I’m pretty sure our government has tons of more pressing things to worry about, like the deficit, the sagging economy, violent crime, and… I could go on, but I’d be wasting as much time as the government has on the whole Bonds saga. They’d be much better off figuring out how to dismiss ridiculous lawsuits like this one from our congested courts: http://lawblog.legalmatch.com/2011/12/12/kidnapper-sues-hostages-breach-contract/

Lt. Pike is looking like the Bull Connor of civil rights for hippies.

You made some valid points in the second paragraph, but I’d add that the Tea Party was quickly co-opted by moneyed interests, neutralizing its threat to the powers-that-be (early on, it was strongly anti-bank), while OWS has consistently and directly threatened the power of major corporations, which are also major donors to things like mayoral campaigns. Corporate political patrons are probably happy to have an such an easily co-opted rabble of libertarians-turned-bog-standard-dittoheads at their beck and call, making their own gussied-up robbery schemes look like legitimate mainstream policy.

That said, I assume that some, if not all, of the police responsible for keeping the peace at Tea Party protests were familiar enough with recent history to take care not to provoke another Oklahoma City or Ruby Ridge. Cops tend to come from working-class and military backgrounds, so they’re pretty familiar with right-wing cultural fault lines that police beat reporters usually miss.

Your second paragraph is quite a stretch!

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/18/us/reframing-the-debate-over-using-phones-while-driving.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=all

The US supposedly did away with this notion except in the case of Treason and even there, there is an anti-government joker in the deck.

Punishment for treason may not “work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person” so convicted. The descendants of someone convicted for treason could not, as they were under English law, be considered “tainted” by the treason of their ancestor. Furthermore, Congress may confiscate the property of traitors, but that property must be inheritable at the death of the person convicted.

I find it of great interest that those willing to prosecute the drug war take their most significant tactics – asset forfeiture and the display of the confessed – from those sterling protectors of liberty, the Church’s Inquisition and the Monarchs and Despots of the past. It appears that Newt Gingrich’s conversion to Catholicism is timely – in an historical sense. Wasn’t he the one that advocated public executions for drug dealers by beheading? Wow, the Statist Trifecta bringing together the bloody traditions of the Spanish Inquisition, the Tudor Monarchy, and the 1793 Reign of Terror. You have to give Newt credit. The bastard doesn’t do anything by half-measures.

Absolute best quote from a (licensed) hairdresser in the article:

But licensees like Nashua cosmetologist Pam New say that their training protects the public which trusts the state to regulate the industry. New says hairdressers use powerful, caustic chemicals like bleach that can cause scars from burns if used incorrectly. Consumers assume cosmetologists are trained and licensed now, she said.

“God forbid if anything happens,” she said. “Literally, we could make bombs with these chemicals.”

Good thing they’re not using hyperbole to protect their government-based barriers to entry or anything.

I’m sufficiently confused as to how a person’s property isn’t “property” under the 5th amendment, regardless of “who” is the defendant. I read a lot of the case law, and I’ve come to the conclusion that the robed tyrants wanted to excuse it.

“The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:
The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.
An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.
Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . .
A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.
An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.
Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.
No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.
– Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)”

“Parrella had sought 15 months in prison and argued that home confinement wasn’t punishment enough “for a man with a 15,000-square-foot house with all the advantages.” Bonds lives in a six-bedroom, 10-bath house with a gym and swimming pool.”

Translation: Depriving a man of his liberty on a technicality isn’t enough because that man is more successful than me!

“”The defendant basically lived a double life for decades before this,” Parrella said. He ripped Bonds not only over performance-enhancing drugs but over his personal life: “He had mistresses throughout his marriages.”

Parrella said Bonds made lots of money due in part to his use of performance enhancers and that he has been “unrepentant” and “unapologetic” about it.”

Look very closely at that, Jncc. Go over it slowly, in detail. Notice that absolutely nothing he mentions there is a crime.

“‘The defendant basically lived a double life for decades before this,’ Parrella said. ‘He had mistresses throughout his marriages.’”

I wonder how Parrella feels about the high point of his career as a federal prosecutor.

He lied to citizens on a grand jury.

You’re confusing your cynical dishonesty with wit.