5 ms·
Evading local regulators is a federal matter?
by bogositosius 9y ago
Evading local regulators is a federal matter?
- kinghajj 9y agoWhen it's done systematically throughout the nation, I'd say so.
- bogositosius 9y agoAssuming this is true, why does that make it a federal issue?
- ubernostrum 9y agoBecause the federal government has jurisdiction over many things that cross state lines. Even if you personally never cross a state line, if you're coordinating people in multiple states to break laws, and sending information to them about what to do and how, there's a good chance you're on the wrong side of some federal laws.
- bogositosius 9y agoYes, but for evading city taxi regulators?!?
- AnimalMuppet 9y agoNationwide? Yes (at least arguably). At that point, it's a nationwide conspiracy. (Note: I do not know if this probe is about more than one city. If it's only about Portland, my argument does not hold.)
- bogositosius 9y agoThe mafia-like, protectionist taxi regulations should be considered the true conspiracy, IMHO.
- nebabyte 9y agoIsn't that up to the cities?
- bogositosius 9y agoSure. And that's why the feds should stay out of it.
- nebabyte 9y ago> Cities make laws that are up to them > Company seemingly undergoes systemic effort to break such laws in cities across state lines > Fed gets involved to investigate possibility of racketeering Not seeing the problem here...?
- bogositosius 9y ago>Not seeing the problem here...? Nope. Let the cities enforce their own laws.
- memmcgee 9y agoThe taxi cabs aren't all one company though. Most taxi cab companies operate in one city. Additionally, lobbying is not a federal crime.
- sidlls 9y agoWhen it's done using communication and information transfer across state borders there is at least a case to be made for that.
- bogositosius 9y agoHmm. But local taxi regulations are not federal law, so what's the underlying federal crime being committed?
- sidlls 9y agoI'm not a lawyer, so I don't know. It just seems to me that if you use infrastructure that crosses state borders, e.g. a telephone or a computer network, to facilitate a crime committed in a state the Federal government has at least some reason to bring a criminal case. I suspect it'd be a law passed under the Interstate Commerce clause of the Constitution.
- ModernMech 9y agoIf money is moving from one state to another, then I would assume it's considered Interstate commerce, which is federal jurisdiction.
- bogositosius 9y agoSure, but what federal law was broken? I wasn't aware that the federal government enforces local city regulations just because money is moving between states.
- openasocket 9y agoRICO explicitly defines racketeering to include several kinds of state law violations
- SomeStupidPoint 9y agoI mean, if the feds really wanted to get in to it, Uber is probably guilty of money laundering. Their service was illegal under local law, Uber moved the money from their illegal activity in to the banking system and across state lines and a slew of other things that would likely trigger the very broad money laundering laws. Interstate transfer of proceeds from a criminal activity is almost certainly an activity the feds can look into. I'm guessing the feds can also "assist" the local jurisdictions in the case that the local criminals are an interstate organization that has been committing a slew of crimes across the nation.
- dxhdr 9y ago"The nature of any potential federal criminal violation, and the likelihood of anyone being charged, is unclear. The investigation is still in its early stages, the sources said." Sounds like they don't know yet.
- tyingq 9y agoRICO laws are pretty broad.
- bogositosius 9y agoTrue. But considering RICO's original intent, investigating a software company for evading draconian local taxi regulations seems out of scope.
- dpark 9y agoRICO covers fraud and obstruction of justice, both of which could theoretically apply to Grayball (or not, depending on the facts uncovered).
- bogositosius 9y ago>obstruction of justice Fair point. Personally I still think this is overreach but I can follow the legal footing on that.
- npizzolato 9y agoHow is it an overreach to define finding who is a LEO and feeding them false information to deceive them and waste their time as obstruction of justice?
- bogositosius 9y agoBecause protectionist taxi regulations enacted and enforced by local officials are a local issue. Just because the DOJ can shoehorn a legal argument together to assert jurisdiction doesn't mean it isn't yet another overreach by the already bloated bureaucracy known as the United States government.
- npizzolato 9y agoIt's not a local issue when a multinational organization is doing the same thing across an entire country. Then it's rightly a federal issue.
- geppeto 9y agothey have a lot of leeway in establishing jurisdiction use of the internet in general being one of them. "but that means the feds could..." yes, yes it does
- openasocket 9y agoCheck out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeer_Influenced_and_Corrupt_Organizations_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeer_Influenced_and_Corru... Any organization that is suspected of committing one of a list of crimes enumerated in that article, and engages in activity across state lines, falls under federal jurisdiction. In this case, I'm guessing the charge is obstruction of justice. But I'm not a lawyer, and they could be using something other than RICO to press this case
- bogositosius 9y agoI looked at the enumerated crimes and I don't see "evading city taxi regulations" in there.
- openasocket 9y agoHow about obstruction of justice?
- bogositosius 9y agoPoint taken. I still think it's absurd to have a federal investigation over some city's taxi regulations being evaded, but at least I can follow the potential legal logic. Thanks for the info.
- kahnpro 9y agoSome city? I think Uber willfully and flagrantly evades the taxi regulations of almost every single city that has them.
- bogositosius 9y agoSo what?
- npizzolato 9y ago
- dragonwriter 9y agoIf any of the false information presented to local regulators feeds into reports those local officials file with the feds (such as for funding or other purposes), yes. Didn't we just have the discussion about how lying to the feds, even indirectly, is a crime? It might also fit into the federal wire fraud statute (which would also potentially get it into RICO territory.)