[untitled]
19 comments
Having read the article I came here to comment and specifically mention this video.
I highly recommend taking the time to watch this video if you haven't seen it already.
I highly recommend taking the time to watch this video if you haven't seen it already.
I most point out that Regent University is considered one of the worst law "schools" in the nation. It's a "Christian" school that teaches "God's law", not the law of the United States as it actually exists. Take anything that comes out of that school with a huge, heaping grain of salt. (Example: The most memorable statement is about Honduran law -- but Honduran law lacks the scienter requirement that forms the basis of US criminal liability.)
Also, state police will not report you to the federal police (except for immigration violations, and drugs in most states). State police fucking hate federal police agencies b/c the federal agencies utterly disrespect local law enforcement.
Finally, federal law only applies to interstate activities (usually, connected in some way to commerce). Without that crucial nexus, the federal government can prosecute you all it wants, but every court in the nation (except maybe in Texas and the Deep South) will throw out the case, with prejudice, and possibly even sanction the prosecutor for malicious prosecution.
Also, state police will not report you to the federal police (except for immigration violations, and drugs in most states). State police fucking hate federal police agencies b/c the federal agencies utterly disrespect local law enforcement.
Finally, federal law only applies to interstate activities (usually, connected in some way to commerce). Without that crucial nexus, the federal government can prosecute you all it wants, but every court in the nation (except maybe in Texas and the Deep South) will throw out the case, with prejudice, and possibly even sanction the prosecutor for malicious prosecution.
Here is a post with many useful links from someone who was at the Overcriminalization hearing two days ago on Capital Hill that the article is talking about: http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/07/23/overcriminalizatio.... The testimonies of all involved can be found there.
Here are some quotes that IMO get to the root of the problem:
"The amount of individual citizen conduct that is now potentially subject to federal criminal control has increased in startling proportions in the last several decades, beyond any understandable interest in dealing with federal programs, truly interstate issues, or international crime."
"The sheer volume of modern law makes it impossible for an ordinary American household to stay informed. And yet, prosecutors vigorously defend the old legal maxim that "ignorance of the law is no excuse." That maxim may have been appropriate for a society that simply criminalized inherently evil conduct, such as murder, rape, and theft, but it is wholly inappropriate in a labyrinthine regulatory regime that criminalizes activities that are morally neutral."
"When an innocent person sits down in a quiet room to assess his options following a federal arrest and indictment, you soon learn that you’ll be broken financially if you choose to fight and go to trial. The pressure to plead guilty — even if you are innocent — is enormous."
The problem seems to affect not only individuals, but also corporations, with criminal liability law growing greatly in scope, severity and number. Here is a boring but informative panel discussion (video): http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/video/06-08-09clp.ht...
Here are some quotes that IMO get to the root of the problem:
"The amount of individual citizen conduct that is now potentially subject to federal criminal control has increased in startling proportions in the last several decades, beyond any understandable interest in dealing with federal programs, truly interstate issues, or international crime."
"The sheer volume of modern law makes it impossible for an ordinary American household to stay informed. And yet, prosecutors vigorously defend the old legal maxim that "ignorance of the law is no excuse." That maxim may have been appropriate for a society that simply criminalized inherently evil conduct, such as murder, rape, and theft, but it is wholly inappropriate in a labyrinthine regulatory regime that criminalizes activities that are morally neutral."
"When an innocent person sits down in a quiet room to assess his options following a federal arrest and indictment, you soon learn that you’ll be broken financially if you choose to fight and go to trial. The pressure to plead guilty — even if you are innocent — is enormous."
The problem seems to affect not only individuals, but also corporations, with criminal liability law growing greatly in scope, severity and number. Here is a boring but informative panel discussion (video): http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/video/06-08-09clp.ht...
Corporations cannot be held criminally liable for their conduct. Only natural legal persons can be held liable for criminal conduct, b/c nearly all crimes in American require the element of scienter (intent), which a fictional entity cannot possess.
However, executives can be held criminally liable for corporate misconduct b/c they're the ones who ordered/ratified/approved the conduct.
Note too, that criminal liability is not the same thing as tort liability -- corporations can be held liable for their torts, b/c intent is rarely a element in such actions.
However, executives can be held criminally liable for corporate misconduct b/c they're the ones who ordered/ratified/approved the conduct.
Note too, that criminal liability is not the same thing as tort liability -- corporations can be held liable for their torts, b/c intent is rarely a element in such actions.
That's one thing I'd introduce into the constitution if I were rewriting it today: sunset provisions on all laws. Everything should expire after 30 years unless explicitly renewed by Congress, giving each generation the chance to shape their world anew.
This would fix so many problems. The copyright and patent laws would look dramatically different if they were written today. You wouldn't have silly state laws like it being illegal to have a goatee in Massachusetts, or it being illegal for moose to have sex on state highways in Alaska (how do they enforce that one?) We might rethink the war on drugs now that we've been at war for a generation. The 2nd amendment probably either shouldn't exist or should protect the rights of people to own much more than guns, now that a guy with a gun is easy fodder for a tank. You really need to legalize Stingers and TOWs to fulfill the original purpose of the 2nd amendment.
Curiously, the sunset provision on all laws should itself be subject to sunset provisions. It makes sense to make laws persistent when the world does not change very much over decades. In fact, we probably would not have developed our post-industrial society without it. It's only when the world starts getting massively remade on the timescale of 5-10 years that it makes sense for laws to expire and be remade themselves.
If only this didn't cause logical paradoxes at the time the sunset provision itself sunsets...
This would fix so many problems. The copyright and patent laws would look dramatically different if they were written today. You wouldn't have silly state laws like it being illegal to have a goatee in Massachusetts, or it being illegal for moose to have sex on state highways in Alaska (how do they enforce that one?) We might rethink the war on drugs now that we've been at war for a generation. The 2nd amendment probably either shouldn't exist or should protect the rights of people to own much more than guns, now that a guy with a gun is easy fodder for a tank. You really need to legalize Stingers and TOWs to fulfill the original purpose of the 2nd amendment.
Curiously, the sunset provision on all laws should itself be subject to sunset provisions. It makes sense to make laws persistent when the world does not change very much over decades. In fact, we probably would not have developed our post-industrial society without it. It's only when the world starts getting massively remade on the timescale of 5-10 years that it makes sense for laws to expire and be remade themselves.
If only this didn't cause logical paradoxes at the time the sunset provision itself sunsets...
I strongly agree that all laws passed by congress, the states and smaller jurisdictions should sunset. I don't think that should include the constitution, in original or amended form.
I have a few nitpicks about your examples though:
Copyright and patent laws might be different if they had to be renewed. I suspect there's a good chance they'd be worse based on the sort of laws that have been passed on the subject recently.
There have been credible movements in several states to rethink the war on drugs. They usually don't get the results you might want though. As an example, after Alaska's supreme court struck down the state's ban on marijuana, the voters put a new one in place (which was also struck down).
Small arms are very useful in modern combat, especially in a rebellion where it isn't desirable for the government to level an entire city. Asymmetric warfare works, and small arms are helpful for capturing more powerful equipment.
I have a few nitpicks about your examples though:
Copyright and patent laws might be different if they had to be renewed. I suspect there's a good chance they'd be worse based on the sort of laws that have been passed on the subject recently.
There have been credible movements in several states to rethink the war on drugs. They usually don't get the results you might want though. As an example, after Alaska's supreme court struck down the state's ban on marijuana, the voters put a new one in place (which was also struck down).
Small arms are very useful in modern combat, especially in a rebellion where it isn't desirable for the government to level an entire city. Asymmetric warfare works, and small arms are helpful for capturing more powerful equipment.
Every time copyright and patent laws have been revised, they've revised the protection length upwards.
If the sunset-provision had applied in the past, right now, the copyright/patent periods would be rapidly approaching infinity.
If the sunset-provision had applied in the past, right now, the copyright/patent periods would be rapidly approaching infinity.
If constitutional rights had sunset provisions, we'd do away with the Bill of Rights the first time they sunsetted during a crime wave and we elected people to be "tough on crime".
He didn't say that constitutional rights should sunset. He said "all laws" should sunset.
He specifically mentioned the Second Amendment (part of the Bill of Rights). Also, the Constitution falls within the category of "all laws".
I'm kinda wondering myself whether constitutional amendments should be included or not, and whether it should only be criminal laws or civil ones as well. On one hand - yeah, if amendments could sunset, the bill of rights would probably be toast the first time there's a crime wave. But then all the laws enacted by the crime wave would themselves sunset, and if it's become a problem, they could reenact the amendment.
OTOH, the purpose of the Constitution in general and the Bill of Rights in particular is so that one group of people cannot gain the power they need to prevent other people from gaining power. And if amendments themselves sunsetted, that would most likely occur, and the disenfranchised groups wouldn't even have a vote next time they came up for vote. So in that light, perhaps amendments should stay regardless.
I still think that the 2nd amendment should definitely be reinterpreted in terms of the laws it allows or doesn't allows. It was intended to prevent the government from gaining too much power by preserving the right of the people to overthrow it by force of arms. In a world of tanks, planes, and nukes, the people no longer have that right anyway. Instead, the 2nd amendment has been recast as a way of preserving the right to kill other people, which works for the government as citizens become so concerned with protecting themselves from home invasions and petty criminals that they forget about the international invasions and grand crooks in Washington. IMHO, it should either be repealed or it should be interpreted to apply to classified information as well, so that the citizenry has the right to build their own nuclear bombs.
OTOH, the purpose of the Constitution in general and the Bill of Rights in particular is so that one group of people cannot gain the power they need to prevent other people from gaining power. And if amendments themselves sunsetted, that would most likely occur, and the disenfranchised groups wouldn't even have a vote next time they came up for vote. So in that light, perhaps amendments should stay regardless.
I still think that the 2nd amendment should definitely be reinterpreted in terms of the laws it allows or doesn't allows. It was intended to prevent the government from gaining too much power by preserving the right of the people to overthrow it by force of arms. In a world of tanks, planes, and nukes, the people no longer have that right anyway. Instead, the 2nd amendment has been recast as a way of preserving the right to kill other people, which works for the government as citizens become so concerned with protecting themselves from home invasions and petty criminals that they forget about the international invasions and grand crooks in Washington. IMHO, it should either be repealed or it should be interpreted to apply to classified information as well, so that the citizenry has the right to build their own nuclear bombs.
I've been saying the same thing for the past 10 years. I usually get a bunch of blank stares in response, I'm glad that there is another person with the same thoughts.
I disagree about the second amendment though, along with any other constitutional provision. They are a little too serious for me to sunset.
I disagree about the second amendment though, along with any other constitutional provision. They are a little too serious for me to sunset.
There should have been more specific details on the laws rather than the fear mongering followed by a few examples of people impacted. If there are thousands of people impacted by this every year, shouldn't they have done some more research on the laws prone to abuse and listed them down?
Yes, I have to remain skeptical of the true "danger" posed to most of us by these laws.
However, if the two examples are even close to as cut and dry as the article stated (not guaranteed, considering the source), I think that it is a clear indication that the those laws' scopes are far too broad.
No law should have enough reach that a judge and jury could convict in even one case on that level of trivialness.
However, if the two examples are even close to as cut and dry as the article stated (not guaranteed, considering the source), I think that it is a clear indication that the those laws' scopes are far too broad.
No law should have enough reach that a judge and jury could convict in even one case on that level of trivialness.
It's probably not a bad thing to have laws against abandoning dangerous materials - but like the article states there should be provisions relating to the intent of the accused and the actual danger to the community, not simply a vague set of circumstances that someone might fall into.
There are specific circumstances given in the actual law. The article conveniently ignores those circumstances.
For starters, "dangerous materials" is very strictly defined -- it's stuff like toxic chemicals, radioactive materials, and other things that are so inherently dangerous that only a criminal would simply abandon them without taking safeguards. These aren't your run-of-the-mill household are commercial goods -- these are, at a minimum, industrial-strength shit.
For starters, "dangerous materials" is very strictly defined -- it's stuff like toxic chemicals, radioactive materials, and other things that are so inherently dangerous that only a criminal would simply abandon them without taking safeguards. These aren't your run-of-the-mill household are commercial goods -- these are, at a minimum, industrial-strength shit.
> No law should have enough reach that a judge and jury could convict in even one case on that level of trivialness.
What is this "should" of which you write?
Note that successfully defending yourself in court can be horrendously expensive.
What is this "should" of which you write?
Note that successfully defending yourself in court can be horrendously expensive.
strange article, they seem to cite one example of the scary feds huting one guy down without really going into any of the details at all.
Does fox have some kind of devolution agenda?
Does fox have some kind of devolution agenda?
Now that their party is out of office, they're going back to the woods as some sort of populist/anarchist pro-militia media outlet. Maybe they can grab a few of the mainstream anti-authoritarians in the process.
Here is a statement from the EPA regarding Everston's case: http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/eebfaebc1afd883d852...
Here is a statement from the DOJ regarding the Orchid case and the sentencing of George Norris' accomplice: http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2004/July/04_enrd_515.htm
I find it highly suspect that these two fellows were simply innocent victims.
Here is a statement from the DOJ regarding the Orchid case and the sentencing of George Norris' accomplice: http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2004/July/04_enrd_515.htm
I find it highly suspect that these two fellows were simply innocent victims.
Now, now, don't go ruining this fine government-bashing thread with your "facts" and "research".
Uh, I read your first link, and it didn't provide any reason whatsoever to make the government's case seem stronger.
Here, let me do the rest of the legwork to convince you that what this guy did wasn't kosher:
http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2007/October/07_enrd_837.html
http://www.juneauempire.com/stories/060604/sta_chemicals.sht...
Note in this story that these materials were being kept at a farm supply store. While they probably have the licenses and facilities for storing fertilizer and certain flammable gasses, whether they had the same capacity for several tons of sodium and chemical slurry is not clear (can't find more detailed information on them).
Also note that he had shipped 41 pounds of sodium through ebay. I'd say that the issue isn't so much that he mislabeled his shipments once or twice, but rather that it happened again, and again, and again, and someone took notice, followed up on the guy, and turned over just how much material was involved.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/Part_One_Eco-inven...
Note here that he paid for the storage of the materials by trading 2,000 pounds of borax, which makes me question if this was so that the farm supply store wouldn't have to make an accounting of the storage.
My point in this isn't to say that I think the Government ought to be sticking its nose in everyone's business. But the commerce clause EXISTS FOR CASES LIKE THIS. These ARE things that the Federal Government should regulate. We established the EPA because schmucks were improperly storing hazardous materials and people were getting sick from leakage and rivers were being fouled. We established endangered species protection laws because hundreds of species of plants and animals went extinct because no one said, "Hey, you can't do that."
http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2007/October/07_enrd_837.html
http://www.juneauempire.com/stories/060604/sta_chemicals.sht...
Note in this story that these materials were being kept at a farm supply store. While they probably have the licenses and facilities for storing fertilizer and certain flammable gasses, whether they had the same capacity for several tons of sodium and chemical slurry is not clear (can't find more detailed information on them).
Also note that he had shipped 41 pounds of sodium through ebay. I'd say that the issue isn't so much that he mislabeled his shipments once or twice, but rather that it happened again, and again, and again, and someone took notice, followed up on the guy, and turned over just how much material was involved.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/Part_One_Eco-inven...
Note here that he paid for the storage of the materials by trading 2,000 pounds of borax, which makes me question if this was so that the farm supply store wouldn't have to make an accounting of the storage.
My point in this isn't to say that I think the Government ought to be sticking its nose in everyone's business. But the commerce clause EXISTS FOR CASES LIKE THIS. These ARE things that the Federal Government should regulate. We established the EPA because schmucks were improperly storing hazardous materials and people were getting sick from leakage and rivers were being fouled. We established endangered species protection laws because hundreds of species of plants and animals went extinct because no one said, "Hey, you can't do that."
Regulating is one thing. Throwing someone in federal prison for two years (with a maximum possible sentence of 15) is a bit much though.
There's a difference between storing and shipping sodium improperly and dumping dioxin in a river, and the two should be treated differently.
There's a difference between storing and shipping sodium improperly and dumping dioxin in a river, and the two should be treated differently.
They are treated differently. The maximum penalties for dumping toxins in a water source are significantly higher -- and the dumping crime also allows for prosecution for other crimes as well, such as assault, homicide/manslaughter, etc.
> With such a broad law, the second jury didn't have much of a choice, and it convicted him
The jury always has a choice: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
The jury always has a choice: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
Few juries know this. Fewer still have the courage to apply it.
I'm not convinced that courage has much to do with it, but rather an understanding on the part of a jury of their duty and function in the legal process. Nor am I convinced that the concept of nullification should be more widely known, and have no reason to believe that if it were, say, a legally-protected right, that it would do more good than harm.
Jury nullification is technically not a choice. It's just an inevitable flaw in the design of the judicial system...sort of like Neo in the Matrix (sequels).
On the other hand, it can be seen as a check on the balance of the executive police powers (specifically, the enforcement powers), which are not otherwise subject to political control.
On the other hand, it can be seen as a check on the balance of the executive police powers (specifically, the enforcement powers), which are not otherwise subject to political control.
The problem with having so many obscure laws is that they can be used selectively for political reasons. If it is true that we are all criminals, then we can all have our lives ruined (or at least damaged in some way) by someone powerful who we have angered.
I am reminded of a story a few years ago (a brief search found no reference) about a CEO who was fired "for cause" because he had left his water glass on a conference table in explicit violation of the policies laid out in the employee handbook. If breaking rules like that can get one fired, can anyone be fired without cause anymore? I doubt that the company's claim held up, but this still is an example of how complex rules/laws can be used to invoke the arbitrary will of the powerful.
I am reminded of a story a few years ago (a brief search found no reference) about a CEO who was fired "for cause" because he had left his water glass on a conference table in explicit violation of the policies laid out in the employee handbook. If breaking rules like that can get one fired, can anyone be fired without cause anymore? I doubt that the company's claim held up, but this still is an example of how complex rules/laws can be used to invoke the arbitrary will of the powerful.
All of the states use "At Will employment" rules (with varying levels of exemptions). That means that anyone can be fired without cause today.
I believe that executive employment contracts often predefine severance packages if one is fired without cause. The employee does not want to end up unemployed if he gets into a minor squabble with a board member, and the board does not want to pay out if the executive is caught supplementing his income through drug dealing.
Also, I suspect that it is harder for someone let go to claim employment discrimination if he is fired for supposed cause. However, further elaboration would require a law degree on my part.
Also, I suspect that it is harder for someone let go to claim employment discrimination if he is fired for supposed cause. However, further elaboration would require a law degree on my part.
No law degree here, but I'd gladly be fired over a squabble with a board member - that's a clear sign of a company I don't want to work at.
I'm not normally a fan of Fox, but I found this to be an interesting article about over-criminalization in the States. I knew there were some crazy laws down there (I'm Canadian), but I found the stories quite surprising.
Edit: I just remembered where I found this article, so credit should go to noblethrasher: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=722425
Edit: I just remembered where I found this article, so credit should go to noblethrasher: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=722425
It took them 8 paragraphs to present the first example.
That was pissing me off too, I was starting to lose faith in it giving any real cases.
If they jury truly had no choice in this case, Then I feel it stands to reason Jury's don't have enough power in our legal system, The whole idea of a jury is to bring the common citizen to the legal process, and hopefully some common sense to the law.
Not being able to save an injustly, if lawfully, accused man for the crime of not knowing all the paperwork a disgusting flaw in our system.
I would hope articles such as this bring the issue to life in the political arena.
If they jury truly had no choice in this case, Then I feel it stands to reason Jury's don't have enough power in our legal system, The whole idea of a jury is to bring the common citizen to the legal process, and hopefully some common sense to the law.
Not being able to save an injustly, if lawfully, accused man for the crime of not knowing all the paperwork a disgusting flaw in our system.
I would hope articles such as this bring the issue to life in the political arena.
Not being able to save an injustly, if lawfully, accused man for the crime of not knowing all the paperwork a disgusting flaw in our system.
According to the USDOJ statement, he was importing wild-harvested members of Peruvian endangered species. The issue wasn't that he didn't fill out all the paperwork; it's that the paperwork he filled out was fraudulent, designed to cover up the fact that his "investment income" was from poaching from among the last remaining wild exemplars of a dying species.
You shouldn't have regained your faith.
According to the USDOJ statement, he was importing wild-harvested members of Peruvian endangered species. The issue wasn't that he didn't fill out all the paperwork; it's that the paperwork he filled out was fraudulent, designed to cover up the fact that his "investment income" was from poaching from among the last remaining wild exemplars of a dying species.
You shouldn't have regained your faith.
Your letting the truth get in the way of a good story!
The largest problem with numerous overarching laws is that "ignorance of the law is not an excuse" cannot hold true. It is not possible for someone to be aware of all the laws that apply to them at any given moment, much less to understand the legalese corner cases written into them.
Well, luckily we all now have "Felony Machines" installed in all our homes (internet connected computers), that are capable of generating all number of felonies in an evening (child pron and the like). Cliky, clicky everybody.
I think it pretty much goes without saying that, unless your drive has been freshly wiped, just about anyone could earn themselves a stint in Federal prison if their computer is confiscated and subjected to forensic analysis.
Between porn, tax evasion (although typically that would be a state crime), and copyright violations, all it takes is a desire by someone in power to ruin your life and you're toast.
I don't see any defense against this -- aside from unplugging -- except to try and cultivate friends in high places, so in case you step on someone's toes you have someone who can step in and get you out. It's unsafe to rely on the justice system to protect you just because you never meant to do anything wrong.
Between porn, tax evasion (although typically that would be a state crime), and copyright violations, all it takes is a desire by someone in power to ruin your life and you're toast.
I don't see any defense against this -- aside from unplugging -- except to try and cultivate friends in high places, so in case you step on someone's toes you have someone who can step in and get you out. It's unsafe to rely on the justice system to protect you just because you never meant to do anything wrong.
I guess common sense doesn't factor into the decision of whether or not to prosecute in these cases. Pretty ridiculous.
Yeah, that's one thing that bothers me about the cases they presented. What on earth motivated the Feds to even look at these guys? They had to have been doing something else to warrant the attention in the first place, or else this country is in a lot worse shape than I imagined.
They are probably evaluated on how many convictions they get or cases they bring. They don't know this guy or care that it was minor, he was "breaking the law". Then once he is found innocent if they can later get him on something else they save face, see he really was guilty of something.
Improperly and unsafely shipping metric tons of sodium (as well as other [unspecified] hzardoous materials) does not sound like all that minor an offense to me.
"Incredibly, Congress has made it a federal crime to violate any fish or wildlife law or regulation of any nation on earth."
What? Does anyone know more about this? I can't find any info.
What? Does anyone know more about this? I can't find any info.
Yeah, it's bull, which is why you can't find any info on it.
Edit: It's bull b/c most nations laws conflict -- it's impossible to obey any one such law without violating the law of another nation. Plus, it would cost too much to US businesses, and do you really think they'd let such a law pass or remain on the books if it actually existed?
Edit: It's bull b/c most nations laws conflict -- it's impossible to obey any one such law without violating the law of another nation. Plus, it would cost too much to US businesses, and do you really think they'd let such a law pass or remain on the books if it actually existed?
"has sentenced Manuel G. Arias Silva, a Peruvian national, for his role in a conspiracy to import into the U.S. protected orchid specimens,..."
Wow, just wow. The grandfather was thrown in jail for conspiracy to import flowers? Well, you heard it people, whoever wanted to have a flower importing start up maybe you should choose something else... something less fraught with danger and less tainted with the musk of criminality!
Wow, just wow. The grandfather was thrown in jail for conspiracy to import flowers? Well, you heard it people, whoever wanted to have a flower importing start up maybe you should choose something else... something less fraught with danger and less tainted with the musk of criminality!
Foreign species invasion has had crippling effects on North American ecosystems. So this could actually be a pretty big deal.
Also, most crimes of "danger" are state-level crimes, not federal level crimes. Federal crimes, by and large, are the boring crimes you don't see on Law&Order or CSI.
Also, most crimes of "danger" are state-level crimes, not federal level crimes. Federal crimes, by and large, are the boring crimes you don't see on Law&Order or CSI.
There are way too many laws these days.
Good thing I'm not mailing hazardous materials.
God I hate Fox Media -- the most simplistic, off-base trash.
Agreed - the title is obvious link-bait, and they mention "thousands of upstanding citizens" rotting in jail before giving very selective information about just two examples which seem to me as rather complex in nature - abandonment of dangerous materials and selling prohibited trade species.
Maybe I'm from a repressed generation, but it seems to me like common sense to consult a lawyer before starting a business, especially if it's "selling rare orchids to make some cash on the side".
And getting outraged over Fox News trash reporting is such a reddit cliché, guys, give me a break.
Maybe I'm from a repressed generation, but it seems to me like common sense to consult a lawyer before starting a business, especially if it's "selling rare orchids to make some cash on the side".
And getting outraged over Fox News trash reporting is such a reddit cliché, guys, give me a break.
Faux would never have reported this while Bush was in charge.
Great the way their tune has changed. Hypocritical scum.
That aside, it is an important lesson in the over generalization of laws and increased powers and over zealousness of law enforcement officials...
That aside, it is an important lesson in the over generalization of laws and increased powers and over zealousness of law enforcement officials...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8167533318153586646&...
It discusses many of the same issues, citing one primary reason for not talking to the police as the tremendous, unknowable breadth of federal law and the fact that you can't possibly know what strange provisions you might be in breach of. Professor Duane quotes Supreme Court Justice Breyer:
"The complexity of modern federal criminal law, codified in several thousand sections of the United States Code, and the virtually infinite variety of factual circumstances that might trigger an investigation into a possible violation of the law, make it difficult for anyone to know in advance just when a particular set of statements might later appear to a prosecutor to be relevant to some investigation."
Duane memorably points out that it's illegal to be in possession of a lobster of a length that is too short under Honduran law, even "if you acted in self-defense."
I strongly recommend it as an extremely entertaining and informative talk to anyone who hasn't previously seen it.