited for nearly two hours to learn if it would be returned. (It was.)
Another property owner, a woman named Rochelle, says Officer Jeffrey Walker seized $7,000 from her in 2012. The next year, the narcotics officer was arrested and charged with planting drugs in and robbing a suspect’s house. In July, Walker was convicted and sentenced to three and a half years behind bars.
On this Thursday in July, Rochelle appears with hopes her money would be returned, but learns it will be another 10 to 12 weeks before she sees the cash. Another 10 to 12 weeks in what has been a three-year battle with the city.
Back in Courtroom 478, a broken clock leans up against the wall.
Guilty Until Proven Innocent
There are 16 seats on the left side of Courtroom 478, seats meant to hold a jury. But they’re empty.
A man sits at the front of the rectangular room. In any other courtroom, a judge would sit there. In Courtroom 478, though, the man isn’t a judge. He is a scheduler who tells property owners when they need to appear next.
Residents such as Earley and Banks, whose cash or other property was seized by the Philadelphia Police Department, receive a notice of forfeiture. They are required to appear here to prove they were unaware of any illegal activity involving their property.
This notion—of being guilty before proven innocent—is one of the many points of contention for critics of the city’s forfeiture system.
Sheth says it denies the presumption of innocence.
 

“The presumption of innocence is being turned on its head.”—Darpana Sheth

“The property owner bears the burden to affirmatively prove that they didn’t know about the illegal activity or they didn’t consent to it,” Sheth tells The Daily Signal, adding:

That’s where you get the reversal of the presumption of innocence. In these civil forfeiture cases, the property owner has to come forward and affirmatively prove a negative, that they didn’t know about the illegal activity, which is a very hard thing to do. The presumption of innocence is being turned on its head.

Sheth and the Institute for Justice have homed in on specific aspects of the system that threaten property rights, including the profit incentive created by forfeiture.
‘Direct Financial Incentive’
Philadelphia took in $64 million in forfeiture proceeds from 2002 to 2012, according to the Institute for Justice. Approximately $25 million of it went to paying law enforcement salaries, including those of lawyers working for the city in Courtroom 478.
A report from the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s Office found that Philadelphia law enforcement seized $3.4 million from 2013 to 2014 through civil forfeiture.
The ACLU reported that the district attorney’s office received nearly $2.2 million from forfeiture proceeds in 2012, which equals 7.3 percent of the agency’s budget.
 
“Those prosecutors have a direct financial incentive in the outcome of that proceeding. If property is eventually forfeited, that goes directly to the district attorney’s office, which uses it to pay salaries, including the salaries of these prosecutors,” Sheth says. “They have a direct financial interest that is very problematic.”
Prosecutors for the city don’t see it that way.
In an interview with The Daily Signal, Andrew Jenemann, chief of the district attorney’s Public Nuisance Task Force, says forfeiture proceeds are split between the police force and the district attorney’s office. The agencies use the money for different purposes, Jenemann says, and his task force has no say in it.
The money represents a small percentage of the budget, he says:

Some of the criticism is that we’re taking random people’s money, and that can’t be further from the truth. I don’t know if you’ve ever had the experience of living next door to a drug house or next door to a place that’s selling drugs. Ultimately, what this is all about it disrupting the drug trade and taking away instruments of crime that [criminals] use to further it.

Return Engagements
But the profit incentive isn’t the only reason opponents say the process is unconstitutional.

“Some of the criticism is that we’re taking random people’s money, and that can’t be further from the truth.”—Assistant District Attorney Andrew Jenemann

Property owners aren’t granted a right to counsel and often are asked to fill out complex forms filled with legal jargon.
Additionally, after appearing in Courtroom 478 for the first time, many property owners are required to return four, five or even six times before learning whether their cash, vehicles or houses are forfeited for good or will be returned.
Earley was lucky; he appeared in Courtroom 478 just once. Rochelle, who didn’t wish to share her last name, was there three times. Banks appeared six times, records show.
Failing to appear even once leads to automatic forfeiture of cash and automobiles, critics complain.
In January 2014, Philadelphia police seized $580 and a Buick LeSabre from Nassir Geiger, a lifelong city resident. Geiger, who joined the Institute for Justice’s class action lawsuit, appeared in Courtroom 478 several times to fight for his car and money.
Geiger, a sanitation worker employed by the city, wasn’t aware that the district attorney’s office had filed separate forfeiture petitions for his car and about $465 in cash.
According to court documents, Geiger never received a hearing notice about his cash and failed to appear in Courtroom 478 as scheduled on March 11, 2014, and June 16, 2014.
Because he didn’t show, his money was forfeited.
‘Bad Information’
Contrary to their critics, prosecutors disagree that missing a hearing leads to automatic forfeiture.
Jenemann, an assistant district attorney, says prosecutors do research before acting to forfeit real property—a house, business or warehouse—if a person fails to appear. He says they comb real estate tax records and other public documents, and look for addresses listed on a property’s water bills.
If a property owner cooperates and participates in the process, and then fails to appear in Courtroom 478, Jenemann says, prosecutors aren’t afraid to reopen cases involving property that had been defaulted.
Also, if property is forfeited after the owner fails to appear, Jenemann stresses, he or she can request that the court reopen a case by filing a motion to vacate the previous forfeiture. In some cases, the Pennsylvania courts reopen forfeiture cases involving houses, cars and money.
“There’s a certain amount of bad information that’s been put out there,” Jenemann says. “There’s a certain amount of unfairness in the way [forfeiture] has been portrayed. We’re always trying to improve the process. You want to get from what it is to where it should be.”
Jenemann notes that the number of times claimants have to appear in forfeiture court is based largely on the defendant and whether he or she has an open criminal case.
Under Philadelphia’s court rules, he says, status hearings must be conducted every few months until a criminal case is closed. That can keep property owners such as Banks coming back to Courtroom 478 five or six times.

Property owners in Philadelphia fighting for their cash, cars and houses sometimes must appear in Courtroom 478 up to 10 times.

The drawn-out nature of forfeiture cases, criticized by opponents of Philadelphia’s practice, is one aspect of the program Jenemann has changed.
“We are responding to the criticism by evaluating past policies and past procedures, and where we find them to need updating or changes, we’re making updates or changes,” he says. “But I don’t think the criticism has been fair.”
‘Every Last Penny’
Banks’ case underscores the concerns of those fighting the system. The contractor represents thousands of property owners whose cash, cars or residences were seized even though the property wasn’t tied conclusively to illegal activity.
Banks was found guilty of possession of marijuana with intent to manufacture or deliver, according to filings with the Municipal Court of Philadelphia County. His pay stub, however, showed that the $1,858 seized by police wasn’t tied to the drugs.
He was sentenced to 18 months probation.
Banks and the district attorney’s office reached a settlement in August, court documents show. As a result, Banks says, he received “every last penny back.” He also was asked to sign a waiver saying he wouldn’t sue the city.
Such waiver requests aren’t uncommon, as evident in the 2012 case of George Reby, who had $22,000 in cash seized in Tennessee. Reby, who got his money back, was asked to sign a waiver saying he wouldn’t sue the state.
In the interview with The Daily Signal, Banks says he didn’t understand why police went after him and not the man who they believed was selling marijuana, especially when law enforcement is focused on taking drugs off the streets.
And although Banks was able to prove his money wasn’t tied to illegal activity, effectively beating Philadelphia’s forfeiture system, he laments that others won’t find it that simple.
“For someone who doesn’t have a pay stub, it wouldn’t be so easy,” Banks says, adding of his money: “I needed that change.”

RECENT POSTS