Do you think things are just a little bit out of control???

[MyBlackBeasts]

How's that Big Govt thing working for you now, bubby... distgusting!

Alleged Armed Officers Shut Down Mass. Ice Cream Stand Indefinitely


Posted on May 16, 2012 at 4:48pm by Becket Adams
If you’re the owner of an ice cream stand in Massachusetts and you make building improvements without asking the state for permission, you may find yourself on the receiving end of a prohibition-style shutdown.


[/URL]Dibs on the mint chip…
An ice cream stand in Great Brook Farm State Park, MA (of course), was shut down by state officials this weekend after it was discovered that the owner had made building improvements without the appropriate permits, lowellsun.com reports.
“Mark Duffy, who has operated the dairy farm at the state-owned park for 26 years and has a lease with the state to run the stand, said armed Environmental Police officers showed up at stand on Friday evening and stood guard throughout the weekend, turning away customers,” lowellsun.com (http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Untouchables.png)’s Chris Camire reports.
And as if having the stand shutdown wasn’t bad enough, the park officials did it over Mother’s Day weekend.
“Edward Lambert, commissioner of the Department of Conservation and Recreation, said the stand was closed after it was discovered construction had been done without local or state permits,” Camire reports.
“The work, which expanded the stand, included construction on a barn built in 1910 that is adjacent to the stand,” the report adds.
Lambert’s excuse? He’s protecting the public until the state is positive the improvements are 100 percent safe.
“I like ice cream as much as anybody, so it pains us to even temporarily close what is an iconic property, but we have to make sure people eating ice cream there are safe,” said Lambert.
However, according to Duffy, who lives on the nearby farm with his wife, he has made plenty of improvements over the years and this is the first time the authorities have thrown a fit.
“The reason I’m here and the purpose of having me here is to improve the facility and operate a commercial dairy farm,” said Duffy, “I make improvements every single day and have for 26 years.”
And along with Duffy being put out of work there are also the 13 high school and college kids who worked there. They’re unemployed as well.


[URL="http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Closed.png"]You can’t see it but authorities also posted a sign that says “Santa isn’t real.”
(Image courtesy: Sun Staff/Bob Whitaker)
The ice cream stand and the dairy farm are situated on a 1,000-acre park where people come to hike, mountain bike, tour the dairy facilities, and, of course, eat ice cream.
“On a diversified farm like this, the only way to stay in business is to make all the pieces work together,” said Duffy. “I have expenses. I just don’t have that income anymore. It’s a seasonal business, but this was done on Friday at 6 p.m. on a beautiful Mother’s Day weekend.”
Lambert said he‘s not sure when he’ll allow Duffy to reopen the stand.

[Mote]

If this really happened as reported, the most disturbing thing IMO besides being armed to shield the public of potential harm is that there are "Environmental Police officers" at all.

[ImpalaSlayer]

If this really happened as reported, the most disturbing thing IMO besides being armed to shield the public of potential harm is that there are "Environmental Police officers" at all.
seriously, wtf. i mean i dont think the EPA is all bad but they are in way too much petty BS. they should stick to making sure people arnt dumping crap into lakes and stay the **** out of anyone elses business.

[DEFYANT]

Got money for repairs and upgrades? Then you have money to buy the permit and to do it right. The regulations were put in place to keep the rest of us safe from the corner cutters. Chances are, the armed EPA police were acting under the orders of a judge. Thats how it works!

[guspech750]

Total BS, but in the same breath. I do understand needing to have the proper permits.

Armed douchebags, really though?

[MyBlackBeasts]

Got money for repairs and upgrades? Then you have money to buy the permit and to do it right. The regulations were put in place to keep the rest of us safe from the corner cutters. Chances are, the armed EPA police were acting under the orders of a judge. Thats how it works!

True but that's not the point of the article, read deeper.

He has 'been there for years and never needed them before (this is a farm)
If on inspection, no permits were found then a fine is issued, the "update" is inspected and passed or if not passed is required to be corrected (total time - a few hours). To shut down the business for days+ is B.S. - out of control
Last but most important - ARMED COPS OF ANY TYPE!?!?! I wonder what the Brown Shirts count is up to... :shake: End Days...

[jimlam56]

Got money for repairs and upgrades? Then you have money to buy the permit and to do it right. The regulations were put in place to keep the rest of us safe from the corner cutters. Chances are, the armed EPA police were acting under the orders of a judge. Thats how it works!
I agree Charlie. Especially something that is open to the public.

[Mr. Man]

Got to go with Chuckie on this one. Everyone else needs a permit to add on so what makes him so special. As far as I'm aware most police in the USA are armed so nothing unusual there. I could go on but I'm tired.

[MyBlackBeasts]

Got to go with Chuckie on this one. Everyone else needs a permit to add on so what makes him so special. As far as I'm aware most police in the USA are armed so nothing unusual there. I could go on but I'm tired.

For shame... Apparently you are urban. Farms NEVER needed permits in the past which is why he did it w/o permits, read the article (its called personal property rights!!!). Beyond that, whether he had permits or NOT is not the point!!!!!!!!!!! The lack of a permit should only result in an a few hours delay NOT shutting a business down for days +!!!. How would you like it if the govt. came in to your employer and shut it down indefinitely resulting in you getting no PAYCHECK!!!!!!! till they decided they would allow you (by their leave) to work again... Just roll over & let big brother destroy your life and say its ok. Again, you are not seeing the deeper story. Thank god I won't be here in 50 years to see the destruction that has been done to the idea, dream and purpose of the USA... :shake:

[Mr. Man]

For shame... Apparently you are urban. Farms NEVER needed permits in the past which is why he did it w/o permits, read the article (its called personal property rights!!!). Beyond that, whether he had permits or NOT is not the point!!!!!!!!!!! The lack of a permit should only result in an a few hours delay NOT shutting a business down for days +!!!. How would you like it if the govt. came in to your employer and shut it down indefinitely resulting in you getting no PAYCHECK!!!!!!! till they decided they would allow you (by their leave) to work again... Just roll over & let big brother destroy your life and say its OK. Again, you are not seeing the deeper story. Thank god I won't be here in 50 years to see the destruction that has been done to the idea, dream and purpose of the USA... :shake:I live in what is left of the sticks of North Jersey.

This property he ran his business on is a State Park so I don't see where your argument of personal property rights has any merit.

I ran a successful construction business for many years and pulled permits all the time for small business owners, I don't see why you feel he should be exempt from the law. He sold food stuffs to the general public so there is also public safety concern. While the articles explanation was a bit sensationalized I have no issue with the State finally enforcing the rules everyone else follows.

[Fosters]

They should pass a tax on stupid people that way smart folks can be protected by the government in case they run into someone lower than themselves. Wouldn't want them get hurt by a flying ice cream scoop because some a-hole didn't get his permit before he plugged in the freezer. It's a wonder humanity survived without government protecting us so far.

[Krytin]

No permit - you're shut down. No fines. No delayed start-up. Get the permit and open up for bussiness the way everyone else (smart or stupid) has to.
If he got away with it before he should consider himself lucky.

[jerrym3]

I took a little car ride along the Hudson River last fall. The water was very clear.

Many years ago, the river was a big swimming hole, Then, pollution caused swimming to be banned..

Now, you make the call, but I can't see all the upstream corporations cutting back on Hudson River pollution from the goodness of their hearts.

[Haggis]

I took a little car ride along the Hudson River last fall. The water was very clear.

Many years ago, the river was a big swimming hole, Then, pollution caused swimming to be banned..

Now, you make the call, but I can't see all the upstream corporations cutting back on Hudson River pollution from the goodness of their hearts.

Hudson River, "very clear water". :confused:

Swimming was banned; I guess I never got the memo when I was a kid.

I agree with you on the last sentence. See my first sentence above.

[jerrym3]

Hudson River, "very clear water". :confused:

Swimming was banned; I guess I never got the memo when I was a kid.

I agree with you on the last sentence. See my first sentence above.

There hasn't been anybody swimming in the Hudson on the Jersey side for years.

Don't be confused.

1) When you can look into the water and actually see the bottom (at least until the water gets deep), that's clear in Hudson River terminology.

2) When you can walk along the shore and not see floating garbage or parts of dead people, that's clear.

I took these shots along the Hudson last fall of a bathing, changing, shower building that was very popular back in the 40's. Then, they closed the beach to swimmers, and all that's left of the building now is the stone foundation.

I also saw some pictures taken back then that you would swear were of Coney Island. Bathers side by side.........in the Hudson.

[duhtroll]

If you make changes to your apartment in violation of your lease, your landlord keeps your damage deposit, too.

Same thing. The state owns the land and that means they can do whatever they want with it. The guy knowingly went without permits and he is therefore solely to blame.

[Haggis]

There hasn't been anybody swimming in the Hudson on the Jersey side for years.

Don't be confused.

1) When you can look into the water and actually see the bottom (at least until the water gets deep), that's clear in Hudson River terminology.

2) When you can walk along the shore and not see floating garbage or parts of dead people, that's clear.

I took these shots along the Hudson last fall of a bathing, changing, shower building that was very popular back in the 40's. Then, they closed the beach to swimmers, and all that's left of the building now is the stone foundation.

I also saw some pictures taken back then that you would swear were of Coney Island. Bathers side by side.........in the Hudson.

Where were those pictures taken? I do not remember that through all my years growing up on the Hudson on the Jersey side and I use to swin in the Hudson in the '70's.

[CBT]

How's that Big Govt thing working for you now, bubby... distgusting!

Alleged Armed Officers Shut Down Mass. Ice Cream Stand Indefinitely


Posted on May 16, 2012 at 4:48pm by Becket Adams
If you’re the owner of an ice cream stand in Massachusetts and you make building improvements without asking the state for permission, you may find yourself on the receiving end of a prohibition-style shutdown.


Dibs on the mint chip…

An ice cream stand in Great Brook Farm State Park, MA (of course), was shut down by state officials this weekend after it was discovered that the owner had made building improvements without the appropriate permits, lowellsun.com reports.
“Mark Duffy, who has operated the dairy farm at the state-owned park for 26 years and has a lease with the state to run the stand, said armed Environmental Police officers showed up at stand on Friday evening and stood guard throughout the weekend, turning away customers,” lowellsun.com (http://www.lowellsun.com/todaysheadlines/ci_20635020/ice-cream-spot-hits-rocky-road)’s Chris Camire reports.
And as if having the stand shutdown wasn’t bad enough, the park officials did it over Mother’s Day weekend.
“Edward Lambert, commissioner of the Department of Conservation and Recreation, said the stand was closed after it was discovered construction had been done without local or state permits,” Camire reports.
“The work, which expanded the stand, included construction on a barn built in 1910 that is adjacent to the stand,” the report adds.
Lambert’s excuse? He’s protecting the public until the state is positive the improvements are 100 percent safe.
“I like ice cream as much as anybody, so it pains us to even temporarily close what is an iconic property, but we have to make sure people eating ice cream there are safe,” said Lambert.
However, according to Duffy, who lives on the nearby farm with his wife, he has made plenty of improvements over the years and this is the first time the authorities have thrown a fit.
“The reason I’m here and the purpose of having me here is to improve the facility and operate a commercial dairy farm,” said Duffy, “I make improvements every single day and have for 26 years.”
And along with Duffy being put out of work there are also the 13 high school and college kids who worked there. They’re unemployed as well.


You can’t see it but authorities also posted a sign that says “Santa isn’t real.”

(Image courtesy: Sun Staff/Bob Whitaker)


The ice cream stand and the dairy farm are situated on a 1,000-acre park where people come to hike, mountain bike, tour the dairy facilities, and, of course, eat ice cream.
“On a diversified farm like this, the only way to stay in business is to make all the pieces work together,” said Duffy. “I have expenses. I just don’t have that income anymore. It’s a seasonal business, but this was done on Friday at 6 p.m. on a beautiful Mother’s Day weekend.”
Lambert said he‘s not sure when he’ll allow Duffy to reopen the stand.


Sounds like Mr. Duffy ruined everyone's Mothers Day.

[jerrym3]

Where were those pictures taken? I do not remember that through all my years growing up on the Hudson on the Jersey side and I use to swin in the Hudson in the '70's.

Here you go.

http://s1109.photobucket.com/albums/h436/jvmarcone/Jersey%20cruising%20up%20the%2 0Hudson%20by%20car/

Henry Hudson Drive stars just south of the GW Bridge in Fort Lee, NJ, goes under the Bridge, heads north along the river, and ends at the NY/NJ State line (last pics). (Great little road trip for local MM guys.)

There are three boat basins along the drive that used to get VERY popular at night way back when (submarine race watchers).

[Mr. Man]

Where were those pictures taken? I do not remember that through all my years growing up on the Hudson on the Jersey side and I use to swim in the Hudson in the '70's. Now the puzzle is starting to make sense.:lol::P

[MyBlackBeasts]

I live in what is left of the sticks of North Jersey.

This property he ran his business on is a State Park so I don't see where your argument of personal property rights has any merit.

I ran a successful construction business for many years and pulled permits all the time for small business owners, I don't see why you feel he should be exempt from the law. He sold food stuffs to the general public so there is also public safety concern. While the articles explanation was a bit sensationalized I have no issue with the State finally enforcing the rules everyone else follows.

Sorry, I was very upset & over-reacted in my previous reply. My aunt was just ambulanced to hospital after passing out in her home and I'm just far enough away that I can't be there. I apologize.

Apparently some of you are missing the point of my post and the article.


Are permits & regs important and have a valid purpose? Yes
Do I think the guy should face consequences for not having permit? Yes
Do I believe that shutting his business down and halting his and the employee's income is the proper response and consequence to a missing piece of bureaucratic paper? No. This is massive overreach of government and what the point of my post and the article is
Using Janet Reno to storm the Branch Davidians to accomplish the above? Do I even have to comment... :shake:
This is his business (private property no matter where the location), having armed personal invade his business and shut it down for something so trivial is an unwarranted attack on his personal property rights - just like the cops storming your home for no valid reason)

Accepting and allowing government to overreach it's power is the classic pattern in any socialist take over of a society. Frog in hot water... The USA was established to have the govt serve the people - not lord over them and rule in tyranny.

My entire adult life I have been watching this country slowly be destroyed from within by destruction of the education system, incrementallism, apathy & complacency. It is sad and I am having a hard time dealing with it.

[duhtroll]

The article says he has a lease with the state.

So he may own the business, but he doesn't own anything on that land.

[MyBlackBeasts]

If you make changes to your apartment in violation of your lease, your landlord keeps your damage deposit, too.

Same thing. The state owns the land and that means they can do whatever they want with it. The guy knowingly went without permits and he is therefore solely to blame.

Yes, to blame, a mistake was made. Consequences = pay his fine & comply with any issues till all is ok - business stays open.

Shut the business down & terminate all the incomes supplied by the business - no, not acceptable. Bureaucracy out of control.

Seems like a lot of people are perfectly ok with stopping other peoples paychecks. What would the reaction be if you walked in to your job and were told they were not going to pay you until further notice because the govt shut them down. Do onto others...

[BODYMAN]

Funny how a thing like this starts in Massachusetts. The same state that already had implamented it's own Helath care system. Socialism at its very best.

[BODYMAN]

Where were those pictures taken? I do not remember that through all my years growing up on the Hudson on the Jersey side and I use to swin in the Hudson in the '70's.

I know that feeling. There are quite a few places I swam as a kid which are now shut down or deemed unsafe. Makes U wander what it did or is still doing to you? something? nothing?

[Mr. Man]

Sorry, I was very upset & over-reacted in my previous reply. My aunt was just ambulanced to hospital after passing out in her home and I'm just far enough away that I can't be there. I apologize.

Apparently some of you are missing the point of my post and the article.


Are permits & regs important and have a valid purpose? Yes
Do I think the guy should face consequences for not having permit? Yes
Do I believe that shutting his business down and halting his and the employee's income is the proper response and consequence to a missing piece of bureaucratic paper? No. This is massive overreach of government and what the point of my post and the article is
Using Janet Reno to storm the Branch Davidians to accomplish the above? Do I even have to comment... :shake:
This is his business (private property no matter where the location), having armed personal invade his business and shut it down for something so trivial is an unwarranted attack on his personal property rights - just like the cops storming your home for no valid reason)

Accepting and allowing government to overreach it's power is the classic pattern in any socialist take over of a society. Frog in hot water... The USA was established to have the govt serve the people - not lord over them and rule in tyranny.

My entire adult life I have been watching this country slowly be destroyed from within by destruction of the education system, incrementalism, apathy & complacency. It is sad and I am having a hard time dealing with it.

I am sorry to hear your Aunt is under the weather so to speak and hope her a speedy recovery.

While I sympathise and agree with many of your points, it is my guess that the police didn't just show up one day and shut him down w/o any prior notice. I speculate that the parks dept or whoever handles permits made numerous attempts to get this man to comply with its rules. My guess is he ignored the notices as they never did anything to him in the past and the shutdown was the result.

When I read the article the first time I imagined dozens of cops with machine guns turning patrons away at gun point and I find that hard to believe. I wasn't there but my best guess is that when someone came up to get an ice-cream a policeman told them the business had been shutdown and that they would need to go elsewhere for their ice-cream.:)

[duhtroll]

Strange, because I deal with that very threat every single day.

The landlord analogy still applies. Dad installs an appliance (or something) which is against the lease, but the whole family can be evicted for it. Sure, tragedy for the kids but that is the father's responsibility.

Just like the employees' jobs are the employer's.

And the article didn't say the stand was permanently shut down - only until it was in compliance.

I don't see how they could do otherwise, since the state is likely liable for anything that happens as a result of the unlawful modifications.

I suppose the business owner would volunteer to pay for any lawsuits made from injury resulting from his modifications without permit?

Yeah, right.

Sorry, but legally there is no real problem here. It is not as if the guy didn't know what he was doing. People build without permits all the time. It takes a real ********* to complain about the fine when they get caught.


Yes, to blame, a mistake was made. Consequences = pay his fine & comply with any issues till all is ok - business stays open.

Shut the business down & terminate all the incomes supplied by the business - no, not acceptable. Bureaucracy out of control.

Seems like a lot of people are perfectly ok with stopping other peoples paychecks. What would the reaction be if you walked in to your job and were told they were not going to pay you until further notice because the govt shut them down. Do onto others...

[sailsmen]

I live in what is left of the sticks of North Jersey.

This property he ran his business on is a State Park so I don't see where your argument of personal property rights has any merit.

I ran a successful construction business for many years and pulled permits all the time for small business owners, I don't see why you feel he should be exempt from the law. He sold food stuffs to the general public so there is also public safety concern. While the articles explanation was a bit sensationalized I have no issue with the State finally enforcing the rules everyone else follows.

I have a gun aimed at your head in the interest of safety. Let me shove my hand up your a@@ and finger your wife's vagina in the interest of safety. I have never heard of armed building inspectors.

This goes along with the Dept of Ed issuing no knock warrants by SWAT for student loans.

It is time to march while we still can.

Gov't spends 44% of GDP or $58,100 per private sector worker.

STOCKTON, CA - Kenneth Wright does not have a criminal record and he had no reason to believe a S.W.A.T team would be breaking down his door at 6 a.m. on Tuesday.

"I look out of my window and I see 15 police officers," Wright said.

Wright came downstairs in his boxer shorts as a S.W.A.T team barged through his front door. Wright said an officer grabbed him by the neck and led him outside on his front lawn.

"He had his knee on my back and I had no idea why they were there," Wright said.

According to Wright, officers also woke his three young children ages 3, 7, and 11 and put them in a Stockton police patrol car with him. Officers then searched his house.

As it turned out, the person law enforcement was looking for was not there - Wright's estranged wife.

"They put me in handcuffs in that hot patrol car for six hours, traumatizing my kids," Wright said.

Wright said he later went to the mayor and Stockton Police Department, but the City of Stockton had nothing to do with Wright's search warrant.

The U.S. Department of Education issued the search and called in the S.W.A.T for his wife's defaulted student loans.

"They busted down my door for this," Wright said. "It wasn't even me."

According to the Department of Education's Office of the Inspector General, the case can't be discussed publicly until it is closed, but a spokesperson did confirm that the department did issue the search warrant at Wright's home.

The Office of the Inspector General has a law enforcement branch of federal agents that carry out search warrants and investigations.

Stockton Police Department said it was asked by federal agents to provide one officer and one patrol car just for a police presence when carrying out the search warrant.

Stockton police did not participate in breaking Wright's door, handcuffing him, or searching his home.

"All I want is an apology for me and my kids and for them to get me a new door," Wright said.

News10/KXTV

http://www.news10.net/news/article/1...kton-mans-door

[sailsmen]

Originally Posted by duhtroll
If you make changes to your apartment in violation of your lease, your landlord keeps your damage deposit, too.

Same thing. The state owns the land and that means they can do whatever they want with it. The guy knowingly went without permits and he is therefore solely to blame.

So lets blow his head off and burns his remains!

All private enterprise are witches and should be killed with their remains burned.

There are over 300,000 Federal Laws. We need more armed police to make sure they are all compled with.

[sailsmen]

With 300,000 Fed Laws we are all criminals and should all be incarcerated. Look them all up.



As Criminal Laws Proliferate, More Are Ensnared .

By GARY FIELDS and JOHN R. EMSHWILLER

Eddie Leroy Anderson of Craigmont, Idaho, is a retired logger, a former science teacher and now a federal criminal thanks to his arrowhead-collecting hobby.


.

In 2009, Mr. Anderson loaned his son some tools to dig for arrowheads near a favorite campground of theirs. Unfortunately, they were on federal land. Authorities "notified me to get a lawyer and a damn good one," Mr. Anderson recalls.

There is no evidence the Andersons intended to break the law, or even knew the law existed, according to court records and interviews. But the law, the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, doesn't require criminal intent and makes it a felony punishable by up to two years in prison to attempt to take artifacts off federal land without a permit.



FEDERAL OFFENSES
Many Failed Efforts to Count Nation's Federal Criminal Laws
.
Faced with that reality, the two men, who didn't find arrowheads that day, pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor and got a year's probation and a $1,500 penalty each. "We kind of wonder why it got took to the level that it did," says Mr. Anderson, 68 years old.

Wendy Olson, the U.S. Attorney for Idaho, said the men were on an archeological site that was 13,000 years old. "Folks do need to pay attention to where they are," she said.

The Andersons are two of the hundreds of thousands of Americans to be charged and convicted in recent decades under federal criminal laws—as opposed to state or local laws—as the federal justice system has dramatically expanded its authority and reach.

As federal criminal statutes have ballooned, it has become increasingly easy for Americans to end up on the wrong side of the law. Many of the new federal laws also set a lower bar for conviction than in the past: Prosecutors don't necessarily need to show that the defendant had criminal intent.



On the Wrong Side of the Law


See a breakdown of the rise of federal sentences by the type of offense.

An Act for the Punishment of Crimes


The first federal criminal statute, signed into law on April 30, 1790, includes only a handful of offenses: treason, counterfeiting, piracy, and murder, maiming and robbery in federal jurisdictions. It fit on to two sheets of parchment, each around 27 inches by 22 inches, and was handwritten in iron gall ink.

The law is currently kept in a vault in the National Archives in Washington, D.C. See a digital copy, or click here to read the text.

.
.
These factors are contributing to some unusual applications of justice. Father-and-son arrowhead lovers can't argue they made an innocent mistake. A lobster importer is convicted in the U.S. for violating a Honduran law that the Honduran government disavowed. A Pennsylvanian who injured her husband's lover doesn't face state criminal charges—instead, she faces federal charges tied to an international arms-control treaty.

The U.S. Constitution mentions three federal crimes by citizens: treason, piracy and counterfeiting. By the turn of the 20th century, the number of criminal statutes numbered in the dozens. Today, there are an estimated 4,500 crimes in federal statutes, according to a 2008 study by retired Louisiana State University law professor John Baker.

There are also thousands of regulations that carry criminal penalties. Some laws are so complex, scholars debate whether they represent one offense, or scores of offenses.

Counting them is impossible. The Justice Department spent two years trying in the 1980s, but produced only an estimate: 3,000 federal criminal offenses.

The American Bar Association tried in the late 1990s, but concluded only that the number was likely much higher than 3,000. The ABA's report said "the amount of individual citizen behavior now potentially subject to federal criminal control has increased in astonishing proportions in the last few decades."

A Justice spokeswoman said there was no quantifiable number. Criminal statutes are sprinkled throughout some 27,000 pages of the federal code.

There are many reasons for the rising tide of laws. It's partly due to lawmakers responding to hot-button issues—environmental messes, financial machinations, child kidnappings, consumer protection—with calls for federal criminal penalties. Federal regulations can also carry the force of federal criminal law, adding to the legal complexity.

With the growing number of federal crimes, the number of people sentenced to federal prison has risen nearly threefold over the past 30 years to 83,000 annually. The U.S. population grew only about 36% in that period. The total federal prison population, over 200,000, grew more than eightfold—twice the growth rate of the state prison population, now at 2 million, according the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics

Tougher federal drug laws account for about 30% of people sentenced, a decline from over 40% two decades ago. The proportion of people sentenced for most other crimes, such as firearms possession, fraud and other non-violent offenses, has doubled in the past 20 years.

The growth in federal law has produced benefits. Federal legislation was indispensable in winning civil rights for African-Americans. Some of the new laws, including those tackling political corruption and violent crimes, are relatively noncontroversial and address significant problems. Plenty of convicts deserve the punishment they get.

Roscoe Howard, the former U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, argues that the system "isn't broken." Congress, he says, took its cue over the decades from a public less tolerant of certain behaviors. Current law provides a range of options to protect society, he says. "It would be horrible if they started repealing laws and taking those options away."

Still, federal criminal laws can be controversial. Some duplicate existing state criminal laws, and others address matters that might better be handled as civil rather than criminal matters.

Some federal laws appear picayune. Unauthorized use of the Smokey Bear image could land an offender in prison. So can unauthorized use of the slogan "Give a Hoot, Don't Pollute."

The spread of federal statues has opponents on both sides of the aisle, though for different reasons. For Republicans, the issue is partly about federal intrusions into areas historically handled by states. For Democrats, the concerns include the often lengthy prison sentences that federal convictions now produce.

Those expressing concerns include the American Civil Liberties Union and Edwin Meese III, former attorney general under President Ronald Reagan. Mr. Meese, now with the conservative Heritage Foundation, argues Americans are increasingly vulnerable to being "convicted for doing something they never suspected was illegal."

"Most people think criminal law is for bad people," says Timothy Lynch of Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank. People don't realize "they're one misstep away from the nightmare of a federal indictment."


Associated Press
Driver Bobby Unser got a criminal record after being lost in a blizzard.
.
Last September, retired race-car champion Bobby Unser told a congressional hearing about his 1996 misdemeanor conviction for accidentally driving a snowmobile onto protected federal land, violating the Wilderness Act, while lost in a snowstorm. Though the judge gave him only a $75 fine, the 77-year-old racing legend got a criminal record.

Mr. Unser says he was charged after he went to authorities for help finding his abandoned snowmobile. "The criminal doesn't usually call the police for help," he says.

A Justice Department spokesman cited the age of the case in declining to comment. The U.S. Attorney at the time said he didn't remember the case.

Some of these new federal statutes don't require prosecutors to prove criminal intent, eroding a bedrock principle in English and American law. The absence of this provision, known as mens rea, makes prosecution easier, critics argue.

A study last year by the Heritage Foundation and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers analyzed scores of proposed and enacted new laws for nonviolent crimes in the 109th Congress of 2005 and 2006. It found of the 36 new crimes created, a quarter had no mens rea requirement and nearly 40% more had only a "weak" one.

[sailsmen]

Associated Press
Justice Anthony Kennedy, pictured, recently voiced concern over a statute.
.
Some jurists are disturbed by the diminished requirement to show criminal intent in order to convict. In a 1998 decision, federal appellate judge Richard Posner, a noted conservative, attacked a 1994 federal law under which an Illinois man went to prison for three years for possessing guns while under a state restraining order taken out by his estranged wife. He possessed the guns otherwise legally, they posed no immediate threat to the spouse, and the restraining order didn't mention any weapons bar.

"Congress created, and the Department of Justice sprang, a trap" on a defendant who "could not have suspected" he was committing a crime, Judge Posner wrote.

Another area of concern among some jurists is the criminalization of issues that they consider more appropriate to civil lawsuits. In December, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which is considered liberal, overturned the fraud conviction of a software-company executive accused of helping to issue false financial statements. The government tried "to stretch criminal law beyond its proper bounds," wrote the Circuit's chief judge, Alex Kozinski.

Civil law, he said, is a better tool to judge "gray area" conduct—actions that might, or might not, be illegal. Criminal law, he said, "should clearly separate conduct that is criminal from conduct that is legal."

Occasionally, Americans are going to prison in the U.S. for violating the laws and rules of other countries. Last year, Abner Schoenwetter finished 69 months in federal prison for conspiracy and smuggling. His conviction was related to importing the wrong kinds of lobsters and bulk packaging them in plastic, rather than separately in boxes, in violation of Honduran laws.

According to court records and interviews, Mr. Schoenwetter had been importing lobsters from Honduras since the mid-1980s. In early 1999, federal officials seized a 70,000-pound shipment after a tip that the load violated a Honduran statute setting a minimum size on lobsters that could be caught. Such a shipment, in turn, violated a U.S. law, the Lacey Act, which makes it a felony to import fish or wildlife if it breaks another country's laws. Roughly 2% of the seized shipment was clearly undersized, and records indicated other shipments carried much higher percentages, federal officials said.

In an interview, Mr. Schoenwetter, 65 years old, said he and other buyers routinely accepted a percentage of undersized lobsters since the deliveries from the fishermen inevitably included smaller ones. He also said he didn't believe bringing in some undersized lobsters was illegal, noting that previous shipments had routinely passed through U.S. Customs.

After conviction, Mr. Schoenwetter and three co-defendants appealed, and the Honduran government filed a brief on their behalf saying that Honduran courts had invalidated the undersized-lobster law. By a two-to-one vote, however, a federal appeals panel found the Honduran law valid at the time of the trial and upheld the convictions.

The dissenting jurist, Judge Peter Fay, wrote: "I think we would be shocked should the tables be reversed and a foreign nation simply ignored one of our court rulings."

Robert Kern, a 62-year-old Virginia hunting-trip organizer, was also prosecuted in the U.S. for allegedly breaking the law of another country. Instead of lobsters from Honduras, Mr. Kern's troubles stemmed from moose from Russia.

He faced a 2008 Lacey Act prosecution for allegedly violating Russian law after some of his clients shot game from a helicopter in that country. In the end, he was acquitted after a Russian official testified the hunters had an exemption from the helicopter hunting ban. Still, legal bills totaling more than $860,000 essentially wiped out his retirement savings, Mr. Kern says.

Justice Department officials declined to comment on Messrs. Kern and Schoenwetter.












Charlie Litchfield for The Wall Street Journal
Would-be inventor and felon Kirster Evertson: 'If I had abandoned the chemicals, why would I have told the investigators about them?'
.
One area of expansion has been environmental crimes. Since its inception in 1970, the Environmental Protection Agency has grown to enforce some 25,000 pages of federal regulations, equivalent to about 15% of the entire body of federal rules. Many of the EPA rules carry potential criminal penalties. Krister Evertson, a would-be inventor, recently spent 15 months in prison for environmental crimes where there was no evidence he harmed anyone, or intended to.

In May 2004 he was arrested near Wasilla, Alaska, and charged with illegally shipping sodium metal, a potentially flammable material, without proper packaging or labeling.

He told federal authorities he had been in Idaho working to develop a better hydrogen fuel cell but had run out of money. He had moved some sodium and other chemicals to a storage site near his workshop in Salmon, Idaho, before traveling back to his hometown of Wasilla to raise money by gold-mining.

Mr. Evertson said he believed he had shipped the sodium legally. A jury acquitted him in January 2006.

However, Idaho prosecutors, using information Mr. Evertson provided to federal authorities in Alaska, charged him with violating the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, a 1976 federal law that regulates handling of toxic waste. The government contended Mr. Evertson had told federal investigators he had abandoned the chemicals. It also said the landlord of the Idaho storage site claimed he was owed back rent and couldn't find the inventor—allegations Mr. Evertson disputed.

Once the government deemed the chemicals "abandoned," they became "waste" and subject to RCRA. He was charged under a separate federal law with illegally moving the chemicals about a half-mile to the storage site.

"If I had abandoned the chemicals, why would I have told the investigators about them?" said Mr. Evertson in an interview. He added that he spent $100,000 on the material and always planned to resume his experiments.

Prosecutors emphasized the potential danger of having left the materials for two years. "You clean up after yourself and don't leave messes for others," one prosecutor told the jury, which convicted Mr. Evertson on three felony counts. Prosecutors said clean-up of the site cost the government $400,000. Mr. Evertson, 57, remains on probation, working as night watchman in Idaho.

In a statement, Ms. Olson, the Idaho U.S. Attorney, said that by leaving dangerous chemicals not properly attended he endangered others and caused the government to spend more than $400,000 in clean-up costs. "This office will continue to aggressively prosecute" environmental crimes, she said.

Critics contend that federal criminal law is increasingly, and unconstitutionally, impinging on the sovereignty of the states. The question recently came before the Supreme Court in the case of Carol Bond, a Pennsylvania woman who is fighting a six-year prison sentence arising out of violating a 1998 federal chemical-weapons law tied to an international arms-control treaty. The law makes it a crime for an average citizen to possess a "chemical weapon" for other than a "peaceful purpose." The statute defines such a weapon as any chemical that could harm humans or animals.

Ms. Bond's criminal case stemmed from having spread some chemicals, including an arsenic-based one, on the car, front-door handle and mailbox of a woman who had had an affair with her husband. The victim suffered a burn on her thumb.

In court filings, Ms. Bond's attorneys argued the chemical-weapons law unconstitutionally intruded into what should have been a state criminal matter. The state didn't file charges on the chemicals, but under state law she likely would have gotten a less harsh sentence, her attorneys said.

Last month, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled Ms. Bond has standing to challenge the federal law. By distributing jurisdiction among federal and state governments, the Constitution "protects the liberty of the individual from arbitrary power," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the court. "When government acts in excess of its lawful powers, that liberty is at stake."

During oral arguments in the case, Justice Samuel Alito expressed concern about the law's "breadth" by laying out a hypothetical example. Simply pouring a bottle of vinegar into a bowl to kill someone's goldfish, Justice Alito said, could be "potentially punishable by life imprisonment."

[sailsmen]

I remember the 1960's and hippies. Back then Liberal meant leave me alone to live my life the way I want.
Today Liberal means live your life the way Gov't says to live it.

300,000 Fderal Laws and 1 out of 7 workers are Gov't workers!

President Obama - "We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

[Fosters]

Critics contend that federal criminal law is increasingly, and unconstitutionally, impinging on the sovereignty of the states. The question recently came before the Supreme Court in the case of Carol Bond, a Pennsylvania woman who is fighting a six-year prison sentence arising out of violating a 1998 federal chemical-weapons law tied to an international arms-control treaty. The law makes it a crime for an average citizen to possess a "chemical weapon" for other than a "peaceful purpose." The statute defines such a weapon as any chemical that could harm humans or animals.

Ms. Bond's criminal case stemmed from having spread some chemicals, including an arsenic-based one, on the car, front-door handle and mailbox of a woman who had had an affair with her husband. The victim suffered a burn on her thumb.

In court filings, Ms. Bond's attorneys argued the chemical-weapons law unconstitutionally intruded into what should have been a state criminal matter. The state didn't file charges on the chemicals, but under state law she likely would have gotten a less harsh sentence, her attorneys said.

Last month, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled Ms. Bond has standing to challenge the federal law. By distributing jurisdiction among federal and state governments, the Constitution "protects the liberty of the individual from arbitrary power," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the court. "When government acts in excess of its lawful powers, that liberty is at stake."

During oral arguments in the case, Justice Samuel Alito expressed concern about the law's "breadth" by laying out a hypothetical example. Simply pouring a bottle of vinegar into a bowl to kill someone's goldfish, Justice Alito said, could be "potentially punishable by life imprisonment."

I remember reading about that, Alito is awesome. :D

[Fosters]

I remember the 1960's and hippies. Back then Liberal meant leave me alone to live my life the way I want.
Today Liberal means live your life the way Gov't says to live it.

300,000 Fderal Laws and 1 out of 7 workers are Gov't workers!

President Obama - "We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/524473_366653806726672_1000014 61678627_1083442_1695234985_n. jpg

:D

[Mr. Man]

I have a gun aimed at your head in the interest of safety. Let me shove my hand up your a@@ and finger your wife's vagina in the interest of safety. I have never heard of armed building inspectors.


God I hope this is some crazy phrase you heard somewhere because if it is your own words directed at me we have a problem and you better hope we never meet.

The story part I deleted is irrelevant to what was posted above so I deleted it.

[Fosters]

God I hope this is some crazy phrase you heard somewhere because if it is your own words directed at me we have a problem and you better hope we never meet.

The story part I deleted is irrelevant to what was posted above so I deleted it.

Cmon, that's obviously an exaggeration of the whole quote by Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety".

It's a response to those who read the story and go: "THAT SON OF A ***** DIDN'T HAVE A ****ING PERMIT!!!"

It's a damned permit! Have we really become so complacent and so dependent on government provided illusion of "safety" that we can't think for ourselves on what ice cream stand may be safe to approach and which might not, placing all of our trust on whether an ice cream stand has a "PERMIT" for their enhancements and which doesn't??

No wonder stuff like the TSA gets by with groping grandma and granddaughter alike and no one says a damned thing. Same damned thing, different government employee keeping you "safe".

:shake:

[MM2004]

Seriously?

Time to flush the toilet.

Mike.