4 ms·

In that article the most startling thing was this link[0] providing situations where average citizens unknowingly commit felonies or federal offenses and are ch

In that article the most startling thing was this link[0] providing situations where average citizens unknowingly commit felonies or federal offenses and are charged with them. [0]http://www.threefeloniesaday.com/Youtoo/tabid/86/Default.aspx http://www.threefeloniesaday.com/Youtoo/tabid/86/Default.asp...

ikeboy 11y ago
Yeah; I doubt that most people actually commit 3 felonies daily but prosecutorial discretion is a bit shocking. Basically, if they want to get you on something, they will, which is quite scary.
anigbrowl 11y ago
Hardly anyone commits three felonies a day. Harvey Silverglate is a defense attorney, and quite a good one, but you need to do your own research on any story he tells you because he only ever presents his client's side of the argument - which is very often what people like yourself want to hear. Every time I have gone to look up one of the cases and read through the legal appeals and the facts established at trial, the story turns out to be very different from the way he tells it. He'll talk about the feds coming in heavy-handedly to enforce some environmental regulation, for example, while omitting to mention that this client received repeated warnings and threats of legal action over a period of years in relation to the regulatory breach. I think he gives defense lawyers a bad name because while those hardball tactics are entirely justifiable in court (where the government has its own attorneys to refute his arguments and must provide evidence to back up their own allegations), using those same tactics in the sphere of public discussion borders on deception.
- DerKommissar 11y ago
  Yup. Read my comment above if you're interested. I had never heard of the guy, but you are being way too easy on him. Presenting the arguments as he does is in my opinion an objective intellectual fraud.
  - anigbrowl 11y ago
    I've found a diplomatic critique to be more effective than a fiery polemic. Also, I've been making the same objection to that guy for many years and I'm a bit tired of it.
DerKommissar 11y ago
I looked up the first one, Violating the Lacey Act. What they say happened: Two men were sent to prison for 8 years and one woman was sent to prison for 2 years for violating the Lacey Act which makes it illegal for importers to violate any foreign law. They violated a Honduran law which forbade shipping lobster is clear packages. They also mentioned that a small percentage of the lobster tails were slightly underweight. What really happened: they were smuggling undersize (and hence illegal) lobster tails and using the packaging to conceal their crime. They smuggled an estimated $15M of illegal lobster tails. They routed the shipments through out of the way ports that had poor lobster inspection capabilities. Even after they learned of the federal investigation against them they continued. The info on the site you linked comes mostly from some Heritage Foundation report. My summary above comes from a news article I found with 5 minutes of googling. If they lead with that one, I'm not going to bother with the rest.

ikeboy 11y ago

Yeah; I doubt that most people actually commit 3 felonies daily but prosecutorial discretion is a bit shocking. Basically, if they want to get you on something, they will, which is quite scary.

anigbrowl 11y ago

Hardly anyone commits three felonies a day. Harvey Silverglate is a defense attorney, and quite a good one, but you need to do your own research on any story he tells you because he only ever presents his client's side of the argument - which is very often what people like yourself want to hear. Every time I have gone to look up one of the cases and read through the legal appeals and the facts established at trial, the story turns out to be very different from the way he tells it. He'll talk about the feds coming in heavy-handedly to enforce some environmental regulation, for example, while omitting to mention that this client received repeated warnings and threats of legal action over a period of years in relation to the regulatory breach. I think he gives defense lawyers a bad name because while those hardball tactics are entirely justifiable in court (where the government has its own attorneys to refute his arguments and must provide evidence to back up their own allegations), using those same tactics in the sphere of public discussion borders on deception.

DerKommissar 11y ago
Yup. Read my comment above if you're interested. I had never heard of the guy, but you are being way too easy on him. Presenting the arguments as he does is in my opinion an objective intellectual fraud.
- anigbrowl 11y ago
  I've found a diplomatic critique to be more effective than a fiery polemic. Also, I've been making the same objection to that guy for many years and I'm a bit tired of it.

DerKommissar 11y ago

I looked up the first one, Violating the Lacey Act. What they say happened: Two men were sent to prison for 8 years and one woman was sent to prison for 2 years for violating the Lacey Act which makes it illegal for importers to violate any foreign law. They violated a Honduran law which forbade shipping lobster is clear packages. They also mentioned that a small percentage of the lobster tails were slightly underweight. What really happened: they were smuggling undersize (and hence illegal) lobster tails and using the packaging to conceal their crime. They smuggled an estimated $15M of illegal lobster tails. They routed the shipments through out of the way ports that had poor lobster inspection capabilities. Even after they learned of the federal investigation against them they continued. The info on the site you linked comes mostly from some Heritage Foundation report. My summary above comes from a news article I found with 5 minutes of googling. If they lead with that one, I'm not going to bother with the rest.