NJM would like to thank all the readers of our newsletter, especially those who copied and distributed our first issue. The response was greater than we had anticipated.

Also, we would like to thank President Clinton, her husband, Bill and, especially, Janet Reno. Without them, the Militia and Patriot movements in the United States would be growing at a much slower rate. Their usurpation of our Constitution and Bill of Rights has awakened many Americans to the dangers of lawless government. So much so that in a recent CNN poll, 52% of the American people said they feared the Federal government.

There is no need for Militia and Patriot groups to have a membership campaign; the federal and state governments are doing that for us. Every time an American citizen is victimized by forfeiture laws, the FBI, BATF, DEA, EPA, IRS and a host of other government agencies, a new patriot is born.

NJM would also like to thank our legislators in Trenton for their efforts in swelling the ranks of the Militia and Patriot groups here in New Jersey. Their butchering of the 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th and 14th Amendments has awakened many Jerseyans to the dangers of "Deprivation of Rights Under the Color of Law." Thank you, Mr. & Ms. legislator in Trenton; without you, there would not be an active Militia in N.J. And let's not forget all our county prosecutors. Their enforcement of unjust and unconstitutional forfeiture laws has been a big help also.

NJM would like to thank all the above mentioned government officials for doing an outstandingly lousy job in securing our rights guaranteed under the Constitution!!!

The purpose of the NJM Newsletter is to inform and educate the citizens and voters of New Jersey how our Constitutional rights have been usurped on federal and state levels by bad laws that are creating synthetic felonies which in turn have given the United States the highest prison population on earth.

The NJM Newsletter will cover these and many other issues in the future. We will make every effort to inform the citizens of New Jersey of their rights under the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the proper role of elected officials (our servants) to secure those rights, and the measures we must take to restore liberty.

Under the Constitution state and local government, rather than Federal authorities, are responsible for local law enforcement. So, only occasionally have Federal Courts ruled on the matter of police protection.

However, in 1856 the U.S. Supreme Court declared that local law enforcement had no duty to protect a particular person, but only a general duty to enforce the laws. -- South v. Maryland, 59 U.S. (HOW) 396, 15 L.Ed., 433 (1856)

The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution gives you no right to police protection either. In 1982, the U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, held that:

There are a few, very narrow exceptions. In 1983, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals remarked that:

As a result, the government -- specifically, police forces -- has no legal duty to help any given person, even one whose life is in imminent peril. The only exceptions are a person who:

• has helped the police force (e.g., as an informant or as a witness)
• can prove that he/she has specifically been promised protection and has, as a result, done things that he/she otherwise would not have done.

Reprinted with permission of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, one of the staunchest pro-Second Amendment organizations in the country today. You can contact the JPFO at 2872 S. Wentworth Ave., Milwaukee, WI 53207, Tel. (414) 769-0760

Suppose your son borrows your car to take some friends bowling. Unbeknownst to your son, one of the friends previously arranged to buy drugs at the bowling alley. The police, tipped off to the buy, arrest the friend and the dealer. Your son is not arrested, but your car is confiscated. The county prosecutor offers you your car back for $1,000. After conferring with your lawyer, you grudgingly agree to the deal.

Hey, what just happened? Why should you have to pay? You understand why your son's friend and the dealer were arrested, but what justifies the seizure of your car when neither you nor your son committed a crime?

Unfortunately, the state doesn't need to justify its actions. In fact, under the above circumstances, the burden would be on you to prove yourself innocent in court! According to the law, you would have to prove two things to secure the release of your car. First, you would have to prove that, as owner of the car, you were not involved in or aware of the drug buy. Second, you would have to convince the court that you did "all that could reasonably be expected" to prevent your car from being used to facilitate the crime. (If you think I'm making this up, read the statute -- N.J.S. 2C:64-5(b)). After learning how considerably the deck is stacked against you, and after calculating the time and expense involved in getting the case before a court, you would likely bow to the prosecutor's demands.

For the sake of argument, suppose that you did wish to contest the seizure of your car. You'd be in for the fight of your life. Here are a few of the problems you would likely run into:

1. The prosecutor has ninety days from the date of seizure to decide whether or not he wishes to file a forfeiture complaint seeking title to your car. Suppose the prosecutor doesn't really want your car, but desires to punish you for refusing to pay his $1,000 ransom. He would simply make you wait the full ninety days before releasing your car to you.
2. Suppose he actually wants your car and wants to punish you, too. Then he would file the forfeiture complaint against your car on the eighty-ninth day after seizure (notice that he files the complaint against your car, not you. Your case will be known as State of New Jersey v. One (1) 1990 Acura Legend).
3. You now have to file an answer. Meanwhile, the prosecutor files a motion asking the court to let him use the car for "law enforcement purposes" during the pendency of the action. The court consents to this because the forfeiture statute (N.J.S. 2C:64-3(h)) says that such "approval shall be liberally granted." Alright, now your case is pending and the local police are using your car to teach rookies how to drive around traffic cones at high speeds. Had enough?
4. Now your case comes up for trial. But it's not really a trial, it's called a "summary hearing." This means that there is no jury of your peers. The case is decided by a single judge. Judges are typically less sympathetic than juries.
5. During the hearing, you might try to impress the judge with your knowledge of Constitutional law. You might try to argue that confiscation of your valuable car is a penalty so disproportionate to your insignificant involvement in the crime that the seizure violates the "cruel and unusual punishment" provision of the Eighth Amendment. Forget it. The judge will politely remind you that your car is on trial, not you, and that cars don't have constitutional rights.
6. During the year or two that elapses while the matter is working its way through the courts, you still have to make your car payments. And if your car insurance policy lapses, your bank or finance company will purchase insurance to protect their investment in the car and add the premiums to your payments. If you don't pay, expect to be sued. Have you had enough yet?

Not surprisingly, law enforcement officials enthusiastically embrace the forfeiture statute. For good reason--there's lots of money in it for them. For example, Somerset County Prosecutor Nicholas Bissell's office kept $1,466,697 worth of cash and property seized in 1990. And, according to an article in the June 22, 1992 New Jersey Law Journal, Monmouth County Prosecutor John Kaye's office seized 400 cars during a two month period last year. (Kaye then let the owners buy them back for $750 to $1,000 apiece).

From a prosecutor's perspective, forfeitures bring forth an abundance, almost an embarrassment, of wealth providing them with independence from stingy taxpayers and budget-conscious elected officials.

But the prosecutors have been getting greedy. Not content with a couple hundred cars, some prosecutors have been going after land, commercial buildings and even residences. For example:

• Bergen County Prosecutor, John J. Fahy, filed a forfeiture complaint against Angel Hernandez's Hackensack building because Hernandez was caught selling Dominican Republic lottery tickets in his store, located in the building. Hernandez was reported to be making about $80 per week selling the tickets.
• My neighbor's $200,000 home and $70,000 bank account were confiscated by Somerset County Prosecutor Bissell after my neighbor was discovered growing a few marijuana plants in his backyard. Even though there was no evidence that any of the marijuana was sold (my neighbor to this day maintains that it was for his personal use), and even though it was his first offense, the prosecutor saw fit to financially decimate my neighbor by confiscating his home and his legally earned life savings. His case is currently before the Appellate Division of the Superior Court.
• Mark and Kathy Schrama were accused of stealing U.P.S. packages from neighbors' porches. Naturally, the Sussex County prosecutor padlocked their residence, forcing the Schramas and their 12 year old son into the street 11 days before Christmas. The prosecutor felt that since the family home was used to "warehouse" the packages, it was subject to forfeiture. The Schramas eventually bought their home back from the county for $5,000.

After interviewing dozens of forfeiture defendants and reading hundreds of reported forfeiture cases, I've determined forfeiture to be nothing more than an unprincipled engine of tyranny. Together with scores of other people around the country, we've formed an organization dedicated to reforming forfeiture laws. We've name our organization F.E.A.R., which stands for Forfeiture Endangers American Rights.

We are not seeking to have forfeiture laws repealed. F.E.A.R. believes that the owner of property that the government seeks to confiscate should get the same level of constitutional rights afforded to an accused burglar, murderer or any other criminal defendant. We believe that judges, by abandoning their duty to safeguard the Constitution, have allowed police, prosecutors and DEA agents to run roughshod over the people. We believe that this is WRONG, and we are doing something about it.

So far, we've been successful in getting Assembly Bill No. A627 introduced in the New Jersey Legislature. This bill will make some minor, positive changes in the forfeiture law, but it doesn't go nearly far enough. To make more substantial changes, we need the support of those who still believe in the Constitution.

Any reader wishing to receive more information , call me at (415) 388-8128 or write to F.E.A.R., 265 Miller Ave., Mill Valley, CA 94941

Note: the NJ Militia supports F.E.A.R. in everything but its goal to reform the civil asset forfeiture law. We seek to repeal the law because of its corrupting influence on the police. Nearly every police agency in New Jersey has been tainted by forfeiture. Some police departments even steer arrests to valuable property so that they can seize it and keep the booty. If we are to restore justice to the law we cannot permit the police to behave like buccaneers and Sheriffs of Nottingham.

An oft quoted and widely misunderstood passage of scripture is Romans 13:1-2 which states:

"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

"Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinances of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.."

The consequences of these verses vary from nation to nation according to type of government in place. Many Christians in America, because of a lack of knowledge of the Constitution, misinterpret these verses.

It was "We, the People" that formed the Constitution. The Constitution, in turn, formed our Federal government. Therefore, the Federal government is subservient to the Constitution, the Constitution is subservient to "We, the People." The higher powers and powers that be in our form of government are the people themselves, not our government.

Our founding fathers understood this principle when they penned the Constitution. Abraham Lincoln understood this when he said:

"This country, with its institutions, belong to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their Constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it."

This statement would be considered treasonous in other nations with governments that differ from our own, but it is perfectly lawful in our form of government. We, the people, will always have the Scriptural and Constitutional Right to resist usurpation by our government. The government on the other hand, has neither authority.

"What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty."--Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts. I Annals of Congress at 750 (August 17, 1789)

[Ed: Gen. Reimer was the top field commander in the US at the time of the Waco incident; his Joint Task Force 6 trained BATF agents prior to the deadly assault. Reno had at least one retired Army helicopter pilot recalled to duty specifically for the Waco attack.]

Dep. CIA Dir. Adm. William Studeman likes President's Clinton's proposal to expand the role of the military. The Admiral told the National Defense University that he has "advocated the erosion of Posse Comitatus for years" and that it is necessary for the military to "take on new dimensions". The problem with law enforcement, he says, is that it only thinks in terms of "investigations, arrests, and prosecutions." -- Inside the Pentagon, May 18, 1995

[Ed: Isn't is unlawful for the CIA to operate inside the country?]

For the first time in its 46-year history the Defense Department is asking for funds to train National Guard and active duty soldiers and airmen together in preparation for domestic emergencies. In an address to the World Affairs Council May 3, Deborah Lee, the assistant secretary of defense for reserve affairs, endorsed the department's position that response to such emergencies is an important element of national security. The National Guard Association also wants the Federal government to pick up the tab. -- Defense News, May 15-21, 1995

1) with a state law enforcement agency and
2) within 90 days after such effective date."

A "non-serious violation" carries a one year prison term. A "serious violation" carries a 12 year minimum prison sentence.

Section 3-A states that "the Attorney General shall establish a Federal handgun registration system which contains, in an easily retrievable record, information sufficient to identify;

1) each resident of each state to which this subsection applies, who owns, possesses, or controls a handgun and
2) such handgun.

Full registration of firearms is not a new idea. Adolph Hitler, in a speech given in 1935, said, "This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient; and the world will follow our lead into the future."

If you study the Nazi Weapons Law of 1938, and compare it to many of the current House and Senate bills being considered in Washington, the similarities are alarming.

Equally alarming is the fact that many of our politicians calling for gun control are telling the American people what Hitler told the German people 60 years ago.

The NJ Militia fully supports peace officers who uphold their oath of office and thereby refuse to enforce unconstitutional statutes. We maintain that the highest ranking peace officer in the county is the sheriff, who is elected by the people for a 3-year term. The New Jersey legislature, however, has emasculated the sheriff and subordinated him to the county prosecutor who is in reality a state prosecutor who is appointed to a 5-year term. He serves entirely at the pleasure of the attorney general who is in turn an appointee of the governor. Thus the peace officer, the sheriff, has been overshadowed by the law enforcement officer, the county (state) proscecutor. One is elected by the people, the other is a political appointee. One is accountable to the people, the other is not.

We believe that the harassment and lawless killings of innocent people by Federal police at Ruby Ridge, Waco and elsewhere around the country would not have happened had the perpetrators worked through the county sheriff. Because the FBI and BATF will probably not cease their murderous activity voluntarily we endorse US Rep. Chenoweth's Sheriff Check-off bill (number not yet assigned) which is based on Hamilton's observation that "Where the whole power of the government is in the hands of the people, there is the less pretense of the uses of violent remedies in partial or occasional distempers of the State." The Federalist Papers, #21

To check such distempers Mrs. Chenoweth's bill, also known as the Civil Rights Act of 1995, would require Federal law enforcement agents to obtain written permission from the local sheriff before making an arrest or search (except for crimes in commission, when people are in imminent danger or when the sheriff is under investigation). Specifically the Federal official would have to provide in writing the name of the person to be arrested or searched, a clear statement of the probable cause for the action or a federal warrant, and the location, date and time of the action and, when applicable, a description of the property sought. The sheriff could refuse permission for good cause. Permission would be valid for 48 hours, and would have to be renewed at 48 hour intervals thereafter. Official duty could not be used as an excuse for violations, and anyone aggrieved could file a civil action to obtain appropriate relief.

The bill, we believe, would reduce Federal bloodshed, and is entirely in the spirit of the Tenth Amendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Clearly the state and counties must have the power to control federal marauders within their borders. The Chenoweth bill is a step in that direction.

Write your representative today at the House of Representatives, Washington, DC 20515, and urge him or her to co-sponsor the Chenoweth bill. Also contact Senators Bradley and Lautenberg at ZIP 20510 and ask that they introduce the measure in the Senate.

• I would like a membership application or information on how to join and train for the NJ Militia to defend against tyranny.
  J. C.
  Cumberland County
  

• I have recently recieved in the mail a copy of the Militia Newsletter, and I am in agreement with every word printed therein. Please continue to keep me informed for I am a firearms owner and a free man ready for any action necessary to be undertaken by this State's citizens in order to maintain our freedom and defend our God given Constitution.
  Also, please send me additional copies of this Newsletter as I am able to influence many people in my area. Here is a gift of $10. May God bless the Militia. Thank you.
  J.P.
  Ocean County
  

• Please include me on your mailing list. Education about our history is vital to the future.
  R.S.
  Camden County
  

• Please send info on your group. Nice to see America is growing stronger. Thanks
  D.R.
  Cumberland County