#Interstate Commerce Act

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Surveillance pricing

THIS WEEKEND (June 7–9), I'm in AMHERST, NEW YORK to keynote the 25th Annual Media Ecology Association Convention and accept the Neil Postman Award for Career Achievement in Public Intellectual Activity.

Correction, 7 June 2024: The initial version of this article erroneously described Jeffrey Roper as the founder of ATPCO. He benefited from ATPCO, but did not co-found it. The initial version of this article called ATPCO "an illegal airline price-fixing service"; while ATPCO provides information that the airlines use to set prices, it does not set prices itself, and while the DOJ investigated the company, they did not pursue a judgment declaring the service to be illegal. I regret the error.

Noted anti-capitalist agitator Adam Smith had it right: "People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices."

Despite being a raving commie loon, Smith's observation was so undeniably true that regulators, policymakers, and economists couldn't help but acknowledge that it was true. The trustbusting era was defined by this idea: if we let the number of companies in a sector get too small, or if we let one or a few companies get too big, they'll eventually start to rig prices.

What's more, once an industry contracts corporate gigantism, it will become too big to jail, able to outspend and overpower the regulators charged with reining in its cheating. Anyone who believes Smith's self-evident maxim had to accept its conclusion: that companies had to be kept smaller than the state that regulated them. This wasn't about "punishing bigness" – it was the necessary precondition for a functioning market economy.

We kept companies small for the same reason that we limited the height of skyscrapers: not because we opposed height, or failed to appreciate the value of a really good penthouse view – rather, to keep the building from falling over and wrecking all the adjacent buildings and the lives of the people inside them.

Starting in the neoliberal era – Carter, then Reagan – we changed our tune. We liked big business. A business that got big was doing something right. It was perverse to shut down our best companies. Instead, we'd simply ban big companies from rigging prices. This was called the "consumer welfare" theory of antitrust. It was a total failure.

40 years later, nearly every industry is dominated by a handful of companies, and these companies price-gouge us with abandon. Worse, they use their gigantic ripoff winnings to fill war-chests that fund the corruption of democracy, capturing regulators so that they can rip us off even more, while ignoring labor, privacy and environmental law and ducking taxes.

It turns out that keeping gigantic, opaque, complex corporations honest is really hard. They have so many ways to shuffle money around that it's nearly impossible to figure out what they're doing. Digitalization makes things a million times worse, because computers allow businesses to alter their processes so they operate differently for every customer, and even for every interaction.

This is Dieselgate times a billion: VW rigged its cars to detect when they were undergoing emissions testing and switch to a less polluting, more compliant mode. But when they were on the open road, they spewed lethal quantities of toxic gas, killing people by the thousands. Computers don't make corporate leaders more evil, but they let evil corporate leaders execute far more complex and nefarious plans. Digitalization is a corporate moral hazard, making it just too easy and tempting to rig the game.

That's why Toyota, the largest car-maker in the world, just did Dieselgate again, more than a decade later. Digitalization is a temptation no giant company can resist:

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1wwj1p2wdyo

For forty years, pro-monopoly cheerleaders insisted that we could allow companies to grow to unimaginable scale and still prevent cheating. They passed rules banning companies from explicitly forming agreements to rig prices. About ten seconds later, new middlemen popped up offering "information brokerages" that helped companies rig prices without talking to one another.

Take Agri Stats: the country's hyperconcentrated meatpacking industry pays Agri Stats to "consult on prices." They provide Agri Stats with a list of their prices, and then Agri Stats suggests changes based on its analysis. What does that analysis consist of? Comparing the company's prices to its competitors, who are also Agri Stats customers:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/10/04/dont-let-your-meat-loaf/#meaty-beaty-big-and-bouncy

In other words, Agri Stats finds the highest price for each product in the sector, then "advises" all the companies with lower prices to raise their prices to the "competitive" level, creating a one-way ratchet that sends the price of food higher and higher.

More and more sectors have an Agri Stats, and digitalization has made this price-gouging system faster, more efficient, and accessible to sectors with less concentration. Landlords, for example, have tapped into Realpage, a "data broker" that the same thing to your rent that Agri Stats does to meat prices. Realpage requires the landlords who sign up for its service to accept its "recommendations" on minimum rents, ensuring that prices only go up:

https://popular.info/p/feds-raid-corporate-landlord-escalating

Writing for The American Prospect, Luke Goldstein lays out the many ways in which these digital intermediaries have supercharged the business of price-rigging:

https://prospect.org/economy/2024-06-05-three-algorithms-in-a-room/

Goldstein identifies a kind of patient zero for this ripoff epidemic: Jeffrey Roper, a former Alaska Air exec who benefited from a service that helps airlines set prices. ATPCO was investigated by the DOJ in the 1990s, but the enforcers lost their nerve and settled with the company, which agreed to apply some ornamental fig-leafs to its collusion-machine. Even those cosmetic changes were seemingly a bridge too far Roper, who left the US.

But he came back to serve as Realpage's "principal scientist" – the architect of a nationwide scheme to make rental housing vastly more expensive. For Roper, the barrier to low rents was empathy: landlords felt stirrings of shame when they made shelter unaffordable to working people. Roper called these people "idiots" who sentimentality "costs the whole system."

Sticking a rent-gouging computer between landlords and the people whose lives they ruin is a classic "accountability sink," as described in Dan Davies' new book "The Unaccountability Machine: Why Big Systems Make Terrible Decisions – and How The World Lost its Mind":

https://profilebooks.com/work/the-unaccountability-machine/

It's a form of "empiricism washing": if computers are working in the abstract realm of pure numbers, they're just moving the objective facts of the quantitative realm into the squishy, imperfect qualitative world. Davies' interview on Trashfuture is excellent:

https://trashfuturepodcast.podbean.com/e/fire-sale-at-the-accountability-store-feat-dan-davies/

To rig prices, an industry has to solve three problems: the problem of coming to an agreement to fix prices (economists call this "the collective action problem"); the problem of coming up with a price; and the problem of actually changing prices from moment to moment. This is the ripoff triangle, and like a triangle, it has many stable configurations.

The more concentrated an industry is, the easier it is to decide to rig prices. But if the industry has the benefit of digitalization, it can swap the flexibility and speed of computers for the low collective action costs from concentration. For example, grocers that switch to e-ink shelf tags can make instantaneous price-changes, meaning that every price change is less consequential – if sales fall off after a price-hike, the company can lower them again at the press of a button. That means they can collude less explicitly but still raise prices:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/03/26/glitchbread/#electronic-shelf-tags

My name for this digital flexibility is "twiddling." Businesses with digital back-ends can alter their "business logic" from second to second, and present different prices, payouts, rankings and other key parts of the deal to every supplier or customer they interact with:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/02/19/twiddler/

Not only does twiddling make it easier to rip off suppliers, workers and customers, it also makes these crimes harder to detect. Twiddling made Dieselgate possible, and it also underpinned "Greyball," Uber's secret strategy of refusing to send cars to pick up transportation regulators who would then be able to see firsthand how many laws the company was violating:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/03/technology/uber-greyball-program-evade-authorities.html

Twiddling is so easy that it has brought price-fixing to smaller companies and less concentrated sectors, though the biggest companies still commit crimes on a scale that put these bit-players to shame. In The Prospect, David Dayen investigates the "personalized pricing" ripoff that has turned every transaction into a potential crime-scene:

https://prospect.org/economy/2024-06-04-one-person-one-price/

"Personalized pricing" is the idea that everything you buy should be priced based on analysis of commercial surveillance data that predicts the maximum amount you are willing to pay.

Proponents of this idea – like Harvard's Pricing Lab with its "Billion Prices Project" – insist that this isn't a way to rip you off. Instead, it lets companies lower prices for people who have less ability to pay:

https://thebillionpricesproject.com/

This kind of weaponized credulity is totally on-brand for the pro-monopoly revolution. It's the same wishful thinking that led regulators to encourage monopolies while insisting that it would be possible to prevent "bad" monopolies from raising prices. And, as with monopolies, "personalized pricing" leads to an overall increase in prices. In econspeak, it is a "transfer of wealth from consumer to the seller."

"Personalized pricing" is one of those cuddly euphemisms that should make the hair on the back of your neck stand up. A more apt name for this practice is surveillance pricing, because the "personalization" depends on the vast underground empire of nonconsensual data-harvesting, a gnarly hairball of ad-tech companies, data-brokers, and digital devices with built-in surveillance, from smart speakers to cars:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/03/12/market-failure/#car-wars

Much of this surveillance would be impractical, because no one wants their car, printer, speaker, watch, phone, or insulin-pump to spy on them. The flexibility of digital computers means that users always have the technical ability to change how these gadgets work, so they no longer spy on their users. But an explosion of IP law has made this kind of modification illegal:

https://locusmag.com/2020/09/cory-doctorow-ip/

This is why apps are ground zero for surveillance pricing. The web is an open platform, and web-browsers are legal to modify. The majority of web users have installed ad-blockers that interfere with the surveillance that makes surveillance pricing possible:

https://doc.searls.com/2023/11/11/how-is-the-worlds-biggest-boycott-doing/

But apps are a closed platform, and reverse-engineering and modifying an app is a literal felony – several felonies, in fact. An app is just a web-page skinned with enough IP to make it a felony to modify it to protect your consumer, privacy or labor rights:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/05/07/treacherous-computing/#rewilding-the-internet

(Google is leading a charge to turn the web into the kind of enshittifier's paradise that apps represent, blocking the use of privacy plugins and proposing changes to browser architecture that would allow them to felonize modifying a browser without permission:)

https://pluralistic.net/2023/08/02/self-incrimination/#wei-bai-bai

Apps are a twiddler's playground. Not only can they "customize" every interaction you have with them, but they can block you (or researchers seeking to help you) from recording and analyzing the app's activities. Worse: digital transactions are intimate, contained to the palm of your hand. The grocer whose e-ink shelf-tags flicker and reprice their offerings every few seconds can be collectively observed by people who are in the same place and can start a conversation about, say, whether to come back that night a throw a brick through the store's window to express their displeasure. A digital transaction is a lonely thing, atomized and intrinsically shielded from a public response.

That shielding is hugely important. The public hates surveillance pricing. Time and again, through all of American history, there have been massive and consequential revolts against the idea that every price should be different for every buyer. The Interstate Commerce Commission was founded after Grangers rose up against the rail companies' use of "personalized pricing" to gouge farmers.

Companies know this, which is why surveillance pricing happens in secret. Over and over, every day, you are being gouged through surveillance pricing. The sellers you interact with won't tell you about it, so to root out this practice, we have to look at the B2B sales-pitches from the companies that sell twiddling tools.

One of these companies is Plexure, partly owned by McDonald's, which provides the surveillance-pricing back-ends for McD's, Ikea, 7-Eleven, White Castle and others – basically, any time a company gives you a hard-sell to order via its apps rather than its storefronts or its website, you should assume you're getting twiddled, hard.

These companies use the enshittification playbook to trap you into using their apps. First, they offer discounts to customers who order through their apps – then, once the customers are fully committed to shopping via app, they introduce surveillance pricing and start to jack up the prices.

For example, Plexure boasts that it can predict what day a given customer is getting paid on and use that information to raise prices on all the goods the customer shops for on that day, on the assumption that you're willing to pay more when you've got a healthy bank balance.

The surveillance pricing industry represents another reason for everything you use to spy on you – any data your "smart" TV or Nest thermostat or Ring doorbell can steal from you can be readily monetized – just sell it to a surveillance pricing company, which will use it to figure out how to charge you more for everything you buy, from rent to Happy Meals.

But the vast market for surveillance data is also a potential weakness for the industry. Put frankly: the commercial surveillance industry has a lot of enemies. The only thing it has going for it is that so many of these enemies don't know that what's they're really upset about is surveillance.

Some people are upset because they think Facebook made Grampy into a Qanon. Others, because they think Insta gave their kid anorexia. Some think Tiktok is brainwashing millennials into quoting Osama bin Laden. Some are upset because the cops use Google location data to round up Black Lives Matter protesters, or Jan 6 insurrectionists. Some are angry about deepfake porn. Some are angry because Black people are targeted with ads for overpriced loans or colleges:

https://www.theregister.com/2024/06/04/meta_ad_algorithm_discrimination/

And some people are angry because surveillance feeds surveillance pricing. The thing is, whatever else all these people are angry about, they're all angry about surveillance. Are you angry that ad-tech is stealing a 51% share of news revenue? You're actually angry about surveillance. Are you angry that "AI" is being used to automatically reject resumes on racial, age or gender grounds? You're actually angry about surveillance.

There's a very useful analogy here to the history of the ecology movement. As James Boyle has long said, before the term "ecology" came along, there were people who cared about a lot of issues that seemed unconnected. You care about owls, I care about the ozone layer. What's the connection between charismatic nocturnal avians and the gaseous composition of the upper atmosphere? The term ecology took a thousand issues and welded them together into one movement.

That's what's on the horizon for privacy. The US hasn't had a new federal consumer privacy law since 1988, when Congress acted to ban video-store clerks from telling the newspapers what VHS cassettes you were renting:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_Privacy_Protection_Act

We are desperately overdue for a new consumer privacy law, but every time this comes up, the pro-surveillance coalition defeats the effort. but as people who care about conspiratorialism, kids' mental health, spying by foreign adversaries, phishing and fraud, and surveillance pricing all come together, they will be an unbeatable coalition:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/12/06/privacy-first/#but-not-just-privacy

Meanwhile, the US government is actually starting to take on these ripoff artists. The FTC is working to shut down data-brokers:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/08/16/the-second-best-time-is-now/#the-point-of-a-system-is-what-it-does

The FBI is raiding landlords to build a case against Frontpage and other rent price-fixers:

https://popular.info/p/feds-raid-corporate-landlord-escalating

Agri Stats is facing a DoJ lawsuit:

https://www.nationalhogfarmer.com/market-news/agri-stats-loses-motions-to-transfer-dismiss-in-doj-antitrust-case

Not every federal agency has gotten the message, though. Trump's Fed Chairman, Jerome Powell – whom Biden kept on the job – has been hiking interest rates in a bid to reduce our purchasing power by making millions of Americans poorer and/or unemployed. He's doing this to fight inflation, on the theory that inflation is being cause by us being too well-off, and therefore trying to buy more goods than are for sale.

But of course, interest rates are inflationary: when interest rates go up, it gets more expensive to pay your credit card bills, lease your car, and pay a mortgage. And where we see the price of goods shooting up, there's abundant evidence that this is the result of greedflation – companies jacking up their prices and blaming inflation. Interest rate hawks say that greedflation is impossible: if one company raises its prices, its competitors will swoop in and steal their customers with lower prices.

Maybe they would do that – if they didn't have a toolbox full of algorithmic twiddling options and a deep trove of surveillance data that let them all raise prices together:

https://prospect.org/blogs-and-newsletters/tap/2024-06-05-time-for-fed-to-meet-ftc/

Someone needs to read some Adam Smith to Chairman Powell: "People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices."

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/06/05/your-price-named/#privacy-first-again

Image: Cryteria (modified) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HAL9000.svg

CC BY 3.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/deed.en

[veganpropaganda]

‘Oppressive’ child labor found at poultry plant’s kill floor after teen’s death, feds say

Read more at: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/national/article288585497.html

A U.S. chicken producer is again facing child labor accusations after a 16-year-old worker was killed at its poultry plant in Mississippi last July, according to the U.S. Department of Labor.

On May 1, four teenagers, including two 16-year-olds and two 17-year-olds, were found working on the kill floor at Mar-Jac Poultry’s processing facility in Jasper, Alabama, federal court filings show.

With three teens’ shifts starting at 11 p.m. — and a fourth teen’s shift starting at 8:30 p.m. — they were each tasked with “hanging live chickens on hooks for slaughter and cutting meat from the carcasses,” according to court documents filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.

This violates federal child labor provisions in place to protect minors from dangerous jobs that have proven deadly.

On July 14, 2023, Duvan Robert Tomas Perez, a 16-year-old migrant from Guatemala, was killed while cleaning a chicken deboning machine at Mar-Jac’s plant in Hattiesburg, Mississippi, according to a wrongful death lawsuit, McClatchy News previously reported.

The Labor Department’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration found Perez was fatally pulled into the “still-energized” machine because Mar-Jac Poultry MS LLC “disregarded safety standards.”

OSHA cited the company over his death in January, according to a news release.

Now, the Labor Department is seeking a court order to stop Mar-Jac from selling and shipping “poultry tainted by oppressive child labor” from the company’s plant in Alabama, court filings say.

An “urgent” request for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction filed by Acting Labor Secretary Julie Su asks the court to prevent Mar-Jac Poultry of Alabama, LLC, from profiting off products linked to child labor.

Following the request, an evidentiary hearing was held on May 14 and May 15, Mar-Jac said in a May 20 news release provided to McClatchy News in response to a request for comment.

Instead of granting the request, the court ordered Su to submit a brief by May 28 and ordered Mar-Jac to submit a response to the brief by June 4, the release said.

What Mar-Jac says about the child labor accusations

In a response filed May 8, Mar-Jac contends it offered to stop shipping poultry produced on the May 1 shift, when the alleged child labor violations involving the four teens were uncovered by the Labor Department’s Wage and Hour Division.

However, the Wage and Hour Division “rejected that offer and demanded Mar-Jac not ship goods in interstate commerce for the next 30 days,” the filing says.

This would “would put more than 1000 workers out of their jobs for that 1-month period and disrupt the supply chain, adversely affecting hundreds more workers involved in growing and transporting poultry products,” Mar-Jac said in its news release.

Mar-Jac refused the division’s demand and argues that the company was unaware three of the four minor employees were underage.

According to the Labor Department, Wage and Hour Division investigators learned the four teens “had been working at the facility for months,” a complaint says.

The department has declared all chicken produced by Mar-Jac up until May 31 are “hot goods” that are “tainted by child labor,” according to the complaint.

Mar-Jac maintains three of the four teens showed documents that claimed they were older than 17 and were then verified as over 18, according to the May 8 court filing.

The company says it “immediately discharged” the three minors after learning they were underage and denied that they worked on the Alabama plant’s kill floor, the filing says.

As for the fourth minor, Mar-Jac said federal investigators haven’t identified the teen, “making it impossible for Mar-Jac to end the alleged (child labor) violation,” according to the filing.

On May 14, the Labor Department called Mar-Jac’s response a “misguided attempt to persuade this Court to allow (the company) to flout the inherent dangers of oppressive child labor,” court records show.

Mar-Jac said in the release that the company “will continue to vigorously defend itself and expects to prevail in this matter” and that it is “committed to complying with all relevant laws, including but not limited to the child labor regulations.”

Following the death of Perez at the Mississippi poultry plant, Mar-Jac acknowledged he “should not have been hired” because he was under 18, according to a July 19 news release published online by WDAM-TV.

The company said the employee’s age and identity “were misrepresented” on his hiring paperwork, according to the release.

Seth Hunter, an attorney representing Perez’s mother, who is suing over his death, said in a news release provided to McClatchy News in February that Mar-Jac’s “working conditions have to change.”

He said Chick-fil-A “is one of Mar-Jac’s largest customers” and that Chick-fil-A and other companies “should insist on better working conditions or stop doing business with them.”

At the time, Chick-fil-A didn’t respond to McClatchy News’ request for comment from Feb. 5.

A few months after Perez’s death, the company told NBC News in October that “We are reviewing our own procedures for investigation and response as we pursue the steps necessary to effectively hold all our suppliers to our high safety standards.”

Similar to Perez, a New York Times investigative report published in September found many migrant children and teens are working dangerous jobs, including at poultry plants.

Mar-Jac’s plant in Jasper, Alabama, is about a 240-mile drive west of the company’s headquarters in Gainesville, Georgia.

[todaysdocument]

Act of June 19, 1934 (Federal Communications Commission Act)

Record Group 11: General Records of the United States GovernmentSeries: Enrolled Acts and Resolutions of Congress

S.3285

Public___No 416 73d CONGRESS

Seventy-third Congress of the United States of America;

At the Second Session.

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday, the third day of January, one thousand nine hundred and thirty-four.

AN ACT

To provide for the regulation of interstate and foreign communication by wire or radio, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in the Congress assembled,

Title I -- General Provisions

PURPOSES OF ACT; CREATION OF FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

SECTION 1. For the purpose of regulating interstate and foreign commerce in communication by wire and radio so as to make available, so far as possible, to all people of the United States a rapid, efficient, Nation-wide, and world-wide wire and radio communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges, for the purpose of the national defense, and for the purpose of securing a more effective execution of this policy by centralizing authority heretofore granted by law to several agencies and by granting additional authority with respect to interstate and foreign commerce in wire and radio communication, there is hereby created a commission to be known as the "Federal Communications Commission", which shall be constituted as hereinafter provided, and which shall execute and enforce the previsions of this Act.

APPLICATIONS OF ACT

SEC.2. (a) The provisions of this Act shall apply to all interstate and foreign communication by wire or radio and all interstate and foreign transmission of energy by radio, which originates and/or is received within the United States, and to all persons engaged within the United States in such communication or transmission of energy by radio, and to the licensing and regulating of all radio stations as hereinafter provided; but it shall not apply to persons engaged in wire or radio communication or transmission in the Philippine Islands or Canal Zone, or to wire or radio communication or transmission wholly within the Philippine Islands or Canal Zone.

(b) Subject to the provisions of section 301, nothing in this Act shall be construed to apply or to give the Commission jurisdiction with respect to (1) charges, classifications, practices, services, facili-S.3285--55

by the Commission, and may cause the closing of any station for radio communication and removal therefrom of its apparatus and equipment, or he may authorize the use or control of any such station and/or its apparatus and equipment by any department of the Government under such regulations as he may prescribe, upon just compensation to the owners.

(d) The President shall ascertain the just compensation for such use or control and certify the amount ascertained to Congress for appropriation and payment to the person entitled thereto. If the amount so certified is unsatisfactory to the person entitled thereto, such person shall be paid only 75 per centum of the amount and shall be entitled to sue the United States to recover such further sum as added to such payment of 75 per centum will make such amount as will be just compensation for the use and control. Such suit shall be brought in the manner provided by paragraph 20 of section 24, or by section 145, of the Judicial Code, as amended.

EFFECTIVE DATE OF ACT

SEC. 607. This Act shall take effect upon the organization of the Commission, except that this section and sections 1 and 4 shall take effect July 1, 1934. The Commission shall be deemed to be organized upon such date as four members of the Commission have taken office.

SEPARABILITY CLAUSE

SEC. 607. If any provision of this Act or application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the Act and the application of such provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.

SHORT TITLE

SEC. 609. This Act may be cited as the "Communications Act of 1934."

[signed] Henry T. Rainey

Speaker of the House of Representatives

[signed] Jno N. Garner

Vice President of the United States and President of the Senate

Approved

June 19 1934

[signed] Franklin D Roosevelt

[mapsontheweb]

Minimum amount a tipped employee can legally make per hour

by u/xetal1

Source: U.S. Department of Labor, “Minimum Wages for Tipped Employees”, as of 1st May 2023. https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/state/minimum-wage/tipped

Tip credit: Most states employ a tip credit system. This means that part of the salary (how large part varies by state, see source above) may be covered by tips. However, the total wage (salary + tips) must exceed the total minimum or the employer is eligible to pay the difference. States not using this are Alaska, California, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington, where the employer must pay out the full amount on top of any tips.

Fair Standards Labor Act (FLSA): Some states (Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennessee, Georgia, Oklahoma, and Wyoming) have no state minimum wage or a state minimum wage lower than set out in the FLSA. Any business with a yearly revenue exceeding $500,000, or engaged in interstate commerce is covered by the minimums set out in this act.

[cliff-montgomery]

The Thorny Problem of Straw Purchases in U.S. Gun Law

by Cliff Montgomery - Feb. 15th, 2024

Yesterday’s mass shooting at a parade intended to celebrate the Kansas City Chiefs’ recent Super Bowl victory over the San Francisco 49s once again reminds us of the need for serious gun laws and gun law reform.

On February 9th, two short reviews on current federal gun laws were released by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). The CRS refers to itself as a “ non-partisan shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress.” In short, it prepares concise, easy-to understand reports on matters of the moment to members of the U.S. and their affiliated staff members.

We will cover those two short studies for our readers. Tonight, we look at the report Gun Control: Straw Purchase and Gun Trafficking Provisions in Public Law 117-159, better known as the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act.

Straw purchases are defined by the study as “illegal firearms transactions in which a person serves as a middleman by posing as the transferee, but is actually acquiring the firearm for another person.”

Below, we offer readers most of the central statements found in the CRS report:

“On June 25, 2022, President Joe Biden signed into law the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (BSCA; S. 2938; P.L. 117-159). This law includes the Stop Illegal Trafficking in Firearms Act, provisions of which amend the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA, 18 U.S.C. §§921 et seq.) to more explicitly prohibit straw purchases and illegal gun trafficking. Related provisions expand federal law enforcement investigative authorities.

Federal Firearms Law

“The GCA is the principal statute regulating interstate firearms commerce in the United States. The purpose of the GCA is to assist federal, state, and local law enforcement in ongoing efforts to reduce violent crime.

“Congress constructed the GCA to allow state and local governments to regulate firearms more strictly within their own borders, so long as state law does not conflict with federal law or violate constitutional provisions.

“Hence, one condition of a federal firearms license for gun dealers, which permits the holder to engage in interstate firearms commerce, is that the licensee must comply with both federal and state law.

“Also, under the GCA there are several classes of persons prohibited from shipping, transporting, receiving, or possessing firearms or ammunition (e.g., convicted felons, fugitives, unlawful drug users). It was and remains unlawful under the GCA for any person to transfer knowingly a firearm or ammunition to a prohibited person (18 U.S.C. §922(d)). Violations are punishable by up to 10 years’ imprisonment.

“The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) is the principal agency that administers and enforces the GCA, as well as the 1934 National Firearms Act (NFA, 26 U.S.C. §§5801 et seq.).

“The NFA further regulates certain firearms deemed to be especially dangerous (e.g., machine guns, short-barreled shotguns) by taxing all aspects of the making and transfer of such weapons and requiring their registration with the Attorney General.

Straw Purchase Provision

“Straw purchases are illegal firearms transactions in which a person serves as a middleman by posing as the transferee, but is actually acquiring the firearm for another person.

“As discussed below, straw purchases are unlawful under two existing laws. Prosecutions under those provisions have been characterized by some as mere paperwork violations and, hence, inadequate in terms of deterring unlawful gun trafficking.

“P.L. 117-159 amends the GCA with a new provision, 18 U.S.C. §932, to prohibit any person from knowingly purchasing or conspiring to purchase any firearm for, on behalf of, or at the request or demand of any other persons if the purchaser knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the actual buyer

is a person prohibited from being transferred a firearm under 18 U.S.C. §922(d);

plans to use, carry, possess, or sell (dispose of) the firearm(s) in furtherance of a felony, federal crime of terrorism, or drug trafficking crime; or

plans to sell or otherwise dispose of the firearm(s) to a person who would meet any of the conditions described above.

“Violations are punishable by a fine and up to 15 years’ imprisonment. Violations made by a person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that any firearm involved will be used to commit a felony, federal crime of terrorism, or drug trafficking crime are punishable by a fine and up to 25 years’ imprisonment.

Gun Trafficking Provision

“Gun trafficking entails the movement or diversion of firearms from legal to illegal channels of commerce in violation of the GCA. P.L. 117-159 amends the GCA with a new provision, 18 U.S.C. §933, to prohibit any person from shipping, transporting, causing to be shipped or transported, or otherwise disposing of any firearm to another person with the knowledge or reasonable cause to believe that the transferee’s use, carrying, or possession would constitute a felony.

“It would also prohibit the receipt of such firearm if the transferee knows or has reasonable cause to believe that receiving it would constitute a felony. Attempts and conspiracies to violate these provisions are proscribed as well. Violations are punishable by a fine and up to 15 years’ imprisonment. […]

GCA Interstate Transfer Prohibitions

“The GCA generally prohibits anyone who is not a Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL) from acquiring a firearm from an out-of-state source. [But] Interstate transfers among unlicensed persons may be facilitated through an FFL in the state where the transferee resides. […]

GCA Record-keeping and Straw Purchases

“Under the GCA (18 U.S.C. §926), Congress authorized a decentralized system of record-keeping allowing ATF to trace a firearm’s chain of commerce, from manufacturer or importer to dealer, and to the first retail purchaser of record. FFLs must maintain certain records, including ATF Forms 4473, on transfers to non-FFLs as well as a parallel acquisition/disposition log.

“As part of a firearms transaction, both the FFL and purchaser must truthfully fill out and sign the ATF Form 4473. The FFL must verify the purchaser’s name, date of birth, and other information by examining government-issued identification (e.g., driver’s license). The purchaser attests on Form 4473 that he or she is not a prohibited person and is the actual transferee/buyer. […]

“[However,] straw purchases are not easily detected because they only become apparent when the straw purchase is revealed by a subsequent transfer to a prohibited person.

Other GCA Gun Trafficking Prohibitions

“According to ATF, gun trafficking often entails an unlawful flow of firearms from jurisdictions with less restrictive firearms laws to jurisdictions with more restrictive firearms laws, both domestically and internationally.

“Such unlawful activities can include, but are not limited to, the following:

straw purchasers or straw purchasing rings in violation of the provisions described above;

persons engaging in the business of dealing in firearms without a license in violation of 18 U.S.C. §921(a)(1)(A), punishable by up to 5 years’ imprisonment;

corrupt FFLs dealing off-the-books in an attempt to escape federal regulation in violation of 18 U.S.C. §922(b)(5), punishable by up to 5 years’ imprisonment; and

trafficking in stolen firearms in violation of 18 U.S.C. §922(j), punishable by up to 10 years’ imprisonment.

“Under current law, offenders could potentially be charged with multiple offenses under both the preexisting GCA provisions such as those discussed above and 18 U.S.C. §§932 and 933.

“Since P.L. 117-159 went into effect on October 31, 2023, 250 defendants have been charged with gun trafficking, including 80 charged with violating the law’s straw purchase provision.

“In January 2024, the National Shooting Sports Foundation—an industry trade group for the firearms industry—noted that the ATF has yet to implement two parts of P.L. 117-159: ‘Firearm Handler Background Checks’ (FHCs) and instant point-of-sale background checks when an FFL buys from a private individual.

“The former would allow FFLs to use the NICS to background check FFL employees and has been in regulatory review since September 26, 2023. The latter would allow FFLs to instantly identify if a weapon is stolen at the point of sale by authorizing importers, manufacturers, and dealers of firearms to access records of stolen firearms in the National Crime Information Center; it has been in the interim final rule stage since May 17, 2023.”

[snickers-the-fluffy-boi]

Abusive Sexual Contact

Advocating Overthrow of Government

Aggravated Assault/Battery

Aggravated Identity Theft

Aggravated Sexual Abuse

Aiming a Laser Pointer at an Aircraft

Airplane Hijacking

Anti-racketeering

Antitrust

Armed Robbery

Arson

Assassination

Assault with a Deadly Weapon

Assaulting or Killing Federal Officer

Assisting or Instigating Escape

Attempt to commit Murder/Manslaughter

Bank Burglary

Bankruptcy Fraud/Embezzlement

Bank Larceny

Bank Robbery

Blackmail

Bombing Matters

Bond Default

Breaking and/or Entering Carrier Facilities

Bribery Crimes

Certification of Checks (Fraud)

Child Abuse

Child Exploitation

Child Pornography

Civil Action to Restrain Harassment of a Victim or Witness

Coercion

Commodities Price Fixing

Computer Crime

Concealing Escaped Prisoner

Concealing Person from Arrest

Concealment of Assets

Conspiracy (in matters under FBI jurisdiction)

Conspiracy to Impede or Injure an Officer

Contempt of Court

Continuing Criminal Enterprise

Conveying False Information

Copyright Matters

Counterfeiting

Counterintelligence Crimes

Credit/Debit Card Fraud

Crime Aboard Aircraft

Crimes on Government Reservations

Crimes on Indian Reservations

Criminal Contempt of Court

Criminal Forfeiture

Criminal Infringement of a Copyright

Cyber Crimes

Damage to Religious Property

Delivery to Consignee

Demands Against the U.S.

Destruction of Aircraft or Motor Vehicles Used in Foreign Commerce

Destruction of an Energy Facility

Destruction of Property to Prevent Seizure

Destruction of Records in Federal Investigations and Bankruptcy

Destruction of Corporate Audit Records

Destruction of Veterans’ Memorials

Detention of Armed Vessel

Disclosure of Confidential Information

Domestic Security

Domestic Terrorism

Domestic Violence

Drive-by Shooting

Drug Abuse Violations

Drug Smuggling

Drug Trafficking

DUI/DWI on Federal Property

Economic Espionage

Election Law Crimes

Embezzlement

Embezzlement Against Estate

Entering Train to Commit Crime

Enlistment to Serve Against the U.S.

Environmental Scheme Crimes

Escaping Custody/Escaped Federal Prisoners

Examiner Performing Other Services

Exportation of Drugs

Extortion

Failure to Appear on Felony Offense

Failure to Pay Legal Child Support Obligations

False Bail

False Pretenses

False Statements Relating to Health Care Matters

Falsely Claiming Citizenship

False Declarations before Grand Jury or Court

False Entries in Records of Interstate Carriers

False Information and Hoaxes

False Statement to Obtain Unemployment Compensation

Federal Aviation Act

Federal Civil Rights Violations (hate crimes, police misconduct)

Female Genital Mutilation

Financial Transactions with Foreign Government

First Degree Murder

Flight to Avoid Prosecution or Giving Testimony

Forced Labor

Forcible Rape

Forgery

Fraud Activity in Connection with Electronic Mail

Fraud Against the Government

Genocide

Hacking Crimes

Harboring Terrorists

Harming Animals Used in Law Enforcement

Hate Crime Acts

Homicide

Hostage Taking

Identity Theft

Illegal Possession of Firearms

Immigration Offenses

Impersonator Making Arrest or Search

Importation of Drugs

Influencing Juror by Writing

Injuring Officer

Insider Trading Crimes

Insurance Fraud

Interference with the Operation of a Satellite

International Parental Kidnapping

International Terrorism

Interstate Domestic Violence

Interstate Violation of Protection Order

Larceny

Lobbying with Appropriated Moneys

Mailing Threatening Communications

Major Fraud Against the U.S.

Manslaughter

Medical/Health Care Fraud

Missile Systems Designed to Destroy Aircraft

Misuse of Passport

Misuse of Visas, Permits, or Other Documents

Molestation

Money Laundering

Motor Vehicle Theft

Murder by a Federal Prisoner

Murder Committed During Drug-related Drive-by shooting

Murder Committed in Federal Government Facility

Narcotics Violations

Obstructing Examination of Financial Institution

Obstruction of Court Orders

Obstruction of Federal audit

Obstruction of Justice

Obstruction of Criminal Investigations

Officer Failing to Make Reports

Partial Birth Abortion

Penalties for Neglect or Refusal to Answer Subpoena

Peonage

Perjury

Picketing or Parading

Pirating

Possession by Restricted Persons

Possession of False Papers to Defraud the U.S.

Possession of Narcotics

Possession of Child Pornography

Private Correspondence with Foreign Government

Probation Violation

Product Tampering

Prohibition of Illegal Gambling Businesses

Prostitution

Protection of Foreign Officials

Public Corruption Crimes

Racketeering

Radiological Dispersal Devices

Ransom Money

Rape

Receiving the Proceeds of Extortion

Recording or Listening to Grand or Petit Juries While Deliberating

Reentry of an Alien Removed on National Security Grounds

Registration of Certain Organizations

Reproduction of Citizenship Papers

Resistance to Extradition Agent

Rescue of Seized Property

Retaliating Against a Federal Judge by False Claim or Slander of Title

Retaliating Against a Witness, Victim, or an Informant

Robbery

Robberies and Burglaries Involving Controlled Substances

Sabotage

Sale of Citizenship Papers

Sale of Stolen Vehicles

Searches Without Warrant

Second Degree Murder

Serial Murders

Sexual Abuse

Sexual Abuse of a Minor

Sexual Assault

Sexual Battery

Sexual Conduct with a Minor

Sexual Exploitation

Sex Trafficking

Shoplifting

Smuggling

Solicitation to Commit a Crime of Violence

Stalking (In Violation of Restraining Order)

Stolen Property; Buying, Receiving, or Possessing

Subornation of Perjury

Suits Against Government Officials

Tampering with a Witness, Victim, or Informant

Tampering with Consumer Products

Tampering with Vessels

Theft of Trade Secrets

Torture

Trafficking in Counterfeit Goods or Services

Transmission of Wagering Information (Gambling)

Transportation into State Prohibiting Sale

Transportation of Slaves from U.S.

Transportation of Stolen Vehicles

Transportation of Terrorists

Trespassing

Treason

Unauthorized Removal of Classified Documents

Use of Fire or Explosives to Destroy Property

Use of Weapons of Mass Destruction

Vandalism

Video Voyeurism

Violation of Prohibitions Governing Atomic Weapons

Violence at International airports

Violent Crimes in Aid of Racketeering Activity

Willful Wrecking of a Train Resulting in Death

Wire Fraud

That’s the list of all of my crimes

[gatekeeper-watchman]

Who may be committing a crime? Protests that turn violent are called "riots." First Amendment rights aside, there are laws against rioting and inciting others to riot. The following article looks at federal and state prohibitions against rioting and inciting to riot.

The right to protest is among the oldest and most respected rights in the American democratic system. The right of citizens to peacefully protest is protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. But there are limits to even the most important rights.

Most states have their own laws defining what constitutes a riot and incitement to riot. After the 2021 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, hundreds of people faced charges under federal laws, including offenses based on their role in the riot that day.

What Are Rioting, Inciting to Riot, and Related Offenses?

Federal law defines what a riot is. It needs to have all the following criteria: A public disturbance

Involve three or more people

The group engages in acts of violence

There is a clear and present danger of damage to property or injury to people

The law includes threats of violence if those involved could immediately act on the threat.

Under federal law, inciting a riot (18 U.S. Code Section 2101) includes acts of "organizing, promoting, encouraging, participating in a riot" and urging or instigating others to riot.

The criminal code clarifies that incitement is not the same as simply advocating ideas or expressing beliefs in speech or writing. To qualify as incitement, the speech must advocate violence, the rightness of violence, or the right to commit violent acts.

Federal riot crimes provide up to five years in prison upon conviction.

Protected Speech Versus Incitement

Citizens have a right to free speech in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The extent of that right has been continually tested. It has been strongly protected at all levels of government, but that right is not unlimited.

In the case of Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the Supreme Court found that speech is not constitutionally protected if it is:

Intended to produce imminent violent conduct

Likely to produce imminent violent conduct

However, the limits of free speech are still being defined in the courts. A Ninth Circuit decision found that statutory language was "overly broad" in the federal riot statute that criminalizes "promoting" or "encouraging" a riot.

Restrictions on Unlawful Assembly

The First Amendment's right to freedom of assembly is also not unlimited. First, the right only applies to the right to "peaceably assemble." There is no right to assemble to engage in violent acts.

Cities can also regulate the right of peaceable assembly by requiring permits or limiting demonstrations to a designated area. Cities may have practical concerns regarding crowd size and protestor safety. Cities must also safely maintain or divert road traffic. During a demonstration, law enforcement must watch for groups engaging in vandalism or other crimes.

If a group of people gathers intending to disturb the public peace, they could be charged with unlawful assembly or a similar offense like civil disorder. 

When Is Rioting a Federal Crime?

A person would be charged under federal law if the following are true:

Rioting occurs on federal lands, federal government buildings, VA hospitals, military bases, etc.

The person traveled between states or countries to participate in a riot (though the law specifically states it is not intended to prevent travel for legitimate purposes)

The person used interstate or foreign commerce (internet, mail, telephone, radio, television, or social media) to communicate intent to:

Incite a riot

Organize, promote, encourage, participate in, or carry on a riot

Commit any act of violence in furtherance of a riot

Aid or abet any person in inciting, participating in, or carrying on a riot or committing any act of violence in furtherance of a riot

Federal law enforcement uses its discretion. They may not involve themselves in protests or demonstrations that do not occur on federal property.

In most circumstances, state and local police will take action to suppress a riot. Thus, most riot charges will occur under state laws. State laws apply to anyone present in the state when the criminal act happens.

Prosecutions in Both State and Federal Courts

In most cases, a person can be prosecuted for committing the same criminal acts in both state and federal court.

The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed this view in its ruling in Gamble v. United States (2019), upholding the dual sovereignty doctrine. That doctrine states there is no violation of double jeopardy because the state and the federal government are separate sovereigns.

But, sometimes, a statute will say a person cannot be charged in both federal and state court. In the case of rioting, the federal statute specifically states that a judgment, conviction, or acquittal under state law bars federal prosecution for the same act. This statute creates protection from federal prosecution that would not typically exist.

Rioting and Inciting to Riot: California State Law and History

California serves as an example of state rioting laws. The state has seen major protests during tense periods in U.S. civil rights history.

California witnessed riots in 1992 after news spread of not-guilty verdicts. The criminal case was against the police officers charged with beating Rodney King.

After the 2020 murder of George Floyd at the hands of police officers in Minneapolis, large protests occurred in several California cities and counties. In Los Angeles, Riverside, and Orange County, protests turned violent when individuals at the protest damaged store windows and police cruisers. In one Los Angeles demonstration, protesters placed an L.A.P.D. officer in a chokehold and kicked him.

Large-scale protests always present a risk of violence, whether from the protesters themselves or counter-protesters that appear and cause trouble. Law enforcement must balance the rights of protesters to demonstrate peacefully and the need to maintain order and public safety when things spin out of control.

Differences Between Riot and Incitement To Riot Charges

California prohibits participating in a riot and inciting a riot.

California Penal Code section 404 defines a riot as:

Any use of force or violence, disturbing the peace, or any threat to use force or violence

Accompanied by immediate power of execution

By two or more persons acting together

Without the authority of law

Participating in a riot is a misdemeanor offense. Upon conviction, an offender may face up to one year in county jail, a $1,000 fine, or both.

The crime of incitement to riot is similar. The elements of the crime are as follows:

With the intent to cause a riot

A person acts or engages in conduct

That (1) urges a riot, or (2) urges others to commit acts of force or violence, or property damage (the burning or destroying of property)

Under circumstances that produce a clear, present, and immediate danger

Of acts of force or violence, or property damage

Incitement to riot is also a misdemeanor offense. An offender faces up to one year of jail time, a $1,000 fine, or both after conviction. The offense can become a felony if an offender commits incitement to riot at a prison or county jail and it results in serious bodily injury. The penalty can increase to up to three years in state prison.

Legal Defenses to Riot and Inciting a Riot

Most defense strategies for riot or inciting a riot focus on the protest's turmoil once things get out of hand. Common defenses in such cases may include the following.

Mistaken Identity

The defendant may claim that they were present at the protest or rally, but they did not engage in acts that amount to riot or incitement to riot. The defendant may use the chaos to question witness accounts of the defendant's role or behavior. The witness or law enforcement may have mistaken the person's identity. 

No Clear and Present Danger

The defendant may admit to some role in urging protestors to engage in violent acts. But they may deny that the circumstances presented any clear, present, and immediate danger. If the evidence supports this view, the defendant may seek to reduce the charges to disorderly conduct or disturbing the peace.

Self-Defense or Defense of Others

The defendant may claim that misconduct by the police forced the defendant to engage in violent acts or to urge violent acts in self-defense or defense of others. Depending on the law of the jurisdiction, the defendant may claim a right to reasonably stand their ground if they perceived an assault by the police.

Tips for Organizing a Peaceful Protest

Protest organizers must exercise free speech and assembly rights carefully to avoid criminal charges. Impassioned protests could surge beyond organizers’ control. You cannot determine the actions of everyone who attends. This risk can make planning a protest challenging.

Learn about your local and state protest laws. You may need a permit to hold a march, rally, or parade. You might also need a permit to protest in certain areas.

You may want to take precautions to reduce the risk of incitement to riot charges, such as the following:

Get guidance from a civil rights lawyer during planning activities

Clearly state that the protest will be nonviolent in all related communications

Share accurate legal sources to inform the attendees about protesters’ rights and obligations

Learn how the law defines violent language

Review drafts of your speeches and online posts for potentially violent language or expression

Avoid verbal speech that may appear to be a call or threat of violence

Prepare for emergencies with plans for if violence begins or you face an arrest, including knowing phone numbers for emergency contacts like a criminal defense lawyer

Protest organizers’ liability for violence is a complex area of civil and criminal law. Despite the best intentions, you may encounter accusations of inciting a riot. A strong legal defense may become essential to protect your civil rights.

Get Legal Help With Your Riot or Inciting to Riot Charges

You can face serious penalties if you have been charged with rioting or incitement to riot at the federal or state level. You will want to seek the best defense from a skilled lawyer. Talk with a criminal defense attorney in your area today and learn how they can help.

[partisan-by-default]

Not long ago, Beloit, Wisconsin, was a largely rural community, mostly known for being the first stop in Wisconsin for travelers coming over the border from Illinois. Today, they’re trying to cure cancer here.

Northstar Medical Radioisotopes, a biotech startup building a rapidly growing campus of buildings just off the interstate, is developing cancer diagnostics and treatments that use radioactive materials. CEO Frank Scholz says it is the most exciting technology out there.

“This is an emerging field, very promising, to make a real difference in patients’ lives and the lives of their families, because we all are affected by cancer,” he said.

Northstar has been doing this work for 20 years, with occasional setbacks. Last year, the company blamed government-subsidized foreign competition for the layoffs of 93 employees — more than a quarter of its workforce — at its facilities in Beloit and Madison.But now, Scholz believes the company is on the verge of really taking off. It is not just because of the technology, which is generating interest from all around the world. It is also because Wisconsin is now home to of one of 31 Regional Technology and Innovation Hubs— or “Tech Hubs” for short — designated under the federal CHIPS and Science Act. Wisconsin’s hub focuses on bio-health.

On Tuesday, the Commerce Department announced it was awarding the Wisconsin hub $49 million in funding, part of a $500 million pool of money Congress authorized to get the Tech Hubs off the ground. More important than the money, Wisconsin officials say, is the fact that the designation formalizes a consortium of companies, including GE Healthcare Technologies — which has a major presence in the Milwaukee suburbs — and institutions like the University of Wisconsin-Madison supporting each other and smaller companies like Northstar.

“It will make us even more impactful for patients be able to move faster, and to scale up,” Scholz said. “It’s all about scaling up to be able to treat more patients earlier, faster.”

[plethoraworldatlas]

A Vaughn man pleaded guilty Tuesday to two federal wildlife felonies for running an illegal operation to clone the world’s largest horned sheep and breed hybrid sheep that he sold to game ranches in other states.

Arthur “Jack” Schubarth, 80 pleaded guilty to a conspiracy charge and to one count of violating the Lacey Act, which prohibits people from selling, transporting, or buying wildlife through interstate commerce if the transportation or sale violated federal law.

Schubarth was charged last month by federal prosecutors after entering into a plea agreement in which he agreed to cooperate with an investigation into the operation. The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Montana said Schubarth conspired with at least five others in the operation between 2013 and 2021.

According to court documents, Schubarth illegally imported part of a Marco Polo argali sheep killed in Kyrgyzstan into the U.S., a species that is internationally protected, is listed under the Endangered Species Act, and is prohibited in Montana. He paid to have a lab create cloned embryos from the animal’s DNA, which he then implanted into ewes on his ranch.

One of the embryos, a genetically pure Marco Polo argali, was born and named “Montana Mountain King,” whose semen Schubarth used to impregnate hybrid sheep by breeding them with other types of sheep that are banned in Montana. The U.S. Attorney’s Office said the group wanted to create bigger and more valuable sheep for captive hunting ranches, primarily in Texas.

He and the others forged veterinary inspection certificates, according to court records, and Schubarth also sold the pure sheep’s semen to other breeders.

Schubarth also bought parts of wild-hunted Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep in Montana, a violation of state law, and sold parts of the animals to people in other states.

“The kind of crime we uncovered here could threaten the integrity of our wildlife species in Montana,” said Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks Chief of. Enforcement Ron Howell. “This was a complex case and the partnership between us and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was critical in solving it.”

[beardedmrbean]

A Michigan man pleaded guilty Monday and admitted to using social media to make violent threats against Jewish people last summer.

Seann Pietila, 19, was accused of spreading neo-Nazi views, posting praise on Instagram for mass shooters and discussing plans to attack Jewish people and then post the footage on the internet. He has been in custody since June.

According to the FBI, he had information about the Shaarey Zedek Congregation in East Lansing, near Michigan State University, and a 2024 date in a note on his cell phone.

A screen grab provided by the office of the U.S. attorney for the Western District of Michigan shows a list of weapons “me and Limey” would take to the synagogue on March 15, 2024.

Pietila told another Instagram user he wanted to “inspire others to take arms against the Jewish controlled state.”

FBI investigators later found “a cache of weapons, knives, tactical equipment and a red-and-white Nazi flag” at his Pickford home, according to The Associated Press.

“Thank God that we were in a situation where we prevented a possible atrocity rather than being in a situation to respond to one,” U.S. Attorney Mark Totten said Monday outside federal court in Grand Rapids.

Pietila pleaded guilty to transmitting threatening communications in interstate commerce, which carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison, a $250,000 fine and three years of supervised release. Additionally, as a convicted felon, he may no longer possess any firearms.

He will be sentenced in March.

“This is a tense moment because of the situation that is happening overseas,” Totten said. “We will show zero tolerance for hate-fueled acts of violence and threats of violence against anybody based on their race, their ethnicity, their religion.”

Pietila’s guilty plea comes more than a month after Hamas’ surprise attack on Israel and the ensuing retaliatory strikes on Gaza that have both prompted an uptick in bias incidents, including vandalism, threats and hate crimes, against Jews, Muslims and other groups in the U.S. and around the world.

[lboogie1906]

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (enacted July 2, 1964) is a landmark civil rights and labor law in the US that outlaws discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. It prohibits unequal application of voter registration requirements, and racial segregation in schools, employment, and public accommodations.

Initially, powers given to enforce the act were weak, but these were supplemented during later years. Congress asserted its authority to legislate under several different parts of the US Constitution, principally its power to regulate interstate commerce under Article One (section 8), its duty to guarantee all citizens equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment, and its duty to protect voting rights under the Fifteenth Amendment.

The legislation had been proposed by President John F. Kennedy in June 1963, but it was opposed by a filibuster in the Senate. After Kennedy was assassinated on November 22, 1963, President Lyndon B. Johnson pushed the bill forward. The House of Representatives passed the bill on February 10, 1964, and after a 54-day filibuster, passed the Senate on June 19, 1964. The final vote was 290–130 in the House of Representatives and 73–27 in the Senate. After the House agreed to a subsequent Senate amendment, the Civil Rights Act was signed into law by President Johnson at the White House on July 2, 1964.

In June 2020, the SCOTUS ruled in Bostock v. Clayton County and two other cases that employment protections against discrimination based on sex also apply to discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. #africanhistory365 #africanexcellence

[zponds]

What-If?: American Railroads

Happy New Year, everybody… now, being a massive rail-fan, it deeply saddens me that great railroads like the New York Central, Pennsylvania Railroad, Southern Pacific, Milwaukee Road, Northern Pacific, Atlantic Coast Line, etc… are all no more due to a combination of public betrayal, ICC interferences and mergers. Not to mention that steam engines quickly became endangered because the railroads were losing money because the public began betraying the railroads by choosing to use cars, trucks and plane… and it certainly didn’t help that airports, highways and interstates were being built using the railroads’ OWN taxes. And to make matters worse for the railroads, the ICC (Interstate Commerce Commission) outlived its duty and became a severe headache, hindrance and villain to the railroads, resulting in tragic moments like Penn Central.

Over time, I kept asking myself… what if the public didn’t betray the very railroads they praised? What if these legendary railroads were still around? What if President Dwight D. Eisenhower passed acts that ensured the fair use of trains, cars and planes?

This alternate timeline and history that I made and call “What-If: American Railroads” answers those questions and delivers the most realistic answers and timeline of events that begin after World War 2 and end to the current times.

And there are different sections of this whole thing, and they’re just below.

SECTIONS

Railroads Still Around

Railroads Absorbed

Named Passenger Trains and Streamliners

History (1940s to today)

Important Notes

And these sections will be detailed in posts labeled with “What-If?: American Railroads” and the specific sections, so stay tuned for that.

[quietblueriver]

Very fucked up few days over at SCOTUS.

Quick, self-indulgent queer law nerd reflection on Justice Sotomayor's powerful dissent in 303 Creative (case in which SCOTUS said a web designer can exclude queer couples from her hypothetical wedding site business because 1st Am.) because the internet is the void I can come scream into about this.

She is not pulling punches at any point. This is what she says about the argument that Smith (web designer) isn't actually refusing to serve queer people: The majority protests that Smith will gladly sell her goods and services to anyone, including same-sex couples. She just will not sell websites for same-sex weddings. Apparently, a gay or lesbian couple might buy a wedding website for their straight friends. This logic would be amusing if it were not so embarrassing. I suppose the Heart of Atlanta Motel could have argued that Black people may still rent rooms for their white friends. Smith answers that she will sell other websites for gay or lesbian clients. But then she, like Ollie McClung, who would serve Black people take-out but not table service, discriminates against LGBT people by offering them a limited menu. This is plain to see, for all who do not look the other way. (Quick context without getting super into the weeds: in Heart of Atlanta and Katzenbach v. McClung, the Court found that business owners could be forced to abide by the Civil Rights Act. They did this by holding that Congress has the right to regulate interstate commerce under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution and discriminatory actions interfered with interstate commerce.)

She cites almost all of the major LGBT rights cases and Loving, the case that struck down anti-miscegenation laws. She also cites Kenji Yoshino in making the argument that asking queer people to hide who they are can actively put them in danger on top of the emotional and mental harm it causes: By issuing this new license to discriminate in a case brought by a company that seeks to deny same-sex couples the full and equal enjoyment of its services, the immediate, symbolic effect of the decision is to mark gays and lesbians for second-class status. In this way, the decision itself inflicts a kind of stigmatic harm, on top of any harm caused by denials of service. . . . It reminds LGBT people of a painful feeling that they know all too well: There are some public places where they can be themselves, and some where they cannot. K. Yoshino, Covering 61��66 (2006). Ask any LGBT person, and you will learn just how often they are forced to navigate life in this way. They must ask themselves: If I reveal my identity to this co-worker, or to this shopkeeper, will they treat me the same way? If I hold the hand of my partner in this setting, will someone stare at me, harass me, or even hurt me? It is an awful way to live.

She closes with a quote from the dissent in Korematsu, the case in which SCOTUS said Japanese internment was constitutional because it was about national security. It's an incredibly disgusting and embarrassing part of legal history. Interestingly, Justice Sotomayor also brought up Korematsu in Trump v. Hawaii, the travel ban case. There, she compared the majority's logic in upholding the ban to the logic in Korematsu, which Chief Justice Roberts, the author of the majority opinion upholding the ban, really did not like. Anyway, her use of the case again is a shot at the logic of the majority but it is mostly a very clear shot at what she thinks of their position morally and about how it will be viewed historically: I fear that the symbolic damage of the Court’s opinion is done. But that does not mean that we are powerless in the face of the decision. The meaning of our Constitution is found not in any law volume, but in the spirit of the people who live under it. Every business owner in America has a choice whether to live out the values in the Constitution. Make no mistake: Invidious discrimination is not one of them.“[D]iscrimination in any form and in any degree has no justifiable part whatever in our democratic way of life.” Korematsu v. United States, 323 U. S. 214, 242 (1944) (Murphy, J., dissenting). “It is unattractive in any setting but it is utterly revolting among a free people who have embraced the principles set forth in the Constitution of the United States.”

Basically, all of this is absolute shit but the progressive Justices are not being quiet about it and I'm very grateful for that.

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

The House passed a bill on Wednesday to avert a railway strike, taking the first major step in avoiding a walkout of workers that would have drastic effects on the U.S. economy as it heads into the holiday season.

The chamber passed the resolution in a 290-137 vote, sending it to the Senate for consideration just over one week out from the Dec. 9 strike deadline. Seventy-nine Republicans supported the measure, and eight Democrats voted “no.”

Democratic Reps. Judy Chu (Calif.), Mark DeSaulnier (Calif.), Jared Golden (Maine), Donald Norcross (N.J.), Mary Peltola (Alaska), Mark Pocan (Wis.), Rashida Tlaib (Mich.) and Norma Torres (Calif.) opposed the measure.

In a subsequent vote, lawmakers passed a separate measure that would give rail workers seven days of paid sick leave per year, addressing a chief concern unions and progressives had with the agreement. That vote was 221-207, with three Republicans joining all Democrats present in supporting the measure: GOP Reps. Don Bacon (Neb.), Brian Fitzpatrick (Pa.) and John Katko (N.Y.).

President Biden on Monday called on Congress to intervene in the impasse that had union leaders and rail workers at odds and brought the U.S. closer and closer to a rail strike, which threatened to cripple the economy and ravage supply chains.

He huddled with the top four congressional leaders at the White House on Tuesday in part to discuss how Congress could help avert the strike.

Shortly after Biden’s plea, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said the House would consider such a measure. Congress has the authority to intervene in rail labor disputes in accordance with a 1926 law, the Railway Labor Act, as a way to prevent disturbances in interstate commerce.

The resolution passed on Wednesday was a tentative agreement negotiated by the two largest rail unions in September with help from the Biden administration. It provides workers with 24% raises over five years and allows them to take time off for medical appointments without being penalized, a key sticking point.

During debate on the House floor Wednesday, Pelosi underscored the dangers that would come with a rail strike.

“Let me be clear: A nationwide rail shutdown would be catastrophic,” she said. “A shutdown would grind our economy to a halt, and every family would feel the strain.”

“Time is of the essence. We must act now,” she added.

The resolution, however, was not immediately embraced by all Democrats. Some liberal lawmakers were initially cool to approving the agreement because of the lack of sick leave benefits. Union leaders had asked for 15 days of paid sick leave, but the tentative agreement only allocated one additional personal day, which sparked displeasure from union workers and some Democrats.

Pelosi’s decision to hold a vote on a separate bill that would give workers seven days of paid sick leave per year, however, assuaged concerns.

���Every worker deserves paid sick leave. I am proud of our efforts to negotiate a deal that guarantees seven days of paid sick leave for our rail workers,” Congressional Progressive Caucus Chairwoman Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) said in a statement Wednesday morning. “I now urge all my colleagues to stand by workers and vote yes for paid sick leave.”

While a number of Republicans were supportive of the tentative agreement, recognizing that there was little time and few other options to avert a strike, some used the moment as an opportunity to criticize Biden and his administration for failing to lead the two parties toward a deal and having to get Congress involved.

After the House vote, Biden called on the Senate to also take action immediately.

“Let me say that again: without action this week, disruptions to our auto supply chains, our ability to move food to tables, and our ability to remove hazardous waste from gasoline refineries will begin,” he said in a statement.

How the Senate will proceed, however, remains unclear. Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) could either bring the measures up as a package or consider them separately.

The slim GOP support in the House for the paid leave measure, however, is already spelling trouble for its odds in the upper chamber. At least 60 votes will be needed to overcome a legislative filibuster.

Shortly after House passage on Wednesday, 12 Democratic senators issued a statement urging the chamber to hold a vote on the sick leave resolution and support the measure.

The tentative agreement lawmakers approved on Wednesday was the same deal that averted the strike that was set to take place in mid-September. While unions won several concessions not included in previous proposals, the tentative deal did not provide any paid sick days, prompting outrage among rank-and-file workers and liberals on Capitol Hill.

Railroads urged Senators to pass the bill implementing the tentative agreement but reject the measure guaranteeing paid sick leave.

“Unless Congress wants to become the de facto endgame for future negotiations, any effort to put its thumb on the bargaining scale to artificially advantage either party, or otherwise obstruct a swift resolution, would be wholly irresponsible, and risk a timely outcome to avoid significant economic harm,” Association of American Railroads President Ian Jefferies said in a statement.

Biden on Monday called on Congress to force through the deal without any changes, drawing criticism from rail workers and progressives. He did not address the paid leave debate in his Wednesday statement.

Democrats believed that a modified deal wouldn’t win enough GOP support to reach 60 votes in the Senate. Amid the September strike threat, Senate Republicans sought to push through a contract that included fewer labor priorities than the Biden-negotiated proposal.

Democrats changed course after momentum for paid sick leave gained traction among lawmakers, including Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and a handful of other Senate Republicans.

Eight of the 12 rail unions have already ratified contracts with railroads, while the two largest unions were split on the Biden-led deal. Workers at the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen voted to ratify it, while train and engine workers at SMART-TD narrowly voted it down.

All of the nation’s 115,000 rail workers would be set to strike on Dec. 9 without congressional intervention, as railroads refused to budge on the paid sick leave demand.

As soon as this weekend, railroads would begin winding down some of their services, leaving products stranded and prompting commuter rail line cancellations.

A national rail shutdown would wreak havoc on strained supply chains and drive up prices, inflicting an estimated $2 billion in economic damage per day, according to the Association of American Railroads.

Nearly one-third of U.S. freight, including large amounts of fuel, food and fertilizer, is transported by rail. Trucking and other modes of transportation don’t have the capacity or infrastructure to take on more cargo.

Corporate lobbying groups urged lawmakers to intervene this week, warning that they could not afford to allow the strike threat to disrupt the busy holiday season.

“Shutting down our rail system, even for one day, would have a significant impact on U.S. gasoline supply and could lead to higher prices for American consumers and businesses ahead of the holiday,” American Petroleum Institute President Mike Sommers told reporters Tuesday.

[hunty627]

Here's a picture I made for @zponds. This is another one of Zachery’s key items; a green book titled “What-If?: American Railroad Diversity”. He wrote this whole book himself, and it explains what would have happened if President Dwight D. Eisenhower passed some laws and acts that allowed the railroads in America to innovate and fairly compete against cars and planes… as well as a Staggers Act of 1955 that severely deregulated the industry, making the ICC (Interstate Commerce Commissions) to not be a severe hindrance and villain to the railroads. Large class 1 railroads (like the New York Central) would have greatly benefited from this, but smaller railroads (like the Boston and Maine) wouldn’t be as lucky. But the smaller railroads’ lines would not go to waste as the much bigger ones would absorb the small ones. Not to mention that with many massive class 1 American railroads still around, competition would be healthy and we’d still see the paint schemes of the railroads and great passenger trains like the 20th Century Limited, Broadway Limited, Golden Spike Limited, Olympian Hiawatha, Mainstreeter, Empire Builder, the Zephyrs, etc.

[woolandcoffee]

On this bright and chilly WOTUS Day (EPA's new WOTUS rule goes into effect in every state except for Texas and Idaho today due to an injunction issued late last night), I can't help but find myself wondering where this all ends. After all, we can't go on like this. The current state of affairs - a new WOTUS rule every Presidential administration, with significant litigation each time preventing the new rule from being in effect for long - is unsustainable. It's confusing, difficult to adjust to, and a challenge for anyone looking to comply with the Clean Water Act. Funnily enough, its the bouncing around to different WOTUS definitions that creates the exact conditions that conservative plaintiffs complain about in lawsuits against WOTUS rules passed by Democratic administrations (confusion about what water is a WOTUS, etc.), not necessarily any of the recent WOTUS definitions themselves.

So where does this leave us? Are we to keep up this nauseating rollercoaster of new WOTUS definitions adopted every few years, resulting in lawsuits, resulting in injunctions, resulting in different WOTUS definitions applying depending where in the U.S. you are? Is Congress going to step in and give us a WOTUS definition (doubtful, but you never know)? Will the Supreme Court bust in like the dreaded Kool-Aid man at the last minute to completely destroy the fragile house of WOTUS built over the last 50 years? I truly don't know. What I do know is that the longer it goes on, the sillier its going to get. While true, yes, we don't know exactly what Congress was imagining when they passed the Clean Water Act in 1972, the legislative history gives us some pretty decent ideas. They never intended for WOTUS to be limited purely to navigable-in-fact waters. They always meant for WOTUS to include more than just possible highways of commerce because even they were aware that hydrology demands something different. We also know that courts have routinely found something similar to the 1980s WOTUS definition to be lawful. Wetlands have always been included under WOTUS in some respect, as have tributaries, streams, and interstate waters. But the longer this goes on, the longer WOTUS is removed from its original context and deeply politicized, the longer farmers and small landowners hold do the work of industrial polluters by being the sympathetic face of the Gut the Clean Water Act movement, the sillier this will all get.

So happy WOTUS Day! May we never get another (although in all likelihood we absolutely will).