BrianGarst.com

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

The Courts, Criminal Justice & Tort Archive

Wednesday

21

December 2011

0

COMMENTS

United Judicial Fiefdoms of America

Written by , Posted in Education, The Courts, Criminal Justice & Tort

It is hard to square the American ideal of representative government with this sort of news:

Denver District Court Judge Sheila Rappaport ruled in Lobato v. Colorado that the state’s funding system fails to provide the “thorough and uniform” education required by the constitution. She called the system “significantly underfunded,” even though Colorado now spends $3.2 billion, or about 45 percent of the $7 billion annual state budget, on K-12 education.

“There is not enough money in the system to permit school districts across the state to properly implement standards-based education and to meet the requirements of state law and regulation,” Judge Rappaport wrote in her Dec. 9 opinion. “There is not one school district that is sufficiently funded. This is an obvious hallmark of an irrational system.”

That’s funny, as I consider a singular, unelected judge determining it is her sole responsibility to set budget priorities as the hallmark of an irrational system.

I have 3 fundamental problems with this ruling: 1) It’s not the judge’s place to make such a determination, 2) Colorado education spending per pupil is in fact increasing, and 3) more spending has not worked in the past to improve education, and it won’t today.

While it can certainly be said that it was stupid of Colorado to include something as vague and meaningless in their Constitution as a requirement for “thorough and uniform” education, the responsibility to fulfill such a requirement is still necessarily legislative. Under what authority does this local judge imagine that her policy preferences outweigh those as expressed by the voters of Colorado, whom have already voiced their preferences for the spending of scarce resources? Consider the madness that would erupt if her petulant demands were actually carried out, and then tell me again what part of all this is irrational:

How much would it take to fund the state education system? The judge declined to name a dollar figure, but in her 189-page decision she cited a study introduced by the plaintiffs that called for an additional $2 billion to $4 billion per year.

That would require the state to devote 89 percent of the general fund to K-12 education, according to estimates by the attorney general’s office…

“I suppose you could basically shut down every other discretionary thing in the state budget,” said Independence Institute research director David Kopel on Friday’s edition of “Colorado Inside Out” on Colorado Public Television.

“We could get rid of higher education, get rid of the Colorado state patrol, get rid of every social service program we have in order to throw money into this sinkhole that Judge Rappaport pretends is mandatory under the constitution,” he said.

Unfortunately, this sort spontaneous judicial excitement is becoming increasingly common, hence the title of this post.

As you can see below, Colorado’s education spending, like that of the rest of the country, has been increasing steadily over time, even after being adjusted for inflation.

Will additional increases in spending actually help improve the quality of education? If history is anything to go by, the answer is a resounding no:

If this judge were actually serious about accomplishing her goal, she’d order the immediate abolition of the government’s monopoly on education.

Monday

10

October 2011

0

COMMENTS

Overgovernment: Pay Back Edition

Written by , Posted in Big Government, Energy and the Environment, The Courts, Criminal Justice & Tort

Here’s another feel-good edition of Overgovernment. A man subjected to persecution by an out of control EPA has been awarded $1.7 million. The details of the case are outrageous (Hat-tip: Cato@Liberty):

The just-resolved case started in 1996 when the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ordered its SWAT-like special operations team (equipped with M-16 rifles and police dogs) to raid the Canal Refinery, Mr. Vidrine’s workplace.  The raid led to a criminal investigation against Mr. Vidrine for allegedly unlawful storage and disposal of hazardous wastes under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).

Drugs and Hypnotism.  When asked to prove its case, the EPA turned to its star witness, Mike Franklin, who claimed he had taken samples of the allegedly hazardous material and had conducted tests proving Mr. Vidrine’s guilt.  The only problem is that neither Mr. Franklin nor the EPA could produce these tests. Whoops. With the credibility of the case already crumbling, it then came to light that Mr. Franklin suffered an addiction to cocaine, an addiction that often results in psychosis: loss of contact with reality, including false beliefs. Determined to press on, the EPA tried to prove its case by extracting truthful information from Mr. Franklin through hypnosis. But this too failed.

Personal Vendettas. Seemingly oblivious to the evidence against his case, government prosecutor Keith Phillips pressed forward with such zeal that some people began to ask questions. These questions produced interesting answers: First, it was discovered that Phillips sought to prolong the case against Vidrine so he could continue his affair with the FBI agent assigned to the case (Ekko Barnhill) instead of returning home to his wife in Dallas. Second, Phillips harbored a personal vendetta against Vidrine and seemingly wanted to do everything possible to make his life miserable. These motives fall a bit short of the “pursuit of justice” that is supposed to guide EPA cases.

Ruling. The 142-page ruling relates this “you can’t make this stuff up” story in a way that reflects Judge Rebecca Doherty’s obvious frustration for Phillips’ actions on behalf of the U.S. government. The judge wrote that Phillips, “set out with intent and reckless and callous disregard for anyone’s rights other than his own, and reckless disregard for the processes and power which had been bestowed on him, to effectively destroy another man’s life.”

Further good news comes from the fact that the government thug responsible for the case is actually paying a personal price (one just generally assumes in such situations that there will be little to no repercussions for such behavior):

A former U.S. EPA agent who spearheaded the wrongful indictment of an refining plant manager — possibly to cover up his affair with an FBI agent — has pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice and perjury in a related civil case.

Keith Phillips, who signed a plea bargain yesterday in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, faces up to 10 years in prison on the obstruction of justice count and five years for the perjury count.

Unfortunately, too many government thugs go unpunished for similar abuses, but at least in this one case justice seems to have been done.

Wednesday

21

September 2011

0

COMMENTS

A DoJ Initiative I Could Support, If Only I Could Trust the DoJ

Written by , Posted in Identity Politics, The Courts, Criminal Justice & Tort

The policing power is one of the most fundamental and essential powers of government, but it is also one of the most dangerous. While necessary to protect our liberties from encroachment by fellow citizens, police departments are also themselves a frequent source violations. Proponents of limited government must remain as leery of police officers and their authority as we are other concentrations of governmental power, although the tendency for far too many is to grant them unquestioning deference in the name of law and order.

Local police departments have proven incapable of effectively policing themselves, and prefer to sweep problems under the rug whenever possible. Given the inherent dangers in granting government agents with badges the authority to order citizens around, lock them away, or kill them without much likelihood of any repercussions, it is to our benefit that the dual sovereignty of state and federal governments provide an incentives to serve as a check on the excesses of the other, such as described by this story about the Department of Justice increasing investigations into local police behavior.

Unfortunately, the Department of Justice seems only interested in abuses against particular classes of individuals:

The Obama administration is ramping up civil rights enforcement against local police nationwide, opening a number of investigations to determine whether officers are guilty of brutality or discrimination against Hispanics and other minorities.

The civil rights of all are worth protecting against police brutality, not just those of the approved victim groups and Democratic voting blocs.

It is sad that, while there is a clear need for greater checks on the power of police departments throughout the nation, I simply do not trust this particular Justice Department, where under the guidance of Eric Holder hiring has been extremely politicized, to do so in a way that puts aside partisanship and eschews the social destructiveness of  identity politics.

Wednesday

21

September 2011

2

COMMENTS

Government Has Nerve to Complain About Poker Ponzi Scheme

Written by , Posted in Big Government, The Courts, Criminal Justice & Tort, The Nanny State & A Regulated Society

Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara, a vile cretin, has decided – now that the government has hounded their business, inhibited their use of reliable financial transaction services, and stolen $100+ million from U.S. poker players – that Full Tilt is a “ponzi scheme” because it can’t pay out what it owes. Gee, I wonder why that might be!

On Tuesday, the U.S. Justice Department in a civil suit accused Messrs. Lederer, Ferguson and Furst, and another director of the company behind the Full Tilt Poker website, of defrauding thousands of online poker players out of more than $300 million that is still owed to them…

“Full Tilt was not a legitimate poker company, but a global Ponzi scheme,” said Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara in a statement Tuesday. The U.S. government views online poker operations, at least those that cross state lines, as illegal.

…In a statement in August, Full Tilt acknowledged that it was having problems processing player money and said it lost $115 million to government seizure and $42 million it says was stolen by a third-party payment processor.

This thug has the gall to claim from his federal government perch that someone else is running a Ponzi scheme. What, is the government worried about the competition?

I’m not going to defend Full Tilt’s business practices, because I don’t know exactly what they did or did not do. It sounds like they made some questionable, shady and possibly criminal choices when they had reason to believe the noose was tightening. The government drove the market underground, and while individuals bear responsibility for their choices, so too must government accept responsibility for the consequences of not respecting fundamental individual rights. No matter the strength of their claims, it’s rather appalling for the government to seize $100 million in player funds from a company, then slap them with a crime for not having enough funds to met their obligations.

As a customer, I never expected that money deposited on poker sites sat in a bank account untouched anymore than I expect bank deposits to sit in a vault. But if Full Tilt was really scamming customers and not adequately prepared to meet their obligations, as significant evidence does suggest, then DoJ should have built a case on that basis, not stormed in and seized everything in reach from them and other sites. But all we really know now is that Full Tilt met all its obligations until the government thugs moved in for their cut, and then they didn’t. Even if the Feds can make their case, this still reeks of justification after the fact.

And just what is Preet Bharara doing with his ill-gotten goods, anyway? I don’t see him returning the money stolen by the government which is owed to me and millions more. And everything which the government has accused Full Tilt of doing, so too have they done with Social Security. Politicians promised that your involuntary deposits were safe, secure from the rest of the general funds, just as they say Tilt dishonestly claimed. It was a lie. Your money is gone, long ago spent on political pork and criminal vote-buying schemes. But don’t expect those indictments coming down anytime soon. So I ask: who are the bigger criminals here?

Sunday

18

September 2011

0

COMMENTS

Another Victory in Right to Film Police

Written by , Posted in The Courts, Criminal Justice & Tort

The right to film police officers in the course of their official duties is a common sense defense for citizens against the one-sided power of the badge and all the force of the state which stands behind it. Despite – or perhaps because of  – this fact, many police officers routinely harass, intimidate or assault citizens who film them in action, and corrupt DA’s charge them for violating unconstitutional interpretations of wiretapping laws, which were never intended to protect civil servants acting in public.

It is against this backdrop that a recent ruling by an Illinois judge should be seen as a victory for basic civil liberties.

An Illinois judge ruled the state’s eavesdropping law unconstitutional as applied to a man who faced up to to 75 years in prison for secretly recording his encounters with police officers and a judge.

“A statute intended to prevent unwarranted intrusions into a citizen’s privacy cannot be used as a shield for public officials who cannot assert a comparable right of privacy in their public duties,” the judge wrote in his decision dismissing the five counts of eavesdropping charges against defendant Michael Allison.

…The ruling is the most recent development raising questions about Illinois’ strict eavesdropping statute, which makes it a felony to use a device to audio record or overhear a conversation without the consent of all parties involved, regardless of the circumstances of the interaction.

Allison’s legal troubles began when he recorded his conversations with local police officers who he claimed were harassing him. The officers were seizing old cars he was fixing on his front lawn in violation of a city ordinance, which then forced him to pay a fee to have them returned.

When Allison was brought into court for violating the ordinance, he requested a court reporter so that he could have a record of his trial. The court declined his request and Allison announced that he would record the trial himself.

When he showed up to the courtroom for his trial, the judge immediately asked Allison if he had a recording device and if it was on. He answered yes and the judge had him arrested on the spot for violating her privacy.

When police confiscated Allison’s digital device, they found the other recordings. Allison was then charged with five felony counts of eavesdropping, each of which can carry a maximum 15-year prison sentence.

In Thursday’s ruling, Circuit Court Judge David Frankland said that Allison had a First Amendment right to record the police officers and court employees.

We have a long way to go before the  far-too-regular abuses of the state through the justice system are curtailed, but this is another important step on that path.

Monday

12

September 2011

0

COMMENTS

Lawsuits Shouldn't Replace the Exercise of Choice

Written by , Posted in The Courts, Criminal Justice & Tort

No one is forced to visit a particular establishment in the private sector. If a restaurant plays music you don’t like, you can eat somewhere else. If a grocery store arranges it’s product in a manner you find stupid, you can shop elsewhere. If a bookstore has uncomfortable chairs, you can choose not to sit in them, either by buying books and reading them at home, learning to read while standings, or going to a different store.

All of these things are plainly obvious to sensible people in a free society, and none are typically fodder for legal action. Why should the size of seating in a fast food joint be any different?

290lbs Martin Kessman, 64, is suing White Castle over claims he could not fit in booths at the chain’s restaurant in Nanuet, New York.

He claims White Castle offered him free hamburgers in responses to three separate complaints – but he still had to pay extra for cheese…

Mr Kessman claims he hurt his knee after knocking it against a metal support bar on the table and complained to company headquarters.

‘There were no tables and chairs that could accommodate a person that merely wanted to sit down and eat his meal,’ he alleged.

So don’t eat there! This guy says he complained three times, which means he went back even after he knew he couldn’t fit in their chairs. Why? Probably because he wanted to file a frivolous lawsuit and steal their money.

Private choice already provides all the social recourse that is possibly needed in such situations. Not only can Mr. Kessman find other locations that offer him more acceptable backside compensation, but he can contribute to the most important information a business can get regarding the quality of their service: sales. If enough people can’t fit in chairs, then the store will either realize why they are losing business and fix it, or go out of business. No one’s rights have been violated, and so at no stage of this process is government, via the judicial system, needed to intervene.

Friday

2

September 2011

1

COMMENTS

Years Later, Seized Land Used for Debris Dump

Written by , Posted in Big Government, Economics & the Economy, The Courts, Criminal Justice & Tort

In 2005, Kelo v. City of New London made eminent domain infamous. The widely reviled Supreme Court ruling gave the go ahead for the city of New London to use eminent domain for taking private property in order that it be given to a private company for “economic development.”

The public response was one of outrage. Facing the potential wrath of voters,  politicians across the country moved to add new protections against such abusive seizures. But that wasn’t enough to save the homes of the folks in New London, whose property never would be developed. Pfizer, the intended beneficiary of the land theft, walked away years ago from their development plans.

Now, to add new insult to injury, the vacant lot is a dump. Literally.

Following hurricane Irene, the city designated the site as a place to dump storm debris, and citizens can be seen doing just that in this video on the local paper’s website.

Doesn’t that make you feel all warm inside? The Supreme Court reassured us in Kelo that the government orchestrated theft “would be executed pursuant to a “carefully considered” development plan.” What they forgot to mention is that careful consideration from politicians is worth about as much as the city’s new debris dump, which is to say: diddly squat.

The fact of the matter is that the development of the property was already being “carefully considered” by the folks that owned it, as is the case for all privately held property, and in their careful consideration they wanted to keep living on it. The lesson of Kelo is not merely on the illusory nature of our property rights. It’s also about the abject failure that is central planning, and the inability of political forces to better plan economic activity than the private sector.

Tuesday

12

July 2011

0

COMMENTS

Emotional Legislating is Bad Government

Written by , Posted in The Courts, Criminal Justice & Tort

Never legislate under the influence of OUTRAGE! Case in point, the Casey Anthony brouhaha:

When Florida mother Casey Anthony was found not guilty of first-degree murder or manslaughter of her two-year-old daughter Caylee Tuesday, many Americans who had followed the case were outraged, including a woman in Oklahoma who decided to start a petition for a “Caylee’s Law.”

…Oklahoman Michelle Crowder, who is a mother of two daughters, says parents need to report their child’s disappearance immediately, and has started a Change.org petition and Facebook page to ask Congress to create a law to enforce that. “Caylee’s Law” would make it a federal offense and a felony for a parent or guardian to fail to report a child’s disappearance to law enforcement.

“Caylee’s Law” would make it a crime not to report a child missing within 24 hours, or dead within 1. The law is being drafted in several states right now.

“Caylee’s Law” is an absolutely terrible idea. Radley Balko explains:

Crowder concedes that she didn’t consult with a single law enforcement official before coming up with her 24-hour and 1-hour limits. This raises some questions. How did she come up with those cutoffs? Did she consult with any grief counselors to see if there may be innocuous reasons why an innocent person who just witnessed a child’s death might not immediately report it, such as shock, passing out, or some other sort of mental breakdown? Did she consult with a forensic pathologist to see if it’s even possible to pin down the time of death with the sort of precision you’d need to make Caylee’s Law enforceable? Have any of the lawmakers who have proposed or are planning to propose this law actually consulted with anyone with some knowledge of these issues?

…Contrary to what you may have learned from watching CSI, Downs says, there’s no way for a medical examiner to determine time of death in the sort of narrow window that would be necessary to enforce Caylee’s Law. “I understand that people are outraged, and I understand why they’d want a law like this, but I just don’t think it’s a good idea. I don’t see how you would enforce it,” Downs says. “You just can’t say for certain that a person died an hour and five minutes ago as opposed to 45 minutes ago.”

If medical science can’t pinpoint the time of the child’s death to the minute, how else are authorities going to determine it? They can’t ask the parent. A guilty person isn’t going to give you an honest answer, and even an innocent parent may lie if they fear the truth could land them in prison. It also seems safe to assume that a parent’s first instinct upon witnessing the death of a child isn’t to look up at the clock to take note of an official time of death.

…The portion of the bill that requires a parent to report a missing child within 24 hours is just as fraught with problems. When does that clock start? From the time the child actually gets abducted, gets lost, or is somehow killed, or at the time the parents noticed the child was missing? How do you pinpoint the time that they “noticed”?

…The law and the attention it attracts could also cause problems of overcompliance. How many parents will notify the authorities with false reports within an hour or two, out of fear of becoming suspects? How many such calls and wasted police resources on false alarms will it take before police grow jaded and begin taking note of missing child reports, but don’t bother investigating them until much later? How many legitimate abductions will then go uninvestigated during the critical first few hours because they were lost in the pile of false reports inspired by Caylee’s Law?

Just because you spotted what you think is a single injustice, does not make it a good idea to go off on an emotional crusade demanding that we “do something” about it. Law’s are blunt instruments, and the consequences are not simply limited to the one case you think you are addressing. You don’t get rid of a gnat by shooting it with a shotgun. Calm down, think a bit, and don’t overreact to every tragedy. Life is full of them, it’s just the way it is.

Wednesday

6

July 2011

0

COMMENTS

Sick and Tired

Written by , Posted in Big Government, The Courts, Criminal Justice & Tort

If this Reason.tv video doesn’t get your blood boiling, I don’t know what will.

The problem of police abuse, lack of accountability for so-called law enforcement, and a loss of confidence by the public in their would-be servants and protectors is a widespread problem that needs to be seriously addressed.

Unfortunately there are some, such as the Pima County GOP, who are thrusting their heads in the sand and siding with the rights violators over the rights holders by refusing to even allow discussion of the issue.

Pima County, you’ll remember, is where Iraq War veteran Jose Guerena was murdered by Sheriff Dupnik’s officers. When the local GOP Party Chairman Brian Miller dared question the propriety of a SWAT raid which saw Guerena gunned down because he was prepared to defend his wife and child against armed invaders who had no justification for being there, and which was followed by consistent lies and misinformation by the officers involved, the local party wienies decided to strip him of his office. They said (Hat-tip: The Agitator):

The role of the Republican Party is clear: to elect candidates and support those candidates once elected. The recent statements and actions of Chairman Brian Miller have not served to further those goals, but rather the opposite. Mr. Miller’s statements regarding the SWAT raid have created serious problems for our elected officials, money raising efforts and have divided the Party.  Mr. Miller was given repeated opportunities to either mend these fences or resign his position, and has chosen to do neither.  Instead, he has continued to make controversial statements to the press.

The role of the Pima County Republican Party is indeed clear: Defend statist thugs who murder veterans at all costs. Isn’t the GOP supposed to protect rights to life, liberty and property? What ever happened to that party?

Friday

3

June 2011

0

COMMENTS

Obama Administration Has Easy Solution to Avoid Individual Mandate

Written by , Posted in Economics & the Economy, Health Care, Welfare & Entitlements, The Courts, Criminal Justice & Tort

Don’t want to be forced to purchase government-approved health insurance? Worry not, the Obama administration has an easy opt-out (Hat-tip: Committee for Justice):

During the Sixth Circuit arguments, Judge Jeffrey Sutton, who was nominated by President George W. Bush, asked Kaytal if he could name one Supreme Court case which considered the same question as the one posed by the mandate, in which Congress used the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution as a tool to compel action.

Kaytal conceded that the Supreme Court had “never been confronted directly” with the question, but cited the Heart of Atlanta Motel case as a relevant example. In that landmark 1964 civil rights case, the Court ruled that Congress could use its Commerce Clause power to bar discrimination by private businesses such as hotels and restaurants.

“They’re in the business,” Sutton pushed back. “They’re told if you’re going to be in the business, this is what you have to do. In response to that law, they could have said, ‘We now exit the business.’ Individuals don’t have that option.”

Kaytal responded by noting that the there’s a provision in the health care law that allows people to avoid the mandate.

“If we’re going to play that game, I think that game can be played here as well, because after all, the minimum coverage provision only kicks in after people have earned a minimum amount of income,” Kaytal said. “So it’s a penalty on earning a certain amount of income and self insuring. It’s not just on self insuring on its own. So I guess one could say, just as the restaurant owner could depart the market in Heart of Atlanta Motel, someone doesn’t need to earn that much income. I think both are kind of fanciful and I think get at…”

First of all, I think the court got Heart wrong. Private businesses and individuals (unlike government) do have the right to discriminate for whatever reason they please, disgusting as some of those reasons may be – and we recognize a similar right to disgusting political speech. I also disagree with the typical leftist refrain which holds that, without such judicial findings, discrimination would still run rampant. I don’t think the courts were the real catalysts at all, but rather reflected already changing social mores. Courts rarely, if ever, jump out in front of political attitudes. This is not to say that they serve no purpose, but they tend to reflect popular opinion, or emerging popular opinion, more than they create it.

But let’s get back on topic.

This is a rather remarkable admission that the administration will no doubt be forced to start walking back. Obamacare is “a penalty on earning a certain amount of income and self insuring.” Maybe I’m just crazy, but aren’t these things we ought to be rewarding? Why are we penalizing people for being productive members of society, or being responsible enough to prepare for their own health needs? This kind of attitude toward productivity certainly goes a long way toward explaining the current economy.

Newer Entries →
← Older Entries

About Me

profileI serve as Vice President of the Center for Freedom and Prosperity, a non-profit think tank dedicated to preserving tax competition and free markets. This site features my personal views, which are not reflective of CF&P.

Search Site

Categories

Archives