Because of state run counterfeiting operations. North Korea is the world's biggest counterfeiter of USA $100 bills. You can't tell the difference between the the real one and the one from North Korea. These are only caught by the US Treasury Dept. and how they are able to catch them in circulation is highly secret. This goes beyond counterfeiting goods. Is is a war on our economies.

Secret treaties, searches without warrant or probable cause, no congressional debate or input on the scheme...criminal investigations and searches without probable cause, searching iPODs and laptops in points of entry.

This is seriously dangerous and against every idea we have of our legal system.

Quote:
Because of state run counterfeiting operations. North Korea is the world's biggest counterfeiter of USA $100 bills. You can't tell the difference between the the real one and the one from North Korea. These are only caught by the US Treasury Dept. and how they are able to catch them in circulation is highly secret. This goes beyond counterfeiting goods. Is is a war on our economies.

You'd think with all that cash they could afford to turn on some lights.

Good point.

Quote:
Because of state run counterfeiting operations. North Korea is the world's biggest counterfeiter of USA $100 bills. You can't tell the difference between the the real one and the one from North Korea. These are only caught by the US Treasury Dept. and how they are able to catch them in circulation is highly secret. This goes beyond counterfeiting goods. Is is a war on our economies.

If this is true then the thinking that the CIA and the Federal reserve are responsible for making and distributing a good half of the counterfeit bills out there is not true either, eh?

I mean, how convenient that an interesting number of the 'enemies' of the corporate aspects of the US government and those branches deeply tied to them..would somehow be the counterfeiters. Does anyone bother to dig and find alternative data that is outside of the mainstream media?

Remember, they fired over 85% of their investigate journalists, this 'mainstream media' in the past 15 or so years, so it's likely they can't tie their shoes properly when it comes to real investigation and the digging for facts and correlation. They now have ex corporate (some still corporate) think-tank 30-something wanna-be's writing their 'factual' articles, in some of the more interesting cases....And similar ghost writers. Propaganda to a T.

When you print a shitload of bills and break down the international monetary system that is filled with your counterfeits, you have to blame it on somebody.

When the story erupted that the contractors and colluders in Iraq were being paid directly and with large amounts if cash..cash that was brought in by the skid load. I mean, like massive quantities, plane after plane of skids of cash..they had to find a cover for that, no? So, suddenly, the underground and back story is that 'Iran' is printing perfect Fed notes on their presses, now. Note that it would be difficult to track the origin of massive quantities of cash erupting out of Iraq (in the hands of the contractors, ie, mercenaries, corporations, etc), in the hands of those involved.....if the new source is Iran, no? If skid loads sounds unreasonable, if plane loads of cash sounds unreasonable..then you should do your homework and find/figure out how much money was spent and how much is in a skid load. It might surprise you how much financial 'pork' went down in that war zone and how little it takes to fill a skid, in comparison.

Gee, only the Treasury department knows how to spot it. I wonder why. And they are keeping it a secret. I wonder why.

Here's something that should scare the living crap out of you:

Another significant detail is being neglected by mainstream media sources. The firm in charge of security at Amsterdam

Quote:
Gee, only the Treasury department knows how to spot it. I wonder why. And they are keeping it a secret. I wonder why.

Because you're not that important? Do you really have a need to know? If so, what is that need? What would be the advantage if you did know? What would be the disadvantage?

Answers:

Yes
No
None
None
None

Conclusion:

You're not that important.

Shifting back to the topic at hand...this is NOT about counterfeit money but counterfeit or illegally copied goods...notably digital music.

They plan to force travelers to cough up their iPODs and laptops for inspection and confiscation if they decide the music, video's or software is or might be unauthorized...

This will be without probable cause or a search warrant of any type.

As this is a music form, I thought folk might be interested in illegal music searches and secret treaties.

I would be very much in favor of "illegal" music searches. Personally, I buy my CDs and LPs with an appropriate label on them. I'm not part of the problem that led to this situation. Same thing goes for the government listening in on our asses. We brought that on ourselves. I'm also in favor of "profiling" people at such things as our borders and airports.

I rip my CD's to my iPOD and laptop...How is some minimum wage hack at an airport going to know if my iPOD is legal or not? Who gave them the power to even look?

Probable cause and the 5th amendment come to mind

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation"

How come no one here has even questioned the fact that this is all from a Wikipedia article? The whole thing is laced with conjecture and made to seem, yet again, like another big international conspiracy.

First off, the issues of piracy have been front an center for a long time and nothing is secret about it. I'm of mixed feelings about it and how it's prosecuted in our own country, but that's beside the point. Every G8 (or pick your fave letter/number combo) meeting brings this up. And of course out "partners" the Chinese always say "We'll look into it." But it's obvious it's more than just DVDs, it's more like wholesale corporate espionage in many cases.

The Koreans aren't so much looking to F us over with false currency as get themselves ANY cash worth something to trade with. They have dug themselves into a mile deep hole of paranoid Marxist personality cult shit, so that it's the only way to finance the "Dear Leader's" luxury items. Again, all right out in the open guys.

Just because you haven't been following it for the last 15 years doesn't mean it's a newly found secret.

And again:

I don't care if they shine a spotlight on it..it violates the 5th amendment and the 14th amendment. One cannot search folk or their property without either probable cause or a warrant. It is an abuse of the law.

"They plan to force travelers to cough up their iPODs and laptops for inspection and confiscation if they decide the music, video's or software is or might be unauthorized..."

Oh, is that what this is about? "They" who already can't track down plane bombers, narcotics and any number of truly dangerous cargo, are going to stop each and every passenger and ask to check out their play list? Hell, the IRS can't even track down all the tax evaders out there. SURELY you must be joking!

What planet do you live on that a government who can't even clamp down on heroin and coke would give a rat's ass about individual music/video files? If it's about media at all, it's about DVD and CD FACTORIES in China (and other countries) that pirate and churn out millions of copies of music, movies and software for the local and world market.Period.

You're always looking to find ways your so-called rights are going to be stepped on, aren't you? But tell me, how may times has it seriously even happened? I mean, ever? Have you been illegally detained? Interrogated about your music sharing habits? Has anyone come to your door to see your video collection? Didn't think so. As Lamont said to KBK- you're just NOT that important!

Do you care this much about the kids on the South side of LA who get searched and taken in to the police station for just "looking" guilty each and every day? How about Latinos who get picked up in sweeps by Feds who don't even know their own emigration code and lock them up for a few weeks until they sort out who's legal or not? I didn't think so.

It's just all about you, and what you think "could" happen, some day, when the U.S. government, who BTW provides you with one of the safest, most prosperous, and most stable places to live on the planet, gets bored and decides it's time to step on your tender little piggies. Let me know when it happens and I'll be there with a lawyer to help you out.

Shit, I like the new you! Word up!

Quote:
"They plan to force travelers to cough up their iPODs and laptops for inspection and confiscation if they decide the music, video's or software is or might be unauthorized..."

You're always looking to find ways your so-called rights are going to be stepped on, aren't you? But tell me, how may times has it seriously even happened? I mean, ever? Have you been illegally detained? Interrogated about your music sharing habits? Has anyone come to your door to see your video collection? Didn't think so. As Lamont said to KBK- you're just NOT that important!

Every time I fly, every time I am not allowed to enter a federal building armed, every time the government raises my taxes without passing a tax increase (have you seen the new withholding tables?), every time Congress or a court violates the Constitution, every time I am stopped at a 'sobriety stop' when driving, ...heck, the lest is endless.

In 1775 we want to war over a 1% tax and on illegal gun grabs. Just because a lot of society are sheep or simply too tied up in bread ad circus to note what is going on does not mean that I have to join the flock and quietly be fleeced.

Quote:
Do you care this much about the kids on the South side of LA who get searched and taken in to the police station for just "looking" guilty each and every day? How about Latinos who get picked up in sweeps by Feds who don't even know their own emigration code and lock them up for a few weeks until they sort out who's legal or not? I didn't think so.

Yes, it is unconstitutional.

Quote:
It's just all about you, and what you think "could" happen, some day, when the U.S. government, who BTW provides you with one of the safest, most prosperous, and most stable places to live on the planet, gets bored and decides it's time to step on your tender little piggies. Let me know when it happens and I'll be there with a lawyer to help you out.

It is not about what may happen but what IS happening, and often with the applause of the loud by small anti-American segment that runs us today.

News flash dude: We don't live in 1775.

Let's talk about your "rights" in 1775: You could freely beat your wife, your kids and OWN another human being who you could rape, breed, torture, work to death, and murder with almost complete legal impunity. For Christ sake man, the world is NOTHING like it was back then, or 1875, or practically 1975!

The founding Constitution, good and as flawed as it was at the time, was a fluid and very open-ended document meant as a template to start out with, not to be slavishly worshiped to the letter 200 years later. They couldn't even dream of what things would be like today, and it was made as such. Made to be changed and evolve. You know- little things like acknowledging women and people of color as actual people just to name one of a million other things that have changed for the better since.

A hand loaded musket is a lot different than a automatic weapon of modern war. In fact it's not even the same thing AT ALL! One guy today loaded with enough ammo and some automatic weapons could have taken out half of Washington's army! I really don't give a damn if you think you have the "right" to weapons designed for modern war- in my and most of the democratic world's opinion, you don't. End of discussion. It's a "right" that makes no sense at all from any objective stand point. One-shot hunting rifles, or shotguns, maybe. Hand guns, no way. Along with third world countries who are awash in arms (and usually murderous civil wars), we are the only country around still so backward to think it's a good idea.

True...In 1775 folk like our Congress would have been hauled out of their political hidey holes and tarred and feathered before being run out of town.

I agree, the Constitution was set up to be changed. A method was established. Amend it if you must to reflect those changing time, but never, ever ignore it.

Your last paragraph makes no sense at all as it does not address any of my points, so I will not address its constitutional and legal ignorance.

Dude, here is a link...READ THE THING...

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

Then 'Dude' you might be able to debate the issue...The secret treaty in question is unconstitutional.

Sorry if the casual term Dude offended you, sir. I have indeed already read the pre-amble AND major articles of the Constitution, and follow major cases as they are decided by the Supreme Court. Both in school when I had to, and later as an adult because I wanted to. It's a great piece to base a country on, but again, it's only a platform and can't address the myriad details that it takes to run a modern country. Nor should it, or it'd be 100,00 pages long.

My point perhaps is that if you think something is unfair and not a benefit to society AT LARGE, and not just a your person, then argue it as such. Bringing out the old "it's UN-Constitutional, by golly!" banner is just a big trope to have to not argue your point on rational grounds. Prove it for what it is, not under the blanket of an ideal.

Some things ARE unconstitutional and as such, should never be considered much less given the effect of law....

Do we grant government power to pass speech codes? Do we let the police beat confessions out of folk, should we, as do the English, allow repeated trials on the same charge till we get the result we like? No.

Stopping folk randomly and then poking in their computers or iPODs is not legal and should not be allowed.

No music lover should favor such an intrusion. What if they snatched your expensive laptop and hundreds of hours of work because they do not like what you have on it? There is no probable cause in the act.

Do you believe the simple listening to music or watching a video is sufficient for a presumption that you have broken a law? Is simply owning and transporting the gear indicative of an illegal act?

This is the equivalent of stopping every smoker at the airport for a strip search on the assumption they might be pot smokers. Or every fellow with a suitcase as they might be a smuggler, and confiscating all items without receipts.

Perhaps all readers on the off chance they are reading something un-PC.

The Constitution protects citizens from government excess...it is not a fluid document unless freedom itself is also fluid.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/01/actas-shameful-secret.ars

Jim, do you not see the FBI warning on every movie you watch on DVD? It is already against the law and has been forever. Do you have a problem with female cops posing as prostitutes for the sole purpose to arrest someone. Stealing copyright material is no different than prostitution. What the government needs to do is set up download sources for the sole purpose of arresting someone. Would that make you feel better?

Interesting idea.

A sting operation offering torrents of copyrighted popular music and movies for downloading would be incredibly effective.

Quote:
Jim, do you not see the FBI warning on every movie you watch on DVD? It is already against the law and has been forever. Do you have a problem with female cops posing as prostitutes for the sole purpose to arrest someone. Stealing copyright material is no different than prostitution. What the government needs to do is set up download sources for the sole purpose of arresting someone. Would that make you feel better?

Because something is illegal does not give government the right or power to pursue possible violators of that law outside of the Constitution and without probable cause. It is a presumption of guilt that is at issue and the total lack of privacy or property rights such a legal effort involves that is what outrages me.

Why not house to house searches for illegal software, music, or videos? After all, the only difference is where the searches are being carried out, at airports instead of the local town. What they propose to do is the same.

Just as I oppose strip searches to travel, the assumption all are criminals that is the essence of 'gun free zones', and random road stops or searches, I oppose this scheme.

It is unconstitutional.

I understand not liking the concept, but police checkpoints looking for illegal activity have been found to be Constitutional and reasonable search and seizure; that is, this is not a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Quote:
Because something is illegal does not give government the right or power to pursue possible violators of that law outside of the Constitution

That is something out of Catch-22.

Quote:
Victims of harassment by military police (MPs) quote the MPs as having explained one of Catch-22's provisions: Catch-22 states that agents enforcing Catch-22 need not prove that Catch-22 actually contains whatever provision the accused violator is accused of violating. An old woman explains: Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can

Quote:
I understand not liking the concept, but police checkpoints looking for illegal activity have been found to be Constitutional and reasonable search and seizure; that is, this is not a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

A court made a mistake...hopefully the precedent will be reversed by better court.

"We don't actual live in that world just because somebody is president. Some people believe with great fervor preposterous things that just happen to coincide with their self-interest. Some have convinced themselves that wages are not income, that only gold is money, that the Sixteenth Amendment is unconstitutional, and so on. These beliefs all lead--so some think--to the elimination of their obligation to respect self-selected laws that they happen to not like. The government may not prohibit the holding of these beliefs, but it may penalize people who act on them."

That may just be the most cogent thing you have ever posted.

It would seem obvious but, living in the incredibly beneficial sphere of a democratic society does indeed require one to give up some "freedoms' in order to maintain the social whole. The rights of the many will, and should, always be above the rights of the one. If one can't live with that, they are more than welcome to live alone. But don't go griping that your stereo doesn't work all that well without electricity, and that your self-medical care isn't so great either!

Quote:
living in the incredibly beneficial sphere of a democratic society does indeed require one to give up some "freedoms' in order to maintain the social whole.

Especially, in times of crisis or when something is being done that cannot be controlled or prevented by the Constitution and constitutes a clear and present danger to the nation or a person. A person can even be a coporation; thus, the concept of limited liability. I don't believe the Constitution is a "living document" but I do believe the writers of the Constitution expected or assumed we would use common sense for our own good. Absurd as this may sound there is nothing in the Constitution that states the government cannot prevent the entire nation signing a suicide pact. Do you think the government would not intervene anyway?

People have sacrificed great freedom for the good of the nation. The best example is a soldier making the ultimate sacrifice. I'm not referring to a person dying for his country. I'm referring to any person that placed themselves under the strict laws of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. People that have served in the military even one day can tell you what a shock it is to learn they no longer have the same freedoms when they were civilians. I've seen people go home, psychologically incoherent, tied down to stretcher, after only one day in the military. The UCMJ serves multiple purposes. One being it instills in the mind that freedom isn't free and that it certainly is not absolute. We are a nation of whiners. Each of us an expert on the Constitution.

If one of the signers of the Constitution was here today I would ask him about the current iPod situation. He would be shocked to learn that our so-called Constitution was misinterpreted and allowed one corporation to market a device that allowed people to steal property from another corporation and said people were complaining about the possibility of the government penalizing them for participating.

Any stereophile that steals copyright music is not a stereophile. He is a thief and should be treated as such. In the same class as a person that steals cable or satellite TV programming.

If an original founding father were alive today, he'd be too busy defending himself from slavery charges and explaining why chicks should not be allowed to vote to concern himself with the iPod issue.

as for corporations being a person, what happened was it was a lawsuit against a corporation and the corporation lost. It never gained the rights to be a person.

Bu the people involved paid off the court recorder and the court recorder changed the entries to show that the decision did indeed protect the company and give it rights.

From this, other companies and corporations launched themselves into 'personhood'.

All on a contrived lie.

Look into it. That's what you will find.

The whole point was to have a way to create an entity that was above and beyond moral and ethical concerns and could only look out for itself and then not reflect badly on the people who were running and using it to damage and/or kill others. That was the point of it all. To avoid liability and ethics.

For legal and taxation purposes a corporation can be a person. You commonly don't sue the owner(s) of a corporation. You sue the corporation. Hence, limited liability. You got a problem with that? Most corporations are just small business owners. You want to screw them too? You think they are up to no good too? Blah blah blah. I know you belong to Paranoids Anonymous. You people sit outside the clubhouse at various vantage points too paranoid to go in. Nothing gets done.

Quote:
If an original founding father were alive today, he'd be too busy defending himself from slavery charges and explaining why chicks should not be allowed to vote to concern himself with the iPod issue.

Is there a statute of limitation on slavery? Why wasn't the Confederate States of America and its founders charged as such? And fuck Susan B. Anthony and the horse she rode in on. She was a fucking dike. just look at her?

What I would really like to do with a "founding father" is with a snap of a finger bring him back from the dead straight to the Indy 500. "Welcome back to America".

Quote:
And fuck Susan B. Anthony and the horse she rode in on. She was a fucking dike. just look at her?

You never saw her late at night with her hair down, hanging around the polls, with her little coquettish smile.

Quote:
What I would really like to do with a "founding father" is with a snap of a finger bring him back from the dead straight to the Indy 500. "Welcome back to America".

Or Nascar. With their buckled shoes, puffy shirts and powdered wigs, they'd really rock the freak show.

Quote:

Quote:
I understand not liking the concept, but police checkpoints looking for illegal activity have been found to be Constitutional and reasonable search and seizure; that is, this is not a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

A court made a mistake...hopefully the precedent will be reversed by better court.

The issue has been long decided by the U.S. Supreme Court (specifically smuggling illegal aliens, DUI). A dead issue.

Quote:
as for corporations being a person, what happened was it was a lawsuit against a corporation and the corporation lost. It never gained the rights to be a person.

Bu the people involved paid off the court recorder and the court recorder changed the entries to show that the decision did indeed protect the company and give it rights.

From this, other companies and corporations launched themselves into 'personhood'.

Huh?

Leaving aside the obvious problems with this theory, court reporters don't even prepare legal opinions.

That is, I can't embezzle if I have no access to the money.

I know, it makes no sense. Look into it, as it is a vital thing to understand.

The information I came across , and this, on multiple occasions..was that the court reporter was somehow involved. My vague recollection is that it IS possible, in the same way that we initial changes in extant contracts before signing..to go back in and CORRECT the records created by court recorders, due to 'errors' in the record. Apparently this trick was used to completely turn around a specific case that resulted in a decision of a court, down in the southern states where a company was violating the rights of a black man and the decision was against the company. The company was arguing company 'rights' in order to screw over the black man (It might have been a black man's company, my memory is no so clear, I am clearer on the methodology) and the court found against the company and that the company had no rights and the owners had no immunity. The story indicated in some fashion of capacity for court recorders to do so, that the records where gone back into after the decision was rendered and key words were altered, and from this one very dubious point in a single case court record, companies eventually manged to worm their way into personhood, into LLC status, and the ability to use that personhood to screw over others in order to protect itself. ie, the perfect amoral irresponsible vehicle that the owners of companies and banks desperately wanted and would wreck entire countries, if needed..to find a way to get there.

It's been hell for the general population ever since.

Like lies used to get countries into wars, the depth of the whole thing gets lost over time, but as usual the initial or original precedent can be vital to know with regard to knowing what is actually going on.

A few people have done this sort of tracking before as when corporations go to court, like patent searches and patent validation, prior works and decisions can be a good part of the decision rendering process--and these are cited by the interested parties.

So you can go into court cases regarding such things, as such a type of investigator, and quickly find yourself looking at the specific case I speak of as all roads to corporate personhood (rights and responsibilities, etc) flow from that one decision.

As stated, look into it.

You must be referring to Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific R. Co., 118 U.S. 394 (1886) (U.S. Supreme Court decision). It's actually a tax assessment case. In the decision there is a quote of the chief judge stating that equal protection applies to corporations.

Corporate legal status (including non-profits, partnerships, etc.) is often equal to individuals. This means they can be sued if they breach a contract, are subject to penalties if they break laws, can be liable for fraud and defamation, etc. This is a good thing.

When Congress passes a law it is presumed to apply to corporations as it does to individuals, unless otherwise specifically noted.

Nothing nefarious, nothing hidden, long well-documented history.

Some, of course, argue that corporations have too much legal status - a debate that is likely to continue as our laws and customs are continually refined over time. This is a question of public policy.

That sounds like it might be it. And the reports I came across indicated that was that if you went and held the actual court documents and offically court recorder records, you find that they've been altered.

And if you investigate, you find out by who, and via what mechanism. And further showing-- the ultimate effects of those seemingly minor wording changes. Ie, full investigation, as opposed to the surface investigation. Investigate the formation of the point or 'fact', which can shed vital information.

This is all based on what someone said on the web.

In weighing it, for me...considering the behavior of some people tied to governments and corporations, these things would not be unusual or out of the question.

IIRC, the record of the oral argument wasn't altered. However when the decision was issued the quote of the chief judge stating that equal protection applies to corporations was included as part of the syllabus. A bit odd certainly.

As a practical matter, this has relatively little impact.

Whether a corporation can be sued for contract breech, strict liability, products liability etc is a question of state law and state statutes, not Constitutional law.

Whether laws passed by Congress applies to corporations is a matter of federal law. The U.S. Code states that all laws apply equally to corporations.

What exactly do you think is improper here?

I'd have to take a bit of time to properly phrase it but as an initial argument for expansion, the idea of how many or some can, might and do use the manipulation of law, and connection the of creation of said law to governing bodies, for their own enrichment at the expense of others..and all arguments that can develop in that direction and some others of a related nature.

I'm hardly against the idea (in the couching of what would be used by ethical people so as to protect themselves from spurious and directed attempts) of corporate LLC, as I am part of two corporations, and the paperwork for both were laid down by a person who has gone on to teach/etc corporate and contract law for and at the Ontario Bar.

As for the two corporations, consider that one is for a fluid material for making video projection screens and the other is for the making of audio cables and the like from fluid metal alloys. Both are 'safe' but both can be made unsafe via idiocy and potentially, malfeasance or foolishness ...and then comes the spurious legal attempts from same said fools. LLC is is Vital for me. At the same time I believe in due diligence on my end with regards to making things as safe as is reasonably possible for the given end user.

As we may know, it is a difficult scenario at best, being so convoluted and involved. Too many convolutions can and does leave room for malfeasance.

Quote:
I'd have to take a bit of time to properly phrase it but as an initial argument for expansion, the idea of how many or some can, might and do use the manipulation of law, and connection the of creation of said law to governing bodies, for their own enrichment at the expense of others...

This is always a concern in every human endeavor and a legitimate concern.

There are difficult issues.

For example, should a corporation be granted First Amendment free speech rights? On one hand, a corporation is merely the business arm of an individual or group who undeniably have such rights.

Yet, when the corporation becomes huge, its only interest is creating profit for its shareholders (proper) and in essence is its own creature - should it still have such rights as it is only speaking economic self-interest?

This ugly bugger just gets worse

Quote:
It