Tag Archives: law

The Soft Kitty Big Bang Copyright Nightmare

Posted on by

Copyright-term-extension-minUnited States, you’ve done it to yourself.

A woman named Edith Newlin wrote a poem in 1937. The Willis Music Co. published the poem in a book called Songs for the Nursery School that same year. Seventy years later the producers of a television show called the Big Bang Theory got permission from Willis Music to use those lyrics as a song in their show. They did not get permission from Newlin or her estate.

Newlin died in 2004 but her daughters are now suing.

I’m a writer and I believe those who create intellectual property own it and should have the exclusive right to make money from it for a period of time. The Copyright Clause of the United States Constitution reads as follows: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

The Founding Fathers felt fourteen years was a good number for that “limited Times” with another fourteen years available if the author was still alive and filed to renew.

In 1831 the clause was changed so that the period of time was twenty-eight years with renewal available for fourteen more. The reason Congress did this was to give a fellow by the name of Noah Webster more time to profit from sales of his dictionary. You may have heard of it.

In 1909 the renewal period was extended to twenty-eight years. That’s a total of fifty-six years.

Assuming Newlin reissued her rights; by the standards of copyright laws in the original constitution the Soft Kitty song would have expired its sole ownership rights in 1965. By 1993 using the 1909 law.

The reason the Founding Father’s used the term “limited Times” is for the precise reason that the producers of the Big Bang show are now using the song. Newlin had plenty of time to make money off her work and by allowing it to extend into the public domain people can do more things with it. They can use it to entertain people.

Mickey Mouse, created in 1928, was set to become public property in 1984 so in 1976, anticipating this disaster, Congress voted to extend the “limited Times” to the life of the author plus fifty years. Another twenty years was tacked onto this in 1998. For Newlin this means the rights of her heirs to be paid for the song extend to 2074. The are other nuances to the law but I won’t get into them.

The vote in the Senate was 97 – 0 and in the House 316 – 7.

I could go on for quite a while about all of this and why it is so wrong but I’m going to stick to the point of this blog. As Nelson of the Simpson’s might have succinctly pointed out, Ha-ha!

Here’s the reality, like it or not. The daughters of Newlin have an excellent case. The published version of the song made it clear that Newlin retained rights. The publishing company had no right to authorize anyone else use. Copyright laws extend 70 years past the date of her death.

CBS, open those wallets.

Congress, take note. Write bad laws, expect insane lawsuits.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Girl in Glass I: Apparition
Next Release: The Gray Horn

Kansas City Drug Raid that Produced Nothing Based on Bad Evidence Was Legal

Posted on by

hydroponic-tomato-and-drug-raidI wrote a post about a drug raid that took place at the home of Robert and Addie Harte back in March of 2013. The family spent $25,000 of their own money compelling the police department to explain how they chose that home to raid. When they found out a lawsuit was filed. The result of that suit is in.

More information about the raid and the reasons behind it have come out since I wrote the original piece and I’ll summarize here but I’d highly recommend you visit the link I just posted and read the excellent article in the Washington Post written by Radley Balko. He gets it.

Basically the Harte’s visited a local garden shop in order to purchase supplies for a hydroponic experiment their son was conducting. The police apparently keep surveillance on such stores and note every licence plate of customers. They used this information to find the home of the Harte’s and searched their garbage on several occasions. This does not require a warrant. Flawed field tests returned false positive results for marijuana on loose leaf tea in the garbage. The police could have waited ten days to wait for more accurate lab tests but decided not to do so.

Police are well aware that field test results return false positives at an alarming rate, over 70% of positive results are false. They presumably like it that way. In an example given in the article by Balko there is a link to a video of a field test kit used for cocaine resulting in a false positive on a bag of air.

The police used the false positive results, on a substance described by lab personnel as not physically resembling marijuana in any way, to gain a warrant for a search. After twenty minutes of searching for a major crime scene they started looking for marijuana in small quantities for personal use. After two hours they found nothing and left.

The Harte’s had to spend $25,000 to find this out. The police in Kansas largely don’t have to explain their actions to anyone.

A judge heard this and dismissed all charges summarily. There was not even enough evidence of wrongdoing by the police to go to trial.

What does this say about the laws we live under? What does this say about the War on Drugs as a whole?

The police can, without any fear, take your license plate for doing ordinary shopping. Search your garbage. Use fatally flawed tests to obtain warrants. Come into your home and terrorize you. When they find nothing, you have no legal recourse. You must simply take it.

If this happens to a well-to-do family in an upscale Kansas City neighborhood do you imagine you are safe from such attacks?

This is a government using the mantra of fear to take away your freedom. Beware the scary drugs. We’re only doing this to protect you, to make you safe.

The government is most certainly not making us safer. They are putting us in greater danger AND taking away our freedom.

I’ve said it before and I’ll repeat it now. End the War on Drugs. Make us safer and more free.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Girl in Glass I: Apparition
Next Release: The Gray Horn

Monica Pompeo, Lesbians, and Academic Standards

Posted on by

critical-thinking-abilityI just read an interesting case that has largely concluded in New Mexico wherein a student named Monica Pompeo filed a lawsuit against the University of New Mexico.

Pompeo took a course called Images of (Wo)men: From Icons to Iconoclasts in which the syllabus suggested that students have open minds to examine representations of a plethora of genders and sexualities. Her opinion of lesbians was that they were perverse and had barren wombs.

The original story about the lawsuit describes how professors seemed to harangue Pompeo for her negative comments about lesbians in the essay but the updated article tells a different story. Had I only read the original story I would have sided with Pompeo. In the updated story where the judge did further examination it was found that Pompeo was not asked to change her opinion but simply to substantiate it with critical thinking as is required in an academic environment.

Pompeo was spoken to about rewriting the paper so that it conformed with the requirements of the course, critical thinking, rather than rewrite it to conform with a particular ideology. Pompeo refused. Her academic advisor, the professor, and the professor’s immediate supervisor all reviewed the paper and came to the same conclusion. That the thoughts Pompeo laid out were not properly substantiated.

Rather than perform a rewrite of the paper, essentially attempt to prove her point, Pompeo resorted to a path more in tune with the United States of whining America. She filed a lawsuit because people were forcing her to adhere to high standards. The judge dismissed the case.

I think this sequence of events tells us a great deal about Pompeo, those commenting on the story, and our nation as a whole.

It’s my opinion that those who vilified Pompeo after the original story were completely wrong and those who trumpet her cause after the updated story are also mistaken. That is what we have in this country these days; a complete lack of critical thinking and blind loyalty to a particular cause.

If Pompeo was being told to rewrite the paper in ideological grounds then she is in right, whether you support lesbian rights or not. Pompeo is most certainly entitled to her opinion and all the more so because it is in an academic environment where individual thought is encouraged, even more so if it is against the mainstream. The “Liberals” who applauded such treatment were guilty of supporting bullying and closed mindedness.

However, if Pompeo was being asked to merely substantiate her claims then it is those who continue to support her that have failed in their analysis. “Conservatives” who support Pompeo are guilty of saying that standards do not apply. That clear and well thought out arguments are valueless. You need not understand or explain a position, it’s enough to simply have one. This attitude is also an utter abrogation of the responsibility of an academic institution.

And, by and large, I think that’s where we are in this country. It matters not if you have facts to support a position. It matters that you hold a position strongly and you talk louder than anyone else.

What I find discouraging is that I think the vast majority of people who originally disagreed with Pompeo will continue to do so and those who supported her originally will continue to do so. Only a small minority will have changed their opinion based on an evolving understanding of the case.

It’s my opinion that bad decisions are often rooted in this kind of thinking. People stick with an opinion and a plan despite evidence that it is wrong and will fail. The result is failure.

What happens when men and women who think like this run our municipality, our state, and our country?

All one need do is look around.

Tom Liberman

Gamblers Lose Willingly and Kentucky Wins Legally

Posted on by

Kentucky-pokerstars-online-gamblingAn astonishing case just reached its first stop when Franklin Circuit Court Judge Thomas Wingate ruled that the state of Kentucky can claim triple $290 million dollars in gambling losses of residents between 2006 and 2011.

For a period  of time a company called Poker Stars offered internet gambling across the United States. In 2006 a law was passed called the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006. In 2011 the government acted on this law and stopped all such gambling. The state of Kentucky claims that all losses made in the interim were illegal and thus they can collect said money.

There are so many things wrong with this case it makes my mind boggle and my blood boil.

I suppose I’ll list them by what I perceive as the most egregious.

  1. Kentucky is collecting the gambling losses made by its citizens, not for the citizens, but for its own treasury.
  2. Not a single one of the 14,000+ gamblers who incurred losses has made a single claim.
  3. The figure arrived at includes all losses in the time frame, not winnings and services minus losses. Just add up all the losses and go.
  4. The statute that allows Kentucky to do this was re-codified in 1942 and was apparently originally written sometime in the 1800’s although I can’t find a date.

Here’s the wording of the statute and here is a PDF of it.

372.040 Suit by third person where loser or creditor does not sue.

If the loser or his creditor does not, within six (6) months after its payment or delivery to the winner, sue for the money or thing lost, and prosecute the suit to recovery with due diligence, any other person may sue the winner, and recover treble the value of the money or thing lost, if suit is brought within five (5) years from the delivery or payment.

I mean, you have to be kidding me, right? This is some insane joke? Nope, sadly not.

This is an example of the power that government can wield. If the state of Kentucky can not only pass a law claiming any third party has the right to collect the gambling losses of another individual but actually enforce it … what law cannot they pass?

The only laws they can’t pass are those which the Constitution forbids. Kentucky is not allowed to abridge my freedom to speak, to assemble with like-minded people, to be immune from unwarranted search and seizure, to house soldiers in my home, establish a religion, and more.

We take many of these rights for granted but I hope this case makes you appreciate them all the more. Do you imagine a legislature that can write things like 372.040 wouldn’t be happy to take away your right to speak? To assemble? To vote? To own a weapon?

The sad part in all of this? The judge is probably correct in interpreting the statute. The statute is, quite obviously, madness. It is overreaching, money-seeking government at its worst, exposed to the light of day. It is sickening. It is a dark shadow upon the thoughts of any liberty loving individual. It is the raw power of a government not checked by the people.

There is one group who can remove this stain of a statute from the books.

Kentuckians, what say you?

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Girl in Glass I: Apparition
Next Release: The Gray Horn

Baby Bou-Bou Wrap Up

Posted on by

phonesavanh_familyI wrote a post back in December of 2014 about the case of baby Bou-Bou.

I added an update in May of 2015.

As far as I know things are wrapped up now with this final story.

You can go back and read all the details but I’ll summarize quickly.

The police in Georgia had a drug informant. He had a friend. The friend lied about making a small drug purchase in a house in which a meth dealer he knew lived. In reality, the dealer had moved out months before and relatives, with small children, had temporarily moved in.

Officer Nikki Autry wrote out a request for a warrant that stated the informant had purchased the drugs and seen weapons in the house. Both of these statements were known to Autry to be false. Autry did not know that the informant’s friend was also lying about the entire episode.

Judge James Butterworth issued a no-knock warrant. The police did no surveillance, broke down the door, and threw a flash-bang grenade into the room where it landed in a baby’s crib severely burning the 19-month. His flesh was burned down to bone.

When details of the case became known Butterworth immediately retired. Autry left her job as well. The state of Georgia protects law enforcement officers from the damage they do in such raids. A lawsuit was filed although it had no chance of success. The state felt remorse, as well they should, and paid out less than the cost of medical bills for the child though by law they faced no penalties. The family had to accept the proffered settlement or get nothing.

This final blog is about the conclusion of the case against Autry for providing false information on a warrant which, after much publicity, Autry was eventually charged with doing. Well, I should say she didn’t do because she’s been acquitted of all charges despite admitting that some of the information in the warrant was “not entirely inaccurate”.

Now I’ll spend a few seconds on some information that turned out to be wrong from my earlier posts. I passed along the inaccurate information that Autry was a DEA agent. She was a sheriff’s deputy. I also wrote that no charges had been filed, which was true at the time but proved false as charges were eventually filed against Autry.

The end. Go on about your lives.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Girl in Glass I: Apparition
Next Release: The Gray Horn

 

Steve Sarkisian Claims Being a Drunk Means He can’t be Fired

Posted on by

steve-sarkisian-alcoholNon sports fans will be unaware that a fellow named Steve Sarkisian was fired from the job of head football coach at the University of Southern California earlier this year. Several drunken incidents led the athletic director of the school to the decision to fire Sarkisian.

He is now suing USC for $30 million because alcoholism is considered a disability and the Americans with Disabilities Act has rules about protecting disabled people.

To begin with the ADA doesn’t protect people with disabilities if their disability interferes with them doing their job. In the specific case of alcoholism this is spelled out quite clearly. The law states that an employer can discipline, discharge, or deny employment to an alcoholic whose drinking effects their performance. The case appears without merit from a legal standpoint. Sarkisian was sent home from at least one practice for being too drunk and there are rumors of many other incidents.

While that part is true and to my, non-lawyer, mind conclusive, it is not why Sarkisian’s lawsuit so nauseates me. This lawsuit is a slap in the face to all people with disabilities who are protected by ADA. It’s an insult to veterans who lost limbs, babies born with disabilities who must make their way through a difficult life, and anyone else who is truly disabled.

It’s as disgusting as someone faking a disability to gain the advantages laid out by ADA.

Normally I wouldn’t even be taking on a topic like this because I think almost everyone will agree with my opinions on the subject. Judging by the comments on the stories I’ve read this appears largely true.

The reason I’m writing this blog is because drug addiction is a terrible thing and can happen to anyone. Sarkisian deserves help. He needs treatment. People can and should be sympathetic to his plight. In this day and age there are precious few of us who have not been touched in some way by drug addiction. It’s a huge problem that needs to be discussed. Addicts need to be treated rather than ostracized. They should be given new opportunities if they overcome their addictions.

Sarkisian has my sympathy and to his credit has gone through treatment. I would encourage football teams to consider him for a coaching position and include monitoring for relapse behavior along with ongoing therapy.

That being said, he deserves nothing from USC. He hid his problem. He denied his problem. He let his problem adversely effect his job performance. He deserved to be fired. He should be ashamed for even filing the lawsuit.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Girl in Glass I: Apparition
Next Release: The Gray Horn

 

Samantha Geimer Pleased Roman Polanski Won’t be Extradited

Posted on by

samantha-geimerThere’s a story in the news that won’t resonate with many of you unless you’re my age, 51, or older. That being said, I think it’s an important look into the nature of law enforcement in the United States.

For forty years the United States has been pursuing a case against a fellow named Roman Polanski. Polanski fled to France and has since then traveled to various places. In the most recent turn, Poland rejected extradition of Polanski.

Back in 1977 Polanski had sexual relations with a 13 year old girl then named Samantha Gailey but now called Samantha Geimer. Polanski accepted a plea bargain and plead guilty to unlawful sexual intercourse. He spent 42 days in a state psychiatric hospital as was ordered by the judge. Afterwards he learned the judge planned to renege on the original plea deal and sentence Polanski to a longer term and deport him. Polanski fled and has never returned.

So, what are these insights I gained from this latest turn of events?

Geimer is happy that Poland refused to extradite Polanski. She feels she has been harmed far more by the relentless pursuit and publicity that came with it, than she was in the initial rape. She argues Polanski admitted the crime, plead guilty, and served his time. It must be noted she received a large financial settlement from Polanski some time ago along with an apology.

She calls it an unpleasant memory but that it’s over. That others have suffered far worse. That the Los Angeles prosecutors office is spending yet more time and more money in what amounts to a giant publicity game.

Generally polling of people in the United States and the countries where Polanski has fled seems to indicate that most would like to see Polanski returned to the United States for further sentencing. It’s unclear what further sentencing there could be as he already served the time originally allotted.

And that’s largely my point. The majority of people would like to see Polanski returned to the United States. His crime is heinous enough that people hunger for vengeance. The reality is that his only crime at this time is failure to report for sentencing. The judge could give him more than the original 42 days but it wouldn’t be a lot more. The judge might deport him from the United States but Polanski has already done that himself. There’s really not much to gain here besides publicity.

Polanski would probably be better off just coming back and getting the extra 90 days or whatever the judge decided. It would be easier than continuing with all these extradition hearings. He was foolish to flee in the first place. That being said, the entire reason this case is being pursued, at least as far as I can tell, is simply because the prosecutor wants to look like the good guy.

What’s to be gained by further pursuit? An extra couple of months in a minimum security prison? More pain for Geimer? Deterrence of others who plan to rape thirteen year old girls? Hardly. Just good publicity and is that a reason to pursue a case?

I get what Polanski did was scummy. I’m no fan. I just don’t see the point in pursuing this further. What do you think?

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Girl in Glass I: Apparition
Next Release: The Gray Horn

When Religion is Just an Excuse – Monifa F. Sterling

Posted on by

Monifa-SterlingI happened upon a story about a young Marine who was given a bad conduct discharge when she refused an order. The order involved three pieces of paper she put on her monitor, computer, and inbox.

The papers had the words, no weapon formed against me shall prosper on them. This is a rather obscure biblical quote that is basically about prevailing against those who accuse you of wrongdoing.

In this case Cpl. Monifa F. Sterling was in a long-running dispute with other Marines and was facing several charges of disobeying orders. These included not taking her post when ordered. Here is the entire case for those who want to read. I’ll summarize.

Sterling injured her back. A medical report suggested that officers might exempt her from wearing “C” uniforms which could prove uncomfortable and also recommended she be exempt from standing watch or performing guard duty because of a “stress reaction”. Her superior officer decided that Sterling should wear her “Charlies”. Sterling refused. Officers spoke with the medic and then again ordered Sterling to put on her Charlies. Sterling refused multiple times.

Sterling was later assigned to distribute vehicle passes to family members of returning deployed service members a duty which would require her to stand for about three and a half hours. Sterling refused claiming the orders from the medic, a “chit”, overruled those of the officer. Then a major repeated the order to perform the duty. Sterling again refused.

She then placed the three pieces of paper around her desk. Her commanding officer ordered them removed. She refused. The officer removed them. Sterling put them back. She didn’t go up the chain of command, she didn’t file a grievance, she just put them back.

Now she is claiming that this was her favorite bible verse, the three pieces of paper represent the Trinity, and that by having them removed she is unable to freely practice her religions.

Bad language warning. Do not read the next line if you are easily offended.

Bullshit, Sterling. Utter bullshit.

The quotes were not religious, they were about her struggles with her superior officers and her unwillingness to follow orders.

Even if the quotes were actually about her religion, taking them down in no way prevents her from exercising said religion. No one is preventing her from going to church, praying, wearing a cross, or any other normal display of religion. I’m fairly certain that no religious person I know, and I know some deeply religious people, would think that their religion was compromised because they couldn’t tack up a couple of obscure biblical quotes on their desk at work.

Finally, she willfully disobeyed orders. You have to read the opinion fully to get it but Sterling’s chit suggesting she not perform guard duty was related to migraine medication that might make her dizzy. The medicine was to be taken at night so not to keep her from performing her duties. She decided to take it in the morning because she was later going to attend church where she thought she might get a migraine. Did you follow that convoluted argument?

Sterling sounds like the absolute worst kind of entitled child imaginable. No wonder her commanding officer wasn’t cutting her any slack.

What makes me even angrier is that 43 Congressmen are backing her suit. 43! And Christian organizations are backing her as well.

Those 43 Congressman and those Christian organizations most likely all wave American flags like mad and claim they support the military. It’s clear to me that they only support the military when it aligns with their interests. Take note, Marines.

I never served myself but appreciate those who do. I end this post with a heartfelt Semper Fi. Not for you, Sterling, you wouldn’t understand.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Girl in Glass I: Apparition
Next Release: The Gray Horn

Online Gambling Arrests and the Victimless Crime

Posted on by

Blind-justiceA twenty month investigation by Federal Agents and New York State law enforcement has resulted in the arrests of seventeen people across three states for running an online gambling ring. Don’t we all feel safe now?

The argument against this sort of behavior being criminal resides around what is commonly referenced as a Victimless Crime.

The idea is an action has been made criminal despite the fact the person committing the supposed crime and the people with whom they commit it are willingly involved in the activity. That they would not call the police. The most common crimes referenced in this way are taking drugs, gambling, and prostitution where all parties are willingly engaged in the activity rather than being coerced.

Libertarians largely believe such things should not be illegal and, while I agree, I do want to explore the idea that victimless doesn’t mean people aren’t hurt. Also the idea that doing the same thing might be both legal and illegal depending on circumstance.

First to the idea that there are no victims. There are. When a person gambles all their money away other people associated with that person, generally family, are hurt. A habitual drug user harms themselves and, by extension, those they love. There are victims, this is undeniable. However, people hurt themselves and their families in all sorts of legal ways so the fact someone is hurt by an activity doesn’t mean it should be made illegal.

Likewise circumstance plays a role in whether an action is a crime. Getting drunk is not a crime but flying a plane in that condition might well be so. Firing a gun at a shooting range is perfectly legal but doing the exact same thing on a crowded street is a crime. In both of these cases a person is behaving in such a way as to endanger other, innocent people.

It seems clear that we can distinguish between these things. All drinking is not illegal, all sex is not illegal, and all gambling is not illegal. We’ve made crimes of these things under particular circumstances. Drinking and driving, selling sexual favors, online gambling.

So should online gambling be illegal? That’s the question.

I don’t see it as something communities or the government should regulate. Don’t get me wrong, I recognize that a community can make whatever rules they want if they don’t fall afoul of the Constitution. I’m just saying I don’t see why gambling is illegal in this case.

While we are arresting online gamblers how many equally illegal card games take place with law enforcement personnel, judges, politicians, and lawyers? Why is one group prosecuted and the other not? How many powerful people get away with traffic violations that would get the rest of us a ticket? The laws we have today give us the illusion of blind justice but the reality is far different.

I’m also curious how much money was spent on that twenty month investigation, how many hours of time used by dedicated officers that could have been spent fighting real crime?

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Girl in Glass I: Apparition
Next Release: The Gray Horn

The ADE 651 Fraudulent Bomb Detector

Posted on by

ade-651-bomb-detectorThere’s a story that’s been around for years but if you live in the United States of America, like me, you’ve probably never heard it. It’s about a piece of equipment called the ADE 651 which Iraqi police and security forces spent about $80 million dollars purchasing. It’s design purpose is to detect bombs from a distance.

It doesn’t work. It’s never worked. It’s never worked for anyone who tested it.

The FBI called its predecessor a fraud in 1999 and the U.S. Army declared it useless in 2009. Yet your tax dollars were still spent on it. The story made big news in England where the manufacturer was sentenced to ten years in prison. The owner paid Iraqis, and other, government officials bribes in order to purchase millions of dollars worth of the useless bomb detectors.

Fraud is a crime to begin with but when you give security forces in a bomb strewn country a device to detect explosives that doesn’t work, it means security forces wave their useless bomb detectors instead of searching for bombs. The result is predictable and vile.

I don’t put all the blame on the manufacturer of this useless thing. Iraqi government officials were bribed and put their own people in danger. Devising tests for such a device is, obviously, ridiculously easy. The fact that the thing didn’t work was not difficult to figure out and yet here we are tens of millions of our tax dollars later. Here we are who knows how many lives lost or ruined later. Here we are.

While such devices aren’t sold in the United States the concept is used all the time. Phony cancer cures, psychic readings, and any other number of scams are aimed at vulnerable and frightened people.

Is there an unethical depth to which someone, somewhere will not sink? It seems not.

What bothers me the most about this story is that this is the first I’ve heard about it. I follow the news pretty closely looking for stories to write about. James Randi exposed it back in 2008, there were apparently a few stories about it in U.S. media but why wasn’t this big news? You tell me.

Tom Liberman

Free Association vs Free Assocation

Posted on by

free-association-free-associationI just became aware the Supreme Court recently decided an absolutely fascinating case, Christian Fellowship v. Leo P. Martinez et al.

The decision is a rather long read and I admit freely that I haven’t perused the entire thing as of yet. Also, my complete lack of legal training makes those documents tough for me anyway. I’ll try to summarize but anyone who has a better handle on the situation please feel free to clarify.

The University of California Hastings College of Law has a rule about student organizations it is willing to recognize. Such organizations are granted certain privileges at the college including meeting rooms. The rule is that they must accept anyone who applies, even someone whose stated views seem to be at odds with the group.

The group in question is the Christian Fellowship at Hastings. They forbid anyone who engages in premarital sex, among other things, from becoming a member. This was a clear violation of Hastings rule that to be recognized they must be willing to accept anyone who wants to join. The case went to the Supreme Court.

What I find insanely interesting about the case is that it is largely an argument about Free Association. The college wants to associate only with student groups who allow anyone to join and say they can exclude those who don’t. The Fellowship wants to associate with only people they want and feel free to exclude those who do meet their standards!

Both sides are essentially arguing the same point!

If you say the college must allow everyone regardless of their rules, it seems to me you can only say the Fellowship must allow everyone as well! If the college can exclude based on a rule then shouldn’t the Fellowship likewise be able to exclude?

Kaboom!

What do you do with that one?

As I said, the ruling goes on for pages and pages but talk about a tough one!

There are times I’m glad I’m not a Supreme Court Justice!

I honestly don’t know what to think. Talk about the Kobayashi Maru!

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Girl in Glass I: Apparition
Next Release: The Gray Horn

Do not take Stelara if …

Posted on by

stelaraI do most of my television watching on the computer using Hulu, ESPN3, and other outlets. Lately I’ve seen a commercial for a drug called Stelara quite frequently. There is something in that commercial that hit me right in my Libertarian breadbasket.

A few years back the federal government regulated advertisement for pharmaceuticals. One of the rules is that any such advertisement must list major side effects and contraindication of the drug in question.

In the rundown of side effects for Stelara, which includes death by the way, we get the following.

Do not take Stelara if you are allergic to Stelara.

What more do you need to know that the entire process is an exercise is silliness? The reason behind the rule about advertising is so people won’t take a drug that harms them. This relies on the idea that people won’t take a drug if they know it has harmful side effects or they won’t take it under certain conditions like after drinking. That idea is utter nonsense. People are idiots. If they are willing to take a drug whose side effect is death, what’s the point of any warning?

People will talk with their doctor and either make an informed or uninformed decision about taking medication. Stupid people will make bad choices more often than smart people, that’s reality. No amount of warning in a commercial is going to prevent stupid people from doing something stupid. Likewise, an intelligent person who cares about his or her health and what he or she put into his or her body is not going to trust a commercial, but will consult with their doctor prior to making such a decision.

It’s a rule designed to make us feel better about helping people when we’re not actually helping them at all. Do you think anyone bent on taking the medication is deterred by the warnings? Of course not.

Do not take Stelara if you are allergic to Stelara? You have to be kidding me.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Girl in Glass I: Apparition
Next Release: The Gray Horn

Prisoners Charged for Incarceration

Posted on by

Everyone-is-a-prisonerI just became aware of the growing practice in the United States of charging prisoners a fee for each day they stay in prison. The fees are not just for room and board but extend to visitors who are charged for visits. Medical care is billed to the prisoner. Increasingly aggressive bill collection agencies are being used to force prisoners and their families to pay these bills.

Apparently this has been going on for some time now but in recent years the fees have gone up quite a bit. The story describes a man who was attacked in prison and lost an eye. When he sued, the prison hit him with a lawsuit asking for his three year accumulation of fees, $55,000.

There are so many problems with this practice that it simply boggles my brain.

The first thing that immediately comes to mind is that as we continue to make prison a profit center we incentive putting people in prison. It’s clear this is working because you can go to prison in the United States for just about anything these days. Police forces and local governments fund themselves through seizures.  Private prison companies make millions by cutting as many corners as possible and often brutalizing prisoners.

The next thought is if we actually want to release prisoners back into society where they can become productive citizens, having them owe an impossible debt will clearly drive them straight back into crime. It means we don’t really want to release them at all. It’s essentially a Ponzi Scheme. We need more and more prisoners to fund the prison system, eventually, of course, we run out of people to imprison and who is left holding all the debt? The usual suspect, taxpayers. Meanwhile everyone else absconds with all the money. Do they go to jail? Hardly.

Then of course is the simple question of how is a prisoner supposed to earn money to pay for incarceration, while incarcerated? It’s nonsensical.

The only possibility is that the loved ones of the prisoner, who have committed no crime, are going to have to pay. We have now criminalized being related to or friends with a criminal! Take that in for a moment. Think about it.

The larger point here is that we are destroying our nation from the inside. We don’t need terrorists and foreign invaders. Almost 3% of people in this country are under correctional supervision. One in thirty-five*!

CORRECTION: Originally I put 1 in 3 instead of 3%.

At the rate we are going it will soon be more normal to be a criminal than to not be so. It’s already that way for segments of our society.

This must end. In a system that so brutalizes people, often for minor or drug offenses, who is truly the criminal?

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Girl in Glass I: Apparition
Next Release: The Gray Horn

Is Shutting Down Vemma the Role of Government

Posted on by

multi-level-marketingThe Federal Trade Commission just shut down an organization called Vemma Nutrition Company because the government claims Vemma is operating a Pyramid Scheme. Vemma argues they are a legitimate Multi-Level Marketing company and have done nothing wrong.

I’m not much interested in the legal niceties that separate a Pyramid Scheme from a MLM company. It’s all pretty much the same thing. They prey upon false hopes. People are told they will make a great deal of money and then forced to purchase products and recruit other people into the company to do the same. All MLM companies make the vast majority of their money not from selling products to the public but in selling to their unwitting dupes.

Most studies show that around 99% of sales representatives for such companies make very little or no money at all. The information about MLM businesses is readily available for anyone caring to do even a cursory search of the internet. The FTC strongly warns people to stay away from such companies.

The question I ask is if the government should be shutting down such businesses? The reason largely given for government intervention is that the owners are committing fraud by telling potential sales people they can make a lot of money and forcing them to purchase more and more product. To some degree I agree with this point, fraud is a crime. If someone lies in order to steal your money they are behaving in a criminal fashion. However, if the lie is obviously a lie and you are simply a hopeful fool, it is my opinion that law enforcement should not be trying to protect you from your own foolishness.

I fully support the FTC in their warnings about MLM schemes. I think that is one of the things that government should be doing for us. They should investigate such employers and publicly warn people against working for such as them. That being said, I think there comes a time when the government shouldn’t be trying to save us from ourselves.

What happens is that MLM companies soon learn the legal boundaries of their deceit and operate within those limits. Thus companies like Mary Kay, AmWay, Herbalife, and dozens of others keep their policies just above the illegal threshold.

So when the government shuts down Vemma for a short period of time we get the impression we are safe; that Mary Kay is not a Pyramid scheme but a legitimate company because they are allowed to continue to operate. Meanwhile Vemma tweaks a couple of policies, pays a fine, and returns to once again fleece gullible college students across the world.

What has the government accomplished?

Don’t get me wrong. I think MLM companies are despicable in their deceit and their willingness to take advantage of the desperate. I just don’t think the government can save us from them. That’s up to us. The information is there.

Don’t work for an MLM and don’t help your friends out by purchasing their products. You’re just hurting them.

That’s the only long-term solution.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Girl in Glass I: Apparition
Next Release: The Gray Horn

Chelsea O’Donnell and the Role of the State in Crime

Posted on by

Chelsea-odonnellThere’s an incredibly interesting story in the news involving the daughter of celebrity Rosie O’Donnell. The reason it is so interesting to me is that it illustrates the struggle between those who advocate the power of the state and those who argue for the rights of the individual.

Most of my Libertarian and Anarchist friends and acquaintances are pretty strongly in the camp of the individual and while I am as well, I do recognize the state has a role to play in a civil society. Police have an important and useful function as does government.

The particulars of this case are that Chelsea O’Donnell is a seventeen year old girl which puts her right on the verge of adulthood and emancipation. She voluntarily went to the home of a 25 year old man. She has been described in various media outlets as having an undisclosed mental illness.

The man in question, Steven Sheerer, has now been arrested and charged with distribution of obscenity to a minor and endangering the welfare of a child. He apparently sent obscene material to Chelsea and lured her to his home.

From a Libertarian perspective the fact that Chelsea is almost an adult and went of her own free will is a compelling argument. We Libertarians and Anarchists don’t think the state should be in the business of protecting us from ourselves. The reality of this case is that Chelsea, while close to having reached her majority, is still legally a juvenile. There is also the important factor of her mental illness. This story resonates with me, I have a niece who is developmentally disabled. It would be easy for an unscrupulous person to convince her to do something that is not in her own interest.

It’s clear to me that people who are not capable of making decisions must be protected from those who would use them for their own nefarious ends. While the idea of a society in which everyone leads their own lives free of the state is very appealing, we Libertarians and Anarchists must remember that there are not only those among us incapable of making good decisions but also those who prey upon the weak.

Even those who have reached their majority and are of sound mind can be tricked, duped, lied to, preyed up, and even physically coerced into doing things that are not in their interests.

Where does the state intervene? When is our folly the business of the government?

I don’t think the lines are crisp and there will always be difficult situations. I largely argue on the side of individual freedom, but not always.

In this situation I think the state has a compelling case. I insist they prove it in a court of law but I do not condemn them. I praise the excellent police work of the Rockland County Sheriff’s Department who sent officers door to door. I applaud the officer who thought Sheerer evasive in his answers and eventually found Chelsea.

What do you think?

Should the Police have Intervened in this case?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Girl in Glass I: Apparition
Next Release: The Gray Horn

Charged with Disorderly Conduct for Cracking Open Car Door

Posted on by

William ReeceA young man opened the door to a moving car and yelled “Pigs” at nearby officers. They chased him down and arrested him for Disorderly Conduct.

To Protect and to Serve on full display.

Read my take on events here.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Girl in Glass I: Apparition
Next Release: The Gray Horn

Kim Kardashian, Diclegis, and the FDA

Posted on by

kim-kardashian-diclegis-minThere’s an interesting story about government regulations making the rounds involving Kim Kardashian and a drug called Diclegis. At question is the fact that Kardashian is essentially a paid sponsor for Diclegis through her Tweets, Instagram photos, and Facebook posts.

This sort of sponsorship deal is not new. Companies pay celebrities to mention their product in apparently normal social media interactions.

What’s different in this case is that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has laws about advertising products without mention side-effects and other drugs which are dangerous to take with the original drug. In this case Diclegis can often cause drowsiness and it should not be taken with alcohol or other sleep inducing medication. If people take Diclegis and then go out driving, they risk the lives of many other people.

Kardashian does not mention these side-effects or incompatible drugs in her various social media advertisements. The FDA now wants to fine her for these violations.

The FDA was created back in 1938 as knowledge of what was going into food and drugs became more well-known. There were any number of cases where people ingested lethal substances when they thought they were taking medicine or normal food. A particularly loathsome case involved the deaths of thirteen children here in my hometown of St. Louis traced to a tainted diphtheria anti-toxin.

The question for me is complex.

Does the government have constitutional authority to protect people from the food and drugs that manufacturers produce, advertise, and distribute? Clearly, yes. Congress has given them such authority and the constitution does not forbid it.

Does the government act in the people’s interests with such authority? Now it becomes tricky. Certainly the idea of the FDA is good. We want to protect people from toxicity in our food and drug supply. We want to protect people from unscrupulous manufacturers selling their snake-oil. We want to prevent people from taking Diclegis and then driving in their cars.

But do FDA regulations accomplish these things? I think the answer is largely, but not completely, no. We’ve all seen drug commercials that go through an endless litany of possible dreadful side-effects and warnings. Do these warnings prevent people from mixing drugs or driving cars while taking the drug?

We must be responsible for ourselves. We must investigate the drugs we are taking. We must listen to our trained physicians who are prescribing them. If we are not doing so, then that’s our fault. The FDA shouldn’t be able to tell Kardashian to tell all the side-effects of every drug she mentions as part of a paid advertisement.

That being said, I’m not totally opposed to the FDA. I do think they have a useful function in our country. I think the FDA can and should test drugs and food. They should post all the pertinent information on readily available websites for We the People to look at. Then, with the aide of our physicians, we can make informed decisions. If a drug kills people the government can and should arrest those responsible for its distribution. If a physician lies about side-effects to a patient to sell more of a drug then that physician should be prosecuted.

There will always be snake-oil salesmen (see Dr. Oz) who find ways around government regulations. We must always be responsible for ourselves. No amount of regulation will save us if we are not.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Girl in Glass I: Apparition
Next Release: The Gray Horn

El Chapo Guzman Escapes

Posted on by

El ChapoOne of the leaders of the Mexican drug trade, Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman, escaped from prison the other day.

Guzman’s story is so illustrative of why the United States should not be meddling in the affairs of foreign countries that I can’t pass it up without writing a blog, although I’ve done so before.

The entire Mexican drug trade exists largely because of President Ronald Reagan. Yep. You heard me right. I’m not some crazy, anti-Republican democrat. It’s the truth. There are some pretty important people in the United States who have no desire to extradite Guzman to the United States because of the stories he can tell. Stories about high level Reagan administration officials who are still alive and who still wield influence in our nation.

Guzman worked for a man named Miguel Ángel Félix Gallardo (who likewise has never been extradited despite the fact he ordered a DEA agent named Enrique Camarena tortured to death). Gallardo built the entire Mexican drug trade with not only the knowledge of the United States government but with their help. Why? Because he was funding the Contra revolutionary group that President Reagan wanted to use to oust the Sandinista government in Nicaragua.

Yep. I’m not making this stuff up. Do you remember Iran-Contra? That’s where Oliver North helped sell anti-aircraft missiles to Iran in order to get money to fund the Contras. There is considerable evidence to suggest that North was also working with Panamanian strong-man Manuel Noriega to directly bring cocaine into the United States via the CIA in order to use that money to … yes … fund the Contra.

What a sordid, sick, sad tale.

This is the result of our meddling. This is one of the legacies of President Reagan.

All because we wanted to influence the political situation in Nicaragua. When the Sandinista government came into power, President Carter didn’t like them but he agreed to allow their legally held elections to stand and refused to get involved. President Reagan reversed this policy when he came into power.

You may not like President Carter very much and you may love President Reagan. At least be aware of the realities of their policies. President Carter isn’t guiltless in the meddling game in that he continued our misguided attempts to influence the country of Iran. Those policies largely created the entire terrorist network that exists today. Yay for meddling!

We should stay out of the affairs of foreign countries even when we don’t like their policies. This meddling is directly responsible for both the rise of terrorism and the rise of the Mexican drug trade.

Oh and end the War on Drugs.

Tom Liberman

Charles L. Clarke and the Seizure Laws

Posted on by

charles l clarkeI’ve been railing against the War on Drugs for a long time and against the seizure laws used in said war. I really don’t know that I can say anything else.

Read the story of Charles L. Clark and tell me that you support the War on Drugs. I dare you.

He may or may not be guilty of anything. He had a lot of cash he claims he had saved up. They stopped him because his luggage “smelled of marijuana”. When they found a pile of cash in his luggage, $11,000, they took it. They charged him with resisting arrest when he tried to stop the officers from taking his money although those charges were dropped. They couldn’t charge him with anything else because he had committed no other crime.

They suspected that because he had a one-way ticket and cash that he had earned it selling drugs. They had no proof of such and so they took his money. Now he has to sue the government to get it back. They stole it from him legally.

Meanwhile thirteen different law enforcement agencies have asked for their share of the $11,000.

If you don’t think something is wrong with this then I suggest that you cannot believe in the ideals upon which the United States of America was founded. You cannot believe in freedom.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Black Sphere
Next Release: The Girl in Glass I: Apparition – Release date: late August 2015

Flags – Burning and Displaying – The Constitution

Posted on by

flag_justiceThere’s a lot of debate in the last few weeks about flags. The flag of the United States and the second flag of the Confederacy.

In many southern states the Stainless Banner is still used in many public places and by private citizens. It is strongly associated with a history of slavery. It’s very creation is steeped in the idea that the white race is superior to the black race. Many people see it thusly. Others see it merely as a symbol of southern pride and do not think of it racially.

In most of the United States people consider the Stars and Stripes a symbol of national pride. Others see it as representative of atrocities that this nation has inflicted upon others and of general tyranny.

What I find most interesting about the debate is the complete lack of consistency on both sides of the argument.

Both groups seem to think that the government should not be able to ban its chosen flag while absolutely thinking the government should be able to protect the same flag.

As I Libertarian I think the both sides are incorrect. The government has absolutely no say in how any person treats a flag. If a person wants to hang it from their porch in pride the government should in no way prevent them from doing so. If a person wants to burn it on their porch then the government should in no way prevent them from doing so.

When the government makes a law telling citizens of this country how they are allowed to display or destroy their flags I will stand up and decry it. I will shout from the tallest tree that this law is wrong.

If a business, a governor, or a private citizens chooses to display a flag of their own accord, that’s their legally protected decision. If they choose to destroy it in any manner, that’s up to them.

If the governor of Alabama wants the Stainless Banner removed from the statehouse, then so be it. But if the federal government orders it so removed, that’s a problem.

If someone burns their flag in a public display of dissatisfaction with the government of the United States and gets arrested, that’s a problem.

We cannot simply support a law when it works to our benefit. We must support the law even when it works against us. Then we are consistent. Otherwise we don’t really support the law at all. If we don’t support the law then how can we expect anyone else to do so?

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Black Sphere
Next Release: The Girl in Glass I: Apparition