Corruption Corner – Page 38

Just Because You’re Innocent Doesn’t Mean the State Can’t Take Your Stuff

While everybody was trying to fight the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) the United States government was acting like the law was already passed. The United States government seized the assets of Megaupload after accusing the company of assisting pirates. Now the government has come out and said even if the charges again Megaupload are dismissed they have no obligation to released the seized assets:

The government also argued that it could keep Megaupload in legal limbo indefinitely. “None of the cases impose a time limit on service,” the government’s attorney told the judge. Therefore, the government believes it can leave the indictment hanging over the company’s head, and keep its assets frozen, indefinitely.

How convenient, when due process becomes a hinderance you merely keep the accused in a state of legal limbo and that allows you to keep their assets indefinitely. What this maneuver does is show that this case case about two things; first, this case was about striking fear into the hearts of oversea operations that may or may not assist in violating United States intellectual property laws and second, this case was about stealing other peoples’ shit (which is how governments get all of their wealth).

The State, Protecting the Politically Connected from Competition Since Inception

People often mistake the United States for a free market economy, it’s not. The United States economy can best be described as fascist, where the difference between private business and the state is practically nonexistent.

This protection racket often targets individuals who want to start businesses that require very little initial capital, such as food carts:

In Holland, Michigan, a 13-year-old entrepreneur thought he would be able to sell hot dogs and financially help his disabled parents with the purchase of a food cart. Unfortunately, city zoning officials have shut down his business, based on an ordinance that prohibits competition to brick-and-mortar restaurants from mobile food vendors.

Why don’t teenagers have jobs anymore? Because every time they attempt to get a job or show some entrepreneurial spirit they’re blocked by the state. Established businesses don’t want to compete with teenagers who have very low expenses (they generally live at home and don’t have to pay food, water, electricity, or cable bills) and are usually very skilled at operating on small budgets. In a free market the established businesses would have to suck it up and deal with the fact teenagers could open shop and provide goods and services to customers. In the fascist economy of the United States an established business need only petition the state and ask it to prohibit competition in some way.

What’s Illegal for Us is Legal for Them

Although it’s illegal for mere peasants to impersonate police officers it’s now legal for police officers to impersonate you:

In November 2009, police officers in the state of Washington seized an iPhone belonging to suspected drug dealer Daniel Lee. While the phone was in police custody, a man named Shawn Hinton sent a text message to the device, reading, “Hey whats up dogg can you call me i need to talk to you.” Suspecting that Hinton was looking to buy drugs from Lee, Detective Kevin Sawyer replied to the message, posing as Lee. With a series of text messages, he arranged to meet Hinton in the parking lot of a local grocery store—where Hinton was arrested and charged with attempted possession of heroin.

[…]

But can cops legally do this with seized cell phones? When their cases went to trial, Hinton and Roden both argued that Sawyer had violated their privacy rights by intercepting, without a warrant, private communications intended for Lee.

But in a pair of decisions, one of which was recently covered by Forbes, a Washington state appeals court disagreed. If the decisions, penned by Judge Joel Penoyar and supported by one of his colleagues, are upheld on appeal, they could have far-reaching implications for cell phone privacy.

The problem with statism is that it inherently has two sets of laws, a private set that individuals must follow and a public set that apply to the state itself. This always ends with the state, under their separate system of law, being able to do things individuals cannot. For example, an individual who impersonates a police officer will likely land in prison whereas a police officer who impersonates an individual will be congratulated on a job well done. If somebody owes you a debt and you kidnap them and lock them in your basement you’ll be charged with kidnapping, if the police kidnap you and lock you in a cage for not paying taxes they’re again congratulated on a job well done.

Having two systems of law ultimate means one group, namely the state as they are the ones allowed to make the laws in both systems, gains advantage over the other. Behavior that would land an individual in jail, say robbery or murder, are legal for the state to perform.

What’s worse is that the state is granted a monopoly on deciding both sets of laws. Generally this means the state will grant itself immense power and restrict the liberty of individuals. When an individual opposes one of the state’s claimed powers they make their case in front of a state controlled court, which often rules on the side of the state. Liberty cannot exist so long as multiple sets of rules exist. In order for true liberty to exist everybody must play by the same set of rules.

SOPA Being Introduced in Pieces

The state has been having a difficult time passing their pet bill to punish those who violate the copyrights of their cronies. Americans won’t raise too much fuss until you go after their Internet but once that line is crossed they actually start getting incredibly angry. Needless to say passing the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) didn’t happen, attempting to rename the bill to pass it has failed to get through the Senate (but has already passed the House), and the politically well-connected copyright holders are losing patients. What’s the state to do? Easy, pass the legislation in small pieces:

While it didn’t get nearly as much attention as other parts of SOPA, one section in the bill that greatly concerned us was the massive expansion of the diplomatic corp.’s “IP attaches.” If you’re unfamiliar with the program, basically IP attaches are “diplomats” (and I use the term loosely) who go around the globe pushing a copyright maximalist position on pretty much every other country. Their role is not to support more effective or more reasonable IP policy. It is solely to increase expansion, and basically act as Hollywood’s personal thugs pressuring other countries to do the will of the major studios and labels. The role is literally defined as pushing for “aggressive support for enforcement action” throughout the world. A few years ago, we detailed how, at a meeting of these attaches, they bitched and complained about how copyright “activists” were making their lives difficult and were a “threat” who needed to be dealt with.

In other words, these people are not neutral. They do not have the best interests of the public or the country in mind. Their job is solely to push the copyright maximalist views of the legacy entertainment industry around the globe, and position it as the will of the US government.

It was good that this was defeated as a part of SOPA… but now comes the news that Lamar Smith is introducing a new bill that not only brings back this part, but appears to expand it and make it an even bigger deal.

As I said previously, “The rule of thumb with politics is this: if there is money backing a bill it will be passed.” Whether by hook or by crook the cronies will get what they want and the people will suffer under new tyrannies. Unfortunately there are 435 voting members of Congress and 50 senators whose job is to write, propose, and attempt to pass legislation. Because of the sheer number of these crooks it’s almost impossible to keep an eye on what every one of them is doing at all times.

The State Protecting Big Tobacco Interets

One of the things that amazes me are people who cite regulations against big cigarette companies as an example of regulations working well. They believe that the state’s actions against big tobacco companies that required printing warning labels on cigarette packs, taxing cigarettes, and restring the smoking at to 18 years is undeniable proof that the state wants to protect us against companies that peddle poison. In actuality big tobacco companies, like all other businesses, receive a great deal of protection from the state. Take the recent passage of legislations that taxes owners of roll-your-own cigarette machines the same as cigarette manufacturers, it basically destroys the roll-your-own market and further protects the interests of large tobacco companies:

But a few paragraphs added to the transportation bill changed the definition of a cigarette manufacturer to cover thousands of roll-your-own operations nationwide. The move, backed by major tobacco companies, is aimed at boosting tax revenues.

Faced with regulation costs that could run to hundreds of thousands of dollars, RYO machine owners nationwide are shutting down more than 1,000 of the $36,000 machines.

Not surprisingly Philip Morris backed this legislation:

“I feel it’s kind of shaky,” Wiessen said. “The man who pushed for this bill is Sen. (Max) Baucus from Montana, and he received donations from Altria, a parent company of Philip Morris. Interestingly enough, there are also no RYO machines in the state of Montana. It really makes me question the morals and values of our elected speakers.”

It’s obvious why Philip Morris supported this bill. Large cigarette manufacturers can easily soak up the cost of additional taxes but small shops cannot. While the large cigarette companies have to pay more in taxes, which negatively affects their profits, they also don’t have to deal with many of their former competitors, which greatly increases their profits as customers of those small operations are forced to move to the larger competitors. The state giveth and the state taketh away. While they hurt the interests of large tobacco companies in some ways they’ve also moved to protect those same companies from competition on a free market.

In other words the state doesn’t care if you smoke so long as you’re buying their crony’s stuff.

Innocence Doesn’t Matter in the American Punishment System

This isn’t news to anybody who has paid attention to the ongoings of the so-called justice system in the United States. The system isn’t about justice, it’s about punishing anybody and everybody:

From Aug. 21 until Oct. 12, Teresa Culpepper was locked in the Fulton County Jail.

And all that time she insisted she was not the woman police wanted for throwing hot water on Angelo Boyd — a man she had never met, a man who said he had never met her either.

At any time during those 53 days, the various entities in Atlanta’s and Fulton County’s justice systems could have saved her from the cracks she had fallen through.

But day after day they ignored protestations that “you’ve got the wrong person,” something most of them hear all the time.

Even with things that “didn’t add up,” police and prosecutors moved forward with a case against Culpepper. The case continued even though Boyd told police and the Fulton District Attorney’s Office several times Culpepper was not the woman who attacked him.

Even though the victim specifically said Culpepper wasn’t his attacker the case against her was pursued. Although my next statement is based purely on conjecture I have to believe there is some reason the state continues to pursue cases against obviously innocent individuals, and I believe that case is to keep the state’s slave labor entity, Federal Prison Industries, or UNICOR, stocked with laborers.

People often complain about privatizing prisons because the private entities controlling the prisons are interested in seeking profits and therefore try to exploit the prison force as cheap labor. What these people don’t realize is that the federal government does the exact same thing through it’s wholly-owned corporation UNICOR.

Under federal law the federal government must source all materials produced by UNICOR through UNICOR unless they are given permissions by UNICOR to seek a third-party supplier [PDF]:

The question of whether UNICOR is unfairly competing with private businesses, particularly small businesses, in the federal market has been and continues to be an issue of debate. The debate has been affected by tensions between competing interests that represent two social goods — the employment and rehabilitation of offenders and the need to protect jobs of law abiding citizens. At the core of the debate is UNICOR’s preferential treatment over the private sector. UNICOR’s enabling legislation and the Federal Acquisition Regulation require federal agencies, with the exception of the Department of Defense (DOD), to procure products offered by UNICOR, unless authorized by UNICOR to solicit bids from the private sector. While federal agencies are not required to procure services provided by UNICOR they are encouraged to do so. It is this “mandatory source clause” that has drawn controversy over the years and is the subject of current legislation.

What a beautiful little scam they have going on there. Not only are they able to exploit the prisoners but they also control the laws that determine who the prisoners will be. In other words the federal government has a vested interest in maintaining a large prison population so it can keep itself stocked with cheap goods and services. I’m sure many states have similar programs to UNICOR and that would give them justa s much vested interest in ensuring a large prison population is maintained. Nothing screams conflict of interest like an entity in charge of punishing individuals also reaps great rewards for punishing individuals.

Thou Shalt Not Interfere in the State’s Fund Raisers

In a classic example of “If you fuck with the state the state will fuck with you!” a woman has been place in jail for warning motorists of nearby speed traps:

Natalie Plummer was riding her bicycle home from the grocery store when she noticed several cars beng pulled over for speeding. Hoping to save a few drivers from a potentially pricey ticket, she turned one of her paper bags into a sign that warned of the waiting police ahead.

While she was doing so, an officer pulled up and arrested her.

“I was completely abiding by the law,” she told KRTK. “I was simply warning citizens of a situation ahead.”

The Houston police, however, were not amused by her tactics and arrested her for, believe it or not, “standing in the street where a sidewalk is present,” an offense that not only sounds ridiculous, but that Plummer also denies even doing.

Natalie attempted to prevent individuals from being victimized by the state and its fund raiser attempt. As she was interfering with the state’s wealth transfer they arrested her. While holding up a sign qualifies as free speech there is always a law that can be used to shutdown a meddlesome individual who has the audacity to help their fellow individuals.

No Dissent is Allowed at the King’s Castle

What happened when a group of individuals decided to exercise their supposed Constitutionally protected right to protest their government over Fast and Furious? They were shutdown by the Secret Service:

Maurice Lewis, a student at the University of California, Merced, who marched in the event told Campus Reform that the Secret Service had seemed on edge well before the “suspicious package” was discovered.

“Several agents seemed hostile to our march and seemed anxious for us to leave the area,” said Lewis. “The discover the ‘unidentified package’ came just as the protest began gain traction.”

The Secret Service reopened the the portion of Pennsylvania Ave. that borders the White House shortly after protesters, who had been waiting nearby on 15th street for nearly half an hour, had dispersed. Agents did not communicate with organizers during that time.

Neither the White House nor the nearby Treasury building were shutdown. Employees of both building and members of the White House media were allowed to traverse the evacuated zone while protesters were kept out.

Apparently the “unidentified package” was severe enough to stop the protest until the protesters left but not severe enough to evacuate nearby buildings. Nothing about that claim doesn’t scream suppressing the right to seek redress from the government. It’s also not surprising, the king doesn’t like it when the peasants start protesting at the castle. What is surprising is that the Secret Service didn’t arrest any of the protesters under suspicion of leaving the “unidentified package” (then again if they arrested somebody they would have to explain their reason under more scrutiny so it also makes sense that no arrests were made).

Conflict of Interest to Shield Eric Holder from Prosecution

Sometimes I hate being right:

Unfortunately for the American people this vote will likely result in nothing of consequence. Even while condemning each other statists have a habit of ensuring no real punishment befalls their fellow comrades.

The Department of Justice has announced that they’ll shield Eric Holder from prosecution:

The Justice Department moved Friday to shield Attorney General Eric Holder from prosecution after the House voted to hold him in contempt of Congress.

The contempt vote technically opened the door for the House to call on the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia to bring the case before a grand jury. But because U.S. Attorney Ronald Machen works for Holder and because President Obama has already asserted executive privilege over the documents in question, some expected Holder’s Justice Department to balk.

Here is the problem with trying to bring charges against the head of the Department of Justice, the Department of Justice is the organization that has to act on those charges. This conflict of interest allows members of the executive branch to shield themselves. Now those trying to prosecute Holder have to move through the court system but the court system itself has not enforcement arm, they rely on the executive branch for that so even if they find Holder guilty they still have to convince Holder’s underlings to actually move against him.

I’m guessing this attempt to shield Holder will go until the end of the election. If Obama wins the election he may decide to throw Holder under the bus at that time.

More on the Supreme Court Ruling

I’ve been skimming through the 193 page Supreme Court decision [PDF] regarding the Affordable Healthcare Act and I must say, they’re right. The individual mandate is ruled constitutional through Congress’s power to tax, specifically the penalty fee that must be paid by those without a minimum level of health insurance is seen as a punishment for non-compliance with taxation. I haven’t had time to do a detailed read but I must also face the fact that the Constitution does grant Congress the power to tax, in fact it’s one of the most egregious powers granted to the federal government in the Constitution.

When you think about it this is really an affirmation of what has been done for ages. Every person in the United States is made to buy many things including aircraft carriers, nuclear missiles, Predator drones, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, monuments in Washington D.C., salaries for politicians, roads, armaments for federal agencies, etc. We’re forced to purchase these goods through federal taxes. If we’re forced to purchase aircraft carriers why can’t we be forced to purchase health insurance?

One of the problems with taxation, beyond the fact it’s a form of theft, is the fact it’s a mechanism to force individuals to do business with those they generally wouldn’t do business with. I have no use for a aircraft carriers or nuclear submarines so would have little reason to do business with Northrop Gruman, but through taxation I am forced to do business with them. How many people wanted to do business with Solyndra? Obviously not enough to keep the company afloat, yet we were all forced to do business with them through taxation. Taxation is another form of subsidy as it gives wealth to companies that would likely not obtain it through free markets.

In all honesty little has changed with this Supreme Court ruling. Let’s look at the Solyndra case for a moment. Solyndra obtained most of their funding through various government grants and a bailout. Congress could have funded Solyndra using a different mechanism, namely by forcing everybody to buy solar panels from Solyndra. It wouldn’t be terribly difficult to justify, Congress would merely have to write legislation that purported to advance self-sufficiency and renewable energy or as a mechanism to fight terrorism by decentralizing the power grid. The reason they didn’t do that is because people get upset when they are forced to buy something from a company but are generally complacent when it comes to paying taxes. In other words throwing a layer of obscurity between tax victims and receivers of tax money keeps the public happier. This Supreme Court ruling merely removed that layer of obscurity, which allows people to see where their tax money is going directly.

What has really changed with this ruling? Nothing. Congress and the Supreme Court have merely decided to flaunt their powers openly instead of from the shadows. Given time we’re all going to learn precisely how “free” we are in this country.