You would be wrong…

Guess what you just accidentally broke a federal statute, violation of the Wilderness Act.

Now you have a criminal record…

Most people think criminal law is for bad people,” says Timothy Lynch of the Cato Institute.

“They’re one misstep away from the nightmare of a federal indictment.”

new federal laws have lower standards for conviction than in the past: Prosecutors do not always need to show criminal intent (mens rea), according the Wall Street Journal. And, federal regulations (also numbering in the thousands) often carry the force of federal criminal law as penalty.

So, if your still reading this you may be wondering what is going on and is this really the America I grew up pledging allegiance to the flag?

Yes, it is, but things have changed, it has been said over and over again that we are a nation of laws, but the truth is that is a lie…

We are a nation of people.

The truth is that we the people are the only people that matter in this Nation, yet our congress treats us like criminals.

While they eat the fat and drink the sweet, this is a real issue that every American should be well aware of yet for the most part many of us are far too busy working and living our lives to be concerned with legal issues, this is why it is imperative that you know what your doing and that when you choose to go on vacation or to go even on something as simple as a cruise that you know the laws that could effect your very liberty and freedom.

It may be difficult to understand when your not in the world as often as perhaps some of your neighbors, however its important to realize that just because your neighbors may not share information about being on vacation and accidentally breaking a federal law while in a federal park, getting a $3500.00 fine, having a felony record, (no more voting) all because what, your son who is interested in cowboys and Indians went looking for arrow heads, in a federal park…

You see, there are so many laws that some have said they do not know how many laws there actually are.

Some estimate the figure at more than 4500 federal laws.

If you are reading this because you were looking for legal advice or you perhaps found this website searching for a solution to a problem you have please locate an attorney, you can often get some sound legal advice for as little as $50 and that can go a long way towards helping you get a better nights sleep…

Are we now living in a land where there is no longer a congress?

Do we have a dictator and chief in office?

When will congress act to secure the future of the United States?

In many ways we have some very troubling things happening all around us the stock market is very volatile.

Millions of Americans are out of work and yet we continue down the prickly pathway that has put us in danger of default.

Well it took (allegedly) ATT months to stop advertising the benefits they hoped to get from that company, however, ATT is like a slow moving behemoth.

They have huge backbone resources, many of them mobile, but why cant they seem to keep up with the latest and the greatest?

Will we be better off when only one remains, when less competition, remember how it was like back in the days when you could get a cell phone bill for like 1200.00 per month, probably not, but it was really high in the beginning, simply because there was no competition.

When there is no competition the one thing that is clear is that corporations will get greedy and they will take advantage.

Well it might be that ATT may not be able to take over Tmobile in its attempts to obtain a better network.

One thing seems to be clear, allegedly most Tmobile users do not want to have anything to do with ATT, why is that?

For one thing ATT has a reputation of not providing very good service, just do a google search for angry, customers, and you will find millions of them. In fact, I was a customer of ATT for 5 years, paid them $79.00 a month without fail for 5 years, and what did they do when it came time to treat me better than say some slob they did not know jack about?

You got it they treated me like any other slob, but you have to ask how is that possible when I was a good customer for 5 years, in any other market I would be treated well even likely treated like a VIP, but not at ATT, at ATT your nothing your a big fat zero, your a number, and you know what else, people at Tmobile do not want to be treated that way and if I was with Tmobile and this (un-healthy) merger were to go through I would drop them like a hot potato.

The simple fact here is that this is why we have laws to protect consumers from large companies that would allegedly seek to do harm to its customers without fear of retribution because they are so big that they cannot fail, right?

Well one thing seems clear here Tmobile should not be ATT, Go find some other company to bully you jerks, hmm, alleged, jerks.

Indeed there are many states that are now charging tax for online purchases.

This is very disturbing and if steps are not taken to stop this behavior the internet as we know it today
will cease to exist, the internet is still in its infancy and will continue to be in a state of growth as long
as the government stays out of its development.

The moment that we allow the government to begin to stifle growth online by trying to censor and
regulate all the content online, we will have a problem that will deepen the already weakened economy.

Think about that for a moment.

Since when did the US justice system become a matter of beliefs regardless of evidence?

That really makes you think about the problems faced by the US system of justice it is really broken so badly that we have a district attorney that now has an opinion about beliefs?

Obviously something happened, and while it is within the discretion of the district attorney to proceed or not to proceed, how often do they proceed, when they believe that someone is guilty when they are actually innocent.

That is something that is a serious problem.

Are we going to find our way out of this insanity and if so will the police be a help or a hurt.

Murder and Homicide, charges, what is going on now?

Which means, that the common practice of taking photos, online, using music in videos, using photos in videos, using video clips, that are online on youtube.com in mass quantity.

Literally over night about half or better of the millions of videos on youtube would have to be taken down and removed.

While they may loose this battle, (at least I hope they do) they will eventually pass a bill that criminalizes youtube videos. That means that you will need to have royalty free content, in your possession and you will need to have proof that the content is royalty free.

There are thousands and thousands of PLR photos out there, millions of music clips, being sold and some of those sellers are not even the owners of the music clips.

Words like

• youtube penalty
• youtube court
• youtube felony conviction

Could become the new way to land your self in prison, with estimates of current laws, and new laws, being produced by congress with their collective heads up their back ends, you have to wonder what they are thinking.

Millions of photos, in millions of templates, that are being sold as PLR where the actual authors of the art work were never compensated and never agreed to sell their work in the first place.

What if your buying products that are not being legally sold?

That could be a real problem, something to really seriously consider.

Learn more about legal issues that could soon be effecting you if your marketing online.

The FTC would like to impose additional guides for online advertisers, which could lead to an equal protection challenge, is this the real direction that Washington wants to go?

I would hope to see equal protection for all consumers, both online and offline deceptive, advertisements on TV can be seen that promote subliminal methods of advertising, however it appears that enforcement may be an issue if disclosure is not required for all advertisers, not just internet advertisers, clear and conspicuous disclosure must apply to all advertisers, equally, including enforcement of the same standards.

I would hope that before such measures are taken to protect consumers online that there could be some measure of protection afforded the millions and millions of television viewers every day on cable TV, including loud and offensive commercials, that make use of excessive loudness and depict impossibly large food items, graphics and pictures, of pizza that are over 24 inches in diameter, yet, when the consumer goes to purchase the product, the actual product is often less than 12 inches with substantially less product and toppings.

Is this not deceptive advertising?

Another example is the 24 inch hamburger, that is shown in many fast food television commercials. Consumers may understand at some level that they are not going to actually get what they are seeing on that large screen, however, is it not deceptive to show such large depictions of food?

What about the psychological considerations of showing overly large food items on video commercials, in broadcast television?

The human Subconscious, is highly susceptible to conditioning, in video advertising, will the FTC begin to require clear and conspicuous disclosure for all forms of advertising,with such a large percentage of Americans now falling into the obese category, do we not have the duty to protect all consumers from messages that these types of commercials send to the consuming public?

I would like to understand the concern that is being directed at online advertisers and yet have no such precautions for protecting consumers that are exposed to deceptive video advertising, that use highly technical and sophisticated subliminal advertising methods, frame rates in excess of 120 frames per second often with highly suggestive use of graphics in video content, these things should be the concern of a highly motivated organization such as the FTC.

I would be in favor for such additional measures to protect consumers, if all broadcast media were also subject to the same disclosure requirements as what is currently being proposed for online advertising content, does it not make more sense to provide a safe experience for all consumers?

Clear and conspicuous, disclosures for Television Advertising must also apply to broadcast and be enforced not just applied to online advertisers.

It appears that what is proposed for online users is not being proposed for traditional media advertising, this is a real concern and should be examined as to why such provisions are not being equally examined.

These questions should be carefully considered and answered before we even consider the idea of proposing such disclosure and legal requirements for online advertisers.

Should we not apply the same protection for all consumers? Can we apply one set of guides for the internet yet ignore clearly deceptive advertising for broadcast advertisers, the same level of enforcement must be applied to both online

My question and concern, is will such disclosures be required of all commercial producers, Radio, Television, Cable, Internet.

If no such disclosure notices are proposed for broadcast advertisers, then this is something that is a serious issue and concern.

How can we not protect all consumers with the same passion and the same level of protection as the FTC guides propose for online consumers?

Should we not extend equal protection of all consumers? To apply, an unequal burden for online advertisers without providing equal enforcement for all advertisers. This is a question that we must answer before we consider these additional disclosure guides.

Deception, is a big problem in Advertising these days and more so among Eating establishments and their commercials, you see pictures of Huge three foot Pizzas, 14 inch hamburgers, yet when you get to the restaurant you find that what you get is not the same thing as what you are shown.

Is this not Deception?

We see the keyword used all the time when the FTC goes after someone they think is being deceptive, totally subjective process for the most part, or is it?  With regard to fake merchandise certainly it is easy to see that yes they are being deceptive however one has to wonder, about this entire subject, are restaurants being deceptive in showing the consumer a ten foot high product but when you go to buy that product, you find it is about four inches in diameter, not three feet in diameter, which bring up the question, does the consumer know that they are not going to get what is being show to them?  Logically yes, they know they are not going to get a 12 inch hamburger…

However here is the real question, does the subconscious human mind know this?

Is it possible that some commercials are deceptive by the psychological nature of what they show to consumers.

More importantly should the FTC step in to regulate this aspect of what is most certainly deceptive advertising practices?

Did Taco Bell change its ways, or was the story really ever true?

Well one thing for sure is this, Taco bell had little choice but to either change its practice of calling non beef (beef) or start calling it taco filling.

Not a likely outcome…

Remember the Wendy’s commercials all those year ago, Where’s the Beef, well apparently and allegedly you could say that again…

Well folks you might have to wonder if there is any connection between the new FTC guides and Taco bell, but one thing is clear,

A law firm in Alabama, (of all places) is allegedly happily filing a lawsuit,

allegedly, this is the alleged, ingredients, source, Gizmodo

Water, isolated oat product, salt, chili pepper, onion powder, tomato powder, oats (wheat), soy lecithin, sugar, spices, maltodextrin (a polysaccharide that is absorbed as glucose), soybean oil (anti-dusting agent), garlic powder, autolyzed yeast extract, citric acid, caramel color, cocoa powder, silicon dioxide (anti-caking agent), natural flavors, yeast, modified corn starch, natural smoke flavor, salt, sodium phosphate, less than 2% of beef broth, potassium phosphate, and potassium lactate.

Now, as the story goes, (allegedly) at Gizmodo, Taco bell cannot legally call its beef product, beef, yet, apparently they have been allegedly doing so in some commercials, or something like that, which should come as no surprise considering the results of eating at taco bell more than once per month, (allegedly)

All kidding aside, how are the new FTC guides effecting commercial advertising?

Why is it important?

How do you feel about it?

Is it about time that some action is taken with all of the commercials on TV, there is bound to be a healthy amount of skepticism, I know I sure think that, every day, when I see, a buy one suit at full price get 10 suits FREE, yet, we all know that your paying for those suits, or do we?

Perhaps, some do not, and that may be where this protection is needed, I know for sure that I am sick of seeing a three foot in diameter, pizza, on TV, and then when I go to pick up the pizza it turns out to be barely 14 inches, just for the math to work out right, lets add that up, 3 feet, that would be 36 inches.

Huge, pizza, right, well that my friends is not being honest, in fact the materials that these pizzas are allegedly made from is not food at all but silicone.

So, a disclaimer is in order, something like you of course know that this is not actually pizza at all but a silicone based over sized advertising tool to make you want to buy a pizza, what you may get may not actually even remotely resemble a pizza like the one your being shown.

But wait, would that not be bait and switch?

Perhaps and yes, Bingo, Yahtzee, you win the big prize.

You know it appears that advertising in our culture has long had a very shady element since the times of the carnival, barker who would yell and cajole, laugh and entertain you out of the few dollars and cents you might have in your pocket, advertising false or otherwise has been such a great part of the American culture, that separating it from our TV might be difficult, would it not be a novel idea to produce advertising that is actually accurate?

Only time will tell, it it might not be all that far off before your faced with a hamburger that actually resembles, what you would get if you went down and bought one, a pizza might soon start to look like you might get if you went down and purchased one.

Because to do otherwise, well folks that is just deceptive advertising and it is about time that some law firms start pulling the carpet out from under those jerky advertisers, right? Well, perhaps, I guess it depends on a lot of different things, you would think that in 50 years, that advertisers would have tired of trying to pull the wool over peoples eyes, but allegedly they have not and so the fight may be just warming up…