Tag: law

But She’s Not Done Anything Wrong!

KevinLeave a comment

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uygzRU-a90?rel=0]
So apparently today Lois Lerner appeared again before the House Oversight Committee and, again, pleaded the 5th Amendment against self-incrimination, and her lawyer says she fears for her life if she testifies.

Fears for her life? Fears whom? And if she gets immunity, will she still be in fear for her life?

How not?

You know, I’ve been reading David Horowitz’s autobiographical Radical Son: A Generational Odyssey, and I’m a bit over halfway through it. One of the key things I’ve noted so far is that what disenchanted David was the murder of an acquaintance by a group he thought of as “part of The Struggle™” – that is, the Black Panthers. And as he moves along after being shocked out of his complacency, he notices more and more that a characteristic of the Far Left is their willingness to not only ostracize, but literally kill people they think of as “traitors.”  He fears it himself – enough to buy a .38 revolver for self-protection.

A second key thing I’ve noted so far is the ubiquity in the 60’s of really radical people going into government bureaucracies, either as employees or elected officials.

The IRS scandal has the hallmarks of the Far Left – targeting of perceived right-wing groups, lack of concern over such targeting being discovered, coverup, obfuscation and passionate declarations of innocence.

I have to wonder how high up in the bureaucracy the True Believers go. And how far down.

Quote of the Day – Sultan Knish Edition

KevinLeave a comment

Daniel Greenfield certainly has a way of cutting through the bullshit:

The progressive law professors, who are currently the only thing standing between the working class and the abyss, at least according to other progressive professors, not only haven’t worked for a living, but don’t know what working for a living entails and don’t even understand the concept. Other things that they don’t understand include personal responsibility, consequences, elementary arithmetic and human free will.

That last one never fails to throw them for a loop. No sooner do they pass some comprehensive plan intended to ameliorate a terrible problem then they discover that the working people have made a hash out of it. But they never despair because they are certain that there is no progressive solution that cannot be fixed by an even more comprehensive progressive solution.

The philosophy cannot be wrong! Do it again, only HARDER!

Just Like a Skipping Record

KevinLeave a comment

(For those who remember records.)

Ten years ago I wrote The ACLU Hasn’t Changed Its Tune, quoting then-President Nadine Strossen from a Reason interview:

Reason: So why doesn’t the ACLU challenge gun-control laws on Second Amendment grounds?

Strossen: We reexamine our positions when people come forward with new arguments. On the gun issue, I instituted a reexamination a few years ago in response to a number of things, but the most important one was an article by Sanford Levinson at University of Texas Law School that summarized a wave of new historical scholarship. Levinson’s argument was that in the 18th century context, a well-regulated militia meant nothing other than people in the privacy of their homes.

So we looked into the historical scholarship there and ended up not being persuaded. The plain language of the Second Amendment in no way, shape, or form, can be construed, I think, as giving an absolute right to unregulated gun ownership. It says, “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.” Certainly, when you have the notion of “well-regulated” right in the constitutional language itself, it seems to defy any argument that regulation is inconsistent with the amendment.

Putting all that aside, I don’t want to dwell on constitutional analysis, because our view has never been that civil liberties are necessarily coextensive with constitutional rights. Conversely, I guess the fact that something is mentioned in the Constitution doesn’t necessarily mean that it is a fundamental civil liberty.

Mentioned. MENTIONED in, not just the Constitution, but the Bill of Rights.

Nah. Doesn’t mean anything.

Then we had D.C. v Heller and McDonald v. Chicago. And the ACLU?

The ACLU interprets the Second Amendment as a collective right. Therefore, we disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision in D.C. v. Heller. While the decision is a significant and historic reinterpretation of the right to keep and bear arms, the decision leaves many important questions unanswered that will have to be resolved in future litigation, including what regulations are permissible, and which weapons are embraced by the Second Amendment right that the Court has now recognized.

So much for “reexamin(ing) our positions when people come forward with new arguments.”

My original piece still stands. And the ACLU is cordially invited to kiss my ass.

Choose Your Own Crime Stats

KevinLeave a comment

Ran across this last night:

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ooa98FHuaU0?rel=0]
A bit simplistic (it is, after all, a six-minute YouTube video), but it hits all the high points.  QotD:

So what I find astonishing about these numbers is that nobody’s talking about it.  We have a 50% reduction in violent crime over the last twenty years, yet no one is taking credit for it.  I find it pretty astonishing, I mean, it’s unbelievable.  Does it not play into their fear agenda?

Three Felonies a Day,

KevinLeave a comment

I recently finished reading Harvey Silverglate’s Three Felonies a Day:  How the Feds Target the Innocent.

Here’s another example of what he was writing about.  Read the whole thing, but here’s an excerpt:

…every incentive that we put in place as a company was designed to encourage people to achieve their goals. All these incentives had the caveat that the goals must be achieved while obeying the law. Now that may sound simple, but in virtually every meeting every day people discuss their goals and how they will achieve them. They almost never discuss accounting law. In a sales forecast meeting, you will often hear, “What can we do to get this closed by the end of the quarter?” You never hear, “Will the way we made the commitment comply with Statement of Position-97-2 (the critical software accounting rule)?”

Beyond that, U.S. accounting law is extremely difficult to understand and often seems illogical and random. For example, the law in question with respect to stock options, FAS 123, is filled with paragraphs such as this:

“This Statement does not specify the measurement date for share-based payment transactions with nonemployees for which the measure of the cost of goods acquired or services received is based on the fair value of the equity instruments issued. EITF Issue No. 96-18, “Accounting for Equity Instruments That Are Issued to Other Than Employees for Acquiring, or in Conjunction with Selling, Goods or Services”, establishes criteria for determining the measurement date for equity instruments issued in share-based payment transactions with nonemployees.”

And that is the clear part.

Here’s Ayn Rand once again on the topic:

There is no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is to crack down on criminals. When there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking the law. Create a nation of lawbreakers and then you can cash in on the guilt. Now that’s the system! – Atlas Shrugged, 1957

As others have observed, Rand wrote a cautionary tale. It seems more every day that it’s being used instead as an instruction manual.

“…only Imperial Stormtroopers are so precise.”

KevinLeave a comment

I’m sure everyone remembers this:

News out of LA yesterday:

Shooting during Dorner stakeout violated policy, panel rules

Eight Los Angeles police officers who opened fire on two women delivering newspapers in a pickup truck during the hunt for Christopher Dorner violated the LAPD’s policy on using deadly force, the department’s oversight body found Tuesday.

In making its ruling, the Police Commission followed the recommendation of LAPD Chief Charlie Beck, who faulted the officers for jumping to the conclusion that Dorner was in the truck. Beck said the officers compounded their mistake by shooting in one another’s direction with an unrestrained barrage of gunfire.

Reports made public Tuesday offered new details of the hours that led up to the shooting and how it erupted into a wild, one-sided firefight in which the officers fired shotguns and handguns more than 100 times. One woman was shot twice in the back; her daughter received superficial wounds.

—

A panel of high-ranking police officials that reviewed the shooting urged Beck to clear the officers of wrongdoing, according to several sources who requested anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about the case.

Violated policy. POLICY. How about LAW? Common sense? Decency?

So, thirty days without donuts, or do they get a six-week paid vacation (suspension with pay)?

THIS Was Caused by a Video

KevinLeave a comment

…I think it’s safe to say.

Cook’s Postulate is:

The key to understanding the American system is to imagine that you have the power to make nearly any law you want. But your worst enemy will be the one to enforce it. – Rick Cook

Dinesh D’Souza, vocal critic of Barack Obama and creator of the film 2016: Obama’s America, has just been given that lesson in spades.

D’Souza has been arrested and indicted for violation of campaign finance law. Specifically:

According to an indictment made public on Thursday in federal court in Manhattan, D’Souza around August 2012 reimbursed people who he had directed to contribute $20,000 to the candidate’s campaign.

The Justice Department in the form of the U.S. Attorney for Manhattan, Preet Bharara, proclaimed:

As we have long said, this Office and the FBI take a zero tolerance approach to corruption of the electoral process.

The mind simply boggles.

Nothing was done about voter intimidation in Philadelphia.

Nobody at Justice said “boo” when the Obama campaign accepted unverified credit card donations during his re-election run.

Not a peep out of the DoJ when Al Franken “won” his Senate race through voter fraud.

The list of “corruptions of the electoral process” are long and have been getting longer each year, but NOW the DoJ is ON THE JOB!

Like when the Bush DoJ prosecuted prominent lawyer Pierce O’Donnell for illegally contributing $26,000 to John Edwards’ presidential campaign the same way D’Souza is now accused.  O’Donnell accepted a plea deal and got “60 days in prison, a year of supervised release, 500 hours of community service, plus a $20,000 fine.”

I’ve been reading Harvey Silverglate’s Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent, and one thing he points out early on is the power the DoJ has to coerce people into being witnesses:

Prosecutors are able to structure plea bargains in ways that make it nearly impossible for normal, rational, self-interested calculating people to risk going to trial. The pressure on innocent defendants to plead guilty and “cooperate” by testifying against others in exchange for a reduced sentence is enormous – so enormous that such cooperating witnesses often fail to tell the truth, saying instead what prosecutors want to hear. As Harvard Law School Professor Alan Dershowitz has colorfully put it, such cooperating defendant-witnesses “are taught not only to sing, but also to compose.”

Can’t wait to see who the prosecution will be dragging out as witnesses.

A recent Gallup poll indicates that “trust in government” is at an all-time low, with 57% of those polled indicating the trust the government “not very much” or “not at all” when handling domestic problems. But when queried on their faith in the Judicial Branch, 62% of those polled said they had a “great deal” to a “fair amount” of faith.

I think that’s about to change, too.

No matter what, the DoJ has bottomless pockets, and unless some high-powered law firm agrees to represent him pro bono, D’Souza doesn’t. 

It’s called “Lawfare,” and when practiced by the government against its citizens, it is particularly vicious. I have very little doubt that this is what is going on in the prosecution of D’Souza. I don’t know if he’s guilty or not. I DO know that when the Left is profiting, not a word is said, not a soul is prosecuted. When it’s their ox being gored, SOMEONE MUST PAY! And, honestly, I do not doubt that the Obama administration through the Holder Justice Department is exercising “the Chicago Way” here. As Glenn Reynolds put it:

Is there anything this administration does that isn’t politically motivated?

In other words, I know who I trust, and it isn’t the .gov.

UPDATE:  Read this.  Had enough yet?

Quote of the Day from Erik Prince, ex-CEO of Blackwater:

“Look,” he says, grasping to end our talk on an optimistic note, “America can pull its head out at any time. That happens at the ballot box. Ballot boxes have consequences still in America.” He continues: “But the American electorate has to actually pay attention, has to turn off the Xbox long enough to pay attention. Otherwise they’re going to continue to elect the government they deserve.”

This is Why 18 U.S.C. § 922 Needs to be Amended

KevinLeave a comment

A couple of days ago in the little town of Orrville, Alabama, a man “waving a gun” walked into a Dollar General Store and forced a cashier and a customer into a break room.  Oddly enough, the force field generated by the posting of this sign

did not prevent Kevin McLaughlin from walking through the doorway, gun in hand.

The customer, one Marlo Ellis, was – in accordance with the sign – carrying his firearm concealed.  He turned, drew his weapon and shot McLaughlin once in the chest.  McLaughlin was DRT.

Alabama law does not require a permit for open carry, but does for concealed.  According to the story, the police are checking to ensure Ellis was properly permitted, though the DA stated that he didn’t believe any charges would be pressed, regardless.  HOWEVER, Ellis is currently out of jail on bond, facing charges of “rape in the second degree and enticing a child for immoral purposes, stemming from a 2013 investigation involving a girl under the age of 16.”  The DA stated in the story that Ellis was within his rights to have a CCW permit because he has not yet been convicted.

I don’t think so.

Question 11b on BATFE form 4473 (PDF) asks:

Are you under indictment or information in any court for a felony, or any other crime, for which the judge could imprison you for more than one year?

And the instructions for questions 11b through 11l state:

Generally, 18 U.S.C. § 922 prohibits the shipment, transportation, receipt, or possession in or affecting interstate commerce of a firearm by one who: has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence; has been convicted of a felony, or any other crime, punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year (this does not include State misdemeanors punishable by imprisonment of two years or less); is a fugitive from justice; is an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, or narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance; has been adjudicated mentally defective or has been committed to a mental institution; has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions; has renounced his or her U.S. citizenship; is an alien illegally in the United States or an alien admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa; or is subject to certain restraining orders. Furthermore, section 922 prohibits the shipment, transportation, or receipt in or affecting interstate commerce of a firearm by one who is under indictment or information for a felony, or any other crime, punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.

Mr. Ellis is under indictment.  He is may be a “prohibited person” and can might be charged with possessing and carrying a weapon illegally.

A weapon which he used to, quite possibly, save several lives, including his own.

The local DA might not charge him, but a Federal prosecutor certainly could, and I wouldn’t put it past them.  The number of “crimes” that carry a possible sentence of “imprisonment for a term exceeding one year” is insane.  Just being under indictment for one negates your right to arms.  Crimes like “providing police with a false name” for instance.  Or walking out of a restaurant on a $25.01 tab.

Mario Ellis might very well be a child-raping scumbag who should be thrown under the jail – but until he goes to trial he should either be sitting in a cell or he should have all the rights of any other citizen.

UPDATE:  After carefully scrutinizing 18 U.S.C. § 922, I’m certain that it’s illegal for someone to SELL to a person known or believed to be under indictment, but I’m not so certain that it’s illegal for someone under indictment to possess.  I think it’s a gray area that Prosecutors might play in.  I have altered the post to reflect this.