Category Archives: law

Man Loses Job, Gets Slapped With $525 Federal Charge for Mistakenly Taking $0.89 Soda Refill and Not Paying

Originally posted on Will S.' Anarcho-Tyranny Blog:


A construction worker from North Charleston, S.C., is jobless and saddled with a $525 federal citation for mistakenly taking a $0.89 soda refill he thought was free at the VA Medical Center in downtown Charleston.

The construction worker, Christopher Lewis, told WISTV that that the Wednesday incident was an honest mistake for which he tried to make amends by offering to pay the $0.89 for the soda refill when he was confronted by the Federal Police Force.

“Every time I look at the ticket, it’s unbelievable to me,” Lewis, told WISTV. “I can’t fathom the fact that I made a $0.89 mistake that cost me $525.”

A hospital spokesperson, however, called the incident “theft of government property.” The VA spokesperson said Lewis should have known the refill wasn’t free because there are signs all over the hospital informing patrons of the cafeteria to that effect.

Lewis said he never…

View original 177 more words


Israeli wife with American husband can’t get a get

(Sarcasm) Aw, poor thing, living apart from her husband by choice and having sole custody of their three children, just because she refused to give him access to them at a level that he considered fair (/sarcasm):

In Jewish society, there are estimated to be thousands of women in broken marriages where their husband refuses to give them the necessary religious document enabling a divorce. In some cases, the wife can remain trapped in the situation for years, unable to remarry or move on.

Shoshana is lonely. She has been raising her three children alone for almost 15 years. She is a not a widow, she is not divorced, she is what is known in Hebrew as an aguna, or a “chained” woman, because though she wants to, as a Jewish woman, she cannot free herself from her marriage to her husband.

In Judaism, in order for a couple to divorce, the woman needs to ask her husband for a “get”, a Jewish divorce. But some husbands refuse.

Shoshana lives in Israel and her husband lives in the United States, and despite a local Jewish Court requiring him to give her a divorce, he has not yet done so.

As a devout Jew, she is forbidden from dating, remarrying or having any sort of relationship with another man until she is divorced.

“A woman whose husband refuses to give her a divorce really is held hostage,” says Shoshana. “It’s the ultimate form of emotional abuse because he’s confining her to loneliness.”

Shoshana’s husband, Aaron, says he is fighting for custody and visitation rights for their now-teenage children.

In an email, he wrote that his wife is refusing to accept a divorce which allows him “any reasonable, guaranteed visitation or custody arrangements” and that he would be willing to give her a divorce that meets his conditions.

He claims that had she not erected “barriers to my having a guaranteed and normative relationship with my children then we would both be remarried (hopefully) by now”.

Naturally, the leftist BBC only feels sorry for her, considers her the victim, when in fact it’s her husband who is the victim, not being able to see his children at all… No wonder he won’t grant her a ‘get‘…

Just as a man must give a divorce, a woman must accept one, but today in Israel, there are only one or two men who are considered “chained”, compared to over 100 women, according to Rabbi Eliahu Maimon, head of Agunot for the Jewish Court Administration.

“In Jewish law, marriage is done with the full agreement of both sides, so when you divorce, you also need the agreement of both sides,” explains Rabbi Maimon.

“Marriage is a new spiritual reality between a man, a woman, and God. It’s holy, and when you want to break that spiritual connection, it has to be done properly.”

Mutual consent makes sense. We would do well to emulate that in our laws: end no-fault divorce, and institute only-by-mutual-consent-EXCEPT-if-one-party-is-cheated-upon-or-truly-physically-abused divorce, instead.

In the meantime, Shoshana remains imprisoned inside her marriage. She is now 43 years old, and while when she was younger, she considered the possibility of remarrying and moving on with her life, she fears those days have already passed her by.

“I’m not allowed to date other men, I’m not allowed to spend time alone with other men,” she says, or she will be considered “an adulterous woman.”

She could end it all by agreeing to an equitable custody arrangement, but she will not. Her own damned fault.

Shoshana’s case is being handled by a lawyer who is also a Rabbinical Court Advisor trained in Jewish law, a woman named Tehilla Cohen, who advocates for agunot in the Jewish court system.

They are waiting for the court to decide whether to adopt methods to force Shoshana’s husband to give her a divorce, which often works in Israel, but has no real power over someone who lives abroad.

In Israel, once the Jewish Court rules that a man must give his wife a divorce, if he does not comply, they can place civil sanctions on him, including taking away his driver’s license, cancelling his credit cards and closing his bank account, fining him, and in extreme cases even putting him in jail, says Rabbi Maimon.

Usually these measures are enough to convince a man to grant his wife a divorce, although there are several men sitting in Israeli prisons today and still adamantly refusing to free their wives.

In Shoshana’s case, because her husband resides abroad, a decree from the Jewish Court forcing him to grant her a divorce would only entail him being shunned by his local Jewish community.

I do feel sorry for the Israeli men who are punished by the Israeli state for exercising their religious prerogative; it’s as bad as garnisheeing of wages towards alimony in the West…  Their religious laws may be more favourable to men, but the laws of their very-westernized country, as a state, are no better, alas…

Rabbi Maimon says he is currently working on pushing through two new laws to help resolve these issues.

The first would allow the Jewish courts more power over restricting the lives of those men in prison, such as limiting their phone calls and visits.

The other would declare refusing to grant a divorce to be a criminal offence, thereby allowing extradition and dealing with the issue of Israeli husbands running away to other countries for refuge.

Making men international outlaws, just for refusing to cave to the whims of women like Shoshana, vindictively withholding access to their children from her husband… Yikes. Let’s pray Rabbi Maimon fails in his attempts.


New anti-prostitution laws in Europe are misandrist, and absurd

So, France recently re-criminalized prostitution, as have other countries in Europe. (I’ve previously shared my opinion on legalized prostitution here; not re-arguing the issue at this post, just noting some legal absurdities.) As the Atlantic article notes:

Unlike historical prostitution bans that penalize sex workers, the new laws target customers, making the purchase of sex illegal rather than its sale. Anyone caught paying for sexual services in France will be subject to a fine of €1,500, rising to a maximum of €3,750 for repeat offenders. This follows a model established in Sweden in 1999, but no country as large as France has yet tried anything similar. Beyond destroying their business, the new rules are supposed to go a little easier on prostitutes themselves. A law that fines prostitutes caught soliciting, introduced under Nicolas Sarkozy’s government, will be repealed. French prostitutes will also get support to leave the business, in the form of easier access to working papers (many are non-EU nationals), housing and a transitional stipend of €383 a month.

I don’t get the ‘logic’, if there is any, behind this. If the intent is to actually make the practice illegal, shouldn’t both the seller of the service, and the purchaser, be equally targeted? And in any case, if Party A sells something to Party B which is illegal for Party B to purchase, is Party A not aiding and abetting a crime? On that basis alone, why should Party A not be charged with commission of aiding and abetting an illegal activity? Ostensibly, the aim of this legislation is thus:

The issue driving the recent bans, however, is really that of human trafficking. According to a EU-funded report, over 23,000 people were trafficked in Europe between the years 2008 to 2010, and 62 percent of them for were destined for sexual exploitation. While pro-prostitution debate often focuses on a hypothetical free woman making an entirely unforced choice, the reality is that many European prostitutes have no such freedom. According to anti-trafficking campaigners, legal prostitution is making this situation worse, giving pimps and traffickers ways to operate further and hide their victims in plain sight. Abolishing legal prostitution does seem to reduce trafficking. In Sweden, prostitution has plummeted since a 1999 ban on buying sex. In 2007, Der Spiegel reported a maximum of 130 prostitutes working in Stockholm, compared to 5,000 in its smaller Norwegian neighbor Oslo (which in 2009, followed Sweden’s ban with its own). And while an estimated 600 women are believed to be trafficked into Sweden every year, this number pails in comparison to the 15,000 trafficked annually to Finland, a country with a population half the size.

Well, if that be so, then why not still fine anyone who voluntarily engages in providing such services, while not punishing anyone who is forced into it? After all, if the only way to stomp out human trafficking is to ban all forms of prostitution, then shouldn’t non-forced whores who willingly prostitute themselves also be targeted, so as to render the sale of sex completely unavailable? Why let such women, who voluntarily choose such an occupation, as opposed to those forced into it, off the hook? Again, they’re aiding and abetting what is an offense for their clients to purchase. Why no punishment?

Regardless of one’s opinion on what ought to be, regarding the legality or not of the immoral practice of prostitution, if it is to be banned, shouldn’t all involved be equally targeted by the law? If not, frankly, regardless of the purposes / intents behind such legislation, it’s simply anti-male, punishing johns but not whores. It is illogical, and makes no sense – unless, of course, the real aim is simply to punish the men who purchase such services, because other European women are upset that such options are available to men, legally – or at least have been, till now. After all, who is calling for similar legislation in Germany?

Germany’s Federal Statistics Office estimates that the country’s sex trade is responsible for €15 billion in economic activity each year, but it seems many Germans are now regretting the shift to legal prostitution. Influential feminist magazine Emma has launched a campaign to get it repealed, and they seem to be winning politicians over. The incoming coalition government plans to revise prostitution laws, and have just agreed to ban “flat rate” brothels, where customers can purchase unlimited sex during a single visit for a fixed fee. They are also making it a crime to buy sex from someone who has been trafficked.

Feminists. Of course. It would be feminists who call for the men who purchase but not the women who sell, to be punished, wouldn’t it? Does anyone really think their concern is purely for the victims of human trafficking?

The Atlantic article notes that the centre-right opposition party in France opposes the legislation, which of course was enacted by the current socialist government of France.

So, feminists and socialists favour this kind of legislation, while rightists oppose it.

I think, in the interests of fairness and justice, everyone ought to oppose such – because laws that are one-sided in their punishments are inherently unjust, regardless of the particular issue in question, frankly.


Are ‘bait cars’ and similar police-laid ‘bait’ moral, or are they a form of enticement?

Sticker on a Victoria, B.C. bait car. Picture taken by the Victoria Police Department.

Sticker on a Victoria, B.C. bait car. Picture taken by the Victoria Police Department.

The above picture accompanied this recent news story from Victoria, B.C., about three arrests made over the last month by the Victoria Police Department by the use of bait cars.

In fact, it isn’t just cars; as this story notes, police in some jurisdictions will also place things like wallets, purses, and the like on park benches, wait to see if someone takes the bait, then nab them.

That story shows what happened when a little girl in New York City was curious as to what was inside a car with its door left open: she and her mother ended up arrested, after she’d called her mother over to her; the larceny charges were dropped, thankfully, but I think the episode highlights a serious problem with such police practices.

Is the use of bait cars, and other types of bait, moral? I see some people on a Catholic forum have grappled with the question, as regards bait cars, at least.

Does it catch criminals? No doubt it does; as this clunky Wikipedia entry (which conflates a TV program showing footage from inside bait cars with the definition of bait cars themselves; somebody really needs to edit it, but anyway) notes:

The largest bait car fleet in North America, which employs the Minneapolis model, is operated by the Integrated Municipal Provincial Auto Crime Team (IMPACT), based in Surrey, British Columbia, Canada. Surrey was designated the “car theft capital of North America” by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in 2002.[5] Their bait car program was launched in 2004, and has contributed to a 55% drop in auto theft since then.[6]

All well and good, in itself. But what about situations like that mother and daughter in New York City?

The wiki about the ‘reality’ TV show called ‘Bait-Car’ quotes an officer:

“John Q Public doesn’t climb into bait cars,” a Florida officer states. “We are talking about people who have been arrested time and time again. Everybody we’ve arrested with a bait car has had an extensive criminal record.”[3]

Good for him and his department, that such has been the case. But while it no doubt will nab people who are habitual car thieves / thieves who steal stuff from inside cars, again, what about people like that mother and daughter? And it may also, as the Victoria story noted, catch a first-time offender – who wouldn’t have stolen that particular laptop if that bait car hadn’t been there, would he? Is that not entrapment, or at least, tempting one to a particular instance of commission of evil that might not have been engaged in, otherwise? Some on the Catholic forum linked earlier argue along such lines, and I’m inclined to agree.

What about someone who finds a ‘bait wallet’ on a park bench, and pockets it with the intent of taking it to a police station, only to have an officer jump out from behind a tree and arrest him or her with ‘theft’? What about ‘innocent until proven guilty’; would he or she be forced, as per droit civil rather than common law norms, to try to prove he or she was innocent, instead?

The bait-car wiki notes that:

Some argue that the use of bait cars is a form of entrapment, and therefore is unlawful. However, from a legal standpoint, bait cars are not considered entrapment because they merely afford criminals the opportunity to steal the car; entrapment, on the other hand, constitutes law enforcement persuading or encouraging a person to commit a crime that they would not have committed otherwise.

Okay, so there may be a legal distinction, but I’m not so sure it’s a distinction with a real difference, morally speaking. Because if a given bait car were not parked at a specific location, or a bait wallet left on a specific park bench, there wouldn’t be a potential crime to be committed, and arguably, parking a car in a vulnerable location, and leaving it unlocked, or leaving a wallet on a park bench, is enticing someone towards committing a particular evil that they wouldn’t have otherwise committed, had not the police dangled the carrot in front of them, even if not actually goading them into taking it. It’s like punishing an evil thought or impulse, by providing an easy target for that particular impulse. When it nabs a first-time offender, how can anyone reasonably conclude otherwise? Is such enticement fundamentally that different from entrapment?

(By the way, as an aside, I find the idea of turning such CCTV footage from inside a bait car into a ‘reality’ show utterly abhorrent; should actual police work be turned into ‘entertainment’ for TV viewers? But then, I’ve always felt that way about the show ‘COPS’, too.)

I want to ask another, related (in my opinion) and perhaps highly provocative question: if anyone agrees with me that this police practice is morally problematic, if not outright wrong, then what about police posing as minors online to nab would-be pedophiles? Is that any different; if so, how? Far as I can see, it’s similar, with the exception of the fact that in such cases, one is unlikely to nab anyone without pedophilic inclinations, of course. But shouldn’t we be charging people either for actual crimes committed, or attempts to commit an actual crime involving a real person, rather than one set up by law enforcement themselves? Might not first-time offenders, who might not otherwise have offended, also end up nabbed, and isn’t that morally problematic?

Finally, anyone read the Philip K. Dick sci-fi story ‘Minority Report’ or see the movie based upon it? Dick imagined a society where, through precognition of future events, crimes could be caught before they were committed, and the would-be perps arrested on the basis that they would have committed those crimes.

How are bait cars, bait wallets, or online ‘jailbait’ pedophile ‘sting’ operations that different?

Should that not trouble us?

Just a thought.

*Update: Simon Grey has posted a response to this; I in turn have responded in the comments here, to his post, since he does not currently allow comments at his blog, as we do.


Faith under attack in Third World western hemisphere countries

It has been noted that while the Church, as a whole, is in decline in the West, that it is apparently growing in Third World and/or non-Western countries in Africa (esp. places like Uganda and Nigeria) and Asia (esp. in places like China and South Korea).

However, trendwatchers may be interested to note that as for Third World countries in this hemisphere, which have traditionally been more or less Christian (the churches being long-established, and an integral part of the social fabric of Caribbean and Latin American nations), there are signs that the same sort of forces fighting against the faith in the West – increasing secularization, striving to push Christianity out of the public square – are also occurring in the Third World countries in our hemisphere, notwithstanding the still-fairly-strong presence of churches there.  I found a couple articles at some online Christian publications that highlight this.

First off, in Jamaica, bus drivers will now officially discourage people from preaching and evangelizing on their buses, based on customer complaints.  While I may question the appropriateness of such a venue myself, I think it’s striking that (a) enough people are complaining about this that bus transit services have felt the heat, and that (b) the bus transit services have thus felt it necessary to accommodate such sentiments.

Secondly, in Brazil, a federal prosecutor is urging the central bank to drop the phrase “God be praised” from Brazil’s currency, on the grounds that Brazil is an officially secular country AND that religious minorities might be offended, asking Christians to imagine “… if the real note had any of these phrases on it: ‘Praise Allah,’  ‘Praise Buddha,’ ‘Hail Oxossi,’ ‘Hail Lord Ganesh’ or ‘God does not exist,’”, how they’d feel.

I suspect that more Latin American and Caribbean countries will end up following, increasingly, the secularization trends of the West, with the resultant decline of the faith accompanying such moves, while the faith will continue to grow in non-Western societies in Africa and Asia where the faith hasn’t ever been as strong, in the first place.

The future will be ‘interesting‘, to say the least.


Australian Lawmakers Affirm Traditional Marriage in House Vote

Good news from Australia, for now, anyway…

But the Left is relentless, and will keep pushing the issue, no doubt.

Australia seems to be the most socially conservative of the white, English-speaking countries, but they will have to remain vigilant to keep that the case.


Posted by on September 21, 2012 in good news, law, sodomites, The Kulturkampf


Breakaway Amish cult leader charged with hate-crimes

A verdict came in in the trial of Sam Mullet, the Amish breakaway cult leader who had sex with the wives of men in his flock under the guise of counselling, and punished those who broke his rules by forcibly cutting their hair and beards; he was found guilty of hate crimes, with possible life imprisonment resulting.  (HT: Strange Herring)

Now, the guy is surely guilty of assault, and surely other various crimes, but ‘hate crimes’?  How are the things he did ‘hate crimes’?  He was Amish; his people were Amish; it makes no damn sense!

Just goes to show that ‘hate crime’ legislation is just a tool for the establishment to charge whomever they don’t like for whatever reason with a crime, if they can’t otherwise find them guilty (apparently) – or to punish them extra hard for being racist (if they’re white).


Posted by on September 21, 2012 in America, Brave New World Order, law


In India, homemakers may end up getting a monthly salary from their husbands

The Indian government is mulling over a proposal to force husbands to hand over a percentage to their wives.  (HT: TC)

Feminists in the West have been dreaming of this for years; funny that a non-Western, Third-World country is thinking of implementing such an insane policy.

I hope they’re not so stupid as to proceed with this hare-brained scheme, but if they do, at least then we can have data to demonstrate why it’s a bad idea for us here in the West, when its disastrous impact on India, both economically and socially, becomes apparent.

From the article:

The minister said if a portion of a husband’s income is allocated as wife’s share, it is likely to be spent on better food for children, on their  education and the overall quality of standard of living of that  household.

Right, because men are always financially irresponsible, and women always financially responsible, never spending money frivolously on themselves or spoiling their children, ever…


Ex-boyfriend filmed girl’s death leap so he would not be blamed

Smart man.

Cold, but necessary, given the zeitgeist.

Take note, men!  This is how you cover your ass, in such a situation – especially if you’ve touched the girl’s clothing, and it bears your fingerprints – but hell, even if not, just to prevent possible framing; you never know…

As an aside: the guy must have been quite alpha, if she couldn’t bear the thought of another woman having him.

Five minutes of alpha is worth a lifetime of beta, they say; and she thought her life was no longer worth living.

“She had her whole life ahead of her”, blah blah blah – no she didn’t, as she chose, of her own accord, to end it.


Posted by on September 19, 2012 in law


Red tape destroying freedom in America

Not that you didn’t already know that (of course you did), nor that it isn’t happening throughout the West (it certainly is), but one blog has compiled a list of 19 examples (not to mention other examples of official tyranny, such as the forbidding of hosting a public Bible study inside a family’s home), worth reading.

And worth quoting extensively, as I am doing here:

#2 Could you imagine being sent to prison for collecting the rain that falls from the sky on your own property?

Well, that is exactly what happened to one man in Oregon recently.  The following comes from CNS News….

A rural Oregon man was sentenced Wednesday to 30 days in jail and over $1,500 in fines because he had three reservoirs on his property to collect and use rainwater.

What are they going to arrest us for next?  Breathing the air?


#4 Apparently you are now considered to be “a terrorist” if you even dare to film what is going on at a TSA checkpoint.  But the TSA has no problem strip-searching elderly women and fiddling with their feeding tubes.

#5 In New Jersey, if you are driving around with an “unrestrained” cat or dog in your vehicle you can be fined up to $1000 for each offense.


#7 Down in Miami Beach, Florida it will soon be absolutely mandatory to properly recycle your trash….

City commissioners passed a recycling ordinance on Wednesday.

Once the ordinance goes in effect in July 2013, people who don’t recycle would be fined $350 for their first violation, $500 for their second violation and $1,000 for the third violation.

If you live in Miami Beach and you don’t like to recycle hopefully you have a really, really big bank account.

#8 In Hazelwood, Missouri it is actually illegal for little girls to sell girl scout cookies in the front yards of their own homes.

#9 In one Denver neighborhood, children have been banned from drawing on the sidewalk with colored chalk.

#10 All over the United States, lemonade stands run by small children are being shut down by police because they do not have the “proper permits”.


#12 Recently I wrote about a man that was arrested for hosting a Bible study in his own home. Well, it turns out that he is still in prison serving his 60 day prison sentence.

#13 Are you growing a garden?

If so, you might want to be very careful that it is not violating any regulations.

In a previous article, I discussed how one unemployed woman in Tulsa, Oklahoma had her survival garden brutally ripped out and carted away by government thugs…

A Tulsa woman is suing the city’s code enforcement officers after she said they cut down her garden with no cause.

Denise Morrison said she has more than 100 plant varieties in her front and back yards and all of them are edible and have a purpose.

She knows which ones will treat arthritis, which will make your food spicy, which ones keep mosquitoes away and treat bug bites, but she said none of that matter to city inspectors.

Last August, Morrison’s front and back yards were filled with flowers in bloom, lemon, stevia, garlic chives, grapes, strawberries, apple mint, spearmint, peppermint, an apple tree, walnut tree, pecan trees and much more.

That unemployed woman was relying on that garden to provide the things that she needed.

But the government control freaks savagely ripped it all out and left her with nothing.

Now she will have to be dependent on the government because she has no other way to take care of herself.

#14 Does your child ever throw temper tantrums?

If so, your child may get arrested and sent to a mental institution if he or she throws a tantrum in front of the police.

For example, a 6-year-old girl down in Florida was “throwing objects, hitting administration personnel and screaming uncontrollably” so police handcuffed the 40 pound little girl and shipped her off to a mental institution for evaluation.

#15 Did you ever take plastic utensils with you to school when you were a kid?

Well, these days if you live in Florida you better not do that.

An 11-year-old kid down in Florida was actually arrested by police, thrown in jail and charged with a third-degree felony simply for bringing a plastic butter knife to school.

#16 In the state of Massachusetts, all children in daycare centers are mandated by state law to brush their teeth after lunch.  In fact, the state even provides the fluoride toothpaste for the children.

Isn’t that just so nice of them?

#17 In the city of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania it is illegal to make even a single dollar from a blog unless you buy a $300 business license. The city government even went after one poor woman who had earned only $11 from her blog over the past two years.

#18 If you saw someone that was thirsty, would you give that person a cup of cold water to drink?

Be careful before you answer that question – you might be breaking the law by giving someone water.

For example, down in Louisiana one church was recently ordered to stop giving out water because it did not have the “proper permit” to do so.

#19 This last example might be the saddest one of all.  If you can believe it, all over the United States cities are actually banning feeding the homeless.  The following comes from a recent USA Today article….

Philadelphia recently banned outdoor feeding of people in city parks. Denver has begun enforcing a ban on eating and sleeping on property without permission. And this month, lawmakers in Ashland, Ore., will consider strengthening the town’s ban on camping and making noise in public.

And the list goes on: Atlanta, Phoenix, San Diego, Los Angeles, Miami, Oklahoma City and more than 50 other cities have previously adopted some kind of anti-camping or anti-food-sharing laws, according to the National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty.

Are you angry yet?

You should be.

All of these completely ridiculous regulations are absolutely sucking the life out of us.

That is probably why a recent speech by U.S. Representative Mike Kelly received thunderous applause on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives.  If you have not seen his speech about how regulations are killing America yet, please take a few minutes out to watch it.  You will be glad that you did….


Please share this video and this article with as many people as you can.

These control freaks are absolutely killing America.

I don’t want to see this country suffocated to death by red tape.

Instead, I want to see this country move back in the direction of maximizing liberty and freedom.

What about you?

What do you want for the future of this country?

A good question.  One all of us, not just in America but throughout the West, should ask, about our respective countries, because this kind of thing is happening everywhere.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 239 other followers