Artist Could Face 15 Years In Prison For Recording His Own Arrest

[Zephie]

Chris Drew was finally ready to get arrested. An artist and activist, Drew had spent years protesting a Chicago ordinance that puts tight restrictions on where and how people can sell their art on the street. He was downtown, on State Street, selling silk-screened patches for $1 and defying the city to stop him.

He'd tried his act of civil disobedience three times before -- a First Amendment lawyer on hand to argue his case, a team of videographers ready to film the arrest -- but the police simply let it slide. When, on December 2, 2009, he finally succeeded in getting booked, Drew was ready for a few hours in lock-up on a misdemeanor, and a lengthy court battle. He was in no way prepared for what he would actually face.

The state charged Drew with a Class 1 felony, not for selling art on the street, but for violating the Illinois Eavesdropping Act by recording his own arrest. He faces up to 15 years in prison.

"Illinois has the worst eavesdropping law in the country," Drew said in a phone interview. If not the single most punitive, it's certainly in the top three.

The state is one of twelve that has so-called "two-party consent" eavesdropping laws. This means that audio recording any conversation is illegal unless all parties to the conversation consent.

All but three of those states make an important exception to that law: the recording of police conversations in the public way. Only Maryland, Massachusetts and Illinois deem such recordings illegal, and the Maryland attorney general recently issued an opinion suggesting that taping the cops shouldn't be prosecuted.

But Illinois is staying the course, currently prosecuting nine individuals -- including Drew -- for making just such recordings.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/22/artist-could-face-15-year_n_812596.html?ref=tw

-----
So obviously this man was looking to get arrested, but what about in the case of someone who is obviously being brutalized by the police? You could face charges for documenting it to hold it against them. I do not envy Illinois residents.

[xchrom]

1. so then -- how does this law apply to cop cams? if at all? nt

[Fuzz]

3. Good question

[villager]

5. Laws? Applying to cops? In modern America?

n/t

[DCKit]

9. It's probably illegal to suponea police video to use in your own defense.

Thanks for the heads-up. I'll be scratching each of those states off my agenda.

[B Calm]

46. They are above the law.

[Dogmudgeon]

2. "Eavesdropping" in a public place?

THAT will be interesting at trial.

--d!

[EFerrari]

4. Seems like a very similar law was just ruled unconstitutional

in another venue. This might be a good opportunity to mount a challenge in IL.

[lonestarnot]

6. Wasn't that Ragin' in Miami?

[EFerrari]

8. Carlos's deal was different.

But I remember some case back east where the defendent was charged similarly and the charges were dropped after a lengthy debate. It might have been this one.

Wiretap charge dropped in police video case

A case that attracted nationwide attention has ended with the dropping of a felony wiretapping charge against a Carlisle man who recorded a police officer during a traffic stop.

Cumberland County District Attorney David Freed said his decision will affect not only Brian Kelly, 18, but also will establish a policy for police departments countywide.

"When police are audio- and video-recording traffic stops with notice to the subjects, similar actions by citizens, even if done in secret, will not result in criminal charges," Freed said yesterday. "I intend to communicate this decision to all police agencies within the county so that officers on the street are better-prepared to handle a similar situation should it arise again."

Freed's decision came a week after a story in The Patriot-News caused a storm of criticism over Kelly's May 24 arrest by a Carlisle police officer on the wiretapping charge, which carries a penalty of up to seven years in prison upon conviction.

http://blog.pennlive.com/patriotnews/2007/06/197281-wiretap_charge_dropped_in_poli.html

[Edweird]

7. So now he's going to help strike down the unconstitutional eavesdropping law.

Good for him - I hope he's getting the right help.

[ixion]

10. We get more like China everyday...

very sad that we've tolerated such an erosion of civil liberties.

[progressoid]

11. Wow. What a fucked up law.

Hope he wins his fight.

[alphafemale]

12. This isn't going to end well for Chicago.

As if they didn't already have enough troubles...lol

And on edit "ISN"T" going to end

[X_Digger]

58. Absolutely-- another protracted lawsuit that the citizens will end up footing the bill for.

I feel sorry for those who have to pay for this lawsuit as well as live under this law. Double-Karma punch. :(

[firehorse]

13. So he gets more time than white collar crime? and murderers?

Hope he counter sues.

[Zephie]

14. Don't forget child molestors and rapists!

[msongs]

15. certainly more time than past and current war criminals. he ought buy a drone lol nt

[Downtown Hound]

16. The cops won't be happy until we have no rights left

Only they should be allowed to film citizens, not the other way around. They just can't stand it when people fight back against their abuse.

[Taitertots]

17. Who do you think creates and interprets the law?

The cops have almost nothing to do with the creation and implementation of the laws. Why don't you blame the people responsible? Politicians, judges, and lobbyists.

[provis99]

18. cops pick and choose which laws to enforce.

when was the last time you heard of someone arrested in Illinois for walking their duck after midnight?

[Taitertots]

19. Has anyone ever done that? Probably not

The police are not the people who create and interpret laws. If you have a problem with people walking ducks at night in your neighborhood, I suggest you call the police. If you have a problem with those laws it is due to the courts and the legislature.

[Downtown Hound]

22. "The police are not the people who create and interpret laws"

Really? Who's idea was it to charge this man? The mayor's? The city council? Congress? Obama?

Even a first year law student would admit that it's very questionable using an anti-eveasdropping law against somebody for filming a PUBLIC arrest. The privacy laws have been argued byt the Supreme Court before, and they have always ruled that if you are in public, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy. So how are you eavesdropping in public? It's hardly cut and dry. It's a stretch by any means of the imagination.

So just who's idea was it to stretch the law to include public events? I have this tingling sensation inside of me that says, THE POLICE.

[Taitertots]

25. Who created the laws that he violated? Who protects them in the courts?

Why do you support the tyranny of letting the police decide our laws? Any first year law student would know that is wrong.

[Downtown Hound]

27. I don't support the tyranny of allowing police to decide our laws

In fact, I'm here ranting against it. Duh.

As to who created the law he violated, it was an anti eavesdropping law. I really doubt it was ever intended to be used to things like filming public arrests. Who made the decision to use it for that? The police. Sure, the courts are backing them up, but this started with the police. All you have to do is look at a pattern of police history in going after people who film them. This isn't the first time they've tried this.

If you really think the police have nothing to do with this, then are are exceptionally naive.

[Taitertots]

28. The legislature made the eavesdropping law and the courts determined how it will be enforced

If the police did anything except enforce the laws as written by legislature and interpreted by congress than we would have the worst form of tyranny. The police don't get to write the laws and they don't get to take part in the interpretation. They have as much to do with this law as they do with setting the speed limit or the income tax rate.

Do you want the police to stop following the laws as they are written by legislature and interpreted by courts? If yes, than you advocate a police state, among the worst forms of tyranny.

[Downtown Hound]

30. Oh bullshit

Look, you are living in a world of denial if you think police don't have discretion here. I will ask you once again, who made the decision to charge this man? The police. If you really think that the police's hands were tied behind their backs here and they had no choice but to charge this man under the anti-eavesdropping law, then you're simply kidding yourself.

Cops have discretion, especially in a case like this. You are living with your head in the sand if you think they had no other choice but to charge this man under this law.

You are yet another of that ilk that lives to absolve police of any kind of responsibility for the evil they commit. I find it hilarious that you say that the police not charging this man for doing something that happens everyday (an arrest being filmed) would result in a police state.

Take your bullshit fear tactics and rather weak logic someplace else.

[Taitertots]

36. It is bullshit that you think tyranny is "discretion"

If they didn't charge him it would be tyranny plain and simple. The police don't get to create and interpret the laws, calling it "discretion" instead of tyranny doesn't change the facts.

You support police tyranny if you support "discretion" in law enforcement.

"You are yet another of that ilk that lives to absolve police of any kind of responsibility for the evil they commit"
Enforcing the laws as they were written and interpreted by the courts is evil to you? Their main responsibility is to enforce the laws as they were written and interpreted by the court system. NOT to pick and choose which laws they want to enforce.

[Downtown Hound]

38. So let me get this straight, you're saying that if the cops didn't charge this man

under this fascist law then we would be living in tryanny? Wow, what are you smoking?

What you're failing to acknowledge is that this law is not cut and dry. It's not a simple as someone driving under the influnce or somebody that just committed a murder. This is a very sketcy law that somebody all of a sudden decided to stretch to include filming public events. So your insistence as to how the cops had no other choice but to follow the law is ridiculous.

[Taitertots]

41. If the police get to unilaterally determine the laws then it is tyranny

If you have a problem with the law, than you have a problem with the legislature and the courts. Why is your response to tyranny in the courts and legislature to expand that tyranny to the police?

You want to give the police the authority to unilaterally determine our system of laws. The law is not cut and dry, which is why we have judicial review.

[Downtown Hound]

43. God, you are one thick headed individual

You have no room in your head for intelligent debate.You just keep coming back to the same already defeated point and repeating it over and over again.

I'm done with you.

[Taitertots]

45. Oh no! Someone disagrees with you and backs it up with facts, run like a scared child

You think the police should determine what our laws are and how they should be enforced. That is tyranny and it is in direct opposition to our entire system of jurisprudence.

[Downtown Hound]

50. No, tryanny is arresting somebody and threatening them with prison for 15 years

for filming a public event. And I'm not running from shit, I just know a waste of my time when I see one. Nevertheless, see post 49.

[Taitertots]

53. Tyranny is passing laws that make it illegal to film in public

The way to oppose said tyranny is through the courts. The process is called judicial review and I've given you some relevant case law explaining this.

Tyranny is also when the police cease to operate under the legal bounds set forth by society. You want the police to disregard the legal framework society has set forth for them by picking and choosing which laws they want to enforce.

[Downtown Hound]

57. "You want the police to disregard the legal framework society has set forth for them by picking

choosing which laws they want to enforce."

Funny, because that's exactly what they're doing here. Where are all the TV newspeople that routinely put up public footage of people without them siging a written consent? Why aren't they on trial? Oh wait, they don't have to, because it was in a public place.

So why aren't they being charged as well? Because the cops are selectively enforcing the law to attack their enemies, that's why.

[Taitertots]

61. Your opinion is riddled with double think

You want the police to selectively enforce the laws, while at the same time complaining that they are selectively enforcing the laws.

Determining the interpretation of laws is up to judicial review for a reason, to prevent the police tyrannies that you both advocate and disagree with.

[Downtown Hound]

63. Answer the question dude, don't try and change the subject

Why is only this man arrested under this law, and not the many TV reporters that do exactly what he did every day?

Answer the question, don't try and deflect.

[Taitertots]

64. He broke the law in front of the police, while breaking other laws

The police don't arrest people when they don't even know that the laws were broken, and have no evidence against them.

[Downtown Hound]

65. That's not an answer

Your whole argument is based on the fact that the police HAVE to enforce the laws as they are written. And yet if that were true, they would literally HAVE to go out and arrest TV newspeople. Because IT'S THE LAW. No evidence against them? Please. All you gotta do is watch a nightly newscast. They do it all the time. They film public areas and people, sometimes those people don't even know they're being filmed. Have you ever seen a media sting on TV in which they hide their cameras to catch somebody? I sure have.

And yet the police don't arrest them. Now once again, for I don't know, maybe the seventh time, WHY ONLY THIS GUY?

Answer the question, sir. The sheer fact that you don't indicates you have no answer.

[Taitertots]

66. It is the answer, you just don't have the legal knowledge to understand it

The police are going to arrest people who break the law in front of them. They are not going to arrest people when the illegal action takes place out of sight, unknown to them, with little evidence, and no supporting case history.

How are you able to both think that selective enforcement is a bad thing (arresting protester) and a good thing (not arresting newscasters)?

[Downtown Hound]

67. Thank you

You just just admitted that police selectively enforce the law, after numerous posts of denying it. Of course you've narrowed it down to police being lazy and only arresting those right in front of them, but it's progress. And are you actually going to tell me that if it has been a newsperson instead of this guy filming them they would still have arrested them because they were right there in front of them breaking the law and that's what it actually takes? Because I'll ask you again: what are you smoking? They only charged this guy because he's a nobody, somebody they can easily pick on.

As to whether or not I think selective enforcement is a good or bad thing, well, I'm willing to give police some leeway in making choices because guess what? Life is not black and white. Sometimes there are complicated situations that need to be thought out and analyzed, and that is the point in allowing some police discretion. No cops aren't always going to make the best choices in that regard, and when they don't, it's up to people to call them out on it, which is what I'm doing here. Of course, you simply back them up and make them out to be victims of an unfair law.

And I say that's total and complete horseshit. They had ample room to just arrest this guy for the civil disobedience he was committing. Their conscious choice to use this law in this way was theirs and the DA's.

[Downtown Hound]

68. Oh and one other thing:

How is a fucking news broadcast out of sight, unknown to them, with little evidence, and no supporting case history? It's right there on the teevee, being viewed by thousands if not millions of people.

[Taitertots]

69. Please educate yourself about how the American legal system works

This is for both the posts.

Any gray areas in the law are supposed to be settled by judicial review. There is no legal justification to support your opinions about the legal system. All grey areas must be resolved in the courts and only in the courts.

There is no legal case history to support your assertions that the police are/should be allowed to determine the laws in America. If they do it is unconstitutional, illegal, and has no basis in American jurisprudence. You seem to have this confused opinion of police discretion. It exists only when you agree with the results (pot heads getting lower sentences) and it is a tyranny when it doesn't(this case). It is tyranny anytime they usurp the rules to our system of jurisprudence.


"How is a fucking news broadcast out of sight, unknown to them, with little evidence, and no supporting case history?"
The act of recording other people without their consent is NOT seen by the police as it happens(out of sight). They don't know when they are going to do it so they can't prevent them (unknown to them). There is not evidence as to who is actually doing the filming (little evidence). There is no case law to support using the law this way, and there are cases which specifically cover filming by the press(no supporting case history).

[Richard Steele]

42. Oh fucking PLEASE! Are you reading from a pamphlet the Cops hand out to kindergarteners?

I call your contention a silly thing,
and I fart in its general direction.

Welcome to 'ignore'.

[Downtown Hound]

51. No, he saw it on the Teevee

It was on a show one time, so therefore, it must be true!

[Hippo_Tron]

31. The cops didn't charge him with this, the District Attorney did

[Downtown Hound]

32. I have a hard time believing that the DA just came in

and charged this man. It's the police that make the arrests and the initial charges. And they then send them to the DA. You really think that the DA just looked at this case and decided to charge this man with under this statute with no police input?

If you can show me that that's what happened, then I stand corrected. But I just really have a hard time believing that's what happened.

[Hippo_Tron]

35. The police can only arrest him and hold him for a limited amount of time

The District Attorney is the one who decides that she wants to actually charge him under this statute and try to lock him up for 15 years. Sure she had police input, but the police don't get to make the decision, she does.

Edited to note that the Cook County DA is actually a she not a he. And she is an elected official.

[Downtown Hound]

37. And I'm certainly not absolving the DA of responsibility

But in my opinion, this is a cop vendetta against people with cameras filming them, and the DA is just along for the ride trying to make a name for himself.

And actually, when somebody is arrested, the cops DO make the initial charges. It is then up to the DA to decide if those charges are valid or to add new ones. And if new ones are added, it is often because of police influence. So, I'm willing to bet you that this was the cop's idea, just based on history.

Again, if anybody can show me that this was the DA's idea and only his idea, then I will stand corrected. Until then, my opinion will not change.

[Hippo_Tron]

47. Whether or not it was the cops' idea is irrelevant

The DA is the one who has the power to decide if it's really a good use of society's resources to try and convince a jury to lock a guy up for 15 years for videotaping an arrest. If the DA made the decision to charge him because some cop friends of hers had a vendetta against this guy, then she's a fucking shitty DA. But that doesn't change the fact that it's her responsibility, not the police, to decide whether or not to try and convict somebody under this statute.

If you want to be mad at the police for arresting the guy and holding him until the arraignment because they subjectively enforced the law then that's fine. But the DA is the one responsible for trying to lock the guy up for 15 years.

Also once again let me add that the DA in Cook County is an elected official, chosen in a partisan election. She is in fact a politician.

[Downtown Hound]

48. No it's not irrelevant.

How can you say its irrelevant? It goes straight to the heart of the matter. I've already said that I don't give the DA a pass. I'm mad at her too. But I still blame the police for this, not to mention every other arrest like this that has occurred.

When I'm here placing blame on the police for this, how can you say it's irrelevant whether or not they were involved? If they were involved, they share blame. The DA is to blame too. But how can you say the cops aren't?

[Hippo_Tron]

55. Again, you can be outraged at the cops for arresting him

But it seems to me that the big outrage here, isn't the arrest, but the potential for 15 years of prison. If the title of this thread were "Cops arrest guy for videotaping, let him out after the DA refuses to charge him" then I would probably be outraged at the cops. But what they did was minor compared to the DA trying to lock the guy up for 15 years.

[Downtown Hound]

59. First of all, the odds that this man will get 15 years are EXTREMELY low

If convicted, he will probably be sentenced to probation at most. The 15 years is a scare tactic. People rarely get that much time on a first offense, especially in a case like this.

The 15 years is a scare tactic. The police want to scare people from confronting them and taking their power back. I don't think this man would even be facing this charge were it not for the police.

So hey, fuck the DA, but fuck da police too.

[Downtown Hound]

21. You think the politicians were breathing down the cops' neck

to charge this man? Well I'll admit I wasn't there, but I have a hard time believing that politicians were actively campaigning for the cops to charge this man for filming his own arrest, something which has been done literally tens of thousands of times before by people all over the country with no legal consequences.

No, more likely this is the cops getting back at all those annoying rabble rousers that, through the use of cheap digital video, have unmaksed the cops time and again as being liars, brutes, thugs, and criminals.

Cops just can't stand it when private citizens actually have a weapon that they can use against them. And a LEGAL one too (but now they're trying to change that). For years, cops could behave like thugs and private citizens had no recourse but to file a complaint. Most of those complaints went unheard, and in some cases they backfired on those making them because it made them targets for police reprisal.

But now, anybody with an iphone and internet access can bust the cops, and the little pork fried fascist piggies don't like it. Awww...too bad.

[Taitertots]

24. The police didn't make these laws and they don't protect them in the courts

You are living in a fantasy if you think this has anything to do with the police. It is the legislatures, and the courts. The only people who can undo this miscarriage of justice are the courts and the legislature. It would be a further miscarriage of justice to have the police unilaterally determine what laws they should and should not follow.

All you are doing is bemoaning the police for doing their jobs correctly (following the laws), while giving a free pass to the people who are restricting our rights.

[Downtown Hound]

26. No, I'm sorry. But you are the one living in a fantasy world. n/t

[Taitertots]

29. I must have missed the part in Poli Sci where they said that the police....

get to write and interpret the laws in the US.

[Downtown Hound]

33. Well you did miss the part where they have discretion over what they charge

people with.

[Taitertots]

39. What court case did you use to determine that the police have this authority

Please cite the case law you used to determine that the police get to choose which laws they want to enforce.

Marbury v. Madison is the basis for judicial review. What court case are you basing your opinions of police review on?

[Downtown Hound]

40. Um, I'm basing it on the fact that cops do it all the time

A cop cuts a couple some slack for doing it in a public park. A cop refuses to arrest a pot smoker, but rather just confiscates his weed.

A highly ambiguous law that is suddenly adapted to include filming public events. Sorry, but that's not a cut and dry law, and you better believe the cops don't have to charge somebody under that law if they don't want to.

[Taitertots]

44. Which is to say that your opinion is not based on any legal framework

What you are saying has no legal underpinning. Discretion is more like a police officer letting his friends drive drunk, racist police officers letting off white pot smokers while arresting black youths, refusing to aid people during the civil rights struggle, or refusing to arrest spousal abusers. I'm shocked and saddened that someone would hand the entire system of jurisprudence over to the police.

The law is not cut and dry, that is why we have judicial review and courts.

[Downtown Hound]

49. I haven't handed shit over to the police

You are the one giving them a blank pass on their tyranny here. Oh no, poor widdle po po, their hands are just tied by the law to be fascist pricks. LOL. Now here, just to satisfy your rather think headed reistance to this idea, this is just one of the articles that appeared when I googled "cops have discretion."

http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7296

Now that's about pot laws in Texas. Guess, what? They have discretion in other areas too. And you know what? I'm not going to take the time to research them all, because you're simply not worth it. What I will say is what I have said several times now:

THIS LAW IS NOT A CLEAR CUT CASE. It was never intended to include things like filming public arrests. At least it sure doesn't seem like it to me. If you have any insight into the fact that this law was intended to include filming public arrests, then show me. Otherwise, I'll stick to my earlier assumption that it was a law that somebody (the cops) got a little creative with and decided to adapt to this man because they're tired of the public exposing them on their bullshit, and they're hitting back.

Now address that point before you go into anything else. I have answered your questions, now answer mine. Do you think this law was intended to include filming public events? And if you say it was, show me how. Because I would say that the language would have to be very specific to cover things like public privacy rights which have already been argued and decided by the Supreme Court. And if you can't do that, then will you acknowledge that somebody (the cops) took the law and stretched it to make a point? And if you can't do that, then please, give it a fucking rest, why don't you?

[Taitertots]

54. What do you call giving the police the authority to void our laws?

I call that tyranny.

You have no legal justification to claim that police can choose which laws to enforce. I've cited the case law foundation for American judicial review. You have cited a pot website that only states that they have the discretion to charge marijuana possessors with a lesser charge. Come up with some case law that supports your opinion. Or accept that you have absolutely nothing to support it.


"Do you think this law was intended to include filming public events? And if you say it was, show me how."
Here is the wording of the actual law:
" person commits eavesdropping when he . . . nowingly and intentionally uses an eavesdropping device for the purpose of hearing or recording all or any part of any conversation . . . unless he does so . . . with the consent of all of the parties to such conversation . . . ." http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/conlaw/2010/09/eavesdropping-on-police.html
There is no ambiguity. There is no stretching at all, it is a bad law. So it should be overturned in the court system through the process of judicial review.

[Downtown Hound]

56. On the contrary, there is a SHITLOAD of ambiguity

in that law, because if interpreted literally, then every single TV newsperson is now a felon. But wait, you mean the cops don't arrest them? No way! You don't mean to imply that the cops selectively enforce the law to suit their agenda do you? Because according to you, that's impossible. They're just doing their jobs of enforcing the law, yet they only seem to apply it to this man and a few others.

Gee, why do you think that is?

[Taitertots]

60. I've given you the text of the law, there is no ambiguity

"every single TV newsperson is now a felon"
Which is exactly why it is a bad law that should be overturned through judicial review.

You have a very confused mind. You think there is a problem because the police selectively enforce the law, and at the same time advocate having the police selectively enforce laws. You can't advocate discretion and complain that they are using their discretion.

"Because according to you, that's impossible."
No according to me it is illegal, unconstitutional, and the law should be overturned through judicial review because it can't be enforced fairly.

[Downtown Hound]

62. There's nothing confused about my mind

You just refuse to acknowledge the rather simple fact that police selectively enforce the law all the time. You say they don't, you say they can't, and yet they both can and do. And you refuse to acknowledge that that's what happened here. You make the patently idiotic suggestion that there was no ambiguity under this law, and yet ignore the countless times the police do ignore it and only arrest this guy. If the police really did just enforce the law as you claim, then many other people would be facing charges for doing that this man did. And yet they aren't.

There's nothing confused about my mind. You are just living in denial.

[Tesha]

20. I'm sorry, but if you're in a public place, you can have no expectation of privacy.

Even if you're a cop.

Tesha

[RedCloud]

23. meanwhile bimbo police officers entrap loser guys for soliciting.

[Quantess]

34. Now we can all feel safe that this menace is locked away.

Society is so much safer now that he isn't on the street selling his contraband--- silkscreened patches. :eyes:

[ljm2002]

52. I hope the ACLU gets involved...

...it seems to me that it must be unconstitutional to forbid citizens from recording their interactions with public officials. If not that broad, then certainly recording our interactions with law enforcement ought to be protected.

In an era when a show like COPS can air on the public airwaves (unthinkable when I was growing up BTW), it is unbelievable to me that they are trying to limit our powers to record what actually happened in encounters with law enforcement.

Of course, the reason for these laws is that there have been so very, very many recordings where law enforcement is shown behaving in illegal, unprofessional and even brutal conduct. With all of the resulting publicity. Well, too friggin' bad, they ought to modify their own behavior rather than trample our rights.

For this particular case, it is of course an overreach of the authorities, who want to make it more difficult for us to engage in civil disobedience of any kind. Therefore, if they can find a way to throw the book at an activist who was selling $1 patches, they will do so. I am reminded of the young man in Tunisia, who burned himself because his fruit stand was confiscated by the authorities. Not that this approaches that one in terms of what has been done; however, the principle remains the same: people are becoming more desperate for ways to earn a living, while at the same time authorities are cracking down more and more so they can collect more taxes. And the authoritarians love, just love, to make examples of people, in this case by finding a way to charge him with a felony.

K&R

[Electric Monk]

70. 15 years for eavesdropping on himself?

I'm just about ready to throw in the towel. This is getting insane.