You have no right NOT to be a snitch....say the Feds

[VMI77]

A couple things IIRC.

1. The Lois Lerner thing wouldn't apply because they are going after her. She is protecting herself by choosing to remain mostly silent. That and Holder won't go after her anyway.

2. I thought there was a law that spouses could not be forced to testify against each other.

I think there is....but I am betting that if you want that protection you had better put a ring on it. With the way things are going they might even try to reach around that.

Then they just go after your kids...it's already been done. Also, spousal immunity applies to testimony. If they threaten your spouse with jail time to get you to snitch, no testimony is involved, just extortion. As far as false charges go....well, not really necessary because as has been pointed out....each one of us unknowingly commits an average of three felonies a day. They have so many vague laws on the books they can find something if they want to.

[mojo84]

I've heard the comment that the typical citizen breaks three laws a day but haven't heard three "felonies" a day. I find that hard to believe.

[EEllis]

I've heard the comment that the typical citizen breaks three laws a day but haven't heard three "felonies" a day. I find that hard to believe.

That comes from a title of a book and its absurdly far from the truth. For one thing it represents an average while one person may break the law 6 times others won't break it all. the other problem is that the author refers to any ability to possibly to interpret the actions in a criminal manner as breaking the law. So a more accurate title would be the average person commits 3 actions which some DA somewhere might possibly charge as a crime even though it almost never really happens and they aren't found guilty of when it does happen.

[VMI77]

I've heard the comment that the typical citizen breaks three laws a day but haven't heard three "felonies" a day. I find that hard to believe.

Normally I don't even read what Ellis has to say but I didn't log in before I entered this thread and saw his comment. If you ignore his the government is never wrong apologetics, I'd say his summary of the book is more or less accurate. As usual though, he ignores what matters.....yes, the so called average person is not likely to be a target...there aren't going to be nation wide dragnets sweeping the country for average people in violation of vague Federal laws; and that is completely irrelevant. If you find yourself a government target, for whatever reason, these laws allow unethical prosecutors to do just about whatever they want to assure a conviction (which is all they care about).

If you're interested, check out these hypotheticals and real life examples. How about a 2 year prison sentence for shipping lobsters in plastic bags?

Hypothetical: You are a small business proprietor who supplies restaurants with fish and produce. One shipment of lobsters comes in unusual packaging—usually sent in cardboard boxes, these lobsters arrived in clear packaging. By purchasing this shipment, you have arguably committed a federal felony. The imported lobsters originated in a country that bans the shipping of lobsters in clear plastic bags, and the U.S. Lacey Act makes criminal an importer who violates “any foreign law”—regardless of whether you knew of the foreign regulations.

Real-life example: American businesswoman Diane Huang was convicted under this far-reaching provision, despite her unawareness of the supposed Honduran law banning the shipment of lobsters in clear plastic bags. Lack of criminal intent, the Washington Legal Foundation argued on behalf of Huang and her co-defendants, should make the government’s criminal charges inappropriate. To make matters worse, the Honduran law governing such shipments was not valid at the time of Huang’s arrest—a fact that the Honduran government pointed out to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. Nonetheless, the federal court found Huang guilty in March 2003 and imposed a two-year prison sentence.

http://allstaractivist.com/2014/07/05/t ... -innocent/

I also misquoted the claim for the book......it claims the average "professional" violates Federal law three times a day, not the average "person."

[The Annoyed Man]

I've heard the comment that the typical citizen breaks three laws a day but haven't heard three "felonies" a day. I find that hard to believe.

Normally I don't even read what Ellis has to say but I didn't log in before I entered this thread and saw his comment. If you ignore his the government is never wrong apologetics, I'd say his summary of the book is more or less accurate. As usual though, he ignores what matters.....yes, the so called average person is not likely to be a target...there aren't going to be nation wide dragnets sweeping the country for average people in violation of vague Federal laws; and that is completely irrelevant. If you find yourself a government target, for whatever reason, these laws allow unethical prosecutors to do just about whatever they want to assure a conviction (which is all they care about).

If you're interested, check out these hypotheticals and real life examples. How about a 2 year prison sentence for shipping lobsters in plastic bags?

Hypothetical: You are a small business proprietor who supplies restaurants with fish and produce. One shipment of lobsters comes in unusual packaging—usually sent in cardboard boxes, these lobsters arrived in clear packaging. By purchasing this shipment, you have arguably committed a federal felony. The imported lobsters originated in a country that bans the shipping of lobsters in clear plastic bags, and the U.S. Lacey Act makes criminal an importer who violates “any foreign law”—regardless of whether you knew of the foreign regulations.

Real-life example: American businesswoman Diane Huang was convicted under this far-reaching provision, despite her unawareness of the supposed Honduran law banning the shipment of lobsters in clear plastic bags. Lack of criminal intent, the Washington Legal Foundation argued on behalf of Huang and her co-defendants, should make the government’s criminal charges inappropriate. To make matters worse, the Honduran law governing such shipments was not valid at the time of Huang’s arrest—a fact that the Honduran government pointed out to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. Nonetheless, the federal court found Huang guilty in March 2003 and imposed a two-year prison sentence.

http://allstaractivist.com/2014/07/05/t ... -innocent/

I also misquoted the claim for the book......it claims the average "professional" violates Federal law three times a day, not the average "person."

And let's not forget the Gibson Guitars case: http://www2.gibson.com/News-Lifestyle/F ... lemen.aspx. The CEO of Gibson has been a republican contributor. His rivals at Martin Guitars, and other manufacturers were buying exactly the same woods, from the same sources in Madagascar, but the "Justice" department went after Gibson while leaving the others completely alone. The others are all democrat contributors. And the Gibson factory was raided, during business hours, by SWAT jackboots..........over some flippin' exotic wood for guitar-making......for allegedly violating some other country's law (because they probably didn't pay enough baksheesh to the right corruptible bureaucrat). The way the federal government was acting, you'd have thought they were smuggling tons of crack cocaine into the country. Quoting their press release about the settlement:

Gibson will publish the agreement and the attached Statement of Facts that both the Government and Gibson agreed to, so anyone can independently draw their own conclusions.
Possible questions and answers Gibson would give:
Q.1. In light of your previous outspoken condemnation of the Government's conduct in this case, why are you taking such a moderate, mild-mannered approach in your official statement?
A.1.1. The company is gratified that the Government ultimately saw the wisdom and fairness in declining to bring criminal charges in this case.
A.1.2 The "Criminal Enforcement Agreement" we have entered into straightforwardly recognizes that it was inappropriate to criminalize this matter.

Q.2. In light of the Government's lenient treatment here, does Gibson still believe that amendments to the Lacey Act are necessary to make the law more fair and reasonable?
A.2. Yes. The outcome here deals only with the particular controversy about the particular fact pattern. A true legislative reform is necessary to avoid systemic criminalization of capitalism, as I explained in my recent Wall Street Journal article.

Q.3. Wasn't the Government's conduct here, with its armed raid on your headquarters and manufacturing facilities, so outrageous and overreaching as to deserve further Congressional investigation, just calling a spade a spade?
A.3. I don't retreat from any of my prior commentary, but I am gratified that this resolution puts the matter behind us. We are a forward-looking company hoping to move our business ahead in an environmentally forward-thinking way.

Q.4. The statement of facts includes Gibson's official acknowledgement that you could have and should have exercised greater due diligence in regard to the importation of the questionable wood from Madagascar. Doesn't this amount to an admission that the company violated the law, notwithstanding all your previous protests?
A.4. Gibson is strenuously dedicated to continuous environmental improvement. We want to be leaders in our business, and our business includes protecting the environment. We can always do better.

Q.5. This is a pretty unusual legal deal being executed here. It's not a plea bargain, and it is not a traditional deferred prosecution agreement because there is no draft indictment or other criminal-charging document. But it's apparently not a complete declination, as Gibson is at least paying a nominal penalty. How did you settle on this unique form of agreement, and doesn't it represent just a fig leaf to cover the Government's naked surrender?
A.5. The case is behind us. The extensive negotiations to reach this agreement succeeded in finding a balance that Gibson supports.

THAT is the federal government that EEllis extolls. He can have it.

For the EEllis/"progressive" viewpoint: http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/ ... -wood-case.

In August 2011, the US Fish and Wildlife Service confiscated hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of wood from guitar giant Gibson's Tennessee locations, the second raid in two years. The incident blew up into a big brouhaha over federal regulations and enforcement: Gibson claimed no wrong-doing in regard to wood from both Madagascar and India, and the company and its right-wing allies flipped out, painting the incident as Big Government coming to take away "your right to rock." Now, nearly a year later, the government and Gibson have reached a settlement.

Under the settlement, Gibson agreed to pay a $300,000 fine for the ebony from Madagascar that was taken in the first raid. The company also agreed to make a $50,000 donation to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation to promote conservation work and forfeited the seized illegal wood, which was valued at $261,844.

The company also acknowledged its violations. Sort of. In a statement, CEO Henry Juszkiewicz said that the company "felt compelled to settle as the costs of proving our case at trial would have cost millions of dollars and taken a very long time to resolve." The agreement allows Gibson to keep the rosewood and ebony from India that was taken in the second raid and continue importing from India. Juszkiewicz also didn't drop his claims that his company was "inappropriately targeted" in the raids and that the matter "could have been addressed with a simple contact" from a "caring human being representing the government." Gibson published all the settlement documents on on its website.

For the actual truth: http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/26/paper ... targeting/

The Internal Revenue Service’s targeting of conservative groups puts the federal government’s raids on Gibson Guitar Corp. in a new light, according to a recent Investor’s Business Daily editorial.

The government has accused Gibson of obtaining wood that was illegal in India and Madagascar. The government argues that this is a violation of the Lacey Act of 1900, which outlaws the use of plants and wildlife that have been taken or traded in violation of foreign law.

Gibson stressed in 2011 that its Indian wood, which was seized by the government in a raid, was obtained via a Forest Stewardship Council-certified supplier, and that the Madagascar wood in question was obtained without violating Madagascar law.

Shortly after the raid, Gibson Guitars CEO Henry Juszkiewicz said that his company used the same wood as its rivals, and that he was unsure why raids on the company’s facilities in Memphis and Nashville took place.

“We don’t what is motivating it,” Juszkiewicz said on the Hugh Hewitt Show. “It is…clear to me that there is some terrific motivation because we are not the only company that uses this type of wood. Virtually every other guitar company uses this wood and this wood is used prominently by furniture and architectural industries, and to my knowledge none of them have been shut down or treated in this fashion.”

For the record, I've been playing guitar for 52 years now, and I know a thing or two about guitars and guitar-making.......and guitar-makers. Unless anyone can match that, don't try to pee down my neck and tell me it's raining. Gibson was selectively targeted, while the other manufacturers, who buy the same woods, from the same sources, were not even bothered. Of course, they all made prophylactic claims of obeying all import laws as soon the news broke that Gibson had been raided like a meth lab. Gibson was selectively targeted because its management was known to be outspokenly republican-leaning. The others are not. That's the sole difference.

Also for the record, I don't own any Gibson guitars, but that is not an indictment of their products. I just don't happen to own any. Jaguar makes nice cars, and I don't one of those either.

[EEllis]

THAT is the federal government that EEllis extolls. He can have it.

I didn't extoll crap. I explained where a phrase came from and why it wasn't true none of which you contradicted in your little rant. Isn't there a conspiracy theory site you can vomit your bile all over instead of making your messes here? Progressive? Sure don't dink the Koolaid and say how tasty it is then out come folks who insult and try to marginalize.

[The Annoyed Man]

THAT is the federal government that EEllis extolls. He can have it.

I didn't extoll crap. I explained where a phrase came from and why it wasn't true none of which you contradicted in your little rant. Isn't there a conspiracy theory site you can vomit your bile all over instead of making your messes here? Progressive? Sure don't dink the Koolaid and say how tasty it is then out come folks who insult and try to marginalize.

Ah, you added a sentence just before I hit the reply button. Touched a nerve, did we?

Edited to add: EEllis, you may not realize this about yourself, but your "explanations" (which term I think you might have deleted before I could quote it.....or, to be fair, I might have read it in one of your posts in another thread, but I think it applies here) often come off as "justifications", not "explanations". And a lot of members here—by FAR not just me—react to your posts exactly the same way......that you are justifying, not explaining. So if you sound like you are justifying something that just isn't right, well..... maybe you are not, but people can only react to what they see/hear/read.

And, I want to add one more thing here.... a LOT of people like me grow bone-weary reading posts (here and elsewhere) by people whose "explanations" are more than just a tad condescending. I can go to Huffpo, or Quora, or The Daily Kos, and be lectured to by people who begin with the assumption that, if I do not agree with them, then I am probably not bright enough to have their advanced intuitions.....but that if they just say it slowly and clearly, with only just a dab of snark (after all, lecturing me wouldn't be any fun if they didn't think they could sneak in some joke that they imagine went over my head), then maybe they can enlighten me.

Here's the deal, I don't buy into that crap anymore than you claim not to, and a LOT of your posts—whether you do it intentionally or unconsciously—come off as justification, and condescension. BELIEVE me when I say that I don't like getting toyed with anymore than you do...... especially at one of those other sites by some pimply-faced college sophomore who has just discovered Sartre and existentialism, and thinks that he has a lock on intellectual precision.

IF you are being misunderstood, you share in the blame if it blows up in your face.....maybe not all of it, but you do share in it. But if you want to make peace, I am willing to make peace. Just please don't condescend any longer.

[EEllis]

Ah, you added a sentence just before I hit the reply button. Touched a nerve, did we?

Shockingly enough most people do not like to be insulted or marginalized. You are using a debate tactic called a logical fallacy. It's where you say something bad about me so you can discredit my arguments without actually having to address my arguments. Now you are gleefully gloating about it like a child. Now maybe I have something wrong, interpreting your statements in a manner in which you do not mean. As I read them they are offensive to me and there's no reason for them to be that way. You don't have to be offensive to make your point.

[The Annoyed Man]

THAT is the federal government that EEllis extolls. He can have it.

I didn't extoll crap. I explained where a phrase came from and why it wasn't true none of which you contradicted in your little rant. Isn't there a conspiracy theory site you can vomit your bile all over instead of making your messes here? Progressive? Sure don't dink the Koolaid and say how tasty it is then out come folks who insult and try to marginalize.

Ah, you added a sentence just before I hit the reply button. Touched a nerve, did we?

Shockingly enough most people do not like to be insulted or marginalized. You are using a debate tactic called a logical fallacy. It's where you say something bad about me so you can discredit my arguments without actually having to address my arguments. Now you are gleefully gloating about it like a child. Now maybe I have something wrong, interpreting your statements in a manner in which you do not mean. As I read them they are offensive to me and there's no reason for them to be that way. You don't have to be offensive to make your point.

Read my edit.

[gljjt]

[VMI77]

And let's not forget the Gibson Guitars case: http://www2.gibson.com/News-Lifestyle/F ... lemen.aspx. The CEO of Gibson has been a republican contributor. His rivals at Martin Guitars, and other manufacturers were buying exactly the same woods, from the same sources in Madagascar, but the "Justice" department went after Gibson while leaving the others completely alone. The others are all democrat contributors. And the Gibson factory was raided, during business hours, by SWAT jackboots..........over some flippin' exotic wood for guitar-making......for allegedly violating some other country's law (because they probably didn't pay enough baksheesh to the right corruptible bureaucrat). The way the federal government was acting, you'd have thought they were smuggling tons of crack cocaine into the country. Quoting their press release about the settlement:

I thought about mentioning the Gibson case, and you make a good point, because it is different than the case I cited, and others, in that it is an example of selective enforcement. Obama has turned this country into a Banana Republic. Rule by law instead of rule of law and selective enforcement are the very heart of tyranny.