Pages

Sunday, August 18, 2013

The rule of dynamic law

Now that it has been successfully established that Americans can be taxed for not engaging in economic activity, I suppose it makes sense that they can be charged with committing crimes by not engaging in it too.
The saga of Lavabit founder Ladar Levison is getting even more ridiculous, as he explains that the government has threatened him with criminal charges for his decision to shut down the business, rather than agree to some mysterious court order. The feds are apparently arguing that the act of shutting down the business, itself, was a violation of the order:

    ... a source familiar with the matter told NBC News that James Trump, a senior litigation counsel in the U.S. attorney’s office in Alexandria, Va., sent an email to Levison's lawyer last Thursday – the day Lavabit was shuttered -- stating that Levison may have "violated the court order," a statement that was interpreted as a possible threat to charge Levison with contempt of court.

That same article suggests that the decision to shut down Lavabit was over something much bigger than just looking at one individual's information -- since it appears that Lavabit has cooperated in the past on such cases. Instead, the suggestion now is that the government was seeking a tap on all accounts
If you do not understand that the USA is now a legally totalitarian country where the law is whatever the government employee claiming jurisdiction declares it to be, you do not understand the difference between the absence of a limit and the observable willingness to exploit that absence.  The fact that the absence of limits are not presently being exploited in full should not cause one to imagine that the limits are still in place.

I suspect that only factors presently restraining the federal government from attempting to test how far they can go in the absence of those legal limits is a) the fact that the American people are very well-armed, and, b) the precarious state of the economy.

40 comments:

  1. I suspect that only factors presently restraining the federal government from attempting to test how far they can go in the absence of those legal limits is a) the fact that the American people are very well-armed, and, b) the precarious state of the economy.

    Well, true, but they are constantly testing the waters and proceeding a little further with each test just to see what they can get away with. They truly do not understand the American people outside of the enclaves of urban troglodytes in which the government primarily exists and they are ignorant of history. They do not understand the sudden, violent response one of these intrusions will cause someday. Unexpectedly, of course. They also think that particular genie can be put back in the bottle should it ever be freed. Damned fools.

    ReplyDelete
  2. No, I don't think so. They could easily enough meet any legitimate and perhaps even any illegitimate government interest merely by preserving their files and encryption keys. There is no legal need to them to keep operations going beyond that. At least, I can see none. Do you have a theory how, consistent with the 13th Amendment and absent a criminal conviction, someone can be made to work?

    ReplyDelete
  3. This battle was lost when everyone decided it was OK for the government to stick a Carnivore monitoring box in your data center if so ordered by the FBI.

    At least we know our circuses will not insult the emperor without the personal destruction of the clowns, and our bread will come at a high profit for Monsanto for using the GMO grain.

    ReplyDelete
  4. On the other hand, Americans can also "not commit crimes" when the government refuses to enforce laws that are on the books:

    On Monday, Attorney General Eric Holder, a liberal in a hurry, ordered all U.S. attorneys to simply stop charging nonviolent, non-gang-related drug defendants with crimes that, while fitting the offense, carry mandatory sentences. Find some lesser, non-triggering charge. How might you do that? Withhold evidence -- e.g., about the amount of dope involved.

    In other words, evade the law, by deceiving the court if necessary. "If the companies that I represent in federal criminal cases" did that, said former Deputy Attorney General George Terwilliger, "they could be charged with a felony."

    But such niceties must not stand in the way of an administration's agenda. Indeed, the very next day, it was revealed that the administration had unilaterally waived Obama-care's cap on a patient's annual out-of-pocket expenses -- a one-year exemption for selected health insurers that is nowhere permitted in the law. It was simply decreed by an obscure Labor Department regulation.
    ...
    Nor is this kind of rule-by-decree restricted to health care. In 2012, the immigration service was ordered to cease proceedings against young illegal immigrants brought here as children. Congress had refused to pass such a law (the DREAM Act) just 18 months earlier. Mr. Obama himself had repeatedly said that the Constitution forbade him from enacting it without Congress. But with the fast approach of an election that could hinge on the Hispanic vote, Mr. Obama did exactly that. Unilaterally.

    The point is not what you think about the merits of the DREAM Act. Or of mandatory drug sentences. Or of subsidizing health care premiums for $175,000-a-year members of Congress. Or even whether you think governors should be allowed to weaken the work requirements for welfare recipients -- an authority the administration granted last year in clear violation of section 407 of the landmark Clinton-Gingrich welfare reform of 1996.

    The point is whether a president, charged with faithfully executing the laws that Congress enacts, may create, ignore, suspend and/or amend the law at will. Presidents are arguably permitted to refuse to enforce laws they consider unconstitutional (the basis for so many of George W. Bush's so-called signing statements). But presidents are forbidden from doing so for reason of mere policy -- the reason for every Obama violation listed above.
    ...
    Such gross executive usurpation disdains the Constitution. It mocks the separation of powers. And most consequentially, it introduces a fatal instability into law itself. If the law is not what is plainly written, but is whatever the president and his agents decide, what's left of the law?

    What's the point of the whole legislative process -- of crafting various provisions through give-and-take negotiation -- if you cannot rely on the fixity of the final product, on the assurance that the provisions bargained for by both sides will be carried out?

    Consider immigration reform. The essence of any deal would be legalization in return for strict border enforcement. If some such legislative compromise is struck, what confidence can anyone have in it -- if the president can unilaterally alter what he signs?

    Yet this president is not only untroubled by what he's doing, but open and rather proud. As he tells cheering crowds on his never-ending campaign-style tours: I am going to do X -- and I'm not going to wait for Congress.

    That's caudillo talk. That's banana republic stuff. In this country, the president is required to win the consent of Congress first.


    http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/opinion/perspectives/charles-krauthammer-on-drug-sentencing-obama-again-shows-the-law-is-not-the-law-699679/#ixzz2cJqll8ap

    ReplyDelete
  5. Why should the precarious state of the economy be an impediment? If anything, I'd expect that to be an excuse for increasingly totalitarian rule.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It means the govt gets deeper in debt until it gets harder and harder for the govt to issue real currency paychecks to its security forces. No security forces means no more govt authority.

      R7 Rocket

      Delete
  6. Titus Didius TacitusAugust 18, 2013 7:43 AM

    The obligation to work at a specific job already exists for divorced men obliged to work in what a family court decides is the job that will yield the most spousal support money. If the divorced man would prefer more leisure, if another career would interest him more, or even if he wants only to be bled for as much cash as possible but believes that another career, though less remunerative at first, could be a better earner later, that's not his choice to make. Prison looms if he loses his job and fails to find another of the same kind and just as well-paying.

    This is like slavery, that is a system where someone is coerced to do specific work and is treated as a piece of property.

    Since the government has many quasi-slaves already, in partnership with women who gain economically by in effect handing them over to the state for enslavement, it's only a short step for the government to decide that it can reduce other men to the same sort of status for its own reasons, without needing a woman to nominate them.

    Is it really so important that there be a skirt to say to the state: "make him labor at a job you choose; if he runs set the catchers after him, and confine him in a cage; and I will get my share of the proceeds and you will get yours"?

    ReplyDelete
  7. There is no legal need to them to keep operations going beyond that. At least, I can see none.

    Sure there is: they wanted a cyberspace honeytrap.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Thirteenth Amendment, bye-bye.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Now that it has been successfully established that Americans can be taxed for not engaging in economic activity, I suppose it makes sense that they can be charged with committing crimes by not engaging in it too

    In a similar vein, one can be punished for perceived discrimination rather than an actual instance one can cite. Link

    ReplyDelete
  10. Oh come now... the secular scientific-based egalitarian utopia is just around the corner. Pay no attention to all the scandals and the abuses of power. We just need to give the ruling classes more power and utopia will arrive... isn't that what left keeps telling us?



    ReplyDelete
  11. The US government - which the international bankers control and direct - is illegitimate.


    ReplyDelete
  12. If we just give the political classes absolute total control over every aspect of human existence, utopia will arrive. You just have to have faith... FAITH!

    ReplyDelete
  13. Going a step further, and applying government-speak, it seems apparent that owning any business, and shutting the doors for whatever reason, could be argued to be criminal as doing so damages taxpaying, trough slurping, workers dependent on their employment, and thus even a form of economic terrorism against government itself.

    We are truly entering the twilight zone.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "The US government - which the international bankers control and direct - is illegitimate."

    Perhaps? However there is a certain kind of karma that says, you should get what you deserve, just desserts for your own stupidity. The US Gov is still the voice of the people, it's just become the voice of the Stupid-People-Who-Lie-to-Themselves.

    NY for example is choosing between Anthony Weiner, Spitzer, and the Madam he exploited, while also conducting a debate about the inefficiency of city provided condoms (??!) that are apparently too small and too weak and wrecking havoc. Forgive me if this is too graphically sexual, but I am not really the one writing this weird, perverted, pornographic script that is NY politics.

    ReplyDelete
  15. yttik...."Most excellent, Titus. In a twist of cruelty, those same laws allegedly designed to protect women and children...only work against honorable men. I am so grateful that the majority of men are still honorable, in spite of all they suffer."

    There is a part of the legal process that is simply ransom. Money owed under court order can easily result in the accused being held in jail....indefinitely.....until the money is paid, either by a friend or family member. This is different from bail, which provides some measure of freedom awaiting trial (and is returned). Prosecutors (and CPS and Child Support Enforcement) know how to shake the money tree. Throw someone in jail for a few weeks or months (or years) and someone will pay for the accused. I can understand this as a practical necessity in cases where the accused has simply refused to pay what they owe but has the money in their pocket. This is what contempt of court is intended to remedy. But in those cases where the accused is simply flat broke (and may not have a rich uncle) the remedy simply does not work.

    What I consider worse is when the enforcement arm creates obstacles to employment but still expects "the tally of bricks, shall not be diminished". This is what becomes abusive. Whether it is child support, or income taxes, or student loans....the law is quick to put obstacles in the way of the only solution, i.e. new employment. They do this by putting pig tracks on your credit report (nearly all employers check this), lifting your passport (required for any foreign work), revoking your drivers license (commercial and operator), cancelling business, trade and professional licenses, revoking certifications, permits and seizing assests....such as the tools of the trade, vehicles, homes, and whatever else they can take of value. I used to wonder why applications for employment would ask if grown men in professional occupations had a valid drivers license (unless of course there was a DUI problem). But a valid drivers license can be revoked without court action by mere administrative edict.

    Yes, I am STILL expected to pay child support every month on the children I have that are over the age of 18, none of whom were ever in college. My oldest boy is 25 and he just re-enlisted in the regular Army for another tour of duty while stationed in Okinawa. My youngest daughter turned 20 last January. She works at Wal-Mart overnight and graduated high school two years ago. My older daughter is 27. She is divorced with three kids, living with her grandmother and working at a c-store. I am pretty certain none of them see a cent of the child support that is taken from me.

    The insane remedy for someone who has been out of work and cannot repay their student loan is to put a hold on their transcript of college coursework. This is completely self-defeating for all involved. By withholding the college transcript, it makes it very difficult for a person to get hired (especially in a crowded field of applicants). In some professions and occupations, it becomes impossible.....meaning no job, no income, and further behind on the repayment.

    ReplyDelete
  16. @Salt August 18, 2013 9:06 AM
    "Going a step further, and applying government-speak, it seems apparent that owning any business, and shutting the doors for whatever reason, could be argued to be criminal as doing so damages taxpaying..."



    Oh, you mean like a slave that refuses to work and then gets whipped by the master?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Your only hope, as I see it, is if there are enough sympathetic individuals in the security and intelligence services to sabotage these schemes, or prevent their enactment. Time for patriots to step up to the plate.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I was able to get some part-time summer work back in 2011, salvaging (recyling) the lumber from oversized pallets shipped from Germany to their windmill assembly plant in Arkansas. (I guess you could say it was another of the "green jobs" for ten bucks an hour.) It was physically strenuous with heavy lifting, lots of four foot crowbar and big hammer work. One day we took off early when the heat index got to 117 degrees.

    Anyway....I had occasion to engage in occasional small talk with some of the truck drivers that delivered the heavy loads from the shipping ports on the East Coast. At the time, the prices of fuel were well over four bucks a gallon and the drivers were grumbling about how they were working for "free". When I mentioned how in the past the truckers simply went on strike if necessary to get a correction for high fuel prices, each one of them became emphatic about how HOMELAND SECURITY has outlawed truck strikes. I never saw any announcement on this, but apparently the Federal HOMELAND SECURITY has decided that trucking is vital to the national security of the USA and therefore a truck strike is PROHIBITED under penalty of law. This could be another example of the government REQUIRING persons in certain civilian occupations to continue to do that work.....even if it is impractical or not financially rewarding....simply because it is vital to national security. By the way, this is not limited to those shippers who are involved in military or government loads. It includes ALL trucking.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I bet in the next 10-20 years one of these government agents is going to get shot and the jury isn't going to convict.

    ReplyDelete
  20. VD: "I suspect that only factors presently restraining the federal government from attempting to test how far they can go in the absence of those legal limits... "

    While you are correct in the short term, it is more likely that the power centers do not yet have to means to make the necessary slaughter of citizens complete: look for poison bearing drones of sufficiently small size to deliver death unobtrusively.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tiny poison drones can be used by rebels against high ranking state officials. The govt has more to fear the tech than ordinary citizens.

      R7Rocket

      Delete
  21. Hmmm...there was a comment between mine and Stilcho's, apparently since disappeared. He was the one I was answering, above, the one who saw no problem with this.

    ReplyDelete
  22. They seem to be upset that some choose to go Galt rather than participate in a potentially criminal enterprise. I think that at least some small portion of this country will see that this implies others in the ISP business may have *not* taken this stance.

    I would also be interested to see a suit brought for infringement of right under the 13th Amendment. Might be a novel and ironic defense for Mr Holder.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Eerily reminiscent of Rome's tax clamp down and forcing citizens to remain in taxable occupations.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Titus Didius TacitusAugust 18, 2013 11:00 AM

    Johnycomelately: "Eerily reminiscent of Rome's tax clamp down and forcing citizens to remain in taxable occupations."
    -
    Very.

    ReplyDelete
  25. > I suspect that only factors presently restraining the federal government from attempting to test how far they can go in the absence of those legal limits is a) the fact that the American people are very well-armed, and, b) the precarious state of the economy.

    This administration doesn't think the state of the economy is a problem, and couldn't care less if they make it worse. And they don't actually think the people will start shooting. I suspect it's simply inertia on the part of the existing government agencies. There's a reason they had to create a new one for "homeland security" after all.

    ReplyDelete
  26. At the end of the day, while things are turning to crap, it's best to spend your time making sure you're well off instead of spending all your complaining about things you cannot change.

    Americans are getting the government that at least 51% of them want. Let them get what they deserve. Now a part of this is because the government has realized that if they don't get the people they want, they'll just abolish the electorate with effectively unrestricted immigration.

    Basically adopting a sense of gallows humor will pay off, and if you set yourself up right, you'll be able to take advantage of the Dalits since they'll never amount to anything.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Sounds like Galting is now a crime.

    ReplyDelete
  28. be rich and politically connected and you won't have to worry about any of this

    middle class is screwed

    ReplyDelete
  29. I would suggest immediately killing every single government worker and politician after going around giving speeches to pump people up, complete with music, but I don't care about a nation of High N Women with tattooed ankles and alcohol problems.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I would suggest immediately killing every single government worker and politician after going around giving speeches to pump people up, complete with music, but I don't care about a nation of High N Women with tattooed ankles and alcohol problems.

    And those are just the guys...

    ReplyDelete
  31. And those are just the guys...

    HAH!

    ReplyDelete
  32. The other skepticAugust 18, 2013 11:20 PM

    And the Vibrant Cartels seek to employ vibrant US soldiers for killings and obtain interesting weapons.

    ReplyDelete
  33. sprach von TeufelhundenAugust 18, 2013 11:42 PM

    Well, someone here just suggested "killing every single government worker and politician." I'm sure the NSA just flagged you. No fear, someone on Friday just trumped your call. Someone on public radio/internet. That someone just personally issued SOS orders for GWB. SOS, which is not "Save Our Springs" (in Austin), or the general call for help. According it its issuer, it stands for "Shoot On Site." He said it, I didn't.

    Now, what is even more interesting, is that radio host's guest, comes on and countermands those orders. And, in quite friendly manner, rebukes his prescription for armed violence. It's probably best for you to hear these words for yourself. We are on the verge of a possible paradigm shift. And, it could begin to happen before the end of the year.

    Some here may listen to Alex Jones and hear him say "the answer is 1776." Either AJ is controlled, or he is just not thinking this through completely. AJ says he does not want armed resistance, but he speaks also for that kind of anger.

    The answer transcends 1776. To adopt a 1776, or "Lexington Green" solution, is to invite potential total annihilation, and/or process of slavery akin to the "stalkers" in Half-life 2. [1]

    Reagan's "Junkyard Dog" [2]



    -------------
    [1] The ancient Assyrians cut off the feat and arms of their slaves. Probably to prevent escape, on top of just pure brutality. It has been done before. It can happen again.

    [2] If you don't want to download from Google Drive, then go here, and download from original link.

    ReplyDelete
  34. The other skepticAugust 18, 2013 11:48 PM

    [1] The ancient Assyrians cut off the feat and arms of their slaves.

    I guess they never had any feats to start with.

    However, if you meant feet, it would have made those slaves rather useless, don't you think, sans arms and feet?

    Reminds me of arguing with people about how all Chinese women at one stage engaged in foot binding. Given that a lot of women at that time were personal servants, it would have been hard for them, having bound feet.

    ReplyDelete
  35. If you do not understand that the USA is now a legally totalitarian country

    Not as totalitarian as we are. LOL.

    By the way, I notice Stilicho at the top - one of my fellow conspirators in the Meredith Kercher trials.

    ReplyDelete
  36. > I'm sure the NSA just flagged you.

    If it isn't clear by now, anyone who expresses a pro 2nd amendment opinion, expresses a wish to return to a more constitutional based government, or expresses any displeasure with the actions of our current elected officials; is already being "flagged".

    ReplyDelete
  37. This article is mind blowing I read it and enjoyed. I always find this type of article to learn and gather

    fiction marketing

    ReplyDelete
  38. "I would suggest immediately killing every single government worker and politician after going around giving speeches to pump people up, complete with music."

    Make it a reality, chickenshit, or shut the fuck up.

    ReplyDelete

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.