DHS now goes after purse counterfeiters, right here in Indiana

[IndyDave1776]

It seems to me that this discussion is getting derailed. I am inclined to believe that most among us do not have a problem with intellectual property rights but rather that DHS has become a de facto overarching national police force that is too big and too ubiquitous for our own good as most agencies of federal law enforcement have become amalgamated under its banner.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security now raids stores selling counterfeit purses.

Listen to the story again. The DHS didn't raid anything. The local police did, working in conjunction with the DHS. The local police got the warrant and served it.

I routinely contact federal agencies to help with something. Say I have an illegal alien who stabs someone. I can charge him with the stabbing on the state level and work IN CONJUNCTION with *gasp* DHS to have him deported after his sentence here, something I can't do myself since I can't enforce federal law. If we apply the same logic, it would read "DHS now deals with local violent crime".

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I think it's a valid point to object to DHS enforcing property rights, as opposed to actual security issues, without being accused of "hating property rights". So, lighten up Francis.

This case is about property rights.

The Feds have the Constitutional authority to regulate international trade. It has done so. If not Customs, who would you have enforce federal law?

Sometimes the 10th Amendment is good, sometimes it can be overlooked on INGO

Sometimes the Constitution is good, sometimes it can be overlooked on INGO, along with property rights being ignored on INGO.

This isn't an area that the Feds do not Constitutional authority to do.

10th Amendment is not just some magic phrase that one can state not to have property rights enforced.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

It seems to me that this discussion is getting derailed. I am inclined to believe that most among us do not have a problem with intellectual property rights but rather that DHS has become a de facto overarching national police force that is too big and too ubiquitous for our own good as most agencies of federal law enforcement have become amalgamated under its banner.

Listen to the story, ignore the headline provided. You'll see the local police did the "raid". (Raid is always used in the media, sounds more interesting than "walked in and executed a warrant).

Of course DHS is notified and will assist. As already pointed out, Customs is part of DHS, and if there is an international aspect to this (imported from China or the like) how would the state handle that aspect of the investigation?

 

[Liberty1911]

This case is about property rights.

The Feds have the Constitutional authority to regulate international trade. It has done so. If not Customs, who would you have enforce federal law?

The point I was making, if you care to listen this time, is that maybe customs doesn't belong under the DHS umbrella.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

The point I was making, if you care to listen this time, is that maybe customs doesn't belong under the DHS umbrella.

Ok, not related to this thread but a reasonable point.

My point is that the Feds have Constitutional authority to enforce international trade. The Feds have elected to do so. Customs is on solid ground here and this is a federal crime that defends property rights.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Customs is part of DHS, and if there is an international aspect to this (imported from China or the like) how would the state handle that aspect of the investigation?

It could not and it would not.

But in the Garanimals Constitution of INGO only parts of the Constitution are visible.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Listen to the story, ignore the headline provided. You'll see the local police did the "raid". (Raid is always used in the media, sounds more interesting than "walked in and executed a warrant).

Of course DHS is notified and will assist. As already pointed out, Customs is part of DHS, and if there is an international aspect to this (imported from China or the like) how would the state handle that aspect of the investigation?

You have completely evaded my point. I don't disagree with what you have said with the caveat that the centralization of federal law enforcement into one umbrella agency with its tentacles into every facet of our lives is an extremely dangerous thing. Prior to the establishment of DHS, Customs could have performed it constitutionally authorized duty while existing as a free-standing agency giving us the layer of protection that the PATRIOT Act stripped from us, namely a collection of independent federal law enforcement agencies who did not necessarily compare notes with each other and unite as one huge invasive cancer on our formerly free republic. I fail to see where the existence of DHS has accomplished anything other than eliminating our constitutionally established freedom in the name of protecting us from the bogeyman. For the purpose of defending our liberty, which should be the overarching purpose of the .gov (never mind that the opposite is true in practice), DHS thoroughly defeats the purpose without generating anything useful to show for it.

 

[Liberty1911]

Ok, not related to this thread but a reasonable point.

My point is that the Feds have Constitutional authority to enforce international trade. The Feds have elected to do so. Customs is on solid ground here and this is a federal crime that defends property rights.

I agree. Thank you.

 

[steveh_131]

I don't agree.

The names on these items are not "property". If I paint the name "Gucci" on my tractor, should that be the business of the Department of Homeland Security? No. The parties involved are consensually exchanging money for goods. If this store is defrauding customers by advertising these items as authentic then that is a legitimate legal issue and it should be addressed by state law.

 

[Liberty1911]

I don't agree.

The names on these items are not "property". If I paint the name "Gucci" on my tractor, should that be the business of the Department of Homeland Security? No. The parties involved are consensually exchanging money for goods. If this store is defrauding customers by advertising these items as authentic then that is a legitimate legal issue and it should be addressed by state law.

The only problem is, intellectual property rights and patents rights are agreed to at the international level. Most countries are not set up like we are, as a Federal Republic, (what's left of it anyway).

I've been to countries where they openly violate intellectual property rights etc. I think it's reasonable for us to expect those countries to consistently enforce our rights instead of leaving it up to their political subdivisions.

I don't have a problem with customs enforcing this. My problem is whether or not customs is a function of DHS. (And I do think that's relevant to the discussion KF)

 

[JettaKnight]

It seems to me that this discussion is getting derailed. I am inclined to believe that most among us do not have a problem with intellectual property rights but rather that DHS has become a de facto overarching national police force that is too big and too ubiquitous for our own good as most agencies of federal law enforcement have become amalgamated under its banner.

DHS hasn't becoming the de facto enforcer. In fact, it's the de jure enforcer because Customs is part of DHS. If the article sated that U.S. Customs and Border Protection was doing the raid there wouldn't be a knee-jerk reaction.

Just more of Rambone's wolf cries.

 

[bingley]

About the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties | Homeland Security

Ah, yes, the complaints and compliance department.

 

[IndyDave1776]

DHS hasn't becoming the de facto enforcer. In fact, it's the de jure enforcer because Customs is part of DHS. If the article sated that U.S. Customs and Border Protection was doing the raid there wouldn't be a knee-jerk reaction.

Just more of Rambone's wolf cries.

I see that I was imprecise and insufficiently blunt. At least according to what we were told at the time, the DHS was not intended to be a warmed over doppelganger of the Gestapo in form or function, which is exactly what it has become--a national enforcer of laws of all types with virtually unlimited reach, regardless of the pretenses to the contrary made by 'partnering' with local law enforcement agencies who willfully participate in order to suck at the federal teat. If it is a 'partnership' it is much like the joke about how you correctly pronounced the name of the new organization after Daimler-Benz and Chrysler merged (i.e., DaimlerChrysler LLC) with the punchline being "the 'Chrysler' is silent".

 

[jbombelli]

Property rights: the right to force others to treat THEIR property as YOU desire.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

The names on these items are not "property".

Most assuredly a name is a stick in the bundle.

If I put my name on an L. Neil Smith novel and sell it as my own that is a violation of Mr. Smith's property rights.

If I attribute a story written by some Serbian-German dude to a Major Caudill, that is a violation of Serbian-German dude's property rights (and Uncle Ted had to pay for it).

If this store is defrauding customers by advertising these items as authentic then that is a legitimate legal issue and it should be addressed by state law.

It can be addressed by state law as well as federal law.

the DHS was not intended to be a warmed over doppelganger of the Gestapo in form or function, which is exactly what it has become--a national enforcer of laws of all types with virtually unlimited reach, regardless of the pretenses to the contrary made by 'partnering' with local law enforcement agencies who willfully participate in order to suck at the federal teat.

Good grief, a little dark.

1. Customs was enforcing IP laws before they were folded into DHS.

2. They are feds they have a federal reach, hence the moniker "feds". They are feds--unlimited time, unlimited resources--why do you think it goes so well for the USAs in federal court in every district?

3. So, local LE participation is a bad thing now? Man, this is as bad as the property rights hokey-pokey that INGO goes through.

I am old enough to remember when L. Neil Smith fans were demanding, heck, even introduced legislation in Congress (Idaho Congresswoman) to mandate that the feds use locals in the execution of federal warrants (Ruby Ridge anyone?). Now, the tide come in and out and local presence is NOT wanted.

Property rights: the right to force others to treat THEIR property as YOU desire.

Property rights: a legitimate function of government and the right to force others to respect the intellectual property rights of others.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

The Congresswoman from Idaho that demanded that federal agents work with local law enforcement was Helen "black helicopter" Chenoweth (how could I forget her!).


In 1995 the wookies were demanding that the feds work with local LE.

In 2012 INGO demands that the feds not work with local LE.

This is the property rights hokey pokey all over again.

 

[steveh_131]

Most assuredly a name is a stick in the bundle.

If I put my name on an L. Neil Smith novel and sell it as my own that is a violation of Mr. Smith's property rights.

Then Mr. Smith can take it up with you in civil court just like the rest of us.

(I am pretending to agree with you on the 'Imaginary Property' nonsense purely for the sake of argument)

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Then Mr. Smith can take it up with you in civil court just like the rest of us.

So, you would propose to de-criminalize property rights violations and turn them over to the force of the courts? Simply shift the authority only to the government in civil courts? Ok, a reasonable argument but an argument that relies on a lesser burden of proof and concentrates even more power into the hands of a government actor.

(I am pretending to agree with you on the 'Imaginary Property' nonsense purely for the sake of argument

Intellectual Property is not imaginary by any means. Talk to the attorneys who have represented Dow or Eli Lilly here.

 

[steveh_131]

So, you would propose to de-criminalize property rights violations and turn them over to the force of the courts? Simply shift the authority only to the government in civil courts? Ok, a reasonable argument but an argument that relies on a lesser burden of proof and concentrates even more power into the hands of a government actor.

In the case of imaginary property, yes.

Intellectual Property is not imaginary by any means. Talk to the attorneys who have represented Dow or Eli Lilly here.

It is not real property. It is nothing but a fictional construct. The suggestion that you can 'own' words, thoughts or ideas (in a philosophical sense) is fundamentally absurd.

I have yet to find a single person who could even present a consistent ethical system for dealing with the ownership of this imaginary property.