News on Youtube Dec 4 2017

Carlo Marinello is the petitioner in this case.

He was convicted by the DOJ of tax fraud as well as obstruction.

He owned and operated his own freight couriering business.

He did not keep a tight ship.

He was accused of impeding the administration of the tax code by failing to maintain corporate

books and records, failing to provide his accountant with complete and accurate information

related to his personal income and the income of his business, destroying and discarding

business records.

The government, in this case, claims that Mr. Marinello committed north tax fraud and

obstruction.

The IRS has defined obstruction as any attempt to interfere with the day-to-day work of the

IRS.

Mr. Marinello admits that he committed tax fraud.

But he says that he can't also be convicted of obstruction when he did not even know that

an investigation was underway.

The fighting issue in this case really is: Can a defendant be said to have a criminal

state of mind to obstruct when he doesn't know that an investigation is in process.

More typically in criminal cases, obstruction is related to after-the-fact behavior.

Section 7212(a) of the Internal Revenue Code says, "Whoever corruptly, or by force, endeavors

to obstruct or impede the due administration of this title shall, upon conviction therefore,

be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than three years, or both."

The term corruptly goes to a defendant's state of mind, and state of mind is a very important

question in every criminal case.

State of mind, or scienter, as the law defines it, is an element of almost every criminal

offense.

A person cannot be guilty of a crime unless he intended to cross a certain line.

So whether or not Mr. Marinello possessed the requisite state of mind is a critical

question in this case.

As it's written, it's very broad.

The IRS gets to decide whether or not their procedures have been interfered with.

A broad interpretation of the statute gives the IRS more power to pursue more wrongdoers.

The government's position, in this case, is that every hour of every day, the United States

IRS is administering the tax code.

The IRS basically says that Mr. Marinello, as a business owner, should have known that

is conduct violated tax law.

Mr. Marinello says that although he may have ad- violated the tax law, he did not know

that he was obstructing in any way a pending investigation.

Statutes have to be clear enough that a reasonable man would know he was violating them.

The government's best argument is its reliance on the plain language of the statute.

The statute in question nowhere mentions a pending investigation, nowhere requires the

defendant have knowledge of a pending investigation.

And the government says, by its own terms, the statute does not require this additional element.

The government argues that Mr. Mar- Marinello has simply made this up to suit his own situation.

A victory for the government is the ability to send a strong message to taxpayers that

they will be pursued aggressively for any perceived violation of the tax laws.

And this case would certainly embolden the IRS to continue to seek aggressive judgments

and prosecutions against defendants whether or not they knew an investigation was underway.

For more infomation >> Marinello v. United States [SCOTUSbrief] - Duration: 4:00.

-------------------------------------------

Printz v United States | quimbee.com - Duration: 4:53.

- [Narrator] The United States Supreme Court

is known to save the announcement

of its most controversial case

for the last day of each term.

It's no wonder that Printz versus United States

was announced just as the justices were headed out the door

to close the 1997 term.

The case raises deeply divisive issues

involving gun control and the balance of power

between the states and the federal government.

Enacted by Congress in 1993, the Brady Handgun Violence

Prevention Act was a federal gun control statute

that established a nationwide

handgun background check system.

While gearing up to implement the nationwide system,

interim provisions of the Brady Act

temporarily required state and local officials,

rather than federal officials, to conduct

the background checks of prospective firearm purchasers.

Under these interim provisions, firearm sellers

were required to report pending firearm sales

to county police chiefs who were then required

to conduct a background check and validate the sale.

County sheriffs Joe Printz and Richard Mack

brought separate lawsuits arguing that the Brady Act

unconstitutionally compelled state officers

to enforce a federal statute.

Both district courts agreed and struck down the provision

as unconstitutional.

The court of appeals for the ninth circuit

consolidated the cases and reversed,

holding that the interim provision was constitutional.

The United States Supreme Court granted cert.

The issue before the court was whether Congress

can compel state officials to participate

in the implementation of a federal program.

The court held that under the

10th Amendment's anti-commandeering principle,

Congress may not compel state officials

to administer a federal regulatory program.

Justice Scalia, writing for the five to four court,

explained that there was no historical evidence

that Congress ever had the power to compel

state executives into federal service.

Early congressional enactments showed

that the constitution allowed the imposition

of federal standards only on state judges

who apply those standards in deciding cases,

but not on officers of the state's executive branch.

Next, Scalia considered how the Brady Act

conflicted with constitutional structure.

First, the 10th Amendment sets up

a system of dual sovereignty under which

the states retain a significant amount of autonomy.

Scalia noted that the act upset the careful balance of power

between the federal government in the states.

Federal power would increase dramatically, Scalia reasoned,

if it could enlist into service

the police officers of the 50 states.

Additionally, the court held that the Brady Act

violated the constitutional separation of powers principle

because the power to execute the laws is provided

to the president and federal

executive branch officials only.

Congress can't delegate federal executive power

to state law enforcement officers

as it attempted to do here.

Lastly, the court cited New York versus United States

which had determined that Congress can't force

state legislators to enact laws

according to federal instructions.

Scalia concluded that because Congress

can't mandate state legislatures to act,

it can't mandate state executive officers to act either.

As a result, the court held that the Brady Act's

employment of state officers to conduct

background searches was unconstitutional.

The court reversed the court of appeals.

Justice O'Connor filed a concurring opinion

to note that state officials could still voluntarily

comply with the Brady Act, despite the court's decision.

Justice Thomas wrote a concurring opinion

agreeing with the court's analysis

but further arguing that under the current state

of the commerce clause doctrine,

congress didn't have the authority

to regulate the in-state transfer of firearms.

Justice Stevens dissented.

He argued that Congress had the authority

to enact the Brady Act under the commerce clause.

Congress may also impose enforcement obligations

on state officials under the necessary and proper clause.

Stevens reasoned that the framers envisioned a system

in which the federal government may act

for the benefit of the nation as a whole,

and this sometimes requires the power

to make demands on state officials.

In another dissenting opinion,

Justice Souter examined the text of a federalist paper,

the supremacy clause, and oaths taken

by state officers to advance the argument

that state officials can be enlisted into service

on behalf of the national government.

Finally, Justice Breyer also dissenting,

cited examples from foreign nations

to demonstrate that successful systems of government

employed local authorities

to carry out national regulations.

Printz versus United States was a monumental federalism case

memorable for its narrow interpretation of federal power

and its staunch protection of

state autonomy from federal incursion.

For more infomation >> Printz v United States | quimbee.com - Duration: 4:53.

-------------------------------------------

Why the United States should ban GMO foods - Duration: 4:12.

Think back to the last time you went to the grocery store, do you remember walking through

the aisle, maybe noticing various products that were labeled "GMO-Free" or "Non-GMO"?

You might see labels such as this, the Non-GMO Project on these pretzels or on these veggie

straws, or it will say it was produced with genetic engineering like on the back of these

Oreos.

You might be wondering what that means.

GMO stands for genetically modified organism which is defined as any organism whose DNA

has been altered in a non-natural way.

GM plants are usually changed to be insect resistant, virus resistant, or herbicide tolerant

which may seem good in theory but actions have been taken around the world to prevent

the harm coming from GMO foods.

Countries such as France, New Zealand, and Japan have banned them completely but they

are still prominent in the United States.

This is due to pressures from big businesses who have such a significant impact on industry

that even labelling products was not mandatory in the US until a law was passed in 2016.

GMO foods should be banned in the United States due their adverse effects on the human body

and their impact on the environment, and the false notion that they reduce hunger and malnutrition.

Organicconsumers.org states there is concern that simply inserting an exotic gene into

a plant could cause it to produce toxins at a much higher level, that can be harmful to

humans.

But by mixing genes from totally unrelated species, genetic engineering unleashes a host

of unpredictable side effects.

The very process of creating a genetically modified plant can result in massive collateral

damage that produces new toxins, allergens, carcinogens and nutritional deficiencies.

Numerous health problems have increased after GMO foods were introduced in 1996.

The percentage of Americans with three or more chronic illnesses jumped from 7% to 13%

in just 9 years; including food allergies, and disorders such as autism and digestive

problems.

GM crops and herbicides also harm the environment because GMO food DNA ends up in soil, compost,

animal feed, and other living organisms such as bees that can transport pesticides through

the air into the environment.

Also, Pests that are targeted by these agricultural methods can adapt to pesticides and herbicides,

in addition to the DNA changes in GM plants to make them ¨resistant.¨ This means that

they will not always be effective, but their toxicity will remain.

Once a plant is introduced in an agricultural environment, it is assumed that it will become

part of a larger ecosystem, meaning the problem of environmental damage done by GMO food is

much larger than simply potentially harming our health but that of Birds, insects, and

even marine ecosystems.

An example of the damage is that GM crops are eliminating habitat for monarch butterflies,

whose populations are down 50% in the US.

And lastly, contrary to popular belief, GMO foods are not more efficient in reducing hunger

and malnutrition than by traditional means.

The International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development

report, written by more than 400 scientists and backed by 58 governments, stated that

GM crop yields were "highly variable" and in some cases, "yields declined."

The report noted, Assessment of the technology lags behind its development, information is

contradictory, and uncertainty about possible benefits and damage is unavoidable.

They determined that the current GMO foods have nothing to offer the goals of reducing

hunger and poverty, improving nutrition, health and rural livelihoods, and facilitating social

and environmental sustainability.

GMO food research actually diverts money and resources from safe, reliable, and appropriate

technologies.

In conclusion, GMO foods have harmful effects on humans and the environment.

From having a correlation to birth defects as a result of releasing new toxins, allergens

and carcinogens, to contaminating our ecosystem for, in theory, forever.

GMO foods have more consequences than they are worth, which is why the United States

should follow in the footsteps of 26 other countries and ban them.

For more infomation >> Why the United States should ban GMO foods - Duration: 4:12.

-------------------------------------------

The Real Estate Company Conservative Move Helps Conservatives Move To Red States | NBC Nightly News - Duration: 2:11.

For more infomation >> The Real Estate Company Conservative Move Helps Conservatives Move To Red States | NBC Nightly News - Duration: 2:11.

-------------------------------------------

United States Climate Video - Duration: 3:32.

My name is Anthony Boswell, and I did my project in the United States and its climate

The United States is located in both the northern and western hemispheres

In the united states the summers are hot and humid in the plains in the southern states and the most intense summers occur in

california florida and texas

Winners in the southern states are mild and in the north. There is heavy snow and sub-freezing temperatures

Devastating tornadoes are a common occurrence during the spring and summer in the central part of the United States and hurricane strike the eastern coastline

in the Gulf of Mexico from June through October

Fortunately our president Donald Trump believes that global warming is a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese

Between 1901 and 2015 the average annual surface temperature has increased by approximately 1.2 degrees Fahrenheit

Human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels has resulted in the emission of greenhouse gases

And this is the primary reason for the observed changes in climate

The world is not reducing emissions enough to limit global warming to two degrees Celsius relative to pre-industrial temperatures by 2100

Which is the goal of the Paris agreement?

In the United States heavy rainstorms and record high temperatures are common nowadays

Rising levels of carbon dioxide have been caused by human activities from 1998 to 2014 the carbon dioxide emissions have increased by 9%

Electricity generation is accounted for 31% of the total greenhouse gas emission since 1990 in the United States

As for transportation as the counter for 26% of the United States is greenhouse gas emissions

Global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide methane nitrous oxide and other greenhouse gases have increased significantly over the last few hundred years

the concentration of methane has doubled since pre-industrial times

Our climate in global warming has resulted in

the reduction of ice and snow cover increased sea levels

Increased acidity of oceans and the increased intensity and frequency of extreme events and natural disasters

Our climate has a serious impact on our food supply our water resources ecosystems and even our own health

Many greenhouse gases stay in our atmosphere for long periods of time allowing for atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations to remain elevated for hundreds of years

Given that future climate change is inevitable adoption is the best strategy to reduce the severity and cost of climate change impacts

Anticipatory pointing will aid government institutions and enhancing resilience to climate change effects

In order to adapt

We need to develop crops that are more tolerant to heat drought and flooding from heavy rains

We need to provide more shade and air flows into barns to protect livestock from intense temperatures and heat waves during the summer

And we need to protect and expand wildlife habitats

We also need to preserve wetlands to protect coastal communities from flooding and erosion from storms

And sea level rise we need to improve evacuation planning for low areas to prepare for increased storm surges and floods

Last week we need to improve our water use efficiency and build additional water storage capacities