American Library Association news release URGENT!

[lil-petunia]

(I am not sure what can or cannot be reprinted from this news release - moderators, please let me know if changes are necessary.)
��
http://www.ala.org/Template.cfm?Section=news&template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=72230

Home News
Contact: Macey Morles�
PR Coordinator
312-280-4393
[email protected]


For Immediate Release
July 30, 2004

Statement from ALA President-Elect Michael Gorman on the
destruction of Department of Justice documents �


CHICAGO -- The following statement has been issued by President-Elect Michael Gorman, representing President Carol Brey-Casiano, who is currently in Guatemala representing the Association:

Last week, the American Library Association learned that the Department of Justice asked the Government Printing Office Superintendent of Documents to instruct depository libraries to destroy five publications the Department has deemed not "appropriate for external use." The Department of Justice has called for these five public documents, two of which are texts of federal statutes, to be removed from depository libraries and destroyed, making their content available only to those with access to a law office or law library.

The topics addressed in the named documents include information on how citizens can retrieve items that may have been confiscated by the government during an investigation. The documents to be removed and destroyed include: Civil and Criminal Forfeiture Procedure; Select Criminal Forfeiture Forms; Select Federal Asset Forfeiture Statutes; Asset forfeiture and money laundering resource directory; and Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 (CAFRA).

ALA has submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the withdrawn materials in order to obtain an official response from the Department of Justice regarding this unusual action, and why the Department has requested that documents that have been available to the public for as long as four years be removed from depository library collections. ALA is committed to ensuring that public documents remain available to the public and will do its best to bring about a satisfactory resolution of this matter.

Librarians should note that, according to policy 72, written authorization from the Superintendent of Documents is required to remove any documents. To this date no such written authorization in hard copy has been issued.

AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSOCIATION

50 E. Huron Chicago, IL 60611 Call Us Toll Free 1-800-545-2433

�2004 American Library Association. Copyright Statement

View our Privacy Policy. For questions or comments about the Web site, complete the Feedback Form or email [email protected].

[Bernardo de La Paz]

1. How kind of them to stop there

The article says: "The Department of Justice has called for these five public documents, two of which are texts of federal statutes, to be removed from depository libraries and destroyed, making their content available only to those with access to a law office or law library."

How kind of them to stop there. How sweet of them to find lawyers to be so trustworthy. Or is this just an interim step?

What is next for book burnings?

So even the laws that govern us are to be secret?

[lil-petunia]

2. Even in the Soviet Union

the laws were known and published. Their interpretation was left to the prevailing winds and powers that be, though.

The last time that laws and rules were deemed too important to be set out for all to see, hmmm, Spanish Inquisition?

Tough to think of another time in more recent past. Even in Mao's Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution, the laws were there, the interp was the issue.

I know little of the laws and legal structure in Nazi Germany. I suspect that most wanted to comply with all laws, so publishing them was the norm, not at all akin to this move.

[jmowreader]

34. The laws in Nazi Germany were pretty terse

Full text of the Enabling Acts:

1. Other than through the procedure prescribed by the constitution, laws of the Reich may be decided upon by the government of the Reich as well. This includes laws as referred to by articles 85 subsection 2 and 87 of the constitution.

2. Laws decided upon by the government of the Reich may deviate from the provisions of the constitution insofar as they do not affect the institutions of the Reichstag and the Reichsrat as such. The constitutional rights of the Reichsprsident shall remain intact.

3. Laws decided upon by the government of the Reich shall be issued by the Chancellor and announced in the Reich Law Gazette. They shall take effect on the day following the announcement, unless they prescribe a different date. The articles 68 to 77 of the constitution shall not be applied to laws decided upon by the government of the Reich.

4. Contracts of the Reich with foreign states which affect matters of Reich legislation shall not require the approval of the bodies concerned with legislation. The government of the Reich shall issue the prescriptions required for the execution of such contracts.

5. This law shall take effect with the day of its announcement. It shall become invalid on April 1, 1937 or earlier, if the present Reich government is succeeded by a different one.

We go on and on about the Enabling Acts as if they're this thing that would fill up the back seat of a Suburban--the actual Enabling Acts will fit on a half-sheet of paper.

[DemBones DemBones]

46. Is it a fact that laws and rules were kept from

the public during the Spanish Inquisition, or is that speculation, possibly humorous? (As in Monty Python's "Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition" skit.) I thought the problems arose from overzealous men with power during the Inquisition, not from people being kept in the dark about what constituted sin or heresy, but from officials willing to use torture to obtain "confessions," as the Puritans and others also did.

[htuttle]

3. Everyone go to your local library and check them out

Keep them until after next January.

The overdue book fine won't be that bad. Just tell Officer Bookman that you had to defend liberty!

[Catt03]

4. Good idea

Reminds me of Fahrenheit 451.

Just as John Kerry said....a secret administration. And Robert Byrd....not telling the people anything and do it because I say so with out explanation nor warning. The arrogance!

[lil-petunia]

5. I am a damned lawyer, and this has set my teeth a grinding!

How dare they?

HOW DARE THEY?

[Eloriel]

29. Here's how they dare --

They haven't been stopped in any single substantive atrocity or lie or fraud that they've foisted on us yet. Of COURSE they think they'll get away with this, and they very well might.

[k in IA]

7. These would be reference materials and you wouldn't be able to check

them out of the library.

[1monster]

25. In counties like mine that can put one in jail for over due library

items, it might be a better idea to renew (by telephone) as often as allowed. And when you take it back, have someone with you who says, "Oh! I've been wanting to borrow that book! Mr/Ms Librarian, I'll check it out right now!"

But in all likelyhood, these books are in the Reference section and are not allowed to be checked out of the library. If that is the case, then maybe a deal can be made with the library in question to keep the books safe until the thugs are no longer in power.

[LiberalFighter]

36. If the book isn't where it is suppose to be...... need I say more?

And the book doesn't have to leave the library.

[shimmergal]

52. Best idea is to make copies.

Take the copies home; hide them in a secure place. If enough people do this, it'll frustate the attempt to keep them under wraps.

[daleo]

6. Rigg's Bank, Bush's uncle, money laundering

These documents may have information that would be helpful to a reporter or public researcher who wants to get to the bottom of this. The timing, as always, is suspicious.

[DaveSZ]

9. We're close to book burning imo

:puke:

[tlcandie]

11. Talking ..thinking about burnings.. In our time what would be related

to witch burnings? This has started me thinking/wondering if it will go even further past book burnings as I do not doubt the book burnings IF this regime stays in office. :cry:

[nadinbrzezinski]

13. Yep relate that to the census bureau identifiying arab americans

can you say concentration camps? I knew you could

Oh and a student of history and a daugher of the holocaust this scares the living daylights out of me. By the way, Chenney hoover, as I am sure I would be sent there because I am a dirty liberal

[tlcandie]

18. Well, I guess I'm too ignorant to be scared...

I want to be informed and help as I can. I think downloading and/or buying copies of them to keep, etc. is a great idea. I'm just not sure what the comparison to witch burnings would be today.

Nad, don't be scared. We are all in this together. Let's hope for the best and prepare for the worst.

Today I don't think it would be about witches and spells/hexes, it would be about $$$$ related to those who could disseminate liberal information and who are in powerful places first. Then it would trickle down to those who affect children it seems and then those who want God out of government, etc., including organizations that push liberal agendas.

Then it seems to me it would start with those who have skin color that is different than white and continue on down the spiral to the abyss.

I dunno, but this is how my brain's working atm.

[cprise]

17. I think the analog is...

...show brown foreign face on TV, tell tall tales, unleash push-button death.

Of course, this is just a scaled-up version of COPS.

[Moderator]

8. Kick

[tlcandie]

10. Other locked thread with link to general discussion area eom

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x723914

[stepnw1f]

12. Can We Download These Documents to Hold for a Rainy Day? (nt)

[Disturbed]

15. The InJustice Dept.

This seems to be another case for the ACLU to look into.

The Neo Fascists are on a steady path of grinding out American rights.

[Zorra]

44. Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 (CAFRA).

http://www.crimelynx.com/cafra.html
:)

[Ms. Clio]

56. Downloading, archiving, and printing

Thanks.

[bain_sidhe]

14. Orwell predicted it... destroy the record of the past

and all citizens will know is what the gov't tells them now.

What are you talking about? Citizens never had the right to "retrieve items that may have been confiscated by the government during an investigation."

"Forfeiture Procedure"? Don't be silly. There's no such thing.

We have always been at war with EastAsia.

[tabasco]

20. It can happen here.

[wtmusic]

16. They're still up on the DOJ website

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/ole/crimpro_basic.pdf
http://www.lawmall.com/forfeit/
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/publicdocs/11-1asof/AFMLRD_NOV98.pdf
http://www.crimelynx.com/cafra.html

[1monster]

26. Here's a sample of what I've gotten on two of the web sites...

n5���8��3�}�듻�����wO*�7���=r����!�!.r�pZ>�Mզ�, R��S<72^���:>�=����y�JX9� C�>���hd�H���"�DR <�f-�>ߎ��q�hA�) Z�(R�S�V�F.v"'���Pm��*V/�(�,��x84�7�b���� ��"?�wG]d"�]�Fd�IQ��C�%D��S9��;� vN��_/#���7�m�d)+Dzd%w��9����W�o\'1'����������V6i� 3��ʭ��gҔ$ٕ2{!M�:~�D}WB6-��Ju��§F���ES���n��'L�q`h70�����&Ʈ������15�3�ʦP�v��� �(�������P��m��g�U
:����I � 䬓���2�';�e�(�二��wB=�E����?�����z�r�$d��cҽ�6�(�I�� &��Ͷ��X�ql�����0�5}��u���U���,Ķ!�d��ȟ�Y� n�ICR�l�0�f��4�c�a��`U%�n�T��V\SV ����ф��m�\ɉ>&��L�k��ג����8ضMM
x�Q7�
�D#*Em�x���<��$�<'��wi���&/2�����u���^3x��kor6x�%���,�}I��̷k 9U7 |5��U�`y�<���X�p�(� _=��7���K22�HT�P >bߙ;A̘� �gFc�0+��c��B��� &� =�0T�B��~�=�j�u�f=�0� �2'�9��H_RD� ��{����́���<~��Oa�� 7 ���1�& O�߀C

[Bernardo de La Paz]

19. You are correctly serious, but here is some comic relief.

You are correctly serious to alert us to this (Thank You!), but here is some comic relief. (Note to member lanparty: this is comic relief, not a freeper/disruptor attack.)

There have been secret US laws before:

Because the process of using Accords to implement the reformations was not successful, the Justices authorized the reformations be put into the form of a law named the National Economic Security And Reformation Act (NESARA) which was passed secretly on March 9, 2000. Again, secrecy was maintained by revising the official records; details of the bill number for NESARA were revised to reflect a commemorative coin and revised again more recently. Members of Congress have been ordered by the U.S. Supreme Court Justices to "deny" the existence of NESARA.

This was quoted from the http://nesara.us/pages/history.html site which runs the scam. For a sober look at it see the excellent Quatloos site: http://www.quatloos.com/NESARA.htm There you will find many hilarious postings by the Dove of Oneness who was recently exposed

[seafan]

21. Monroe County, Mich. Library System has already shredded the docs.

From Monroe, Michigan:


Library shreds federal booklets, others balk - 07/29/2004

The booklets cover property forfeiture cases.

Evening News staff writer

By CHARLES SLAT


The Monroe County Library System already has obeyed a federal order to destroy some publicly available Justice Department pamphlets on how prosecutors should pursue property forfeiture cases, but other libraries are balking at the edict.



The federal Government Printing Office ordered late last week all federal depository libraries to "withdraw those materials immediately and destroy them by any means to prevent disclosure of their contents. The Department of Justice has determined that these materials are for internal use only."



The directive went out to nearly 1,350 so-called federal depository libraries across the nation - places where the public can access a range of federal documents. The Ellis Reference & Information Center, 3700 S. Custer Rd., is a depository library.



The focus of the order were five booklets - "Civil and Criminal Forfeiture Procedure," "Select Criminal Forfeiture Forms," "Select Federal Asset Forfeiture Statute," "Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Resource Directory," and "Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000."

<snip>

and...


<snip>


The American Library Association also said it plans to challenge the order because of freedom of information concerns.


"I have some concerns, but I'm more concerned about their move to electronic documents instead of having them in print," Ms. Colpaert said. "They're on a server and the server is maintained by an individual and eventually those documents are removed from the server and they're gone for good. In this case, the superintendent of documents has retained several of these documents for what they call the library of last resort and for future public access if that becomes permissible in the future."


http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:nDSKrmdS5wwJ:www.monroenews.com/articles/2004/07/29/news/news05.txt+Civil+and+Criminal+Forfeiture+Procedure%3B+Select+Criminal+Forfeiture+Forms%3B+Select+Federal+Asset+Forfeiture+Asset+forfeiture+and+money+laundering+resource+directory&hl=en


It'd be a GOOD idea to capture the pdf's for future reference.

[natrat]

22. wait a minute

there must be some watchdog group or something that can litigate this???????????

[Tight_rope]

23. WTF!...See...I said I was going to stop using "Really Bad Words"...but

this article gave me no choice. "The topics addressed in the named documents include information on how citizens can retrieve items that may have been confiscated by the government during an investigation. The documents to be removed and destroyed include: Civil and Criminal Forfeiture Procedure; Select Criminal Forfeiture Forms; Select Federal Asset Forfeiture Statutes; Asset forfeiture and money laundering resource directory; and Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 (CAFRA)." :wtf:

I want off this ship...I want off this ship now. I'm sorry I'll take my chances with the sharks out there in the ocean. But I refuse to sink into the obis because of Bushco.

[ParanoidPat]

24. Download and distribute them while you still can folks......

......I have! :evilgrin:

CRIMINAL FORFEITURE PROCEDURE FROM A TO Z
Separating the Defendant From His Property
Columbia, SC B October 29, 2002
Stefan D. Cassella, Deputy Chief
Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/ole/crimpro_basic.pdf

Internal Revenue Manual

Part 9. Criminal Investigation
Chapter 7. Asset Seizure and Forfeiture
Section 3. Criminal Forfeiture

http://www.irs.gov/irm/part9/ch07s03.html

The United States Department of the Treasury, The Executive Office for Asset Forfeiture

http://www.ustreas.gov/offices/eotffc/teoaf/about-forfeiture.html

http://www.uslegalforms.com/lawdigest/legal-definitions.php/US/US-CRIMINAL-LAW-AND-PROCEDURE-FORFEITURE.htm

Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Resource Directory, 60 pp, PDF (11518KB download)

http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/publicdocs/11-1asof/AFMLRD_NOV98.pdf

Asset Forfeiture Law and Practice Manual, 542 pp, PDF (Warning! 49909KB download!)

http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/publicdocs/11-1asof/AFLPM_JUNE98.pdf

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
May 18, 2000
Number: 200106001
Release Date: 2/9/2001
CC:EL:CT-108075-00
MYanes
UILN: 9999.92-00
MEMORANDUM FOR CHIEF, CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION
FROM: Barry J. Finkelstein
Assistant Chief Counsel (Criminal Tax)
SUBJECT: Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000

http://www.unclefed.com/ForTaxProfs/irs-wd/2001/0106001.pdf

PUBLIC LAW 106�185�APR. 25, 2000
CIVIL ASSET FORFEITURE REFORM
ACT OF 2000

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=106_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ185.106.pdf

[nookiemonster]

27. Thank you..

Archived. x(

[Occulus]

50. X2.

[bain_sidhe]

32. What if they've *already* changed them?

How do you know the documents NOW available at the DOJ are the same as the documents that are NOW in libraries which are being destroyed?

Or is that question too :tinfoilhat: ????

[T Bone]

35. Download, burn to cd, and give them to all the GUN OWNERS you know

Tell them these are what they will need to get their guns back after Ashcroft and the DOJ use the sneak & peek provisions of the Patriot Act to take their guns away from them.

That is, of course, assuming they can find :

a) a trial lawyer to bring the suit and,
b) a court still left to bring the suit in.

:evilgrin:

[Dhalgren]

55. Done. Thanks

Those slimy bastards...

[Emillereid]

28. Why are the Bushits doing this -- to what purpose? What's their 'stated'

purpose for doing this? It doesn't make sense.

[daleo]

38. The documents refer to money laundering

Bush's uncle's scandal (Rigg's Bank) is about money laundering. At least one of the documents laid out the steps for prosecutes for investigating money laundering. Now that information is more difficult to locate for average citizens, which will stop busybodies like you and me and Micheal Moore from nosing around. Anyway, that theory is good enough for me, at least for a start.

"It hasn't been a very good year for Riggs Bank in Washington, D.C. In May, the largest bank in the nation's capital agreed to pay a record fine of $25 million in civil penalties for what were termed "years of deficiencies" in reporting money transactions for foreign clients. In other words, they were laundering money for such clients as the embassies of Saudi Arabia and Equatorial Guinea. Now the embattled bank, which has been looking for a buyer ever since the original scandal broke, finds itself in more hot water. According to a Senate report covering all of the bank's financial misdealings, Riggs was also helping former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet hide funds, even while he was under arrest in a London hospital."

Plastic.com referencing May 13 Washington Post article

[Emillereid]

41. The day after 9/11 I remember several articles talking about a huge

scandal that was about to break that was going to embarrass the Bushies big time -- I think they had something to do with money laundering. Do you links to more on this?

[daleo]

42. I just know of the general stuff about this bank

That one of Bush's uncles (a brother to Barbara Bush I think) is a director, and they are being investigated for helping money laundering by a whole cast of reprobates (including Pinochet). According to the blurb below, some of the money may have even made it to the Sept 11 terrorists.

"President Bush's uncle, Jonathan J. Bush, is a top executive at Riggs Bank, which this week agreed to pay a record $25 million in civil fines for violations of law intended to thwart money laundering. Jonathan Bush, who is a major fundraiser for his nephew, was appointed in 2000 to run Riggs Investment Management Co. His association with Riggs began when he headed J. Bush & Co., a New Haven, Conn., company he created in 1970 and built to offer advice on money management."

"According to the 5/14/04 New York Times, Federal regulators fined the Riggs National Corporation, the parent company of Riggs Bank, $25 million yesterday for "failing to report suspicious activity, the largest penalty ever assessed against a domestic bank in connection with money laundering. The fine stems from Riggs's failure over at least the last two years to actively monitor suspect financial transfers through Saudi Arabian accounts held by the bank." The 5/14/04 Wall Street Journal reported that of particular concern, Riggs failed to monitor "tens of millions of dollars in cash withdrawals from accounts related to the Saudi Arabian embassy," including "suspicious incidents involving dozens of sequentially numbered cashier's checks and international drafts written by Saudi officials, including Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar bin Sultan." According to the 4/18/04 Washington Post, Saudi Prince Bandar's wife, Princess Haifa al-Faisal, "may have used a Riggs account to donate money to a charity that then gave some of it to the Sept. 11 terrorists.""

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/006540.html

[seafan]

30. Letter ordering destruction of DOJ publications

Did a bit of googling....


Sent: Jul 22, 2004 1:43 PM
>
>July 20, 2004
>
>Dear Depository Librarian:
>
>The Department of Justice has asked the Superintendent of Documents
>to instruct depository libraries to destroy all copies of the
>materials listed below. Please withdraw these materials
>immediately and destroy them by any means to prevent disclosure
>of their contents. The Department of Justice has determined that
>these materials are for internal use only.
>
>Documents to be removed and destroyed:
>
>Title: Civil and Criminal Forfeiture Procedure
>Class: J 1.2:C 49/17
>Item no: 0717
>Shipping list: 2004-0276-M
>Shipping list date: May 7, 2004
>
>Title: Select Criminal Forfeiture Forms
>Class: J 1.2:F 76/8
>Item no.: 0717
>Shipping list: 2004-0038-P
>Shipping list date: December 12, 2003
>
>Title: Select Federal Asset Forfeiture Statutes
>Class: J 1.2:AS 7/2/2004
>Item no.: 0717
>Shipping list no.: 2004-0077-P
>Shipping list date: February 5, 2004
>
>Title: Asset forfeiture and money laundering resource directory
>Class: J 1.89/3:M 74/2004
>Item no.: 0717 A 11
>Shipping list no. 2004-0120-P
>Shipping list date: March 24, 2004
>
>Title: Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 (CAFRA), PL no.
>106-185, 114 Stat. 202 (2000)
>Class: J 1.2:C 49/16
>Item no: 0717
>Shipping list no.: 2000-0367-P
>Shipping list date: September 23, 2000
>
>
>Both GPO and the U.S. Department of Justice regret any inconvenience
>resulting from this request and we appreciate your cooperation.


http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:il3DUifrrxQJ:www.fear.org/fearlist/040724b.html+Select+Criminal+Forfeiture+Forms&hl=en

[lil-petunia]

31. could this be a Rovian attack?

not on the materials at issue, but some effort to confuse us? You know, like a magician, waving his fingers in front of your eyes, making you concentrate on one issue, while with the other, he steals your wallet.

For ex, the probability that this Code Orange is a set up job, based on materials created before 9/11?

(so sez the BBC)

If not, and if I am seeing too many conspiracies by the evil emperor and his gang, this is still bad enough.

[seafan]

33. Robbing the people is their ONLY intent. Has been for years.

They've had several decades to plan all of their wickedness. And they've been lying in wait, waiting to devour.

It's like a well-oiled, cold and ruthless machine, intent on crushing the social and economic structure of this country. And all of it serves the single purpose of maintaining their corrupt power, ruthless censorship and control over the people, while obscenely enriching themselves on the backs and faces of the people.

Until now... John Kerry and John Edwards are backed up by a rising tsunami of pi$$ed off people out here.

What's that outside yer window, George???

[Merlin]

37. Supt Of Docs DID order destruction of these docs per DC branch of ALA

http://www.resourceshelf.com/2004/alawon7_23.html

ALAWON: American Library Association Washington Office Newsline
Volume 13, Number 53
July 23, 2004

In This Issue: Justice Department asks depository libraries to destroy forfeiture documents

The Department of Justice has asked the Superintendent of Documents to instruct depository libraries to destroy all copies of the materials listed below. DOJ claims that these are "training materials and other materials that the DOJ staff did not feel were appropriate for external use." GPO/SuDocs is doing what it is required to do and did do a specific check with DOJ on this request -so that is not the issue

It is the case, however, that -- as one attorney put it -- these are
the types of materials that law offices have on hand "to help people get their stuff back" from the government. Moreover, if law offices and law libraries have them, they are hardly internal use only.

We understand that DOJ has wanted -- for years -- to keep this material internal and has not succeeded in doing so. Now what they will be doing is making it difficult for the public -- those without access to a law office or law library -- to get access to these materials.

We urge you to contact your Members of Congress about this
(particularly if they are on the House or Senate Judiciary Committees)

and convey your concern about the Department of Justice requiring
materials that have been and are still public -- except through Federal Depository libraries now -- being removed and destroyed.

In addition to the notice to depository libraries , this ALAWON also
contains a follow-on communication to a public list from Judy Russell
(the Superintendent of Documents).

*********************************
July 20, 2004

Dear Depository Librarian:

The Department of Justice has asked the Superintendent of Documents to instruct depository libraries to destroy all copies of the materials listed below. Please withdraw these materials immediately and destroy them by any means to prevent disclosure of their contents. The Department of Justice has determined that these materials are for internal use only.

Documents to be removed and destroyed:

Title: Civil and Criminal Forfeiture Procedure
Class: J 1.2:C 49/17
Item no: 0717
Shipping list: 2004-0276-M
Shipping list date: May 7, 2004

Title: Select Criminal Forfeiture Forms
Class: J 1.2:F 76/8
Item no.: 0717
Shipping list: 2004-0038-P
Shipping list date: December 12, 2003

Title: Select Federal Asset Forfeiture Statutes
Class: J 1.2:AS 7/2/2004
Item no.: 0717
Shipping list no.: 2004-0077-P
Shipping list date: February 5, 2004

Title: Asset forfeiture and money laundering resource directory
Class: J 1.89/3:M 74/2004
Item no.: 0717 A 11
Shipping list no. 2004-0120-P
Shipping list date: March 24, 2004

Title: Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 (CAFRA), PL no.
106-185, 114 Stat. 202 (2000)
Class: J 1.2:C 49/16
Item no: 0717
Shipping list no.: 2000-0367-P
Shipping list date: September 23, 2000


Both GPO and the U.S. Department of Justice regret any inconvenience
resulting from this request and we appreciate your cooperation.

Sincerely,

JUDITH C. RUSSELL
Superintendent of Documents
________________________

>From Russell, Judith C. (SuDoc) 7/22/2004 3:48:54 PM

These DOJ documents were intended for internal use only, but were not
correctly marked as internal use only when sent to GPO for printing. Had
they been correctly marked, we would not have obtained and distributed
copies without the permission of the publishing of the publishing
agency.

I personally spoke with the printing officer at DOJ and advised him
about the definition in Title 44 that allow GPO to disseminate
publications that are for internal use only if they have educational
value or public interest. He advised me that these were training
materials and other materials that the DOJ staff did not feel were
appropriate for external use. Agencies have the option to ask that the item be destroyed by the libraries or returned either to GPO or the publishing agency. In this case, DOJ was satisfied with having the libraries remove the item and dispose of it.

This is a routine process. There is a SuDocs policy in place for
agencies to recall material. The agency must give a reason for the
recall and, in this case, I personally verified that it was a valid
reason.

We are retaining several copies for the Collection of Last Resort and
future public access if that is permissible in the future.

Please let me know if you need additional information.

Judy

Judith C. Russell ([email protected])
Managing Director, Information Dissemination (Superintendent of
Documents)
U.S. Government Printing Office
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]



******
ALAWON (ISSN 1069-7799) is a free, irregular publication of the
American Library Association Washington Office. All materials subject to
copyright by the American Library Association may be reprinted or
redistributed for noncommercial purposes with appropriate credits.

To subscribe to ALAWON, send the message: subscribe ala-wo
to [email protected] or go to
http://www.ala.org/washoff/alawon. To unsubscribe to ALAWON, send
the message: unsubscribe ala-wo to [email protected]. ALAWON archives at
http://www.ala.org/washoff/alawon.

ALA Washington Office, 1301 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Suite 403,
Washington, D.C. 20004-1701; phone: [phone] or 800.941.8478
toll-free; fax: [phone]; e-mail: [email protected]; Web site:
http://www.ala.org/washoff. Executive Director: Emily Sheketoff.
Office of Government Relations: Lynne Bradley, Director; Carol Ashworth,
Camille Bowman, Don Essex, Joshua Farrelman, Patrice McDermott and
Miriam Nisbet. Office for Information Technology Policy: Rick
Weingarten, Director; Carrie Lowe, Kathy Mitchell, Carrie Russell.
ALAWON Editor: Bernadette Murphy.


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
American Library Association
Washington Office
202-628-8410 v
202-628-8419 f

[Merlin]

39. Here is the formal Supt Docs directive on 7/20 -- from gov web site (PDF)

http://ww1.access.gpo.gov/GPOAccess/su_docs/fdlp/pubs/adnotes/ad071504.pdf

See page 3

[Merlin]

40. This might be legit.

SuDocs says the DOJ says these were internal training manuals not intended for public distribution.

By the titles, they do all pertain to procedures to reclaim assets seized under money laundering and other criminal statutes.

If anybody wants to actually read through these tomes and thinks otherwise, I hope you'll post your findings here.

[Ms. Clio]

57. Why would they also need to remove the statutes themselves?

According to the ALA release: "two . . . are texts of federal statutes."

[Lefta Dissenter]

43. AN UPDATE

The request has been rescinded:

Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 16:03:06 -0400
Reply-To: GPO FDLP List <[email protected]>
From: FDLP Listserv <[email protected]>
Subject: UPDATE: Withdrawal of Dept. of Justice Publications Rescinded
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;

As you know, on July 22, 2004, a notice was posted to FDLP-L advising
depository libraries that the Department of Justice had requested the
withdrawal of five publications that were intended for internal use only.

In response to the Government Printing Office's further inquiry into this
matter, the Department of Justice has requested that I advise depository
libraries to disregard the previous instructions to withdraw these
publications. In making this request, the Department of Justice said,
although these materials were "intended only for the internal training use
of Department of Justice personnel and, as such, were inappropriately
distributed to depository libraries through an administrative oversight,"
the Department has determined that these materials are "not sufficiently
sensitive to require removal from the depository library system."

Since 1995, GPO has issued recall letters for 20 publications at the request
of the publishing agencies. Seven of these publications were recalled
because they were for official use or internal use only, as occurred in this
instance.

Both GPO and the Department of Justice regret any inconvenience resulting
from the initial request for withdrawal.

Judy Russell

Judith C. Russell ([email protected])
Managing Director, Information Dissemination (Superintendent of Documents)
U.S. Government Printing Office
Phone: 202-512-....
Fax: 202-512-....


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[truthisfreedom]

45. so those libraries who already shredded them, which one would assume would

be most of them... i guess they're just SOL, huh? because they can't get new copies... even though it's ok for them to have the old copies except they're gone now...

this is either ridiculous post-9-11 bureacracy or insidious Nazi thuggery. which?

[DemBones DemBones]

47. World-class incompetence? nt

[Elginoid]

48. why would one assume "...most of them"???

:eyes:

from the original post:

...Librarians should note that, according to policy 72, written authorization from the Superintendent of Documents is required to remove any documents. To this date no such written authorization in hard copy has been issued.

Keith Michael Fiels
Executive Director
American Library Association
[phone] ext.1392

most librarians i know are pretty liberal-minded, and don't take kindly to edicts from this mis-administration.

[uhhuh]

49. That's good news

I guess I should have read the whole thread before I wrote emails to Sens. Boxer and Feinstein, huh?

I guess I better write back and say....Nevermind.

D'oh!!!

[Fone Book]

51. My moms a member of the ALA

[banana republican]

53. Watch out for the Librarians

They are tough...

they don't take this BS from anyone.

[Karenina]

54. You betcha!

And they're ALREADY pissed. Budget cuts, demands that they SPY ON the reading public... WRONG group to mess with. :toast:

[struggle4progress]

58. kick

:kick: