Comments on: Federal Charge Dismissed Against Molino Man Convicted Of Stealing Copper Wire

By: David Huie Green

David Huie Green — Thu, 18 Sep 2014 03:10:59 +0000

REGARDING:
“Whatever happened to the Constitutional prohibition of “double jeopardy” “

Different governments are not restrained by the actions of other governments. A county judge can’t find a man innocent (or as in this case guilty) of a crime and that mean the federal government has to ignore — let us say — murder against a US citizen.

See: United States v. Lanza
Including the statement
“We have here two sovereignties, deriving power from different sources, capable of dealing with the same subject–matter within the same territory . . . Each government in determining what shall be an offense against its peace and dignity is exercising its own sovereignty, not that of the other.”

And you also have cases such as BP having one blowout, affecting the USA as a whole and several states individually. You wouldn’t want a situation in which BP could settle with Wyoming and the Federal Government as well as Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas and Florida would thereby be forbidden to seek reparations under misunderstanding of Double Jeopardy as applied to different governments.

David for avoiding crime in the first place
rather than depending on loopholes

By: M in Bratt

M in Bratt — Wed, 17 Sep 2014 09:45:48 +0000

Whatever happened to the Constitutional prohibition of “double jeopardy” The feds have, for years when unhappy with the verdict of the lower courts, renamed a crime, and tried people a second time for the same offense. The framers of the Constitution are rolling over in their graves.

By: David Huie Green

David Huie Green — Tue, 16 Sep 2014 17:53:18 +0000

So if you steal small amounts every day, you can do it forever?

This cost/ benefit analysis seems flawed somehow.

David for the long view

By: Jay

Jay — Sun, 14 Sep 2014 23:10:55 +0000

I worked for the gov’t. The way it works is cost vs. benefit. If the costs out weigh the benefit the feds won’t prosecute even though a person is guilty. In this case, it is not worth the cost of labor to prosecute for $1,000 worth of stuff.

By: Sane Ameican

Sane Ameican — Sun, 14 Sep 2014 19:16:23 +0000

I think this one is a case of “they have better things to spend taxpayer dollars on.” At least I would hope so.

By: David Huie Green

David Huie Green — Sat, 13 Sep 2014 21:51:14 +0000

So he obviously is guilty but they don’t want to bother?
It makes one wonder about the ones they DO select to prosecute.
Maybe they too can beat the rap based on the self-same selective prosecution.

David for silver linings

By: Gembeaux

Gembeaux — Sat, 13 Sep 2014 16:26:24 +0000

Gee. I wonder why young folks don’t worry about the consequences of their criminal activity? “Ain’t no thang”…so I’ve heard.