IJ's Freedom Flix

The most contentious civil forfeiture fight in the nation will be the subject of a week-long trial starting Monday, November 5, 2012, in Boston. Throughout the week, the Institute for Justice, which represents the property owners in the case, will expose the ugly practice of civil forfeiture—where law enforcement agencies can pad their budgets by taking property from innocent owners who have never been convicted or even charged with a crime. The trial will start at 10 a.m. at the John Joseph Moakley U.S. Courthouse, 1 Courthouse Way in Boston. The case of Tewksbury, Mass., motel owner Russ Caswell and his wife will be presided over by Magistrate Judge Judith G. Dein in Courtroom 15. At the heart of the trial will be the protections afforded innocent owners, like the Caswells, when faced with the loss of their property. All Russ and his wife want is to peacefully operate their motel. But because their property was worth one million dollars and carried no mortgage, and because a handful of drug crimes had taken place on the property over 20 years (which represent less than .05 percent of the 125,000 rooms the Caswells rented over that period of time), the federal government is trying to take the Caswell's property through civil forfeiture, sell the land and keep the money. Under a process known as "equitable sharing," the federal government would keep 20 percent of what they net and the local police department would pocket 80 percent. Russ and his wife stand to lose everything they worked their lives to build. "The Caswell case epitomizes everything that is wrong with our nation's civil forfeiture laws," said Scott Bullock, senior attorney at the Institute for Justice. "People who are never even charged let alone convicted of criminal wrongdoing can face the loss of their homes, cars, cash, or, like with the Caswells, their entire business and livelihood." "This outrageous forfeiture action should never have been filed in the first place," said Larry Salzman, an IJ attorney. "What the government is doing amounts to little more than a grab for what they saw as quick cash under the guise of civil forfeiture. Our goal in this case is to not only spotlight the inevitable abuse that transpires when law enforcement agencies are allowed to use civil forfeiture, but to set a precedent that will end this nightmare for the Caswells and stop an abuse of power that has ruined the lives of too many innocent Americans." Russ said, "I think it is quite obvious why the federal government has come after us and not other businesses. We own a million-dollar property with no mortgage, so anything they get here, they get to keep for themselves. This case took a huge financial toll on our family before the Institute for Justice stepped up to defend us. And it continues to put a huge personal strain on both me and my wife. At this point in our lives, we should be thinking about our retirement. Instead, we have to take on this fight to save our business and make sure that it won't happen again to the next generation that comes along."

In Nevada, teaching others how to apply makeup without a government-issued license can subject you to up to $2,000 in fines.

Medical professionals join forces with Institute for Justice, file major federal health care lawsuit. Laws limit medical options for patients, funnel millions of dollars to politically connected businesses.

Can the government throw you in jail for offering advice on the Internet about what food people should buy at the grocery store? That is exactly the claim made by the North Carolina Board of Dietetics/Nutrition. In December 2011, diabetic blogger Steve Cooksey started a Dear Abby-style advice column on his popular blog (www.diabetes-warrior.net) to answer reader questions. One month later, the State Board informed Steve that he could not give readers advice on diet, whether for free or for compensation, because doing so constituted the unlicensed, and thus criminal, practice of dietetics. The State Board also told Steve that his private emails and telephone calls with readers and friends were illegal, as was his paid life-coaching service. The State Board went through Steve's writings with a red pen, indicating what he may and may not say without a government-issued license. But the First Amendment does not allow the government to ban people from sharing ordinary advice about diet, or scrub the Internet—from blogs to Facebook to Twitter—of speech the government does not like. North Carolina can no more force Steve to become a licensed dietitian than it could require Dear Abby to become a licensed psychologist.

License to Work: A National Study of Burdens from Occupational Licensing is the first national study to measure how burdensome occupational licensing laws are for lower-income workers and aspiring entrepreneurs. The report documents the license requirements for 102 low- and moderate-income occupations—such as barber, massage therapist and preschool teacher—across all 50 states and the District of Columbia. It finds that occupational licensing is not only widespread, but also overly burdensome and frequently irrational.

Can the government bar entrepreneurs from offering competitive prices, online discounts and prompt service merely to protect politically powerful insiders from competition? That is the question the Institute for Justice (IJ) and its clients seek to answer though a federal lawsuit they have filed challenging Portland, Oregon's anticompetitive limousine and sedan regulations. In 2009, the Portland City Council passed two measures designed to protect the city's taxicab companies from competition at the expense of both consumers and limousine and sedan services. Not surprisingly, Portland's taxicab companies requested these regulations. What is surprising is that Portland agreed to impose higher transportation costs on Portlanders and put strict limits on limo and sedan entrepreneurs, just to make it easier for the city's taxicab companies to make more money.

Congress never gave the IRS the authority to license tax preparers, and the IRS can't give itself that power. But last year the IRS imposed a sweeping new licensing scheme that forces tax preparers to get IRS permission before they can work. This is an unlawful power grab that exceeds the authority granted to the IRS by Congress. The burden of compliance will fall most heavily on independent tax return preparers and small businesses. Unsurprisingly, big firms such as H&R Block and Jackson Hewitt support the licensing scheme. As The Wall Street Journal explained: "Cheering the new regulations are big tax preparers like H&R Block, who are only too happy to see the feds swoop in to put their mom-and-pop seasonal competitors out of business."

Verlin Stoll is a 27-year-old entrepreneurial dynamo who owns Crescent Tide funeral home in Saint Paul, Minn. Verlin has built a successful business because he offers low-cost funerals while providing high-quality service. His business is also one of the only funeral homes that benefits low-income families who cannot afford the high prices of the big funeral-home companies. Verlin wants to expand his business, hire new employees and continue to offer the lowest prices in the Twin Cities, but Minnesota refuses to let Verlin build a second funeral home unless he builds a $30,000 embalming room that he will never use.

Food trucks have hit the streets of Buffalo, NY. But a few brick-and-mortar restaurants are trying to put them out of business through the force of government. Meet three of Buffalo's popular food truck owners: Pete Cimino of Lloyd Taco Truck; Renee Allen of R&R BBQ; and Christopher Taylor of the Roaming Buffalo. Then contact the Buffalo Common Council to express your support for the food trucks: http://www.wnyfta.com.

If you created an institution, an American institution, what would you want it to do? You'd want it to make the world around you a better place. You'd want it to defend the ideals that make America so unique and inspire others to join in that cause. This is the story of that institution. This is the story of the Institute for Justice and its first 20 years.

Jim and Cliff Courtney have had their plans to launch a ferry service on Lake Chelan sunk by a nearly one-hundred year old Washington State law designed to protect the existing ferry provider from competition. No new business can pick up and drop off passengers along the Lake unless they either get the consent of the current operator or prove in a trial-like proceeding that the "public convenience and necessity" requires additional service. The current provider gets to participate in the proceeding and argue why competition should be kept out. It's no wonder the law has resulted in a government-imposed monopoly on Lake Chelan ferry service since the 1920s.

In October 2011, the newly created Institute for Justice Florida Chapter filed a lawsuit in state court on behalf of street vendors. These vendors are challenging a law passed by the city of Hialeah, Fla. (located near Miami), that not only makes vendors' work more dangerous by forcing them to constantly be on the move rather than vend in one location, but also is purposefully anticompetitive—making it impossible for vendors to compete against politically powerful brick-and-mortar businesses.

The Fourteenth Amendment was added to the Constitution in 1868 to empower the federal government -- including particularly federal courts -- to stamp out a culture of lawless tyranny and oppression in the South by enforcing basic civil rights of newly freed blacks and their white supporters. This culture of oppression took many forms, including widespread censorship, the systematic disarmament of freedmen and white unionists, and the wholesale denial of economic liberty. At the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment was the Privileges or Immunities Clause, which the Supreme Court effectively deleted from the Constitution in the 1873 Slaughterhouse Cases. Today, that judicial error continues to take its toll on important freedoms like private property and the right to earn an honest living, which receive virtually no protection from courts despite their obvious importance to ensuring the economic autonomy of the freedmen following the Civil War and all Americans today.

Imagine you own a million-dollar piece of property free and clear, but then the federal government and local law enforcement agents announce that they are going to take it from you, not compensate you one dime, and then use the money they get from selling your land to pad their budgets—all this even though you have never so much as been accused of a crime, let alone convicted of one.

Please visit http://www.ij.org for more information.