Overcriminalized.com Legislative Update

From Overcriminalized.com:

Table of Contents




New:



H.R. 386: Securing Aircraft Cockpits Against Lasers Act of 2011

H.R. 347: Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011

H.R. 322: Dangerous Products Warning Act



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



H.R. 386: Securing Aircraft Cockpits Against Lasers Act of 2011



Sponsor: Lungren (R - CA)



Official Title: A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to provide penalties for aiming laser pointers at airplanes, and for other purposes.



Status:

1/20/2011: Introduced in House

1/20/2011: Referred to House Judiciary Committee

1/20/2011: Referred to House Budget Committee

1/21/2011: Referred to House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security

1/26/2011: Mark up in the House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security

1/26/2011: Ordered to be reported by voice vote House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security

1/26/2011: Discharged House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security



Commentary: The bill would make it unlawful for any person to "knowingly aim[] the beam of a laser pointer at an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States, or at the flight path of such an aircraft." The penalty for such actions would be imprisonment for up to five years, a fine as authorized by Title 18, U.S. Code, or both. The language of H.R. 386 offers a limited number of exceptions to the general statutory prohibition, including carve outs for the aiming of a laser at an aircraft by authorized government officials conducting research, development, or testing operations, and the aiming of a laser at an aircraft for emergency signaling purposes. However, the definition of the offense does not safeguard from criminal punishment those who might aim a laser at an aircraft or its flight path accidentally, inadvertently, or with benign intent.





H.R. 347: Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011



Sponsor: Rooney (R - FL)



Official Title: A bill to correct and simplify the drafting of section 1752 (relating to restricted buildings or grounds) of Title 18, United States Code.



Status:

1/19/2011: Introduced in House

1/19/2011: Referred to House Judiciary Committee

1/21/2011: Referred to House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security

1/26/2011: Mark up in the House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security

1/26/2011: Ordered to be reported by voice vote House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security

1/26/2011: Discharged House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security



Commentary: This bill would amend section 1752 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code to restructure the statutory language, and reduce the protectiveness of the mens rea or criminal-intent requirements in the definitions of certain prohibited conduct in "restricted" government buildings, grounds, or areas. Section 1752 currently prohibits any person or group of persons from "willfully" and "knowingly" entering or remaining in unauthorized Government buildings, grounds, or areas; engaging in "disorderly or disruptive conduct" that "impedes or disrupts the orderly conduct of Government business" or is intended to do so; obstructing or impeding ingress or egress to or from Government buildings, grounds, or area; and engaging in "any act of physical violence against any person or property" in any Government building, grounds, or area. Violations of current law carry criminal sanctions of up to one year imprisonment, fines under Title 18 of the U.S. Code, or both. Violations that involve the use of a firearm or that result in significant bodily injury may be punished by up to 10 years imprisonment, fines under Title 18 of the U.S. Code, or both. H.R. 347 would restructure the language of Section 1752 defining the criminal offenses and reduce the level of criminal intent the Government must prove to establish a violation from a "willfully and knowingly" standard to a less-protective "knowingly" standard. The criminal sanctions available under existing law would not be altered by H.R. 347.





H.R. 322: Dangerous Products Warning Act



Sponsor: Conyers (D - MI)



Official Title: A bill to amend Title 18, United States Code, to provide for the protection of the general public, and for other purposes.



Status:

1/19/2011: Introduced in House

1/19/2011: Referred to House Judiciary Committee



Commentary: The extremely broad provisions of this bill would amend Title 18 of the U.S. code to subject any "business entity" or "product supervisor with respect to a product or business practice" to criminal sanctions for failure to inform or warn about a "serious danger" associated with any product, component of a product, or business practice. Any entity or supervisor who "knowingly" fails to warn (within 15 days of discovery of the dangerous product or practice) an appropriate federal agency, affected employees, or others who can "reasonably be identified" as at risk of harm would be subject to criminal sanctions of up to 5 years imprisonment, fines under Title 18 of the U.S. Code, or both. The bill would also criminalize retaliation against whistleblowers who warn a federal agency or any employee about a dangerous product or business practice, subjecting violators to criminal sanctions of up to 1 year imprisonment, fines under Title 18 of the U.S. Code, or both. The language of H.R. 322 neither defines "dangerous" nor limits application of the mens rea term "knowingly" to those who know that their conduct is unlawful or sufficiently wrongful to put them on notice of possible criminal punishment. The language of the offenses thus covers wide swaths of potentially legitimate and non-blameworthy conduct.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Verizon Sues FCC Over Net Neutrality Power Grab

From Big Government:

Jan 24, 2011 (yesterday)Verizon Sues FCC Over Net Neutrality Power Grabfrom Big Government by Seton MotleyVerizon Communications has become the first of what many expect to be many, to sue the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to undo its voting themselves Internet Overlords on December 21st.




This is an FCC self-inflicted wound; they flung wide open the door to lawsuits aplenty with their dictatorial vote – and the sloppy, self-contradicting and unauthorized order on which they voted.




The FCC decided to again usurp authority over the Internet – so as to then impose Network Neutrality – in a manner similar to the one it attempted in 2007 with the Comcast-BitTorrent situation.



A manner which the D.C. Circuit Court last April unanimously said the FCC is not statutorily authorized to execute.



A manner which FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski himself – just two months before calling for the vote and casting an “Aye” – readily acknowledges he and the FCC don’t have the juice to execute.



For their outrageously outsized part – completely unqualified “Public Interest” Group (PIG) Free Press was cited in the FCC order a ridiculous 53 times – the Media Marxists were livid with the order, somehow asserting that the FCC didn’t go nearly far enough outside its clearly demarcated legal bounds.



Leftists, after all, never allow facts to get in the way of a good beating.





And these PIGish Media Marxists were caught utterly unawares by Verizon’s lawsuit, which (as an admitted non-attorney) I find to be some of the best lawyering we’re likely to see for quite some time.



In layman’s terms, Verizon claims in their suit that the FCC order alters wireless licenses (which it certainly appears to do). A clause in the 1996 Telecommunications Act stipulates that if the FCC alters someone’s wireless license and that someone sues, they are guaranteed an expedited hearing in – the D.C. Circuit.



The venue which, as we just mentioned, unanimously dismissed the last FCC attempt to power grab Internet and Net Neutrality-imposition authority.



The completely unqualified PIGish Media Marxists were dumbfounded (shocking, I know). They were most likely under the assumption that no one would sue until the FCC finally filed their order in the federal registry – which it – as of this writing – still has not yet done.



Verizon’s brilliant legal wrinkle needed to be executed within thirty days of the order’s passage – or else they would have lost the ability to file the claim. (Exactly how the pertinent 1996 Act clauses will be interpreted and applied is unclear – so Verizon rightly erred on the side of calendar caution.)




The woefully unprepared PIGish Media Marxists responded in two ways – neither of which made any sense whatsoever.



Response #1 was:



Verizon is schizophrenic because they are suing to undo their own Verizon-Google Waxman legislation deal.



But Verizon objects to the FCC’s process – its product is obnoxious, but irrelevant. It is (rightly) asserting that the FCC didn’t have the authority to do anything – and are citing particulars of the unlawful order only as a way to tether it to the 1996 Act and thusly see that the order is vacated.



To what they agreed in their deal with Google was what became Congressman Waxman’s legislation. They were seeking the rightful path to any sort of FCC rules change – via laws passed by the People’s Congress.



The FCC acted unilaterally – without benefit of and in the face of opposition from Congress. Thus, Verizon sues.



The aforementioned lame misunderstanding of a fundamental and fundamentally simple aspect of this story was actually asserted by – an alleged journalist, the Washington Post’s Rob Pegoraro.



In our Leftist-Captive Media world, the Tech Sphere press is a particularly pernicious wing – often openly serving as a Media Marxist open channel. Pegoraro’s senseless contention demonstrates he either doesn’t comprehend what he’s covering – or does and intentionally misreports it. Either way, he shouldn’t be on the beat.



Response #2:



Verizon is just “forum shopping” – trying to get their case heard specifically and solely in the D.C. Circuit.



This is fallacious in multiple directions.



“Forum shopping” refers to lawyers looking to place their cases in the most favorable courtroom – the one most likely to deliver them their desired decision.




Verizon is not doing this. They are in fact doing nothing more than adhering to the 1996 Act – which calls for an expedited hearing specifically in the D.C. Circuit.



I know why the PIGish Media Marxists find this confusing – Verizon actually obeying the relevant law is throwing them.



But look who is “forum shopping.” Why, it’s the FCC.



In an unusual step last week, the Federal Communications Commission released public guidance in an effort to encourage “forum shopping” for lawsuits challenging the FCC’s order to regulate the Internet….



The FCC’s “Public Notice” provides a virtual road map for groups that might want to file suit over the so-called “Net Neutrality” order that the regulatory body approved in late December. The FCC doesn’t even hide the fact that it is encouraging groups to jump-start the “judicial lottery procedure,” which would ensure that the FCC has a shot at a more friendly venue to hear its defense for regulating the Internet.



For example, if three different entities or individuals file three separate lawsuits in three different federal court districts involving the same issue, in this case the FCC net neutrality order, the cases are essentially placed together and a lottery takes place to determine which federal district court will hear the case.



“Look, this isn’t anything new; the Department of Justice has at times forum shopped,” says the New York attorney. “You saw it with some terrorism cases. But I can’t think of a time when a federal agency sent out a kind of ‘wink, wink, nod nod’ press release that encouraged others to file with different federal courts so the agency can rig the system for a friendlier legal venue. I wouldn’t go so far to say it’s unethical, but it’s highly unusual. If I were in Congress, I’d be demanding an explanation, and if I were a federal judge I’d sure be annoyed at the agency for gamesmanship.”



The next Media Marxist “forum shopping” charge levied against the FCC – will be the first. For the recently and routinely raucous PIGs, this has been a Simon & Garfunkel moment.




So Verizon executes a shimmering legal move, and it leaves the PIGs at once flustered, flummoxed and fumbling for an adequate response.



Thus far, the Mighty Marxists have struck out. There is as yet no joy in Luddville

Do Bureaucrats Know Better Than You? the NLRB Thinks So

From Town Hall:


Katie Gage

Do Bureaucrats Know Better Than You? The NLRB Thinks So

Email Katie Gage
Columnist's Archive Share Buzz 0diggsdigg

Sign-Up In a democracy, the will of the voter is the ultimate mandate. Those elected to public office are the servants to the electorate, and by extension, this is true for the bureaucrats appointed and nominated by those same officials.



But all of this seems to be lost upon the members of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Whether it’s the board chairman, Wilma Liebman who previously worked for the International Brotherhood of Teamsters or Craig Becker who was previously on the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) payroll, their allegiance appears to be with union bosses, not the American people.



What has become abundantly clear is that the NLRB serves as an advocacy arm of Big Labor, instead of an independent agency charged with administering to the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). It is difficult to read anything else into the activist conduct now stemming from the little known agency.



Recently, in spite of the fact that the secret ballot is part of our history and revered in free societies, the NLRB has seen fit to threaten states with legal action for defending it. These bureaucrats seem to forget that they were nominated by and serve under a President who won election on a secret ballot vote and their agency is overseen by a Congress whose members are elected with private balloting.



Furthermore, their actions seem to contradict the words and sentiments expressed by President Obama, just this week. In an op-ed published in



The Wall Street Journal, Obama wrote, “Sometimes, those rules have gotten out of balance, placing unreasonable burdens on business – burdens that have stifled innovation and have had a chilling effect on growth and jobs.”



In threatening to sue Arizona, Utah, South Dakota and South Carolina for passing amendments



to their constitutions guaranteeing the right to a secret ballot in union elections, the NLRB is ignoring the will of the voter and rigidly adhering to the demands of Big Labor.



Union bosses have been unambiguous concerning what they expect from the NLRB. Last year, American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) President Richard Trumka’s right hand operative, Stewart Acuff wrote, “It [sic] we aren’t able to pass the Employee Free Choice Act, we will work with President Obama and Vice President Biden and their appointees to the National Labor Relations Board to change the rules governing forming a union through administrative action...”



And just as there is a great degree of clarity with regard to the NLRB’s motivations, there is an equal amount of transparency with respect to where voters stand. In South Dakota, for instance, over 79% of people supported the secret ballot amendment. In South Carolina, that number grew to 86.2%. And in both Arizona and Utah, the measures passed with significant majorities with more than six in ten supporting.



Few – if any initiatives – are able to gain the endorsement of eight or nine out of ten people, but support for the secret ballot did just that.



And that leads to the question, why is the NLRB actively undermining the expressed will of the voters in these states?



It comes back to the ideology of labor radicals like Becker who believe bosses – not workers – should have the say in whether a workplace is unionized. The best known iteration of this idea is the job-killing Employee ‘Forced’ Choice Act (EFCA) where voting would be done without any privacy by signing a public petition card exposing workers to intimidation and coercion.



The NLRB’s actions are the equivalent of a Big Labor bail out and demonstrate complete disregard for the intentions of Americans attempting to protect basic rights, while also working to weather a very challenging economy. Preventing states from protecting their workers sets the precedent and lays the foundation for passing card check through the bureaucracy’s backdoor, which the agency has already demonstrated significant interest in accomplishing.



The voters in Arizona, Utah, South Dakota and South Carolina have spoken. The members of the NLRB should ask themselves who they work for, the American people or Big Labor bosses?





Katie Gage

Katie Gage is the executive director of the Workforce Fairness institute.

Another Tax On The Poor

From Red State Morning Briefing:

Another Tax on the Poor




Posted by Erick Erickson (Profile)



Monday, January 24th at 10:30AM EST



42 Comments

Liberals, with the signature of President Bush, have driven up the cost of being poor in this country yet again.



That’s right — beginning this year in California and next year everywhere else, the incandescent lightbulb is being banned.



Now, the environmentalists say that’s not true — the bulb is just being phased out for new energy efficient light bulbs. But it is the reality. The cheap incandescent is being tossed aside for LED bulbs, halogen bulbs, compact fluorescents, etc.



It will be a failure of the Republicans in Congress if the incandescent bulb goes away. The replacements are all more expensive, many of them more hazardous, and the result is an increase in the cost of living for the poor in this country

Environmentalists: Hands Off My Dishes

From Town Hall:


Mona Charen

Environmentalists: Hands Off My Dishes!

Email Mona Charen
Columnist's Archive Share Buzz 0diggsdigg

Sign-Up I began noticing the white coating, dull film, and simply unclean dishes a few weeks ago. Naturally, I suspected that other members of my clan were failing to place dishes on the racks of the dishwasher properly. "If the water can't reach it, it won't get clean," I lectured (not, ahem, for the first time), ostentatiously removing a small bowl that had been slipped under a larger one, no doubt by a person who clings to the discredited idea that dishwashers should be loaded to the gills. And those little separators in the utensil caddy -- they are there for a reason, gentlemen!



But the crisis persisted. And, as the days passed, it became clear that the matter was beyond poor placement. Bits of spaghetti, stiff and stubborn, stuck like stalactites to bowls. The walls and doors of the machine emerged waxy and coated from each wash, in contrast to the gleaming surfaces of the past. Between the tines of forks, ugly bits of hardened remains resembled something you'd see on "NCIS" -- if not quite repellent, then certainly unwelcome from what should have been a disinfected, pristine dishwasher!



I switched brands of dishwashing liquid. No change. Topped off the rinse aid reservoir. No change. I'd be lying if I didn't admit that the thought of buying a new machine flitted through my consciousness. Sparkling, squeaky-clean dishes are a necessary part of our quality of life! But our dishwasher is only three years old.



And then I learned that I don't have a personal problem. I have a political problem. Jonathan V. Last of The Weekly Standard explains that, all across the nation, innocent Americans are grappling with the identical scourge. Our dishwashers are fine. The reason our dishes are dirty is that the environmentalists have succeeded in banning phosphates from dishwashing soap.



Until recently, dishwashing soap contained about 8 percent elemental phosphorus. That's the magic element that "strips food and grease off dirty dishes and breaks down calcium-based stains." It also prevents food from reattaching to the dishes.



Or used to. As of July 2010, the nation's detergent manufacturers, bowing to laws regulating phosphorus in 17 states, reconfigured the formula for all dishwashing soap to contain less than 0.5 percent phosphorus. It's taken till now for most of us to notice, as we used up the old (the wonderful old) soap and unwittingly made the switch.



Environmentalists argue that phosphorus winds up in our lakes and streams, causing algae blooms, which in turn reduce the oxygen available for other life. They admit that the amount of phosphorus coming from dishwasher soap is small, but, according to Jani Gilbert, a spokeswoman for the Department of Ecology in Washington State, "Anything we can do is good."



Well, hang on. According to a 2003 Minnesota study, only 1.9 percent of the phosphorus in that state came from dishwashing detergent. And even The New York Times acknowledges that fertilizer and manure are the big culprits, with dishwashing soap contributing only "a fraction" of phosphates in the water.



Besides, removing phosphorus has other environmental consequences. People may run their dishwashers twice (guilty), causing more greenhouse gases to be created, or they may hand-wash their dishes using more hot water than machines do (there are studies that show that hand-washers tend to run the hot water too long -- really).



This stealth attack on our dishes happened with little public debate. If there really is a serious problem with phosphates in our rivers and streams (and from my quick inquiries, it seems to vary considerably around the nation), then voters should be offered alternatives. We can reduce our use of lawn fertilizers, for example. I'd prefer a yellow lawn to grimy dishes if it came to that.



But I need to be convinced. Remember those compact fluorescent light bulbs that were supposed to save billions of kilowatts of energy? California was an early adopter and is spending $548 million over seven years to subsidize the sale of the bulbs (the rest of us will see incandescent bulbs disappear from shelves by 2014). But now it seems the CFL bulbs don't last 9.4 years -- more like 6.3. They don't work well when they're cold. They're very expensive. They cast a garish light. And if they break, you have to don a Hazmat suit to dispose of them. Meanwhile, LED lights are coming on fast, making the whole CFL thing seem as fresh as pet rocks.



In other words, environmentalists may not know what they're talking about. In any case, something as intimate and critical as the cleanliness of our dishes ought not to be decided through stealth or back-room deals. Arise! A cascade of complaints -- to the companies and to governments -- is our best hope.



Mona Charen

Mona Charen is a syndicated columnist, political analyst and author of Do-Gooders: How Liberals Hurt Those They Claim to Help

Overcriminalized.com Legislative Update

From Overcriminalized.com:

Table of Contents




New:



H.R. 196: Simplifying The Ambiguous Law, Keeping Everyone Reliably Safe (STALKERS) Act of 2011

H.R. 173: Medicare Fraud Prevention Act of 2011

H.R. 138: Ethics in Foreign Lobbying Act of 2011



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



H.R. 196: Simplifying The Ambiguous Law, Keeping Everyone Reliably Safe (STALKERS) Act of 2011



Sponsor: Sanchez (D - CA)



Official Title: A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, with respect to the offense of stalking.



Status:

1/6/2011: Introduced in House

1/6/2011: Referred to House Judiciary Committee

1/6/2011: Referred to House Budget Committee



Commentary: Section 2261A(1) of Title 18, U.S. Code, presently makes stalking illegal when the prohibited conduct involves "travel[] in interstate or foreign commerce or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or enter[ing] or leav[ing] Indian country." H.R. 196 would loosen the interstate commerce requirements of the law even further and make stalking unlawful when the conduct occurs "in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce or in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States." The bill would define stalking as conduct engaged in "with intent to kill, physically injure, harass, or intimidate a person ... that causes or attempts to cause bodily injury or serious emotional distress" or "occurs in circumstances where the conduct would be reasonably expected to cause the other person serious emotional distress." It would also enhance the available criminal penalties for certain forms of stalking. Specifically, if the illegal conduct involves the violation of a protective order or if the victim is under the age of 18, the term of imprisonment that may be imposed by the sentencing judge could be increased by up to five years over the baseline set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 2261(b).





H.R. 173: Medicare Fraud Prevention Act of 2011



Sponsor: Stearns (R - FL)



Official Title: A bill to amend titles XI and XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide increased civil and criminal penalties for acts involving fraud and abuse under the Medicare Program and to increase the amount of the surety bond required for suppliers of durable medical equipment.



Status:

1/5/2011: Introduced in House

1/5/2011: Referred to House Ways and Means Committee

1/5/2011: Referred to House Energy and Commerce Committee



Commentary: This bill would amend titles XI and XVII of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7a) to increase the civil and criminal penalties for Medicare fraud and abuse. In particular, it would quadruple most criminal fines for false statements and representations, "illegal remunerations," and "illegal patient admittance and retention" and would double the maximum imposable sentences for such violations from five to 10 years imprisonment. H.R. 173 would also double the maximum sentence for excessive Medicare billing from five to 10 years imprisonment.





H.R. 138: Ethics in Foreign Lobbying Act of 2011



Sponsor: Kaptur (D - OH)



Official Title: A bill to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to prohibit contributions and expenditures by multi-candidate political committees controlled by foreign-owned corporations, and for other purposes.



Status:

1/5/2011: Introduced in House

1/5/2011: Referred to House Administration Committee

1/5/2011: Referred to House Judiciary Committee



Commentary: This bill would establish within the Federal Election Commission a clearinghouse of public information regarding the political activities of foreign principals and their agents. The clearinghouse would maintain registrations and reports filed under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995, the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, the Ethics in Government Act, and the Federal Election Campaign Act for the preceding five-year period. It would also maintain listings of public hearings, hearing witnesses, and witness affiliations printed in the Congressional Record during the preceding five-year period. Clearinghouse employees would be prohibited from disclosing any other information, except as otherwise provided by law. Anyone who discloses additional information and anyone who sells or uses the information for the "purpose of soliciting contributions or for any profit-making purpose" would be subject to criminal fines and imprisonment of up to one year. The bill also prohibits contributions and expenditures by multi-candidate political committees and by separate segregated funds of foreign-controlled corporations and associations. The bill requires each multi-candidate political committee or separate segregated fund of a corporation to include in their organizational statements the percentage ownership interest that is foreign-controlled, or in the case of an association, the percentage of operating funds derived from foreign-controlled sources. In addition, the bill specifies civil penalties for failing to file, omitting material facts from, or making false statements in registration statements filed under the Foreign Agents Registration Act.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Over-Criminalized.com Legislative Update

From Overcriminalized.com:

Table of Contents




New:



H.R. 190: Protecting America's Workers Act

H.R. 109: Voter Opportunity and Technology Enhancement Rights Act of 2011

H.R. 107: Caging Prohibition Act of 2011

H.R. 106: Public Official Accountability Act

H.R. 98: Illegal Immigration Enforcement and Social Security Protection Act

H.R. 44: Guam World War II Loyalty Recognition Act



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



H.R. 190: Protecting America's Workers Act



Sponsor: Woolsey (D - CA)



Official Title: A bill to amend the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 to expand coverage under the Act, to increase protections for whistleblowers, to increase penalties for high gravity violations, to adjust penalties for inflation, to provide rights for victims or their family members, and for other purposes.



Status:

1/5/2011: Introduced in House

1/5/2011: Referred to House Education and the Workforce Committee



Commentary: This bill seeks to amend the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSHA) to broaden the scope of the legislation, increase the protections for individuals deemed to be "whistleblowers," and increase the civil and criminal penalties for OSHA violations. Specifically, H.R. 190 revises the language of Section 17 of OSHA (29 U.S.C. Section 666) to provide greater criminal penalties for employers who knowingly violate any standard, rule, or order promulgated under OSHA, or any regulation prescribed under OSHA. This lowers the level of criminal intent required for criminal sanction under OSHA from its current "willfully" standard. For violations causing or significantly contributing to the death of an employee, the bill would provide for criminal sanctions of up to 20 years imprisonment, fines under Title 18 of the U.S. Code, or both. This compares to the six months imprisonment currently authorized under section 666 of Title 29, U.S. Code. For violations causing or significantly contributing to the serious bodily harm of an employee, the bill would provide for criminal sanctions of up to five years imprisonment, fines under Title 18 of the U.S. code, or both. This would be a new avenue for criminal liability under section 666 of Title 29, U.S.Code. H.R. 190 would also increase the criminal penalty for knowingly impeding or interfering with an OSHA inspection through the provision of advance notice to an employer. A violation previously punishable by up to six months imprisonment, a fine of up to $1,000, or both, would now be subject to up to five years imprisonment, a fine of up to $10,000, or both.





H.R. 109: Voter Opportunity and Technology Enhancement Rights Act of 2011



Sponsor: Conyers (D - MI)



Official Title: A bill to establish a national commission on presidential war powers and civil liberties.



Status:

1/5/2011: Introduced in House

1/5/2011: Referred to House Armed Services Committee

1/5/2011: Referred to House Judiciary Committee

1/5/2011: Referred to House Foreign Affairs Committee

1/5/2011: Referred to House Select Intelligence Committee



Commentary: This bill is a comprehensive attempt to reform Federal election procedures, administration, and standards, and implement stronger penalties associated with activities such as what it characterizes as "voter caging," voter intimidation, hindering or interfering with voting or registration, or making false statements regarding federal elections or election endorsements. The "voter caging" provisions of H.R. 109 mirror those introduced in H.R. 107 and provide for criminal sanctions of up to five years imprisonment, fines under Title 18 of the U.S. Code, or both, for each individual violation. H.R. 109 also increases the penalty for "intimidation of voters" under Section 594 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code to allow for criminal sanctions of up to five years imprisonment, fines under Title 18, or both. In addition, the bill seeks to criminalize false statements or "attempted" false statements regarding Federal elections by prohibiting the communication of "materially false information" regarding "the time or place of holding any election for Federal office" or "the qualifications for, or restrictions on eligibility of, a voter in an election for Federal office." Violations of this provision are punishable by criminal penalties of up to five years of imprisonment, fines under Title 18 of the U.S. Code, or both. Finally, H.R. 109 seeks to criminalize actions that "corruptly hinder, interfere with, or prevent another person from voting, registering to vote, or aiding another person in voting or register to vote" in a Federal election. The bill provides no definitions for the criminal-intent standard "corruptly" or for what activities would qualify as hindering, interfering, or preventing.





H.R. 107: Caging Prohibition Act of 2011



Sponsor: Conyers (D - MI)



Official Title: A bill to amend Title 18, United States Code, to prevent the election practice known as caging, and for other purposes.



Status:

1/5/2011: Introduced in House

1/5/2011: Referred to House Judiciary Committee



Commentary: This bill seeks to prohibit, subject to certain exceptions, state or local election officials from preventing apparently unqualified individuals from registering for or voting in Federal elections and to prohibit certain formal challenges under state law to an individual's registration status or eligibility to vote. H.R. 107 specifically targets what it characterizes as "voter caging" activities and the use of "voter caging documents" or "voter caging lists" by individuals seeking to challenge the eligibility of potential voters. The bill would require "first-hand knowledge of ineligibility" on the part of any non-election official seeking to submit a formal challenge to an individual's eligibility to register or vote in a Federal election. "Knowing" violators of the provisions of H.R. 107 would be subject to criminal sanctions of up to five years imprisonment, fines under Title 18 of the U.S. Code, or both, for each violation. The language of the bill requires that potential violators must have "knowingly" issued or "knowingly cause[d]" the prohibited challenge "with the intent that one or more eligible voters be disqualified." It is unclear, however, what sorts of behavior would qualify as "causing" the prohibited caging activities proscribed by H.R. 107.





H.R. 106: Public Official Accountability Act



Sponsor: Cardoza (D - CA)



Official Title: A bill to amend Title 18, United States Code, to provide increased imprisonment for certain offense by public officials.



Status:

1/5/2011: Introduced in House

1/5/2011: Referred to House Judiciary Committee



Commentary: This bill would amend Subchapter D of Chapter 227 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code to increase potential criminal penalties for public officials convicted of certain Federal criminal offenses. In cases involving conviction of public officials for offenses "consisting of conduct during the course of official duty, intended to enrich that official" or "involving bribery, fraud, extortion, or theft of public funds greater than $10,000," H.R. 106 would allow the sentencing judge to increase the term of imprisonment by up to two years. The language of the bill provides no guidance to judges as to the meaning of the terms "intended to enrich" and does not specify that the person accused must have had a greater level of criminal intent in order to be subject to these increased penalties.





H.R. 98: Illegal Immigration Enforcement and Social Security Protection Act



Sponsor: Dreier (R - CA)



Official Title: A bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to enforce restrictions on employment in the United States of unauthorized aliens through the use of improved Social Security cards and an Employment Eligibility Database, and for other purposes.



Status:

1/5/2011: Introduced in House

1/5/2011: Referred to House Education and the Workforce Committee

1/5/2011: Referred to House Homeland Security Committee

1/5/2011: Referred to House Judiciary Committee

1/5/2011: Referred to House Ways and Means Committee



Commentary: This bill would establish a database for determining employment eligibility based on citizenship and immigration status and prohibit unauthorized access to it. Violations would be punishable by criminal fines and imprisonment of five to seven years. The bill would also increase penalties for hiring individuals known to be unauthorized to work in the United States. Existing penalties under Title 18 of the U.S. Code of $3,000 per unauthorized worker and six months' total imprisonment would be raised to the maximum fine allowed under Title 18's general provisions and up to five years imprisonment per unauthorized worker. These same penalties would also apply to failures to comply with Federal employment verification procedures.





H.R. 44: Guam World War II Loyalty Recognition Act



Sponsor: Bordallo (D - GU)



Official Title: A bill to implement the recommendations of the Guam War Claims Review Commission.



Status:

1/5/2011: Introduced in House

1/5/2011: Referred to House Natural Resources Committee



Commentary: This bill would authorize the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission to compensate residents of Guam and their descendents who were injured or killed in World War II. The bill prohibits those who represent Guam residents before the Commission from receiving remuneration in excess of one percent of the total amount paid for a claim. Representatives who demand or receive more than that amount could be punished with up to one year of imprisonment and criminal fines of up to $5,000. The criminal offense lacks any express criminal-intent requirement to convict of a violation under this provision of H.R. 44.

Overcriminalized.com Legislative Update

From Overcriminalized.com:

Table of Contents




New:



H.R. 6550: National Emergency Employment Defense Act of 2010

Updates:



S. 3302: Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 2010

S. 2870: International Fisheries Stewardship and Enforcement Act

S. 30: Truth in Caller ID Act of 2009



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



H.R. 6550: National Emergency Employment Defense Act of 2010



Sponsor: Kucinich (D - OH)



Official Title: To create a full employment economy as a matter of national economic defense; to provide for public investment in capital infrastructure; to provide for reducing the cost of public investment; to retire public debt; to stabilize the Social Security retirement system; to restore the authority of Congress to create and regulate money, modernize and provide stability for the monetary system of the United States, retire public debt and reduce the cost of public investment, and for other public purposes.



Status:

12/17/2010: Introduced in House

12/17/2010: Referred to House Financial Services Committee



Commentary: This bill seeks to reconstitute the Federal Reserve System as an executive-branch agency within the Department of the Treasury known as the United States Monetary Authority for the purpose of eliminating the country's existing hybrid fractional-reserve banking system and replacing it with a consolidated central bank under purely public control. In addition to mandating a drastic restructuring of the U.S. monetary-control framework, H.R. 6550 also seeks to broadly criminalize all future fractional-reserve banking. Under the language of the bill, any "person who creates or originates money by lending against deposits, through so-called fractional reserve banking" would be subject to criminal sanctions of up to five years imprisonment, fines as authorized by Title 18 of the U.S. Code, or both. No clear criminal-intent standard or definition of "person who creates or originates money" is included in the Act.





S. 3302: Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 2010



Sponsor: Rockefeller (D - WV)



Official Title: A bill to amend Title 49, United States Code, to establish new automobile safety standards, make better motor vehicle safety information available to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the public, and for other purposes.



Status:

5/4/2010: Introduced in Senate

5/4/2010: Referred to Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee

5/19/2010: Hearing Held by Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee

6/9/2010: Mark up in the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee

6/9/2010: Ordered to be reported Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee

11/29/2010: Reported to Senate by Senate Science and Transportation Committee

11/29/2010: Placed on Senate calendar

12/21/2010: Reported to Senate by Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee

12/21/2010: Placed on Senate calendar



Commentary: This bill is a response to allegations regarding sudden acceleration by Toyota automobiles and related allegations regarding Toyota's response to those claims. It includes provisions calling for the Secretary of Transportation to promulgate new safety standards. Sections 30118, 30119, and 30116 of Title 49, U.S. Code, already include provisions that require automobile manufacturers to notify the Secretary of Transportation, as well as vehicle owners, purchasers, and dealers, of any safety defects, to specify the form of notices and the procedures for supplying them, and to call for the maintenance of certain records. The bill would increase the penalty for violating the general federal false statements statute (18 U.S.C. § 1001) by providing an additional penalty for submitting a false report required by 49 U.S.C. §§ 30118, 30119, and 30166 "with the specific intent of misleading the Secretary with respect to motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment safety related defects." The new penalty would provide for up to 12 months of imprisonment in addition to the current penalty of imprisonment for up to five years, a fine as authorized in Title 18, U.S. Code, or both.





S. 2870: International Fisheries Stewardship and Enforcement Act



Sponsor: Inouye (D - HI)



Official Title: A bill to establish uniform administrative and enforcement procedures and penalties for the enforcement of the High Seas Driftnet Fishing Moratorium Protection Act and similar statutes, and for other purposes.



Status:

12/10/2009: Introduced in Senate

12/10/2009: Referred to Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee

3/24/2010: Mark up in the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee

3/24/2010: Reported to Senate

12/17/2010: Placed on Senate calendar

12/22/2010: Written report reported by Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee



Commentary: This bill is similar to H.R. 1080, the Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated Fishing Enforcement Act of 2009, which has been passed by the House of Representatives, received in the Senate, and referred to committee. The Act's new criminal provisions apply to violations of a number of existing statutes that protect forms of marine life. The Act creates new criminal offenses and establishes penalties for both the new and existing offenses, including large maximum fines. In particular, it would be a criminal offense to (a) import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase in interstate or foreign commerce any fish or fish product taken in violation of a treaty or agreement to which the United States is a party; or (b) make or submit a false record, account, label for, or identification of any fish that passes in interstate or foreign commerce. Certain violations of the Act can subject a person to up to five years in prison, a fine of $500,000, or both. Where a dangerous weapon is involved or bodily injury to any protected federal officer results, the maximum term of imprisonment is 10 years. Corporations that violate certain provisions can be fined up to $1 million.





S. 30: Truth in Caller ID Act of 2009



Sponsor: Nelson (D - FL)



Official Title: A bill to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to prohibit manipulation of caller identification information.



Status:

1/7/2009: Introduced

1/7/2009: Referred to Senate Commerce Committee

1/7/2009: Referred to Senate Science and Transportation Committee

8/5/2009: Mark up in the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee

11/2/2009: Reported to Senate Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee

2/23/2010: Senate Passage

2/24/2010: Received in House

2/24/2010: Referred to House Energy and Commerce Committee

12/15/2010: House passage by voice vote under suspension of the rules

12/17/2010: Sent to President

12/22/2010: Signed by the President



Commentary: This bill would prohibit an individual from "knowingly" transmitting misleading or inaccurate caller identification information "with the intent to defraud, cause harm, or wrongfully obtain anything of value." Violations would be punishable by civil penalties (including forfeiture), criminal fines of up to $10,000 per violation, and imprisonment of up to one year. S. 30 appears to require knowledge of the transmission itself by the offending party, but does not specify the required criminal intent necessary to satisfy the "intent to defraud" standard.