Sadly they could only get him for the money crime ... he deserves far more for the trust he broke by preying on children!!! Never any excuse for a person in power to abuse the people they are charged with protecting!!!
On Sat, Apr 30, 2016 at 10:58 AM, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > > April 29, 2016 > > *Dennis Hastert Sentenced to 15 Months for Non-Crime of Improper Cash > Withdrawals *Ryan McMaken > > [*From* Mises Wire > <https://mises.org/blog/dennis-hastert-sentenced-15-months-non-crime-improper-cash-withdrawals> > ]: > > Former U.S. Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert probably deserves to be in > prison more than many people who are already there. But the way he’s going > to get there spells bad news for ordinary, peaceful Americans. > > Earlier this week, Hastert was sentenced to 15 months in prison > <http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/dennis-hastert-ex-house-speaker-arrives-sentencing-wheelchair-n563401> > for the made-up “crime” of structuring, which is a situation in which a > person withdraws cash from a bank in amounts designed to not trigger > mandatory reporting on the withdrawals to federal agents. > > In other words, it’s a crime to comply with the law in America. If you > change your activities to adhere to the letter of the law, that’s a crime. > > The only way you would know this, however, is to read today’s articles on > Hastert’s sentencing very, very carefully. > > After all, most of the media coverage gives the impression that Hastert is > being sentenced for alleged crimes of sexual abuse. I say “alleged” > because, thanks to the statute of limitations in Illinois, Hastert can’t be > tried for the *real* crimes of sexual abuse. > > But real crimes such as preying on underaged teenagers should not be > confused with the non-crime of withdrawing cash “improperly” from a bank > account. Not even the judge in this case, who kept referring to the sexual > abuse accusations, is well-informed enough to make the distinction. Or, > more probably, the judge was simply grandstanding from the bench. > > The Hastert case makes for good, lurid press because of the sexual abuse > angle. But, legally speaking, Hastert was on trial for “structuring,” not > sexual abuse. > > These same financial laws are applied to ordinary people who have never > behaved improperly toward a young person at all. They’re applied to small > business owners who simply wish to mind their own business, but would > rather not have the federal government sniffing around all their financial > affairs. These federal laws are used to turn bankers into spies for the > federal government. > > As Jeff Deist noted in relation to the Hastert case in 2015 > <https://mises.org/blog/denny-hastert-and-feds-war-cash-0>: > > Now Hastert has been charged with two noncrimes > <http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/politics/indictment-of-former-house-speaker-dennis-hastert/1565/?hpid=z1>: > allegedly “structuring” over $1 million in cash withdrawals from several > banks (i.e. taking out less than $10,000 repeatedly); and allegedly lying > to FBI agents about what he had done with the money. First and foremost, > withdrawing one’s own cash from a bank is none of fedgov’s business. But of > course the feds hate privacy almost as much as they hate not taxing every > human transaction. So the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970, sold to the public as a > tool to fight money laundering and drug trafficking (for the children!), > was born. And along with it came the odious requirement for financial > institutions to report any cash withdrawals over $10,000. Keep in mind > that the original $10,000 reporting rule has never been adjusted for > inflation. In 1970, $10,000 could buy a new car, appliances, expensive > jewelry, etc. Just keeping pace with official BLS CPI > <http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl>would require raising the > reporting amount to nearly $61,000 today! So even if one accepts the > premises of the Bank Secrecy Act, individuals should be allowed to > withdraw, carry, and conduct business with $60,000 in cash without any > suspicion. > > Also note that the “structuring” prohibition was added by one of the many > amendments to the original Act > <http://www.fincen.gov/news_room/aml_history.html>. Cash withdrawals of > $10,000 or more from a bank must be reported, but withdrawals of less than > $10,000 may also need to be reported… And the person making this Junior > G-Man decision may be a 20 year old bank teller! > > Hastert may very well be a sexual predator, and if that’s so, he should be > punished for that very-real crime. If there’s a problem with the statute of > limitations, then that should be addressed. What has happened in the > Hastert case, though, is something else entirely. The federal government > has used a federal non-crime as a back-up plan for prosecuting a man who > hasn’t been convicted of the actual crime for which he’s being targeted. > > The existence of these federal non-crimes presents a very dangerous > reality for ordinary people. If true crimes can’t be proven in a court of > law, then the federal government, if properly motivated, will simply reach > into its bag of tricks and find some sort of federal non-crime that can be > used to punish the accused instead. Such “offenses” could be structuring, > or “lying to federal agents” (as in the case of Martha Stewart) or use of > the RICO act to convict people for unrelated financial acts that involve no > criminal intent at all. > > Even ignoring any sex crimes, Dennis Hastert spent much of his life as a > despicable politico, supporting and funding crimes against ordinary people, > either in the form of war crimes, domestic spying, or through his support > of the federal machine that now is taking him down. He’ll be missed by few. > > In this, the feds have chosen their case well. Given the conflation of > real sex crime with financial non-crimes, (and Hastert’s contemptible > public legacy) anyone who speaks out against harsh sentencing for fake > federal crimes wil be labeled an apologist for Hastert. But, as H.L. > Mencken once noted: “The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that > one spends most of one’s time defending scoundrels. For it is against > scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be > stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.” > > -- > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "PoliticalForum" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- brine http://brineb.blogspot.com/ -- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
