CNN reported another incidence of corporate/governmental overkill now going on in our nation with respect to the recording industry's pursuit of any and all Americans that download songs or sounds without paying for them from the internet.

Now I admit there is quite a problem with this for writers and other artists, especially due to the fact that there is a clear lack of regulation over the commercial websites that market to the public for writers and artists in order to make the ad revenues and also for other nefarious purposes. 

And there are citizens who abuse the Internet also as a free source of material which is, under U.S. laws and those of most countries which are under "common law" civil provisions (including Canada, Britain and most of the European nations in the EU) with respect to copyright protection for artistic works. 

Many citizens also have been misled to believe that since the Internet is a public communications tool, that any and all material on it are covered under public domain provisions. 

That is not the case anymore than you can copy text out of a library book simply because it is in the library.

The problem with this particular case was not so much the infraction, but the costs of the trial and the award involved for going after a woman who illegally downloaded five songs, which due to judicial error and technicalities with respect to jury instructions given ended up resulting in two different jury trials in a federal court.   It didn't even meet the CIVIL threshhold for an afforded trial by jury, since those limits are $20.00 under the Constitution.

And while U.S. citizens throughout the nation now under the new criminal DUI "social drinking" levels and laws are denied jury trials in many states throughout the nation due to another redefinition and unconstitutional Supreme Court ruling in effect attempting to eliminate the right to trial by jury for "ALL criminal matters," by inserting the words "unless the term of incarceration is six months or more," this trial was initiated over a civil infraction actually due to the financial "loss" involved for five downloaded single songs.  

There is an has been a move to criminalize such activities which has been in the works for years and this may be the case, but if so would appear the criminal fines and penalties are still out of whack for the actual infraction and loss involved here, in my and most rational citizens opinion.  This would clearly have been a criminal misdemeanor, since the amounts involved don't even meet the civil jury trial minimum of $20 under the Constitution.

Apparently, the jury found her guilty, and the amount of the "fine" imposed was 1.9 million, over the amount of the original award in the first trial of $220,000.  "Cruel and unusual punishment" doesn't even begin to describe how ludicrous the actual award was, and also the lengths that the federal courts went to in order to prosecute this woman and mother of four.

There was absolutely no report or evidence, apparently, that she had redistributed the works, or made any profit off of her illicit activity.   So the loss involved to the recording company as the "injured" party under both civil and criminal common law according to the "proof" of damages required in such a case as this would have simply been the amount of the cost of the retail price for the music, which was less than $5.00.

Of course, now there will be another appeal, and the legal fees at this point must also be off the charts, and wonder just exactly why the judge didn't simply throw this case out the window due to the amount of the proveable damages involved as less than even the provisions for civil minimums for jury trials.

It did not state also whether or not the jury actually did determine the award, or whether these "fines" were determined under federal statute and levied by the federal judge which has become the case with many a "political" case meant to set a precedent or as a tyrannical power move by the federal government, and if that was the case, we do have a bunch of governmental officials that are off their rockers in again their lack of even giving any cursory value to the Constitution.  Fines in that amount are beyond what any "average" American could pay and nothing more than again tyrannizing the public for the record executives, apparently. 

I wonder if the jury instruction was given that the jury had the power to actually also examine the law and the penalties for applicability in this case based upon the actual facts and losses involved.

True bootleggers would have redistributed the work, and then there would have been certainly more to gain in going after those that are profiting off of pirated works, not simply for their own enjoyment. 

You can make a tape off a radio station, for heaven's sakes, or a CD from your friends purchase which carries no penalties at all unless it is also "resold" for commercial purposes and meets the damage threshhold.

If this was a jury determined award, I wonder if the lawyers voir dire in the jury selection determined whether or not any of these jurors were record executives, or federal employees.

And with awards such as these, it would appear our federal government is flush with cash due to their tyranny and are truly bankrupting the citizenry with such abusive practices, so perhaps had more than enough in the kitty rather than borrowing from the Fed at the public's expense, in order to bail out at least one of those automakers without also placing the debt on the public - since this poor woman is going to be paying this off for the rest of her life, in addition to funding the Big Three.

More importantly, it appears due to the publishing by CNN of this case it is simply another example of governmental tyranny on the public more than anything. 

This mother was simply made an example, so I truly wonder how "impartial" that jury was, or whether it actually was one of her "peers," or a loaded jury with public federal or state employee "professional" jurors which is becoming more and more the case when there is a governmental agenda involved, or when there is federal grant monies tied in with some of the convictions (as in the low level DUI laws now), since there are strings attached to most of those pork sums sent "back home" by the feds in order to keep the states in line with the federal agendas, and the funding rolling in.

Unbelievable. 

Maybe going after the Chinese and Taiwanese designer rip-off artists who import to their buddies living in the U.S. through the mail and ports of entry would be a much better use of our courts, and those internet scam artists now luring writers and artists making ad revenues of their designs and work for advertising purposes, and then attempting to shelter themselves from any and all liability if such work is redistributed either intentionally or accidentally within their non-negotiable "terms of service" agreements written also by their "corporate" lawyer scam artists.

We don't need free speech regulation of the internet unless harassment and stalking websites and engaging in repeated and profane personal attacks are involved, we need "corporate commercial" regulation of the scammers preying on the public, and paid governmental "grant money" bloggers promoting their propaganda for governmental purposes, both political and for their "corporate" personal gain, such as the Republican, Democratic and other mainstream extra-Constitutional fringe "party" members, marketers and spin doctors spewing party platforms and their agendas as "Constitutional" positions.

That, too, is civil fraud, and actually worse, criminal treason ala Benedict Arnold, the highest criminal "public" offense "against the state" and people in this country under the governing law, the U.S. Constitution and intent of the founders.  And neither private citizens, nor especially public servants or   individuals have any inherent immunity in that respect, especially for intentional negligence or intent in their public servant positions, since their oath is to the Constitution and not "public opinion" or "state or personal interests."

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/06/18/minnesota.music.download.fine/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

Recently, in addition to the nomination of self-described "transnationalist" Harold Koh, liberal constructionist and dean of Yale University, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has been making the rounds of local colleges, universities and law schools with also her transnationalist views.

A "transnationalist" is the politically correct equivalent of a "globalist," and political correctness is a religion the transnationalists subscribe to wholeheartedly.  Except when it isn't in accordance with their upside-down logic and world and global view.

A recent example of this would be Janet Napolitano, a woefully misled and misguided fellow lawyer whose "right wing extremist" memorandum trashes the American Bill of Rights on every level.

Recently, Justice Ginsburg had this to say about the place and reverence the U.S. Supreme Court should have with international courts and decisions in their findings:

“I frankly don’t understand all the brouhaha lately from Congress and even from some of my colleagues about referring to foreign law,” Justice Ginsburg said in her comments on Friday during a symposium at Ohio State University’s Moritz College of Law honoring her tenure on the nation’s highest court.

 “There is perhaps a misunderstanding that when you refer to a decision of [foreign courts] that you are using those as binding precedent,” Mrs. Ginsberg said. “Why shouldn’t we look to the wisdom of a judge from abroad with at least as much ease as we would read a law review article from a professor?”
 

Now, with respect to the law in these United States, if you hold that there is a higher authority than the United States Constitution with respect to the duties of a Supreme Court Justice, Ms. Ginsburg,  then you are not "in good behavior" with respect to your sworn oath of office.  Its really quite simple.  In fact, you hold your current lofty position due to the provision contained within that particular document.  The Justice is further on record as stating:

“The notion that it is improper to look beyond the borders of the United States in grappling with hard questions has a close kinship to the view of the U.S. Constitution as a document essentially frozen in time as of the date of its ratification,” Mrs. Ginsberg said in a speech four years ago.

“I am not a partisan of that view. U.S. jurists honor the Framers’ intent ‘to create a more perfect Union,’ I believe, if they read our Constitution as belonging to a global 21st century, not as fixed forever by 18th-century understandings.”
 

Really, Justice?  The framers faced far greater threats and dangers than we can even imagine in this high tech, obtain a warrant within minutes, era.  Far worse than global warming, Middle Eastern terrorists, or stock market variations.  They defended an entire Eastern Seaboard with only canon and musket, as I recall.  Defending it from the "international" community you so aligned yourself with.

And just in case you have forgotten or have not read it lately, there is a process within the Constitution in order to so amend it if need be to include any of those provisions they might have left out for 21st Century America.  And the Justices actually are not a part of that amendment process. 

But since those founders held with "unalienable" rights as God given, I don't think those have change much since the Magna Carta, which preceeded our Constitution by several hundred years. 

And if you abridge them, or alter them, the consequences in the increase of inmates now in our jails, a nation with the highest prison population now in the world, is telling in how far afield both the state and federal government have gone in not recognizing those "natural rights."

Another former Justice and fellow transnationalist, Sandra Day O'Connor, also is on record with a few comments on the place of international law in the highest court in the land at an awards dinner at the end of her career on the bench:

“I suspect that over time we will rely increasingly, or take notice at least increasingly, on international and foreign courts in examining domestic issues,” Mrs. O’Connor said, adding by doing so “may not only enrich our own country’s decisions, I think it may create that all important good impression.”
 

I don't think the framers also were believers that making a good impression and impressing the rest of the world held much sway when it came to personal liberty, justice and freedom in this country.  In fact, wasn't that what that first war was all about, severing this country's ties to the laws and practices they found intolerable in Britain under "sovereign" law and nothing more than tyranny?

I won't address in this article Justice Ginsburg dissenting opinion on the upholding by the Supreme Court of the partial birth abortion ban, except to state that she did seem to misunderstand that it is the procedure and timing of these "abortions" that is in dispute, and has nothing to do with a woman's right to privacy, but ban a barbaric practice that has resulted in many women's lives being compromised, or made sterile due to the actual procedure itself.

The majority of those groups which are fighting for the partial ban abortion statutes and laws are actually fighting for society and women's life and their health, not against it.

But you won't convince Justice Ginsburg of that, or the other "transnationalists," who believe abortion at any stage in any manner should be an option and is just another method of birth control.  I wonder if the 19th century hangers will be brought back into vogue by the medical community?

But "transnationalists" have a world view and perception of law, liberty and justice unlike those of the framers and a great many in this country when it comes to our country, its place in the world, the Constitution and Bill of Rights across the lines.

Ms. O'Connor retired shortly after making her statement, before she completely forgot just what her role in government actually was.  Let's hope soon Justice Ginsburg will do likewise.

"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government."
James Madison