Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr was the lead for the Supreme Court decision in 1929 which declared a citizen is required to report income from illegal sources and notwithstanding the protection against incrimination in the Fifth Amendment.
This is a classic in American law in which the Constitution gives rights to citizens but incompetent police forces want to override so they can prosecute citizens when they have no other way to do it. In this example, if the citizen reports the income then prosecution will come from the police regarding the source of it. If the citizen fails to report the income and uses the protection of the Fifth Amendment then the citizen is prosecuted for tax evasion.
This mechanism is precisely how Chicago cops and the Feds took down Al Capone. (WIKI: Al Capone)
The immediate frothy and hysterical reaction is likely, oh, so it's better to have Al Capone on the street is it.
That type of logic is why we do not engage in Facebook (cough) debates since it's impossible to advise people our purpose is to prosecute law violators in lawful ways. This concept does not in any way include changing laws for convenience but that's been fashionable through political manipulation of the Supreme Court and the current travesty of criminal law is the inevitable result of it.
Second-rate pols play that insidious game right now as they try to manipulate the choice of the next Supreme Court justice but the fact the political considerations of the judge matter necessarily mandate the result will not be justice at all.
This is a classic in American law in which the Constitution gives rights to citizens but incompetent police forces want to override so they can prosecute citizens when they have no other way to do it. In this example, if the citizen reports the income then prosecution will come from the police regarding the source of it. If the citizen fails to report the income and uses the protection of the Fifth Amendment then the citizen is prosecuted for tax evasion.
This mechanism is precisely how Chicago cops and the Feds took down Al Capone. (WIKI: Al Capone)
The immediate frothy and hysterical reaction is likely, oh, so it's better to have Al Capone on the street is it.
That type of logic is why we do not engage in Facebook (cough) debates since it's impossible to advise people our purpose is to prosecute law violators in lawful ways. This concept does not in any way include changing laws for convenience but that's been fashionable through political manipulation of the Supreme Court and the current travesty of criminal law is the inevitable result of it.
Second-rate pols play that insidious game right now as they try to manipulate the choice of the next Supreme Court justice but the fact the political considerations of the judge matter necessarily mandate the result will not be justice at all.
3 comments:
A very similar concept is inherent in the RICO law. When you read through this little gem - which is the law used to convict Buddy Cianci, I might add - you find that it essentially says, "we know you're guilty of something, we can't prove it, so you must be racketeering." That this legislation stands is proof positive that the Supreme Court is, at best, ineffective in their role in defending the integrity of the Constitution, and at worse, complicit in the gradual unraveling of the protections provided therein.
Agreed and yet another example of really not so much difference between voters who want to see common sense rather than more dogma. I don't see that RICO did much about organized crime except in terms of transferring it to a different account dept (e.g. The Clinton Foundation).
Different ACCOUNTING department
Post a Comment