The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets

Read for content here folks...

RIVERDALE, N.J. –  Police say an elf on the sauce is facing drunk driving charges in New Jersey.

Riverdale police tell ( ) that 23-year-old Brian Chellis was found passed out in a car early Friday morning wearing an Elf on the Shelf costume.

Lt. James Macintosh says the Cedar Grove man was asleep behind the wheel of a van with its engine running, lights on and music blaring. He says Chellis was in a red shirt, red pants, and white ruffled collar.

Note the title of the article says that he was passed out in a parking lot.

What's not established is that the person ever actually operated the vehicle upon a public road or other public place while in a state of intoxication.

Yes, I'm well aware that the way the law is written in most (maybe all nowdays) states provides that if you're in "control" of a vehicle where it can be operated on a public road, and you're intoxicated, you're deemed guilty of DUI -- even if you never actually move the vehicle and even, I might add, if you're on private property such as a private parking lot or in your own driveway.

This sort of law is dead-flat wrong and it is exactly this sort of crap that leads to contempt for the law and loss of respect for peace officers.

I have no quarrel with removing someone from the road that is clearly intoxicated and operating his or her vehicle upon a public road in a dangerous manner.  Note the "ands"; first, one must be operating the vehicle (not just in a position where one couldwhich is always the case if you are in possession of your keys or can acquire possession of same), second one must be on a public road or other public place with said vehicle while operating it and third, said operation must be objectively dangerous.

I argue that the arbitrary 0.08 BAC level fails the last test, but that's the least-onerous part of the law from my point of view.  This is at least a testable proposition and you can purchase at reasonable cost (~$100 or so) a device to verify it for yourself. The problem is that there are plenty of people who are utterly ****-faced at 0.08 and then there are plenty of people who are far more-competent to drive at that BAC than many senior citizens who are stone-cold sober.  

The standard should be objective; you either can operate the vehicle safely or not irrespective of why.

But leave that aside; the issue here is that there is no evidence presented that the Elf ever moved the vehicle at all.  Indeed, given the time of year it is entirely reasonable to believe and, without evidence to the contrary it must be presumed that he started it for the purpose of providing himself with warmth (and, apparently, music) rather than transportation.

Exactly how does that endanger the public and, if it doesn't, exactly why is that bust a legitimate arrest?

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

And now, the admissions start to come out.

(Prosecutor) McCulloch said in a radio interview on Friday that some witnesses obviously lied to the grand jury.

Lying to a Grand Jury is perjury.  It is a crime.

So is suborning perjury; the persuading or allowing of someone to swear falsely under oath.

If McCulloch knew that this "witness" could not have actually witnessed the shooting and yet put her in front of the Grand Jury he committed a crime as well.

And now McCulloch has admitted he knew this to be the case:

He made reference to one woman who claimed to have seen the shooting. McCulloch said she "clearly wasn't present. She recounted a story right out of the newspaper" that backed up Wilson's version of events, he said.

This leaves only one question before a felony indictment must issue against McCulloch: When did he become aware of this -- before or after her testimony was given?  If before then as an officer of the court he must stand accused of suborning perjury, be tried and, upon conviction be imprisoned for, that offense.

Never mind the obvious false charge given to the Grand Jury that I have reported on before which is a separate and distinct offense.

If there is no Rule of Law observed and enforced on a consistent basis that leaves only The Law of the Jungle available to ordinary citizens as a means of redressing grievances.  The consequence of that is on display in our cities in the form of gang and drug-related shootings on a daily basis.

We either all stand and demand that this stop here and now or we all accept and in fact embrace The Law of the Jungle.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

This is amusing, given that the security problems in SS7 have been long known -- in fact, I knew about them in the 1990s!

German researchers have discovered security flaws that could let hackers, spies and criminals listen to private phone calls and intercept text messages on a potentially massive scale – even when cellular networks are using the most advanced encryption now available.

The problem with not running end-to-end encryption is that you are trusting everyone in the middle.  SS7 was designed for billing exchange more than anything else, and yet the phone companies don't give a damn about hardening it either -- despite the fact that it can be exploited to (and occasionally is) rig bills.

They just consider that a cost of doing business, which is a legitimate choice for them to make -- but the impact on you is that your information (e.g. location, who you communicate with and what you communicate) may be stolen as well.

Wake up America.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

I won't rip this off, but I damn well will link it.

And you should read it.  If this doesn't open your eyes nothing will.

....federal “gun control” law “was lifted, almost in its entirety, from Nazi legislation.” In “Gun Control: Gateway to Tyranny,” Zelman, with contributions by attorney Richard Stevens, presented “the Nazi weapons law of 1938 side-by-side with the U.S. Gun Control Act of 1968.”

Have a nice day.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

2014-12-20 06:15 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 163 references

You have to wonder these days....

A University of Michigan professor already known for her partisan views confirmed the suspicions of students when she penned a column for a non-profit magazine titled, "It's okay to hate Republicans."

So what happens when you pen a column titled It's ok to hate {muslims|******s|kikes|jews|democrats}?

Just curious, you see, because people have been expelled from academia (never mind everywhere else) for expressing anything that might offend anyone -- like, for instance, saying it's ok to hate some group.

Except for hating white people.

And especially except white republicans.

You really can't have this one both ways.  Either it's "ok" to hate one group of people or another, or it's not -- irrespective of the group.  

And that's the rub when you get down to it, isn't it?  After all this isn't really about race, religion, color, creed, national origin or political affiliation, is it?  It's simply about being a jackbooted thug, which is why these "standards" for what is considered "acceptable" speech apply only to some people -- and most-notably not to others.

This is what passes for a "college" these days. The University claims for its part that faculty members are free to express themselves and the school offers a place for diversity of opinion.

Some opinion, that is.  But not an opinion that is anti-gay, anti-black, anti-Jew, anti-Muslim, pro-Christian, pro-life or, I suspect, anti-Democrat.

And most-certainly, not Catholic opinion on gay marriage -- not even at a Catholic university!

I think that Republicans, and especially white republicans who own and operate businesses should return the favor and hate University of Michigan graduates.  And those who are Catholic should hate Marquette.

They can both express their opinion by refusing to recognize anything that UofM or Marquette issues as an alleged "degree", finding that it's highest and best use is found in the wiping of one's ass after using the restroom.

It's just freedom of speech, yanno....

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

Main Navigation
Full-Text Search & Archives
Archive Access
Get Adobe Flash player
Legal Disclaimer

The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions.


The author may have a position in any company or security mentioned herein. Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility.

Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein.

The Market Ticker content may be reproduced or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media or for commercial use.

Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.