The Feds Just Won't Leave The Poor Swiss Alone
According to a Reuters piece this morning, the Federal Government has slapped an indictment on the oldest private bank in Switzerland.
Reuters Swiss Tax Evasion
The most amusing portion of the article is that the U.S. Government appears to have charged the corporate entity, and unnamed co-conspirators. The results are simple enough. The bank seems to have moved the money to a friendly unindicted bank, and continued on. There is understandable fear amongst the employees in Switzerland, but business appears to carry on, albeit in a different form. The bank's leading partner, a Mr. Hummler, is affected to the extent that he probably can't vacation in the United States for fear of arrest. Beyond that, life goes on.
I understand that the Federal Government has an interest in securing all the taxes legally obligated to it. I also understand the need to take dramatic action in attempting to make that happen. What is less clear is the level of effectiveness of this particular action. Without the cooperation of the Swiss government, I fail to understand how the Department of Justice plans to actually get the information it wants. I suppose the discovery process could yield something if Wegelin, the bank in question, participates in the lawsuit. Beyond a special appearance to contest service of process, I doubt that will happen. Lacking any branch in the United States means there is little the DOJ can do inside the domestic borders to push the issue.
Stay tuned for further developments. Swiss secrecy is something they pride themselves upon. We'll have to see if a friendly relationship with the U.S. trumps that history.
Thursday, February 16, 2012
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Honduran Prison - No Me Gusta
If media reports are to be believed, a vicious fire has led to the deaths of over 300 inmates at a prison in Honduras. For further specifics, please click on the link here.
Fox News Honduran Fire
While I am sure that few tears will be shed outside of those who count themselves as friends, and family of those who have lost their lives, it is scary. This isn't the first time a crazy inferno has taken the lives of many at a Honduran correctional institution. In fact, it appears to be the 4th such fire to claim the lives of inmates in that country since 1994. All of the prior events led to the loss of at least 70 lives.
What I don't know, and the area of largest concern to me, is whether all, most, or only some of the inmates had already been convicted of criminal offenses. The English Language news articles I have seen imply that these were bad people who had already been convicted by a Court of having done bad things. Even if that is the case, burning alive can seldom - I'd say never - be justified by analyzing who has been burned to death.
The more troubling thing to me is what the event says about the general commitment to justice, safety of the public, and rehabilitation. A system comprised of facilities that regularly (at least 4 times in 15 years) breaks down to the point of permitting mass extrajudicial death, is a system that can't be tolerated. What does the repeated failure say about the interest of the public in improving the likelihood that inmates will be returned to society better able to interact with the law-abiding? I know that most don't care, and you don't have to. If any one of these men died before trial, it is one too many. That trial would have been an opportunity for the accused to face his accuser. It was also an opportunity for the public, the family of victims, and victims themselves to seek justice. When the government system fails, as it did here, both sides are hurt.
Fox News Honduran Fire
While I am sure that few tears will be shed outside of those who count themselves as friends, and family of those who have lost their lives, it is scary. This isn't the first time a crazy inferno has taken the lives of many at a Honduran correctional institution. In fact, it appears to be the 4th such fire to claim the lives of inmates in that country since 1994. All of the prior events led to the loss of at least 70 lives.
What I don't know, and the area of largest concern to me, is whether all, most, or only some of the inmates had already been convicted of criminal offenses. The English Language news articles I have seen imply that these were bad people who had already been convicted by a Court of having done bad things. Even if that is the case, burning alive can seldom - I'd say never - be justified by analyzing who has been burned to death.
The more troubling thing to me is what the event says about the general commitment to justice, safety of the public, and rehabilitation. A system comprised of facilities that regularly (at least 4 times in 15 years) breaks down to the point of permitting mass extrajudicial death, is a system that can't be tolerated. What does the repeated failure say about the interest of the public in improving the likelihood that inmates will be returned to society better able to interact with the law-abiding? I know that most don't care, and you don't have to. If any one of these men died before trial, it is one too many. That trial would have been an opportunity for the accused to face his accuser. It was also an opportunity for the public, the family of victims, and victims themselves to seek justice. When the government system fails, as it did here, both sides are hurt.
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Beware the Amish Bearing Raw Milk
Not a Decision Between Guns, and Butter - Rather, Feds Use Guns to take the Butter
As a constitutional libertarian, few things are as annoying as the Federal Government interfering in consensual transactions between consenting adults. I know...anytime a sentence includes, "between consenting adults" the natural inclination is to believe that the discussion deals with SEX, or some other deviant topic. Imagine for a moment that this "transaction between consenting adults" isn't sex, for money, or any consideration at all. Instead, this transaction is for milk - specifically the sale of raw (unpasteurized) milk from an Amish farmer trying to make his way in the modern commercial world, to wealthy families living in the suburbs of Washington, D.C. This, friends, is the world (country) in which you live.
In 2012, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), appears to lack sufficient tasks to complete that they decide to spend time raiding Amish farmers, and in constructing straw purchases to back their desire to shut down consensual commerce. Problematically, given the state of the law and law enforcement, I can't make a strong argument that the farmer's actions weren't illegal. All I can say is that they shouldn't be. The crux of the problem for Mr. Daniel Allgyer, (Amish Farmer) is that, in order to maximize his business endeavor he decided to sell his wares (raw milk) across state lines. You see, when you run a farm in Kinzers, Pennsylvania, you may only have a local population of 2,800 people. Simultaneously, you are only 100 miles from Washington, D.C., and its whole organic-crazed populace.
It isn't the production, and sale of raw milk that ensnared Mr. Allgyer. It was the law (Commerce Clause of the Constitution), and more perniciously the interpretation that has been attached to the law that has done him in. At this point in our nation's history, it should be surprising to noone that the Feds decided to take down this operation. Only collective recognition of the problems we face from our Government, combined with a will to thoughtfully engage in thorough debate, can change our course.
Please see the Washington Times article linked below for additional information.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/feb/13/feds-shut-down-amish-farm-selling-fresh-milk/print/
As a constitutional libertarian, few things are as annoying as the Federal Government interfering in consensual transactions between consenting adults. I know...anytime a sentence includes, "between consenting adults" the natural inclination is to believe that the discussion deals with SEX, or some other deviant topic. Imagine for a moment that this "transaction between consenting adults" isn't sex, for money, or any consideration at all. Instead, this transaction is for milk - specifically the sale of raw (unpasteurized) milk from an Amish farmer trying to make his way in the modern commercial world, to wealthy families living in the suburbs of Washington, D.C. This, friends, is the world (country) in which you live.
In 2012, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), appears to lack sufficient tasks to complete that they decide to spend time raiding Amish farmers, and in constructing straw purchases to back their desire to shut down consensual commerce. Problematically, given the state of the law and law enforcement, I can't make a strong argument that the farmer's actions weren't illegal. All I can say is that they shouldn't be. The crux of the problem for Mr. Daniel Allgyer, (Amish Farmer) is that, in order to maximize his business endeavor he decided to sell his wares (raw milk) across state lines. You see, when you run a farm in Kinzers, Pennsylvania, you may only have a local population of 2,800 people. Simultaneously, you are only 100 miles from Washington, D.C., and its whole organic-crazed populace.
It isn't the production, and sale of raw milk that ensnared Mr. Allgyer. It was the law (Commerce Clause of the Constitution), and more perniciously the interpretation that has been attached to the law that has done him in. At this point in our nation's history, it should be surprising to noone that the Feds decided to take down this operation. Only collective recognition of the problems we face from our Government, combined with a will to thoughtfully engage in thorough debate, can change our course.
Please see the Washington Times article linked below for additional information.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/feb/13/feds-shut-down-amish-farm-selling-fresh-milk/print/
Friday, June 24, 2011
The NFL, Antitrust Exemptions, and "...it's probably something both sides aren't going to like"
Judge Kermit Bye threw down the gauntlet with the NFL, and the former NFLPA earlier this month when he told them that, "We will keep with our business, and if that ends up with a decision, it's probably something both sides aren't going to like, but it will at least be a decision." Although that sounds quite ominous, what could he possibly mean? Without additional information, or the ability to enter the mind of an Appeals Court Justice, it is, of course, impossible to know. The most frightening thing about the statement is that it could mean the unthinkable - destruction of the NFL as it is now known, and constituted.
I know that sounds alarmist, but what the conventional media coverage has generally omitted from its discussion of the NFL lockout battle is that there is only one professional sports league in the United States who enjoys a full antitrust exemption. That league isn't the NFL - it is Major League Baseball. The NFL previously was able to employ all of the anti-competitive measures it did in order to keep the Jacksonville Jaguars, and Cincinnati Bengals in relative parity with the remainder of the league only because these tools were collectively bargained for with the NFLPA. Without the NFLPA, the salary cap, free agency rules, and barriers to entry for new teams are all called into question.
The NFL's decision to lock out the players could come back to haunt it with more vengeance than ANY commentator I could find has proposed. There are myriad possibilities to what Judge Bye could have meant. My concern is that he might have meant that the NFL, and NFLPA "should be careful what you wish for because you just might get it."
In the context of a lockout without an NFLPA to bargain with, the NFL would be unable to reach an agreement on a salary cap, or any other expense-restricting measure as a group. Such actions would constitute an antitrust violation in the same way that United, Delta, and American Airlines constructing a salary cap for their pilots would be problematic. If players exercised sufficient sophistication, there is no reason that they could not form a competing football league within a short space of time. Imagine the Chicago Beers playing the Green Bay Pickers - still with Urlacher, and Matthews, but without a salary cap to contend with. Remember, these are millionaire athletes who have the financial tools to make this happen. As it seems that the players lack the wherewithal, or initiative to undertake such a venture, however, this seems an unlikely endgame.
A second possibility is that the NFL could carry on without its parity - creation measures. The issue with this outcome is that there is no way to stop Mark Cuban, or any other personality with desire, and dollars from starting up a competing franchise, and demanding that they be permitted to compete. The most likely variation of this possibility is the formation of an AFL-type situation that competes internally initially, but ultimately merges with what is now known as the NFL.
Copyright - David Weck - 2011 - All Rights Reserved
I know that sounds alarmist, but what the conventional media coverage has generally omitted from its discussion of the NFL lockout battle is that there is only one professional sports league in the United States who enjoys a full antitrust exemption. That league isn't the NFL - it is Major League Baseball. The NFL previously was able to employ all of the anti-competitive measures it did in order to keep the Jacksonville Jaguars, and Cincinnati Bengals in relative parity with the remainder of the league only because these tools were collectively bargained for with the NFLPA. Without the NFLPA, the salary cap, free agency rules, and barriers to entry for new teams are all called into question.
The NFL's decision to lock out the players could come back to haunt it with more vengeance than ANY commentator I could find has proposed. There are myriad possibilities to what Judge Bye could have meant. My concern is that he might have meant that the NFL, and NFLPA "should be careful what you wish for because you just might get it."
In the context of a lockout without an NFLPA to bargain with, the NFL would be unable to reach an agreement on a salary cap, or any other expense-restricting measure as a group. Such actions would constitute an antitrust violation in the same way that United, Delta, and American Airlines constructing a salary cap for their pilots would be problematic. If players exercised sufficient sophistication, there is no reason that they could not form a competing football league within a short space of time. Imagine the Chicago Beers playing the Green Bay Pickers - still with Urlacher, and Matthews, but without a salary cap to contend with. Remember, these are millionaire athletes who have the financial tools to make this happen. As it seems that the players lack the wherewithal, or initiative to undertake such a venture, however, this seems an unlikely endgame.
A second possibility is that the NFL could carry on without its parity - creation measures. The issue with this outcome is that there is no way to stop Mark Cuban, or any other personality with desire, and dollars from starting up a competing franchise, and demanding that they be permitted to compete. The most likely variation of this possibility is the formation of an AFL-type situation that competes internally initially, but ultimately merges with what is now known as the NFL.
Copyright - David Weck - 2011 - All Rights Reserved
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
The First
As the author of this blog, I thought it would be a good idea to get some basic info out into the world so that others can know a little bit about me. Criminal attorneys make many important contributions to society, but one of our greatest contributions is being able to stand in the middle of what the public perceives the world to be, and what it actually is. I am constantly amazed that my friends, and colleagues who are not involved in the criminal justice process have very little idea of what goes on around us.
The world is a dangerous place, but I don't think it is usually perceived that way. It is only in circumstances like those of the past few weeks, with flash mobs attacking foreign doctors in Streeterville (allegedly), that members of the community stop to take note of the violence around them. Typically, the criminal justice process shields the larger community from the knowledge of what is happening. Please don't mistake this as a negative critique, though. The economy of the United States depends on this shielding effect, and concurrently depends on those who provide that screen. When the veil is torn down, those who enjoy perpetrating evil feel they have the ability to do even more harm. Productive members of the community, frightened by what they have seen, turn inward - producing, and consuming less.
The criminal justice process is beautiful in that its design keeps the public at large from seeing its actions while affording the public every appearance of access. In Chicago, the main criminal courthouse is located at the intersection of 26th and California Streets. Have you been there if you have never committed a criminal offense - probably not. The courtrooms are open. The security is much less intrusive than before a domestic airline flight. Why haven't you gone to see what is happening in that large stone building? It is o.k. You don't have to go. We'll take care of the justice.
The world is a dangerous place, but I don't think it is usually perceived that way. It is only in circumstances like those of the past few weeks, with flash mobs attacking foreign doctors in Streeterville (allegedly), that members of the community stop to take note of the violence around them. Typically, the criminal justice process shields the larger community from the knowledge of what is happening. Please don't mistake this as a negative critique, though. The economy of the United States depends on this shielding effect, and concurrently depends on those who provide that screen. When the veil is torn down, those who enjoy perpetrating evil feel they have the ability to do even more harm. Productive members of the community, frightened by what they have seen, turn inward - producing, and consuming less.
The criminal justice process is beautiful in that its design keeps the public at large from seeing its actions while affording the public every appearance of access. In Chicago, the main criminal courthouse is located at the intersection of 26th and California Streets. Have you been there if you have never committed a criminal offense - probably not. The courtrooms are open. The security is much less intrusive than before a domestic airline flight. Why haven't you gone to see what is happening in that large stone building? It is o.k. You don't have to go. We'll take care of the justice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)