Reddit reviews Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent (Encounter Broadsides)
We found 44 Reddit comments about Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent (Encounter Broadsides). Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
>Now, it is highly unlike that the DoJ would prosecute a 17-year-old for using Google, even if they have violated Google's TOS by doing so. Instead, the Justice Department wants to have the option to threaten people with prosecution under CFAA if they so choose, usually as part of a bigger case.
Our government has created a system where anyone and everyone can be considered a criminal if the government wants you to be. It's really, really dangerous. This can easily be turned on anyone who the government doesn't like.
I would recommend everyone read this book, it's eye opening:
http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594032556
http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594032556
There's a book on it.
This, absolutely. Heck, there's even a book about this very problem called Three Felonies a Day.
Good for you! Except if you're living in the US you're already likely commiting three felonies a day.
There are some massive reasons why you need to care: proliferation of arcane criminal laws and prosecutorial discretion. In combination with extensive surveillance of everyone, these form an unholy trinity that allows those in power to squash anyone they want to. How does it work? Let me start at the beginning.
What is the criminal justice system? In many people's minds, it is the way that we stop the bad guys. The good guys figure out what the bad guys are doing, catch them at it, and put them in jail, right? That's the story we tell to children and many people never understand it any better than that. But it's all wrong.
What the criminal justice system really is is the machine we have built to apply legitimate civil force. It's a weapon: in every arrest, after every trial, is the barrel of a gun pointed at someone and metal cages to restrict their movement. But at whom is it pointed? And who's in the cages? That depends on how you build the machine and who is operating it.
So how have we built the machine? We've built it so that there are so many crimes you cannot avoid committing one. There are literally tens of thousands of crimes at the federal level alone. One legal analyst wrote a book arguing that just about everyone commits three federal felonies every day. Though that claim may be exaggerated for effect, the basic proposition that federal criminal law is so comprehensive and vague that nearly anyone could be prosecuted is, if we are honest, hardly debatable. But surely the prosecutors only go after the bad guys, right?
Enter the federal prosecutor and prosecutorial discretion. What this means is that a prosecutor has complete control over who to charge with a crime. Bring him a clearly guilty friend, and he could decline to charge him. Bring him an innocent enemy, and he could charge him. But wait, you say, he's innocent! Sorry, see above. No one is innocent.
Many dismiss it as a silly conspiracy theory, but let's listen to someone who really knows what he is talking about, then Attorney General of the U.S. and future Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, speaking to the U.S. Attorneys serving under him in 1940:
>If the prosecutor is obliged to choose his cases, it follows that he can choose his defendants. Therein is the most dangerous power of the prosecutor: that he will pick people that he thinks he should get, rather than pick cases that need to be prosecuted. With the law books filled with a great assortment of crimes, a prosecutor stands a fair chance of finding at least a technical violation of some act on the part of almost anyone.
And of course thousands of criminal laws have been passed since 1940. The odds of a prosecutor being able to find "at least a technical violation of some act on the part of almost anyone" have only increased. Nevertheless, one might argue that Jackson has only identified a potential problem; surely there are safeguards in place and simple politically motivated prosecutions are not a problem in the 21st century.
If you are one of those people, would it surprise you to learn that from 2001-2007, the Bush DOJ investigated seven times as many democratic officials as it did republican ones?
Alternately, how would you view the story of Alabama Governor Don Siegelman, who was convicted of bribery amidst claims that the prosecution was politically motivated? I can tell you what 44 attorneys general thought about the prosecution - they were concerned that the case "may have had sufficient irregularities as to call into question the basic fairness that is the linchpin of our system of justice."
Now this was already a problem well before the whole NSA thing came about. But when you enable those people in control of the system to access a vast wealth of information about the activities of every person in the country, all barriers to prosecution are removed. Criminal prosecutions could easily be brought against all enemies, whether personal or political. A significant but manageable problem turns into a rampaging beast that tramples everyone in its path, and people like you sit on the sidelines and cheer on the destruction, confident that you will not find yourself being trampled. So you say only criminals need to be concerned? I suppose you're technically right, but the problem is that we live in an age where we are all criminals.
Read the book Three Felonies a Day and say that again.
Right, and I didn't understand how much resistance you need to give in order for it to be entrapment. Ultimately even if your case ends up being text book entrapment (whatever that is) you still have to convince a courtroom that it is entrapment, so you're still at the mercy of the courts, so your best bet is to avoid all illegal activity (which is practically impossible).
>criminalizing basically the entire Internet will follow
That's the point. They make sure the framework is illegal so they can selectively crack down on anyone they want, any time they want.
Driving works this way too. Speed limits are artificially low so that everyone speeds, and they can pull over whoever they want to fuck with.
Here's a neat book that explains how every single person in America is a wanted criminal, that way the government can pick and choose who they target, any time they want.
So you think. I'm certain you've committed more felonies than you know.
"Three Felonies a Day"
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1594032556?tag=freetalklive-20
Apparently in America we have enough laws that every single citizen commits 3 felonies daily.
https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Encounter-Broadsides/dp/1594032556/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?crid=2OALDNY6IIDE&keywords=3+felonies+a+day+book&qid=1554343637&s=gateway&sprefix=3+felonies&sr=8-1
In a similar vein is Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent. haven't read it, but it comes highly recommended.
> Right, but Trump was supposed to be that drastic change, he was the supposed flamethrower ready burn this pestilence from the field.
In who's minds???
> However, we have gravely underestimated the seriousness of the situation.
Says someone who hasn't bought an Evil Black Rifle and lots of ammo for it???
> Call me conspiracy theorist all you like, but it doesn't take much to see an aggressive attempt on passing legislation that is vague enough to throw anybody in jail.
Errr, we've long been there. See e.g. Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent See also Arrest-Proof Yourself for the local version, and how to make yourself an unattractive enough target they'll move on to easier prey. The Feds openly operate a (Left Wing) Death Squad, the FBI Hostage "Rescue" Team, most recently shooting at the only guy killed in the Oregon standoff.
> Like Hate Speech laws and media narratives, that can condemn anyone for "disturbing the peace".
Best we hope the Supremes continue with their 5 member majority in favor of free speech (Citizens United was where the Left really showed its hand, banning core political speech).
> Nowadays, mass bans and blacklisting is more common than ever, and the people in these categories are taking the full brunt of it.
Hard to underestimate the evil and major effects of the mostly Bay Area totalitarian tech Left.
> In short, this is much bigger than video game industry or American politics, this is far worse and it may just have been too late at this point.
"Despair is a sin" as Jerry Pournelle liked to say, and it's hardly over. Heck, the counter-revolution is just beginning, and we hold a great number of high cards. We can, at the extreme of a worst case extreme civil war, liquidate the vast majority of our enemies in the US and almost all their current voting based political power by killing the exquisitely fragile big Blue cities they live in.
> The Soviets got the last laugh in the end.
Indeed, they'd essentially won by the end of the 1930s, through their willing accomplices.
Here are a couple of books for you: Three Felonies a Day and Go Directly to Jail
https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594032556
Good book I’m in the process of reading...Talks about how our laws are so complex,vague, and convoluted that the average professional commits 3 felonies a day without their knowledge.
Three Felonies a Day, an account by a former FBI agent about how they exaggerate things until they fit the definition of vaguely defined felonies.
https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594032556
I give you: http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594032556
>There is no governmental department deciding how many leather boots will be made this month.
You've obviously never spent a day reading the language government bills, laws, or regulation. There are hundreds of thousands of pages of federal code alone (not even delving into state and local regulations) that govern every conceivable facet of human life. No matter what you do in a given day, you're probably breaking some government rule.
And you're going to sit there and tell me that they don't micromanage the way we live or run our businesses?
I think this is the book you are looking for
It's as hard as getting your friends to install Snapchat or Skype.
If they want privacy, it literally couldn't be any easier. Regardless, if you love big brother and want them collecting your selfies or sexts, be my guest.
www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/27/gchq-nsa-webcam-images-internet-yahoo
I'm not giving up my rights and data when such free and simple solutions are readily available.
Even if the book title is hyperbole, government overstepping their bounds, parallel construction and tacking on charges has been well documented time and time again, which is also what the cited book goes into detail about.
www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1594032556/
There's a book about it.
Have you read three felonies a day? The person has probably broken numerous laws, and her being a criminal is something the defense would want to bring up. Hence, pleading the fifth is probably a valid option. Yes, if the prosecution wants he can get an order to testify, but it might scare him/her off. Regardless, there is no reason to be nice to someone forcing you to testify.
Wait.. you don't? Maybe you haven't read this book
Eh, there's a nice hill on the way to work. Last week I technically ran a couple miles an hour over the speed limit after not perfectly timing my breaks/downshifting. Ok ok, I was really just jamming to music and missed it.
Anyway, I'm pretty damned sure everybody's broken some law and on a regular basis. Books have even been written on that subject.
If you mean people who try to mind the law and fail, there's lots of us.
http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594032556
To me, it seems like these restrictions are in place so healthy organs aren't wasted on unhealthy people. For instance, you don't want to give someone a fresh liver when they are going to die of lung cancer a few years later. To now discriminate not on the basis of health, but one's ability to follow laws (that didn't exist for most of our country's existence) seems wrong.
If these restrictions are based on health concerns, I think people who consume unhealthy foods should be put at the end of the list.
Because if we're doing this the legal way, no one would be eligible for organ transplants. Hell, you probably committed three felonies today.
This had me rolling my eyes so hard it must've looked like a seizure. Now, are you trolling or just ignorant? Because I can guarantee you, (yes, you), have committed criminal actions, felonies even, and most likely had nary a clue. Perhaps this will give you some much-needed perspective: http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594032556
Frankly it saddens me that you, and those who argue similarly stupid shit, are free to post on Reddit while countless poor bastards rot in cages for victimless crimes, some for so long they wouldn't know how to use the device you're posting from.
Or maybe you're kidding and I missed the joke, in which case I apologize. Unfortunately I can't tell, because there are plenty of people out there who genuinely believe this bullshit, and who deserve to have their eyes opened to the consequences of living in a functional police state where such petty things as what you consume, whom you consensually bang, and what pictures you look at online can land you in prison.
You should read "Three Felonies A Day".
Just how government works. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
Read this book and be frightened.
I live in the US, which has an absurd percentage of its citizens in jail. Thus the overpopulation.
You have probably committed a felony at some point in your life. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1594032556/
This.
Notice I said unwittingly, most people don't realize they have broken some obscure, ridiculous laws during the course of their day.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704471504574438900830760842.html
http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594032556?tag=duckduckgo-d-20
> if you're a good person, you've got nothing to hide
There are a number of detailed arguments to refute that. I'll just do some one-liners:
>That's my point, though. It's a news story that a congressman wants to use his power to lock someone up for their opinion. In a country like China, it just happens.
It just happens here too. If you really think you have freedom of speech, try mouthing off to a cop and see how many misdemeanors you get slapped with.
>edit- I just looked at your link and your comments are kinda disingenuous. I mean, did you even read the complaint? He wants her prosecuted for breaking a federal law in regards to forming fund raising committees for federal politicians.
No, he sees a prominent online critic, and wants her silenced. Freedom of speech, but he doesn't like the speech. So what does he do? He digs into the federal legal code, which is tens of thousands of "codes" long (thousands of pages), in dense legalese that highly paid lawyers have trouble navigating and finds something to pin on her. All because she put up a website he doesn't like. It's got nothing to do with fraud.
Read Three Felonies a Day. It'll be a nifty education for ya. You're a federal felon, and you probably don't even know it.
>I honestly don't see anything wrong with him wanting this action taken, considering all the shit she did. I didn't even know about this story until your link but actually reading it makes me side with him almost 100%.
Good for you. I'll be sure not to speak up for you when some politician or prosecutor decides to railroad you for violating an unconstitutional law you didn't even know existed.
Your friend is out of compliance and blissfully ignorant. He is probably committing Three Felonies a Day. Once he hires his first employee, his tax and regulatory burden will skyrocket.
Archives for the links in comments:
----
I am Mnemosyne 2.1, Actually, it's about ethics in governing. ^^^^/r/botsrights ^^^^Contribute ^^^^message ^^^^me ^^^^suggestions ^^^^at ^^^^any ^^^^time ^^^^Opt ^^^^out ^^^^of ^^^^tracking ^^^^by ^^^^messaging ^^^^me ^^^^"Opt ^^^^Out" ^^^^at ^^^^any ^^^^time
> Exactly as you say, it's all up to the judge wether or not you have committed a federal crime if you mail USPS. Have you violated "community standards"?
A postal inspector, then a prosecutor, then a judge, then a jury. And since the jury's answer is so likely to be "no", everyone prior to them is not even going to try it.
> If you mail it FedEx, no judges involved, no possibility of a crime committed.
No crime under §1461. Unfortunately, under §1462, using a common carrier like FexEx to transport obscene matter is also a crime.
§1462 also covers computer systems.
Three felonies a day, baby. Three felonies a day.
Jesus, they can fucking make us liable for everything under the sun - try reading 3 Felonies a Day http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594032556
It is to make a point, like the Alabama immigration law, they bitch and bitch and bitch about illegals and now they are crying in their PBR about the crops rotting in the fields.
Companies bitch about people "stealing" content - here's an idea, focus your bitching/suing on the companies making money off the fact that someone posted copyrighted content - djstinkbug69 is not making money off posting Lil' Wayne's "I Feel Like Dying". youtube is making the money, so it is fine for them to take the profit from "illegal" content but not the responsibility - wow, that sounds familiar.
I say let the media companies fight it out in court or via lobbying or in the ring with the distribution companies; instead of the media companies abusing the court system to fight essentially defenseless individuals.
> I think that's an extreme and unrealistic premise.
Try this on for size: "We're All Felons, Now."
> Congress has been adding about 55 new crimes to the federal criminal code each year since the 1980s. There are now about 4,500 separate federal crimes. And that doesn't include federal regulations, which are increasingly being enforced with criminal, not administrative, penalties. It also doesn't include the increasing leeway with which prosecutors can enforce broadly written federal conspiracy, racketeering, and money laundering laws. And this is before we even get to the states' criminal codes.
>
> In his new book, the Boston-based civil liberties advocate and occasional Reason contributor Harvey Silverglate estimates that in 2009, the average American commits about three federal felonies per day.
I'm starting to think you're trolling. I find it troubling to believe someone has such an absolutist view point.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1594032556/ref=mw_dp_mdsc?dsc=1
If the felons are so dangerous that they cannot be trusted with a firearm, why would they be let out of prison in the first place?
Furthermore, if they have shown that they do not respect laws placed on them in the first place, why would they do so with bans on possessions of firearms? You do understand that you have probably committed a few hundred felonies in your lifetime. Should you be trusted with a firearm? Afterall, you have probably committed multiple felonies in the last week.
If the felons are going to commit a crime (and break the law), why would writing another law stop them from getting guns and using them against people (why you are concerned about them owning them in the first place)? It doesn't. It's an overinclusive rule which renders large groups of American citizens helpless. Many of these people live in very bad areas and you would throw them into cages because they have the audacity to arm themselves so they can defend themselves and their families.
>Non-citizens.... It's just my belief that if you are not a citizen, as defined by the 14th amendment, you are not protected by our constitution.
Humans have rights. The Constitution does not grant these rights, the Constitution prohibits the government from infringing on pre-existing rights. You didn't really provide an answer to why they shouldn't be allowed to own firearms legally, you dodged the question by saying non-citizens are not protected by the Constitution (which isn't true).
So again, why should non-citizens not have the right to own a firearm?
> Don't worry about it, I'll just chalk it up to bullshit.
I have thousands of posts, now you are just being an asshole. How about you try finding a comment of yours you made 6 months ago and tell me how easy reddit makes it. A quick Google search turned up a whole fucking book.
Do your own research before you advocate for the removal of my rights.