PDA

View Full Version : Michael Vick up on FEDERAL charges?!?




ChooseLiberty
08-20-2007, 11:04 PM
Not endorsing dog fighting or animal abuse - but this is a classic example of something the Federal Gov't should not be into.

Where in the Constitution is the dog fighting provision?

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070820185454.0bha32je&show_article=1

Revolution9
08-20-2007, 11:05 PM
Not endorsing dog fighting or animal abuse - but this is a classic example of something the Federal Gov't should not be into.

Where in the Constitution is the dog fighting provision?

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070820185454.0bha32je&show_article=1

If he bought dogs and transported them across state lines to engage in betting practices then I would think they got an in for an indictment. Idiot jock..

Best
Randy

torchbearer
08-20-2007, 11:09 PM
Welcome to the Police State.
Question- I don't recall anywhere in the consitution that granted the federal government 'police powers'. I was certain all policing was left to the states and the people of the states....
Wonder what Ron Paul's take is on the federal government policing the people.

Nihilist23
08-20-2007, 11:24 PM
It's also a classic example of the MSM trying to distract their viewers, by focusing on the pain and suffering of dogs, while the pain and suffering of humanity is universally ignored.

Nihilist23
08-20-2007, 11:26 PM
If he bought dogs and transported them across state lines to engage in betting practices then I would think they got an in for an indictment. Idiot jock..

Best
Randy

The only illegal activity took place in Georgia. Buying and transporting dogs itself isn't illegal and the federal government should let the states sort it out. This is not why the U.S. government exists.

Revolution9
08-20-2007, 11:43 PM
The only illegal activity took place in Georgia. Buying and transporting dogs itself isn't illegal and the federal government should let the states sort it out. This is not why the U.S. government exists.

OK.. I have been ignoring it as best I could living here and watching the news get poisoned by the local sport teams and their shenanigans. I thought their was some other house these were taken to out of state, like in Virginia..but like I said I have done my best to ignore it.

Best
Randy

PennCustom4RP
08-21-2007, 12:51 AM
The house raided was in VA, and this case is in the VA Federal court,
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,293385,00.html

'Vick, 27, has pleaded not guilty to conspiracy to travel in interstate commerce in aid of unlawful activities and conspiring to sponsor a dog in an animal fighting venture. His trial is scheduled for Nov. 26.'

He has since taken a deal.
Also Vick has properties in other states, which no doubt were investigated. What state would have jurisdiction over these various properties, certainly not each state where the property is, coordination of the case would be difficult at best, so Federal covers it all.
Since Vick took a deal, he has to 'fess up to all he did before the court, I am sure more of the scope of this will be realized when this happens. The story will get deeper.

Torchbearer, Kidnapping and Bank Robbery are both Federal offenses and handled by Federal authorities, usually the FBI,(the Federal Police) not state or local.

SeanEdwards
08-21-2007, 02:44 AM
It's probably all about politics. The assholes in Washington can't wait to pile on to Vick as a way to win points with dog owners or something. It's much like that Terry Schiavo bullshit. A bunch of wig wearing dickheads butting in for photo-ops in a matter that has nothing to do with them.

What would we do if those pricks actually did their job as specified in the Constitution? CNN and Faux news would have to cut their broadcast back to 1 hour per day.

NCGOPer_for_Paul
08-21-2007, 08:35 AM
I don't have a problem with this.

The kennels were in Virginia. Vick and his thugs took the dogs all over the southeast to participate in fights and gamble on the outcomes. The illegal activity took place as far as the indictment stated in Virginia, North Carolina, New Jersey, and Georgia.

Vick and his thugs also killed dogs in Virginia. The Commonwealth of Virginia has pressed charges for animal cruelty. Nothing wrong there. The Commonwealth has every right to create animal cruelty laws.

I actually think the biggest Federal charges are Conspiracy and crossing state lines to carry on a criminal enterprise.

I might be biased. I am a dog owner and a dog lover, and I have always despised Michael Vick as well as his bigger thug brother. Still, I do feel this is a case where the Feds do have some jurisdiction.

angelatc
08-21-2007, 09:21 AM
NOthing the feds need to spend my money on, and I am a hige animal righs advocate.

Dogs don't have civil rights though.

Revolution9
08-21-2007, 09:34 AM
NOthing the feds need to spend my money on, and I am a hige animal righs advocate.

Dogs don't have civil rights though.

Hello. This is about illegal activities and crossing state lines to do such. Since the activity is commercial in nature then it is covered under the jurisdiction of federal law. Since the activity is coordinated across several states i believe this is a reason as well for USC to take a grip on these criminals. Where is the respect for life here? Because it s a dogs it s just so much haughty tah? Is it alright to transport dogs across state lines to make money on them when they tear one another up until one dies? I think this is a place where they can use the commerce clause to good effect and let it be kown that regardless of local laws, once you transport across state lines with intent to be cruel and make money off said cruelty then you are simply a psychopath and need to be removed from society before you infect others with the viral memeset. This s NOT a victimless crime.

Best Regards
'Randy

Wendi
08-21-2007, 10:32 AM
Randy - we all agree that what he did was wrong. We just don't think the Federal gov't has any business trying to police the issue when existing state and local laws will adequately address it.

Matt Collins
08-21-2007, 10:45 AM
Since the activity is commercial in nature then it is covered under the jurisdiction of federal law.Can you please cite in Article i Section 8 of the Constitution where the federal government is authorized to handle this sort of situation?

Revolution9
08-21-2007, 11:38 AM
Randy - we all agree that what he did was wrong. We just don't think the Federal gov't has any business trying to police the issue when existing state and local laws will adequately address it.

They have jurisdiction. It is interstate commerce and therefore ends up in UCC boundaries plus you also have to remember that gambling income is itemized differently on tax forms for instance so if he's a system opt-in and running bets under the table he's not filing his W-2G properly (regardless of the legality of that system it will apply to him in this case b/c the main issue is not whether the income tax would apply to him or not, it's just that he did stuff with income) he's failing to provide that information to any specific authority and simultaneously moving the cash around so yeah he has a whole slew of issues which the feds would be perfectly in position to prosecute on their turf. And again it was a multistate operation so the feds have a grip on him jurisdictionally. In each localo jurisdiction they will get him for the cruelty violtions as that is their jurisdiction.

Nail that idiot jock to a jail bench for ten years. He opted into the jurisdiction playing the big money quarterback. Now he can deal with the consequences of opting in to that jurisdiction.

Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater here. The feds can do alot of things under jurisdiction of the interstate commerce clause. That may come more into play if states get their proper original jurisdictions returned to them as states with prohibitions against something a neighboring state legalized and want remedy from it being commerced into their state.

This is like, the other end of the kneejerk spectrum "feds are bad they can't do stuff"
No. feds are feds and if you do fed shit you're in their territory and if you don't, they can fuck off. His activities are clearly unreported and unlawful interstate commerce/ucc/income violations not to mention basic rights abuses of living things


Randy

Matt Collins
08-21-2007, 11:46 AM
The feds can do alot of things under jurisdiction of the interstate commerce clause (ICC). You do realize that when the ICC was written, the phrase "to regulate" meant "to make regular". If you think back to your history the States were having trade problems and currency issues. They didn't want the federal government to regulate interstate commerce, but simply to make interstate commerce regular, or equal between the States. This way there would be a free flow of goods between the States without trade wars and tariffs etc....