Do You, or Have You Ever, Lived in the United States? Then You Are a Filthy Criminal.

[Crazed Rabbit]

I do not exaggerate; currently, due to the huge amount of federal laws, you are a criminal, and it only depends on if the government wants to put you away and what law they use to do it;

Consider small-time inventor and entrepreneur Krister Evertson, who will testify at today's hearing. Krister never had so much as a traffic ticket before he was run off the road near his mother's home in Wasilla, Alaska, by SWAT-armored federal agents in large black SUVs training automatic weapons on him.

Evertson, who had been working on clean-energy fuel cells since he was in high school, had no idea what he'd done wrong. It turned out that when he legally sold some sodium (part of his fuel-cell materials) to raise cash, he forgot to put a federally mandated safety sticker on the UPS package he sent to the lawful purchaser.

Krister's lack of a criminal record did nothing to prevent federal agents from ransacking his mother's home in their search for evidence on this oh-so-dangerous criminal.

The good news is that a federal jury in Alaska acquitted Krister of all charges. The jurors saw through the charges and realized that Krister had done nothing wrong.

The bad news, however, is that the feds apparently had it in for Krister. Federal criminal law is so broad that it gave prosecutors a convenient vehicle to use to get their man.

Two years after arresting him, the feds brought an entirely new criminal prosecution against Krister on entirely new grounds. They used the fact that before Krister moved back to Wasilla to care for his 80-year-old mother, he had safely and securely stored all of his fuel-cell materials in Salmon, Idaho.

According to the government, when Krister was in jail in Alaska due to the first unjust charges, he had "abandoned" his fuel-cell materials in Idaho. Unfortunately for Krister, federal lawmakers had included in the Resource Recovery and Conservation Act a provision making it a crime to abandon "hazardous waste." According to the trial judge, the law didn't require prosecutors to prove that Krister had intended to abandon the materials (he hadn't) or that they were waste at all -- in reality, they were quite valuable and properly stored away for future use.

With such a broad law, the second jury didn't have much of a choice, and it convicted him. He spent almost two years locked up with real criminals in a federal prison. After he testifies today, he will have to return to his halfway house in Idaho and serve another week before he is released.

The other hardened criminal whose story members of Congress will hear today is retiree George Norris. A longtime resident of Spring, Texas, Norris made the mistake of not knowing and keeping track of all of the details of federal and international law on endangered species -- mostly paperwork requirements -- before he decided to turn his orchid hobby into a small business. What was Norris's goal? To earn a little investment income while his wife neared retirement.

The Lacey Act is an example of the dangerous overbreadth of federal criminal law. Incredibly, Congress has made it a federal crime to violate any fish or wildlife law or regulation of any nation on earth.

Facing 10 years in federal prison, Norris pled guilty and served almost two. His wife, Kathy, describes the pain of losing their life savings to pay for attorneys and trying to explain to grandchildren why for so long Poppa George couldn't see them.

Another article:

The week before McCain issued his threat, the Justice Department fought in the Supreme Court to maintain the right to jail sick people taking marijuana on the advice of their doctors and with the approval of their state government. On November 29, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Ashcroft v. Raich, a case involving two desperately ill women who use marijuana and seek protection from prosecution under federal drug laws. Acting solicitor general Paul Clement told the Court that medicine grown in one's own backyard for home consumption was a national matter, subject to Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce—despite the fact that there is nothing remotely commercial or interstate about the conduct at issue.

Those are just two recent examples of a federal government that views its jurisdiction as limitless. That's a view quite at odds with the one held by the Constitution's Framers. The document they drafted envisioned a federal government focused on national issues, such as "war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce," in Madison's words. Even the most devoted advocate of national power, Alexander Hamilton, agreed, explaining in Federalist 17 that under the Constitution, "the ordinary administration of criminal and civil justice" would be left to the states.

We've drifted far from that understanding. Congress's power to "regulate Commerce...among the states," which was designed to eliminate state-level trade barriers, has become a limitless font of federal power, used to regulate or criminalize behavior better left to the states or the civil law.

With commerce clause limits eviscerated, almost anything can be a federal crime. We've gone from a Constitution that mentions only three federal crimes (treason, piracy, and counterfeiting) to a federal criminal code with over 4,000 separate offenses, some of them stunningly trivial. In 2002, President Bush signed legislation making it a federal crime to move birds across state lines to engage in fights. The ban on cockfighting joined such notable federal crimes as interstate transport of unlicensed dentures (punishable by up to a year in prison), tampering with an odometer (up to three years), and pretending to be a member of the 4-H Club (up to six months). These and other offenses larded throughout the U.S. code could make for an interesting conversation with one's cellmate: "What are you in for, kid?"
...
Case in point: In the months leading up to the September 11 attacks the FBI was engaged in an 18-month-long sting operation at a brothel in New Orleans that netted 12 prostitutes.

Luckily, we have some sane legislators (first article again);

We should applaud Reps. Bobby Scott (D-Va.) and Louie Gohmert (R-Texas), then, for holding a bipartisan hearing today to examine how federal law can make a criminal out of anyone, for even the most mundane conduct.

This shows not just the stupidity of federal power, but seems to be an argument against the EU as well - since I can easily see them instituting even more of these types of laws.

CR

[Monk]

It feels good to be a gangsta...

These and other offenses larded throughout the U.S. code could make for an interesting conversation with one's cellmate: "What are you in for, kid?"

You know those tags on the bottom of mattresses that say 'Do not remove under penalty of law'? Well.. funny story.

[Ronin]

haven´t been...but hope to visit some day....

I´ll start thinking up a good story to tell the homies at the big house...

Ain´t nothin but a gangsta party!!!

[HoreTore]

So you finally agree with me then, Comrade Rabbit?

[Husar]

I completely agree with the topic.

Maybe one day, justice will be served, but as it seems now, most of them still enjoy their freedom...

I think the current plan is to turn the whole country into a prison, I believe that's why the fence in the south was built.

[Mooks]

I once read a statistic somewhere saying America was 2% of the world's population, but had 25% of the worlds prison population. Never fact checked it before.

America wants its citizens locked up. Prisons are a business of their own.

[Banquo's Ghost]

This shows not just the stupidity of federal power, but seems to be an argument against the EU as well - since I can easily see them instituting even more of these types of laws.

I fear that you are missing the point somewhat. It's not just federal institutions that can legislate insanity. Some of the worst abuses of this kind are perpetrated by local government officials. And your Police Abuses thread demonstrates how any petty officials can "interpret" even reasonable laws.

It's not the scale of the government, but the fact of government unchallenged by citizens.

It brings me back to a question raised some time before. Your long-term argument for the 2nd Amendment is that widespread gun ownership guarantees liberty. Whilst I have some sympathy for the position, I maintain that only a politically active and engaged citizenry, mindful and protective of their rights can keep the necessary evil of government in check. That also requires that they hold their representatives to account, constantly and urgently. It doesn't matter a damn whether they are armed or not - unflinching purpose is all that arms us against tyranny.

Whilst federal (as shorthand for large scale) governments have more opportunity to distance themselves from the people, an apathetic people can be rolled over by the smallest town council. It is why Louis and I, both passionate believers in the principle of a European Union, fall out over the issue of subsidiarity and the accountability of the elites to the citizenry thus represented.

So I ask - not just of Crazed Rabbit, but all of us who feel the righteous injustice he has highlighted - what do you do about it? Do we sit at home cradling our guns whilst muttering "I'm free" or do you campaign, march, resist? We might growl at demonstrators, especially since they are usually left-wing and young for holding up the traffic or wearing purple-dyed mohicans in a public space, but are they not doing what we should? Holding the governments of the world to account? How many of us are out there on the streets like the Green movement of Iran forcing our unjust governments to listen or fight?

Do we read our newspapers and our Backroom with Victor Meldrew on our lips, or are we politically active? Because if all we ever do is mutter and take the bread and circuses allowed to us, we deserve every single instance where the government spends our children's futures, murders people at home and abroad for fun and profit, frightens us witless to allow them to deny inalienable rights to "others", enslaves us for half the year to pay for it all and then imprisons us randomly for the privilege.

I like to believe I do quite a lot. But clearly not enough, and certainly not enough of my fellow citizens do even that. Why, one wonders?

In short, CR, where is your armed revolution? (Or my peaceful one?)

[Husar]

[...]

In short, CR, where is your armed revolution? (Or my peaceful one?)

Very good post Banquo, been thinking about that myself.

It's also not just that, a comedian I saw said according to polls 80% of Germans want a minimum wage, 80% want out of Afghanistan, 80% want to roll back parts of the Hartz IV reform, there is only one party which wants to do all that and 14% of Germans vote for them.

Now it was just a comedian and I haven't checked his numbers but I often get the feeling that's how it really is, why, I wouldn't know.

[ICantSpellDawg]

stuff

I cling to guns and march on Washington.

[KukriKhan]

Do You, or Have You Ever, Lived in the United States? Then You Are a Filthy Criminal.

Hey. I bathe at least twice a week.

In short, CR, where is your armed revolution? (Or my peaceful one?)

Apparently, waiting for the straw that breaks the camel's back. It ain't bad enough yet. And there's hope for improvement.

So although:

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government...

this currently prevails:

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

[Husar]

And there's hope for improvement.

You mean there's hope and change?

[KukriKhan]

You mean there's hope and change?

Heh, yeah. The two things all pollies run on. Always.

What candidate in his right mind would campaign on "Everything's Fine; Up with the Status Quo!" ?

Our dark side warns us to eye leaders for any sign of despotism. Yet, our equally strong bright side (optimism, bordering on naïveté) assures us that leaders are just (wo)men, the same as us, and probably intend to do no harm, the same as us.

[Crazed Rabbit]

So I ask - not just of Crazed Rabbit, but all of us who feel the righteous injustice he has highlighted - what do you do about it? Do we sit at home cradling our guns whilst muttering "I'm free" or do you campaign, march, resist? We might growl at demonstrators, especially since they are usually left-wing and young for holding up the traffic or wearing purple-dyed mohicans in a public space, but are they not doing what we should? Holding the governments of the world to account? How many of us are out there on the streets like the Green movement of Iran forcing our unjust governments to listen or fight?

I actually agree on the importance of having an active citizenry. And you have a point- I haven't made that many calls to my elected officials, or written many letters to the editors. As for local officials - they too can be tyrants, but much power comes from being able to prosecute basically anyone because of federal or state law.

In short, CR, where is your armed revolution? (Or my peaceful one?)

For both of us, I think the answer is the final straw.

For another, very informative essay of the huge expanse of Federal Law, look here, and read chapter 2.

One example tells of business men charged with violating the Lacey Act, money laundering, and conspiracy. All because they imported lobster tails in plastic instead of cardboard containers, supposedly violating some Honduran law. Even Honduras saying that the law wasn't valid didn't matter.

CR