https://mailchi.mp/tomwoods/criminalization?e=8280e42600

News flash: normal people just got relief

Tom Woods

We actually had some very good news at the federal level the other day, but it's been almost completely buried.

You may be familiar with a book called Three Felonies a Day, by Harvey Silverglate. The author's point: federal criminal law, extending into the Code of Federal Regulations, has become so extensive, abstruse, and serpentine that we essentially violate some aspect of it on a regular basis without even knowing it.

This, in turn, affords the feds broad scope to harass ordinary people, since we're all guilty of something.

It's the classic case of anarcho-tyranny: actual criminals are treated with kid gloves, but normal people have the book thrown at them.

Well, an executive order was just issued called "Fighting Overcriminalization in Federal Regulations."

(For anyone fearful of the very words "executive order," I remind you that an order directing federal agencies to do certain things is within the president's constitutional authority.)

Here's how Alexandria Brown described it on X:

What does this do? The most important part is that every agency has 365 days to list out all the regulations that have a criminal penalty and then that report has to be made public. Right now, there is literally no one on this planet that knows this information. No one.

That report must be made public and must be updated annually.

All future regulations have to state criminal offenses clearly. Mens rea is back on the menu! The default will be to require mens rea. What that means in English is that you have to know you are committing a crime; strict liability is highly disfavored.

Each agency has 45 days to publish guidance on how criminally liable regulatory offenses will be handled. Then clarification that this doesn't apply to immigration regulations and generic catch-all language.

This is everything I have ever wanted on this topic. Everything. I never ever ever, not in the history of ever, thought that there would be a requirement for a report from each agency mandating that the regulations with criminal liability be listed, let alone that it would be public.

The shift to pursue civil over criminal first is, obviously, significant. See re: the issue of people fighting over property lines with the US government who all of a sudden were being charged with major federal felonies.

And then there are the mens rea requirements. Mens rea means guilty mind. It is the doctrine that you have to have criminal intent to be charged with a crime. Let's say you grab a coat off a rack. If you thought it was your coat, that's not theft, that's a mistake.

Strict liability means if you take the coat, you're guilty no matter what. Substantial portions of regulations with criminal penalties attached are strict liability. Did you do the action? You are criminally liable, even if you did not know the regulation existed and you had no criminal intent.

This EO is tremendously important and will have direct, and hopefully immediate, effect on more or less everyone in America. And did you hear anything about it? Anything at all?

This is one of my areas of keen interest and I missed this. This should be being shouted from the mountaintops as to how it is restoring the rights of Americans to know when they will be criminally charged, for what, and that you can't be held criminally liable for a mistake.

This is unambiguously good news, and to be welcomed.

Because, as I think you know, we are dealing with people who do not exactly have your welfare at heart.

So it makes sense to me why people might be very particular about protecting their privacy against such people, and against the corporate lackeys who do their bidding.

As I mentioned yesterday, it may sound crazy, but we've learned that it isn't a "conspiracy theory" to say the NSA has a way it can spy on you in your own home. ......