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…

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.

are they blind, are they deaf, why are they only allegedly interested in stopping people from praying?

Big Business is swarming Capitol Hill this week as they struggle to get the Internet Blacklist Bill passed.

Here’s Techdirt’s take:

The world’s largest lobbying organization, the US Chamber of Commerce…along with the biggest lobbyists representing the recording and movie industry, have ramped up their efforts to get PROTECT IP

approved as quickly as possible.

Call your local Chamber of commerce to make sure that they understand what this will mean if this law is passed.

Will you support our work by becoming a monthly Demand Progress sustainer? Our small, dedicated, (under-paid) staff is entirely member-supported. (You can cancel your donations at any time.)

Yes! I’ll become a Demand Progress sustainer today.
I can’t, but I’ll click here to chip in $5 or $10 today so you can keep fighting the Internet Blacklist Bill and protecting civil liberties.
But now the good news: Why is the Chamber having to go to such great lengths to ram their bill through Congress? It’s because of Demand Progress members like you. More from Techdirt:

This is the first stage of the endgame to get the law passed. To be honest, I’m surprised they’ve even had to go this far, because from the beginning it looked like they had the easy support. The fact that they felt the need to break out this little stunt shows that the opposition to PROTECT IP has actually drummed up enough noise that some politicians are concerned about the very real unintended consequences of the law.

Will you support our work by becoming a monthly Demand Progress sustainer?

Yes! I’ll become a Demand Progress sustainer today.
I can’t, but I’ll click here to chip in $5 or $10 today so you can keep fighting the Internet Blacklist Bill and protecting civil liberties.
Thanks so much for your continued support.

Can there be a fair trial when you see websites like this one that are so convinced of what they “think” is the truth, the truth may be very different, the truth may not be known by even fox news, as good as they “think” that they are, they may be wrong, in fact the US justice system has been wrong in the past.

Can this girl get a fair trial at all?

When you have the media convinced of her guilt, most all of the bobble heads at fox news, and likely other news companies also, have said time and time again by action and by inference, that there are some issues that have not been addressed, do we not have a real working system of justice here?

Earlier we were witness, to a fox news commentator, that made a statement, about how they felt that the defense was trying to show a likely result.

There was no real fair and balanced view presented.

In fact there was only one view presented, that was the “we think that she is guilty view point”

When you look at the thought process, involved here you have to think about one thing and one thing alone, is this fair and is this balanced.

When you hear someone make a statement on national TV about how they think that the defense is trying to show reasonable doubt, and that there is no real reasonable doubt, (allegedly) they fail to make that correct impression, by only presented one point of view, it is not a fair thing to do, what if they are wrong, will they come out and apologize that they made allegedly stupid statements?

For example Phil Keating, talks about about what they “think” the defense is trying to do but he only makes one statement, that statement, is filled with invective, that calls for the conclusion of an alleged, verdict of guilty.

Just now on live TV, the bobble head, made the statement, of what the defense “hopes” to prove, this could be made differently you could say the defense may be trying to show that the use of a particular method of disposing of the body of a pet, might be something to consider in this case.

But they did not say that, they seem to be stuck using words that presume the idea of guilt.

You can use words to influence the thinking of anyone, for example while writing this article, I could use many different points or words to make a point, however, I choose to try to show a counter point, that is not happening on Fox news, the (Fair and balanced news company)

Is this fair and balanced coverage or is it just one sided?

I know it is sort of difficult to wrap your mind around, but think about it this way what if you “thought” about committing a crime and you “thought” that you were going to do it, but at the last minute you changed your mind…

Remember the movie they made a while back with tom cruise  called minority report, where they have these all powerful psychic that can predict the future so the idea is if you think about it then your guilty.

That could be an alarming thing, considering that a lot of people think about doing things all the time but that does not mean they would act upon those thoughts.

This sort of attacks the innocent until proven guilty thing that has been a part of criminal law for centuries.

But what are we to do now that we have law enforcement that is creating a new way to charge people with crimes that they just think about…

If you are not worried about this then your insane because they could easily say that because you “think bout robbing a bank” then that is the same thing, as robing a bank.

That seems a little crazy, yes and it would be but that is what is happening in many instances, for example they had this girl in florida, (really bad place to visit because you might end up being charged with your own thoughts)

Florida they have this girl whom they setup and they “pretended” to be a “hit man” then they pretended, that they were going to kill someone, “here it comes”  Now they tell this girl, that they “the pretend killers”  who are pretending to be a killer, but are really a cop, that they are going to kill for real the girls husband, ” so they pretend to be a real hit man”  and they pretend to be serious about what they are pretending to do.

Then they get the girl on video and they pretend to say that since we are pretending, we are going to pretend to give you one last chance to get out of this pretend crime, (that is before we charge you with a real crime)  (again florida great place to not visit)

Then they “lie to the girl”  and then they pretend to kill the husband, then they pretend that he is dead, Wow, that is a lot of pretending, now I ask you this, would that girl had actually done what they were pretending to do?

Probably not…

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…

However, more and more people are having to go to court to defend themselves, and their wallets.

You never know what may happen next and as predictable as the legal system is you really need to have a good relationship with a legal professional.

In the days where spilled coffee can result in a million dollar settlement, net, you have to be aware that the risk of loss is serious, more so when you consider, that there are literally millions of under insured small business companies out there.

You are likely to need legal help at least once over a period of years, yet most of us do
not actively seek legal help at all.