Paranoia Is Rational

On the heels of the California Supreme Court decision about cell phone searches comes a great discussion of what the decision means on a practical level from Ars Technica. Here's a quote I want to highlight:

A May 2010 study from the conservative Heritage Foundation and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers found that three out of every five new nonviolent criminal offenses don't require criminal intent. The Congressional Research Service can't even count the number of criminal offenses currently on the books in the United States, estimating the number to be in the "tens of thousands."

So, are you still certain you're not a criminal? To use my favorite example, just remember it is a violation of federal law (i.e. a crime) to use many cleaning products in a manner inconsistent with their labeling.

We've reached the point where the game is thoroughly stacked against Joe Q. Citizen. The .gov can find proof of some sort of crime, given enough evidence to parse. You may not think the .gov will ever be interested in you, and you may be right. However, given some of the more absurd examples of incompetence displayed lately, you may come under the crosshairs entirely by accident. Remember, its' not paranoia if they're out to get you.

Why give the .gov any help? Password protect your phone and don't talk to the cops.

Never Talk

So, Roger Clemens is going to be indicted for perjury over his testimony to the feds. This comes on the heels of the news that former Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich (D-Hairhelmet) was convicted of exactly 1 of the 24 counts against him. Coincidentally, the charge he got stuck with was lying to the feds.

I'm no great legal theorist, but the feds have cleverly managed to make talking to them seem like the worst possible option. If they're bound and determined to get you, they simply parse through every statement you've made to them, find one where they have plausible (but not necessarily dispositive) evidence to the contrary, and bingo! Time in a federal penitentiary for you, bucko.

What's more pathetic, in my opinion, is that perjury has become the fall back prosecution when they can't pin anything else on an otherwise innocent victim. No insider trading occurred? Perjury! Can't get the conviction on corruption charges? Perjury! Not enough evidence for steroid charges? Perjury!

Let us also not forget the feds are completely free to lie to you if they think doing so will help them convict you or others. You have a statutory duty not to lie, but they have no such corresponding obligation. You can also be prosecuted for lying, but federal agents won't get sanctioned for anything up to and including accidentally killing you. There's a pretty severe imbalance on the consequences scale going on here.

Given the well-publicized cases lately, I just don't see why anybody talks to the feds at all, let alone voluntarily. Anybody having any contact with the feds should smile cheerfully and invoke their 5th amendment rights. Alternatively, you can pull the "I do not recall at this time" routine. Either way seems preferable to later being prosecuted for perjury.

Read and Weep

Paranoia, government overreach, and collusion with industry. This story has it all, and I urge you to go read the whole thing.

Evidence, Please

I have avoided commenting about the FLDS raid and the aftermath. Lots of allegations being tossed around but surprisingly little hard evidence was coming out. As things turned out, that's because CPS and the rest of the minions of the state of Texas didn't have much in the way of actual, supportable evidence. Of course, if you don't believe me, you might believe the Third Court of Appeals. The ruling is here, and a fairly lengthy breakdown of the decision can be found over at Lone Star Times.

I'll give you the thirty second summary. In order to justify removing children, CPS alleged a whole host of things for which they have no supporting evidence. All this was done because somebody thinks the FLDS is creepy and strange.

This ruling is a victory for all of us who care about civil liberties and any of us who might be considered creepy and strange. The bar for the state coming in and taking your kids ought to be set pretty goddamned high, and should be based on something more than just the personal prejudices of state workers. As personally repellent as I may find the FLDS belief system, the members have a right to hold those beliefs and to teach their beliefs to their children. The state doesn't get to come in and take hundreds of kids because mommy and daddy don't believe what the state thinks they should. That way lies a particularly vile form of tyranny that we've seen before elsewhere, and we sure as hell shouldn't acquiesce to someone trying it in the US.

Grits for Breakfast has been all over the case from the get go. He's also got a good post up on the burning question of who's going to pay for this giant clusterfuck. With cost estimates running up to $21 million dollars, somebody is going to take a huge budgetary hit. Maybe the cost, if nothing else, will cause the idiots who triggered the investigation to look a bit more closely next time.

Untrustworthy Bastards

And by "Bastards" I mean the Secret Service. Heartless Libertarian has the details.