samUwell |
01-26-2021 18:49 |
Quote:
Originally Posted by -SS-
(Post 19292271)
It's a combination between local, State, and Federal laws
It's so bad, that no one (not even the GAO) knows how many laws are out there. In fact, GAO doesnt even know how many federal laws there are. Look at how many counties there are in the USA (election maps can help there). You get the idea.
|
In one of the books I posed above (I think it was One nation under arrest), the author tells a story about this one American who was importing lobster from a Central/South American nation. Somehow, (I think it was from a competitor) the name of his company was given to the Feds which sent in the inspectors to inspect his cargo for contraband, and it turned up nothing. So, the Feds started digging through all his financials looking for anything they could charge him with, and again, they had nothing. So, they started looking deeper and they discovered some unknown trade agreement where citizens in the US can be charged for breaking foreign nations laws about trade and they found some never before heard of regulation in this foreign nation about transporting lobster in a special bag - something that this American wasn't doing - the US Feds charged him for this foreign law and threw the book at him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by -SS-
(Post 19292271)
Imo, the old adage 'ignorance of the law is no excuse' is ****ing horse****.
|
Our laws used to be based around Mens rea.
Quote:
Mens rea (/***712;m***603;nz ***712;re***618;***601;/; Law Latin for "guilty mind") is the mental element of a person's intention to commit a crime; or knowledge that one's action or lack of action would cause a crime to be committed. It is a necessary element of many crimes.
The standard common law test of criminal liability is expressed in the Latin phrase actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, i.e. "the act is not culpable unless the mind is guilty".[1]:113 In jurisdictions with due process, there must be both actus reus ("guilty act") and mens rea for a defendant to be guilty of a crime (see concurrence). As a general rule, someone who acted without mental fault is not liable in criminal law. Exceptions are known as strict liability crimes. Moreover, when a person intends a harm, but because of bad aim or other cause, the intent is transferred from an intended victim to an unintended victim, the case is considered to be a matter of transferred intent.[2]:63–64
In civil law, it is usually not necessary to prove a subjective mental element to establish liability for breach of contract or tort, for example. But if a tort is intentionally committed or a contract is intentionally breached, such intent may increase the scope of liability and the damages payable to the plaintiff.
|
This was the hurdle that the Feds needed to break in order to criminalize us all, and they did it. By removing the guilty mind aspect of breaking a law, they began to criminalize regulations that no one ever heard of and power-hungry potential politicians began 'getting tough on crime' and used these new criminal acts to highlight why they deserve to become a critter.
The One Nation Under Arrest book is a good bathroom book. Helps get the **** out if you know what I mean... :) But the book goes really good Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America's Police Forces.
And all of this ties directly back to the dangers of the private prison system and how their lobbyists can get critters to create more laws and make more of us criminals for unheard of regulations turned criminal acts.
|