http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/07/21/heritage-house-law/

Consider small-time inventor and entrepreneur Krister Evertson, who will testify at today's hearing. Krister never had so much as a traffic ticket before he was run off the road near his mother's home in Wasilla, Alaska, by SWAT-armored federal agents in large black SUVs training automatic weapons on him.

Evertson, who had been working on clean-energy fuel cells since he was in high school, had no idea what he'd done wrong. It turned out that when he legally sold some sodium (part of his fuel-cell materials) to raise cash, he forgot to put a federally mandated safety sticker on the UPS package he sent to the lawful purchaser.

Krister's lack of a criminal record did nothing to prevent federal agents from ransacking his mother's home in their search for evidence on this oh-so-dangerous criminal.

The good news is that a federal jury in Alaska acquitted Krister of all charges. The jurors saw through the charges and realized that Krister had done nothing wrong.

The bad news, however, is that the feds apparently had it in for Krister. Federal criminal law is so broad that it gave prosecutors a convenient vehicle to use to get their man.

Two years after arresting him, the feds brought an entirely new criminal prosecution against Krister on entirely new grounds. They used the fact that before Krister moved back to Wasilla to care for his 80-year-old mother, he had safely and securely stored all of his fuel-cell materials in Salmon, Idaho.

According to the government, when Krister was in jail in Alaska due to the first unjust charges, he had "abandoned" his fuel-cell materials in Idaho. Unfortunately for Krister, federal lawmakers had included in the Resource Recovery and Conservation Act a provision making it a crime to abandon "hazardous waste." According to the trial judge, the law didn't require prosecutors to prove that Krister had intended to abandon the materials (he hadn't) or that they were waste at all -- in reality, they were quite valuable and properly stored away for future use.

With such a broad law, the second jury didn't have much of a choice, and it convicted him. He spent almost two years locked up with real criminals in a federal prison. After he testifies today, he will have to return to his halfway house in Idaho and serve another week before he is released.

Wasilla eh?

That place is turning into the epicenter of all stupidity.

So what did he do to piss off Palin to get the feds to target him like this?

Way to miss the point, both of you. It's Federal laws, stretching back to Idaho in this one guy's case. The other example in the article is a guy in Texas.

You guys are missing the point. I, for one, am glad we live in such a peaceful time, a period in history full of civil rest and world peace, where our officers of the law have the time to dedicate their investigations to criminals like this. Can you imagine if we still had the crime rates of the last decade? This man never would have been arrested...scary... He'd still be out on the streets, just imagine the horror!

I hope none of you have ever handled prescription medication, you probably broke at least 3 laws in the process. If anyone else touched it, up to 10!

Someone obviously had a hard-on for this person and used the inane laws to go after him; not too surprising he may have had some enemies, given he was working on an alternative energy source. Any prosecutor worth his wages would easily have been able to investigate the matter and determine there was no need with this individual for a prosecution. Someone with a bit of power/money wanted him fucked with, and they got it.

The laws are not necessarily bad; it is how they are enforced that becomes the issue.

The laws are not necessarily bad; it is how they are enforced that becomes the issue.


Bylimet hit the nail on the head. This same thing could happen even at the county or sometimes local level. It just depends on who you might have pissed off and how much you pissed them off.

may have had some enemies, given he was working on an alternative energy source

Bylimets got sum serious skills. hitting two nails in one stroke!

Someone obviously had a hard-on for this person and used the inane laws to go after him; not too surprising he may have had some enemies, given he was working on an alternative energy source. Any prosecutor worth his wages would easily have been able to investigate the matter and determine there was no need with this individual for a prosecution. Someone with a bit of power/money wanted him fucked with, and they got it.

The laws are not necessarily bad; it is how they are enforced that becomes the issue.

He was doing something contrary to oil companies which have our government by the balls in some cases, and the wallets in others. No surprise they nailed him to the wall.

Bylimet hit the nail on the head. This same thing could happen even at the county or sometimes local level. It just depends on who you might have pissed off and how much you pissed them off.

Oh, well if that's the case, then I guess it's okay!

Oh, well if that's the case, then I guess it's okay!


Gee, how about showing where anyone has said that. Do you ever come to these boards anymore without having your panties in a bunch already?

Defensive much?

The laws are not necessarily bad; it is how they are enforced that becomes the issue.

A vague, punitive law is not a good law. That would be obvious to you if we were talking about traffic laws or how many stamps goes on a postcard.

I don't think he's being defensive. My point was any level of power can be abused. The federal government has no exclusive control of power abuse, it has also often been the only recourse to right the wrongs of abuse on State, County or local level.

States have many of their own rights, there was never an intention by the founding fathers to create a bunch of completely independent entities. Remember that Jefferson, Adams, Washington and the crew started a federal government not a states rights government.

Defensive much?


A good question. Care to answer it?

I stated the law is not the problem, but rather the people and their manner of enforcing it and using it in an abusive fashion. This can be done with any law. The situation you posted about is one about people, and not about the law itself. I am surprised you can not see this, being you are the original poster.

The law regarding abandoning hazardous materials is a good law, considering the manner in which materials have been dumped around the country and subsequently contaminating water tables and soil. And, like most any of our laws, it could be made more specific to minimize abuse in it's enforcement. Stating this in no way condones the situation you initially posted, and if you were not looking to argue and 'be defensive', I believe you would be in agreement.

Wrong.

An overbroad law is, by definition, not a "good" law. Look it up. Laws aren't supposed to be put in place to give wide jurisdiction to enforcement or even to the judicial. These sort of laws are how we end up with the judicial branch "legislating from the bench".

Your fixation on the hazardous materials law is completely missing the point of the article (did you read more than just the quoted text?). The fact that we're so blanketed by overbroad laws that we're at the mercy of those who can twist them to subjectively punish us is a serious problem, and it's getting worse every year as thousands of pages of law are passed.

Wrong.

An overbroad law is, by definition, not a "good" law. Look it up. Laws aren't supposed to be put in place to give wide jurisdiction to enforcement or even to the judicial. These sort of laws are how we end up with the judicial branch "legislating from the bench".

Your fixation on the hazardous materials law is completely missing the point of the article (did you read more than just the quoted text?). The fact that we're so blanketed by overbroad laws that we're at the mercy of those who can twist them to subjectively punish us is a serious problem, and it's getting worse every year as thousands of pages of law are passed.

Now I am 'fixated' on the hazardous materials law because I used that in my reply?!?

Who are you, and how did you get access to Sanchek's account? He was never this pathetic or argumentative and defensive.

You posted about a situation involving a citizen and how he was fucked with, and that was the context people responded to in this thread. Now you are wanting to say your post was about the "overbroad laws that we're at the mercy of". Reading your posts is apparently a waste of my time.

You have become better at Grumpy Old Man (255). Now, go read the article, come back, and discuss the actual topic instead of the one you imagined?

Yes, it's about overbroad laws. No, it's not just about the one example that I excerpted for you.