Bill Of Attainder Project

The Bill Of Attainder Project is a civil liberties organization started by the Libertarian Party of Oklahoma. The project contacts political activists, organizations and others to forward the cause of preventing laws that plunder life, liberty, and property.

The following information presents the issues, and the solution to stopping laws and legal devices that can be described as bills of attainder. Please feel free to contact us about this issue.

"We the people are the rightful masters of Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert the Constitution." -Abraham Lincoln

"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government."

Nothing in our society portrays this point better than the bill of attainder issue. The "bastardized form of illegitimate government" Lincoln and Madison were talking about exists today, now. This tyranny has made Americans "subjects" instead of "citizens" It is exactly the tyranny we the people must address to regain the power of the people our ancestors asked us to preserve. A people without the right to own private property over the right of the government to take it are not citizens. Americans do not understand this, most of them do not know they no longer have the right to their own property.

The government not only has over 300 laws which permit them to confiscate property, they are doing it with no regard for guaranteed Constitutional rights. America has legislatures who not only have no regard or knowledge of bills of attainder, they no longer make laws which respects their restriction on passing ex-post facto laws. Bills of attainder are more than one thing and harder to understand than ex-post facto laws. The fact that both states and the federal governments are passing these laws, and the courts are enforcing them, shows there is no regard in our government for the preservation of individual rights, or private property.

The Bill Of Attainder Project is dedicated to having the phrase, "bill of attainder" defined in the law as: "A law or legal device which outlaws people, suspends their civil rights, confiscates their property, punishes or puts people to death without a trial."

By establishing this definition in the law, the people are restored in their right to private property. The Congress, the government, and the people would restore the Constitution's purpose to preserve individual liberty. The Congress, the government, and the people, together would understand that the law is not to be used to plunder American life, liberty, and property.

Most people would agree that the law should not be used to plunder life, liberty, and property. Most do not realize the 104th Congress seemed to be dedicated to using the law to plunder. Did they bastardize the Constitution?

I started the Bill of Attainder Project after doing a study through the U.S. Commission On Civil Rights, (CC#93-1-1037), with cooperation from the Justice Department. My purpose was to see how, "bill of attainder" was defined in the law. Robert Sharpe, who headed the Asset Forfeiture program sent me the United States Code concerning bills of attainder. The law does not define the phrase bills of attainder. It has excerpts under the heading of definitions, but none of these defines the phrase. Congress cannot protect you from a "thing" it cannot define.

Worse, these passages which are presented as definitions were placed into the information the Justice Department sent me,by publishers. Not the courts, judges or lawyers, or the Congress which should be responsible, it was publishers. There is no historical basis for any of these definitions that our entire legal system uses to define (describe), "bill of attainder." Americans have been cheated of their individual liberty, their right to private property, and their right to be protected from laws that plunder, because they have no clear right to be protected from bills of attainder.

Political activists who have looked into the eyes of "yellow dog" Democrats know there is no more powerful political tool for liberty, than to look into the eyes of a politician and explain to him what a bill of attainder is. They have to explain why Americans are no longer "citizens" and they have to confront the fact that Americans no longer have the right to private property.

I urge political activists, and political organizations to confront legislators with these facts. By presenting the bill of attainder issue into the political arena we can actually restore America back to Americans. We can end ex-post facto laws. Ex-post facto laws are bills of attainder because they suspend our civil right to be protected from the tyranny of plunder that ex-post facto laws, and bills of attainder cause. Please help us let legislators and politicians address this issue.

In 1986 I happened upon a phrase in the Constitution, in Article 1, Section 9, Paragraph 3, which stated, "No Bill Of Attainder or Ex-post Facto Law, shall be passed." I was reasonably secure I knew what an ex-post facto law was, but I had no idea what a bill of attainder was. I am a Certified Linguist, and the prospects that came about from finding out what a bill of attainder really is, have led me into 1997, as the director of a program which is associated with Libertarians and others called the Bill Of Attainder Project.

As I stated I am a Certified Linguist. Linguists write your encyclopedias, dictionaries, and different texts which define things. They do a lot more but one of the fundamental things they do is define things. Linguists are usually very pleasant, cerebral people who really enjoy studying the aspects of language.. They are scientists,and do what scientists do - they measure things.

For the linguist as well as the scientist if they need to know if something is a yard long, it is put to the test of 36 inches, and three feet, and however many other measurement instruments and scales "is" as needed to safely establish the yard. Proving what a bill of attainder really is, was as simple as holding up a yardstick. The yardstick is a little different than the thirty-six inch kind, but very simple. It works along the lines of, "If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck".....that simple, you define the "thing" by describing its essential parts. The law does not do this. There is no complete applicable definition of bill of attainder in the law. Americans deserve to have "Bill Of Attainder" defined into the law, in a way that actually protects their rights, and will not let the legal community and the legislature use the law to plunder.

To establish what a bill of attainder really is requires a trip to the local public library. You saunter in and you start looking up bill of attainder, and attainder in every dictionary, and encyclopedia you can lay your hands on. I picked a very small library, and with good reason.* I'd still be at some of them heaping up definitions and descriptions to this day. All you need to establish a definition is enough sources of your target "thing" to give it a complete picture. It is simple comparative analysis of establishing the basic elements of which your target "thing" is composed. Line up your collection of definitions and sources to see what they have in common. What my collection of definitions told me a bill of attainder was: "A Bill Of Attainder" is a law, or legal device used to outlaw people, suspend their civil rights, confiscate their property, or put them to death, or punish them without a trial. Nothing anyone has sent me has changed any of the definition I have put forth.

I contend the original intent of the bill of attainder mandates were to prevent laws that punish without trial, suspend civil liberties, and confiscate property. The doctrine of "pains and penalties" is included as just as much a bill of attainder as any other part of the mandate. A punishment less than death without a trial is considered to be a bill of pains and penalties. A bill of attainder is more than one thing and they are almost different things. This is why the elements of what a bill of attainder is, must be included in the law to understand the entirety of the phrase bill of attainder. The continuity of the Constitution has been weakened without this information included in the law. It is certain that the original intention of the Constitution was to protect people from the tyranny Americans had just suffered from the British Empire. Today's asset forfeiture is almost the exact tyranny as Americans fought against in the Revolutionary War, and almost all the other wars we have fought. Without bill of attainder defined in the law, the law can ignore the rights Americans are supposed to have. That is what has happened.

The definitions that exist in the law, the U.S.C. ( United States Code) are statements or precedents which are confusing, incomplete, and do not reflect all the rights the mandates were meant to insure. They come from single unrelated cases. They may have even served to detract from the rights the mandates were meant preserve because they only reflect portions of what a bill of attainder actually is. U.S. v. Brown (1965), U.S. v. Lovett (1946) , and re: Yung See Hee (1888) all qualify the doctrine of pains and penalties as punishment without trial, and inclusive as a bill of attainder. The only statement in the U.S.C. that reflects most of the original intention of the mandates is from Cummings v. Missouri (1867). It states, "A bill of attainder, is a legislative act which inflicts punishment without judicial trial and includes any legislative act which takes away the life, liberty or property of a particular named or easily ascertainable person or group of persons because the legislature thinks them guilty of conduct which deserves punishment."

The preservation of a group or individual's protection of life liberty and property have fallen by the wayside in American law. Any prosecutor that waves the case, Calero-Toledo in front a judge takes any property he wants, and in some cases without a trial. It has also been ruled in U.S. v Ursery, that it is not a violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause to pursue both criminal and civil punishment in cases arising from the same offense. Further, the Court has allowed the confiscation of property from "innocent owners" without due process.* So much for "any" legislative act, so much for "any" protection at all from the bill of attainder mandates. No matter what relevance the mandates had in our past without the protection from bills of attainder in our law we have been robbed of the civil rights the Constitution was meant to preserve.

It is not the purpose of the Bill Of Attainder Project to raise some long lost Phoenix out of the ashes of our judicial system. The fact is that "goose" has long been cooked. We need a new and fresh start to restore our rights. Bills of attainder need to be defined so the essential elements, and the rights they reflect, are understood by everyone. If the Court has to rule on a case which is suspect of plundering life, liberty, or property, the fact that the law is a bill of attainder, will not go unchallenged if the law is put in place so as to preserve our rights. The Court is a lost cause for establishing these rights, it must be done with legislation.

All of the mentioned properties in our definition of bill of attainder will stay the same if you pile on the research from all the libraries in the nation. The same goes if you want to pile case law on top of that. Pile up all the bill of attainder references you can get your hands on, from history, government and political science, start a class project, create a fire hazard. Your outcome of comparative analysis will be that outlawing, suspension of civil rights, confiscation of property, and punishment without a trial, are the primary elements of bills of attainder. The troubling thing about this discovery is that the current government denies Americans all the rights they are supposed to have to be protected from bills of attainder. We have a Supreme Court that believes it is perfectly all right to let the government plunder the life, liberty, or property of anyone alleged or (outlawed). The growing number of offenses used to take property, and suspend civil rights, numbers over 200 in the federal camp.

Experts are warning Americans that this country's asset forfeiture programs are starting to cause the same social stresses as seen in the days of the Inquisition.* This was never intended to happen in the United States, the government was never supposed to have the right to steal (confiscate) property, or suspend civil liberties. The Fifth Amendment clearly states, "No property shall be confiscated."

It is an absolute fact that the government has enforced the confiscation of property for over 200 years. It is an effect of the practice of outlawing that has prompted the government to enforce these bills of attainder. Some segments of American society have been dedicated to seeing to it that different ethnic groups, especially Native Americans, Irish, African Americans, and others have been suppressed, repressed, and oppressed. It has not always been within the public sympathy to see to it that there are enforced mechanisms in the law to make sure there is equality.

With a major part of the American population dedicated to inequality, and special interests, the advancement of the bill of attainder mandates were put on the sidelines and ignored. America may be evolved enough today to start demanding the rights they are entitled to have. They must understand what their rights are, and in this case what they were meant to be. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 may have made us equal only to the point that we can be equally plundered.

One of the specifics given in many sources about bills of attainder states that a bill of attainder can be administered by verdict. A verdict is rendered in a trial, so the relevance of trial does not negate an action as a bill of attainder. The Congress has no right to pass a bill of attainder; they do it anyway. The courts and police administer them. As long as the courts, congress, and the public condone the confiscation of property or the suspension of civil rights as a fit punishment, American civil liberties are lost. Americans do not realize they give up the essence of their power as a people by giving up their right to private property. That is what has happened and we are starting to see the drastic consequences.

All the provisions in the Constitution that were meant to preserve the right of private property over the right of the government to take property have been abused to the point that there is no protection for private property. The evidence that this was never meant to be is overwhelming. Starting with a quote from Samuel Adams, "Now what liberty is this when property can be taken without permission." Some case law exists that reflects this idea. Cases like, U.S. v Brown, U.S. v Lovett, and Nixon v. U.S., all state the government does not have the right to confiscate property. One can wonder if the opposition in the Nixon case had waved Calero-Toledo in front of the Judge, would President Nixon have lost his rights to private property? Why did "Tricky Dick" get his rights to private property, while the rest of us are plagued with a court and a justice system that can take whatever they have an inclination to? What is worse is how they can justify plundering our life, liberty, and property.

One of the biggest criticisms of the asset forfeiture plague is the use of "personification" to confiscate property. Personification is the idea that things or objects posses the free will and capacity to commit crimes. It is an idea deeply rooted in the practice of witchcraft, the occult, and devil worship. Objects are supposed to get that kind of power from the devil, or a curse. I find it appalling that the Christian community, for the most part, condones this practice by the courts of declaring "things" capable of the free will to commit crimes. I want to hear a car, boat, or house walk in, sit down on the witness stand and testify like "Mr. Ed" the horse, before I will concede that this practice is anything but an evil ploy to steal property. The idea that the American social fabric is suffering from the same social stress as caused in the Inquisition is no exaggeration. The courts are using some of the same terrorist tools as used by Inquisitioners. This was never meant to happen in America. The bill of attainder mandates were meant to keep the horrors of this kind of law from being practiced.

Americans must demand their right to be protected from laws that plunder our lives, iberty, and property. This can be accomplished by demanding that bills of attainder be defined to protect American civil liberties. It is time to define our rights so they cannot be ignored, or abused. Until the basic elements of what a bill of attainder is becomes defined in our law, the legislatures, the courts, and the police will continue to violate the American rights the Constitution was supposed to provide. Perhaps we as a people need to understand the warning given by James Madison when he stated, "Do not seperate text from historical background.. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government."

If you ask a group of Americans if they believe the law should be used to plunder life, liberty, and property they will invariably say, no. Most Americans do not know the extent of the loss of their rights, including the right of private property.

In the United States the right of private property has been stripped from the American citizen along with other rights. The bill of attainder clauses in the Constitution were meant to stop confiscation of property in unison with the Fifth Amendment and many other constitutional provisions.

This essay explains why you cannot expect to be protected by laws that plunder, especially in the American judicial system. You cannot go to court and put the law on trial. In American courts you go on trial, not the law. The law must be changed through the legislative process including a rational understanding of what a bill of attainder really is.

The main focus of the Bill Of Attainder Project to seek legislation, not litigation for the establishment of what a bills of attainder are. This would establish the individual rights the Constitution was supposed to provide. It would create a fair understanding of what your rights are.

There are several facts which can be established about the past history of bills of attainder, their use in court, and the law. Battles need to be fought in court. In the study of bill of attainder cases it is clear no one court case addresses the same issue. To understand the American right to be protected from bills of attainder other countries and their law is important.

The information that is used by American attorneys to determine what is and what is not a bill of attainder is highly flawed. The United Sates Code presents a series of cases upon which most courts determine information (they are called definitions) about bills of attainder.

(1)I have had a few attorneys formulate hypothetical bills of attainder from case law. Always these examples or definitions fall short of the broad intent of the bill of attainder mandates. The Court has yet failed to consider that an acertainable group could include all citizens, or just one.

One definition which reflects the conclusion most attorneys come to in formulating what a bill of attainder is can be found in Kipplinger, it states:

A bill of attainder: is any legislative action which singles out a person or group for punishment without a trial.

This does describe a bill of attainder but falls far short of explaining what else is a bill of attainder. It does not serve as a definition that protects American rights that the bill of attainder mandates where meant to protect. A more complete definition suggested in Defining Bills Of Attainder is:

A bill of attainder is a law or legal device used to outlaw people , suspend their civil rights, confiscate their property, punish or put them to death without a trial.

This definition protects the integrity and intent of the law. It also corresponds to the historical relevance to past cases. This definition also upholds the interlocutory function the Constitution is supposed to have from one part to another. There are other considerations..... (2) Courts and Bills Of Attainder: Because of asset forfeiture, Americans are denied the right to private property as well as real citizenship. The courts uphold asset forfeiture because Congress has not told them otherwise. Americans are left with exactly the same rights as they had with King George III. We are not a government by the people, of the people, we are subjects of a government.

In spite of the limited methodology used for determining what is, and what is not a bill of attainder the U.S.C. does support certain very clear perimeters on some determinations. Some are: A. A bill of attainder proper is the administration of death without a trial. (What happened on Ruby Ridge was exactly a "bill of attainder proper.") (3) B. Any punishment without trial is a bill of attainder under the doctrine of "Pains and Penalties." (4) C. Bills of attainder can include any legislative act which takes away life, liberty, or property. (This clause and concept is mostly ignored by courts and the legislature) (5) D. Bills of attainder can apply to specifically named individuals or easily ascertainable groups. ( The National Drug Control Strategy groups drug users as an ascertainable group and labels them the "Drug Culture." The process is called outlawing and it is what Hitler did to the Jews) (6) One of the biggest hazards of bringing a bill of attainder case is you cannot count on the court to support any of the concepts above. In one case where Article 1 mandates were addressed, the court responded to Article 3 mandates. Most courts avoid the issue.

Without historical relevance to the definitions posed in the U.S.C. certain determinations cannot be made. This limits the scope of consideration over exactly what a bill of attainder is, or is not. With the linguistic model (7), which defines the phrase with integrity, historical relevance is not deleted from the information in determining the scope of what a bill of attainder is. This model does not distort or exclude historical information, as well as all relevant case law. How do you get the court to use the correct model?

Americans are denied both heritage and rights by not realizing the U.S.C. lacks historical relevance in the cases it cites. For instance, U.S. v. Lovett was a case historically relevant to taking away pay checks of government workers Congress could accuse of being Communists. This was an asset forfeiture case. The USC reference is:"Legislative acts, no matter what their form, that apply either to named individuals or to easily ascertainable members of a group in such a way as to inflict punishment on them without a trial, are 'bills of attainder' prohibited under this clause."

This clause rightfully protects the idea that a bill of attainder is punishment without trial but it fails to include protection of private property which was the historical relevance of the case. (see also Nixon v. U.S. [1992] 978 F. 2nd 1269, another case of the bill of attainder mandates protecting the right to private property). The same flaw exists in the entire set of "definitions" included in the USC.

They all lack the same historical relevance. The judicial is probably not aware this problem exists, some Judges won t care. This historical relavance is what men like James Madison warned could produce a false and bastardized American government. (8)

Americans must understand that the courts will end asset forfeiture only when Congress makes asset forfeiture against the law. Congress, not the courts is the way to restore the right to be protected from laws that plunder life, liberty, and property.

Before Americans were American citizens, they were British subjects. They were an easily ascertainable group, subject to blanket bills of attainder brought against colonists. To early Americans the confiscation of property by this or any previous government encroached upon civil liberties of its citizens. Taking away the right of private property would be an idea the signers of the Constitution would have been against, and considered a bill of attainder.

The historical relevance of this idea is brought forth by a quote from Samuel Adams: "What liberty is this when property is taken (by the government) without permission?"

Clearly in the time of history the phrase bill of attainder was put in the Constitution the phrase included the idea that all Americans were to be protected from confiscation of property by the use of attainder. It is not likely Americans who just gained freedom from such oppression would pass on the same power of abuse to the new government.

Without the right to private property citizens lose part of their right to be the government. They are faced with the same "sovereign" who owns part of them just like kings, dictators, and communists.

If you believe that Americans should have the right to private property and be protected from laws that plunder it is time to contact your legislators and let them know you are ready for your rights to be restored.

"Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind." — George Orwell

I realize that this is quite a long post, but felt that it was worth the time and would be of sufficient interest to any number of persons on FR, particularly those interested in the land grabs and even the IRS.

Respectfully submitted for your perusal and comments - Dixie Sass!

To: Bigun; IronJack; Taxman; Bob J; AuntB; countrydummy; sauropod; usconservative; Luis Gonzalez; ...

A quote from the article: Without the right to private property citizens lose part of their right to be the government. They are faced with the same "sovereign" who owns part of them just like kings, dictators, and communists. If you believe that Americans should have the right to private property and be protected from laws that plunder it is time to contact your legislators and let them know you are ready for your rights to be restored."

The Bill Of Attainder Project is a civil liberties organization started by the Libertarian Party of Oklahoma.

YoYo, man, we gon' try to see if we can attain some primo weed, yanowadahmtalkinabout?

Somebody told me that Bills of Attainder could also be employed to force federal action vis a vis the Clinton Corruption...does this sound accurate?

Count me in on yer project, Ms. Sass...MUD

"...gon' try to see if we can attain some primo weed, yanowadahmtalkinabout?"

Tryin' a li'l bit more of that disarmin' charm, are ya?!

LOL...MUD

Has the Supreme Court yet determined that government regulations (codes of regulations created by government employees) has the same weight as law?

Could someone out there with a legal background please answer that for me. I suspect they've already assessed that legal issue.

"Man"? Last time I checked I was a female...

I'm not sure that it matters which group brings it to the publics attention, but that we become more aware of these things. That we learn were we have allowed the government and how we have allowed the government to use the Constitution against us.

I've hear something similar but don't know whether that is true or not. We need to have some of our legal beagle eagles in here to answer that one, Mud.

bill of attainder. A special legislative act prescribing capital punishment, without a trial, for a person guilty of a high offense such as treason or a felony.

Bills of attainder are prohibited by the U.S. Constitution (art. 1, SS9, cl.3, art. 1, ss10, cl.1).

-- Black's Law Dictionary

A criticism of Bills of Attainder from a Second Amendment supporter's point of view: Public Safety or Bills of Attainder? (constitution.org)

The Abortion protesters should have an interest in this too, as the laws regulating their protests single them out and deny them rights.

To: dixie sass; Memother; chesty_puller; Japedo; madfly; Snow Bunny; FallGuy; JohnHuang2; Ohioan; ...

The clasic bill of attainder was when Congress passed a bill denying Tim McVeigh the right to be buried in a national cemetary despite his eligibility for his Gulf War service.
The founding fathers were very much against forfeitures because the Brits decreed all their lands forfeit for joining the rebellion.

To: one_particular_harbour; l8pilot; PistolPaknMama; RikaStrom; xsmommy; LonePalm; SC Swamp Fox; ...

Good find, good post, dixie.

What is of interest to me is: Is there any legislation, either in Congress or in the several states, which address this issue?

To be absolutely honest...I don't know. Trying to find out more information about this. Especially since we have been studying the Constitution and the Bill of Rights at the Patriots Room on Mondays at Paltalk.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.