The best friend got a minor burn and tried to persuade local law enforcement to act - which they did not.
So Myrlinda went to the Feds who prosecuted Bond under a federal anti-terror chemical weapons law made under an international arms treaty.
Bond cried foul and claimed that under the 10th Amendment the federal government had no right to indict her. The 10th Amendment says: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Basically Carol claimed that the federal government had no "standing" in what was a state civil matter (potentially something like a local charge for assault or manslaughter).
Now Bond had worked hard at revenge - apparently cutting up photos of Myrlinda Hanyes and leaving threatening messages on her answering machine. Both of which resulting in minor conviction for harassment in 2005. When this did not work she tried 10-chloro-10H-phenoxarsine and potassium dichromate. Hanyes was unable to get local authorities to take her concerns seriously in the matter.
Eventually Haynes told her mailman about Bond who then convinced Postal Inspectors to take video of Bond placing chemicals on Haynes's door knob and mail box.
Faced with the video evidence Bond pleaded guilty to the domestic laws associated with the chemical weapons treaty - yielding six years in a West Virgina federal prison, $2,500 USD in fines and $10,000 USD in restitution. The appropriate aggravated assault charge in Pennsylvania where this occurred would have gotten Bond three to twenty five months in a state prison.
According to Bond's attorney's the chemical weapons statute (see this Washington Post article) "exceeded the federal government's enumerated powers, violated bedrock federalism principles guaranteed under the 10th Amendment and impermissibly criminalized conduct that lacked any nexus to a legitimate federal interest."
So why am I writing about this?
Well, for on thing it clearly draws a line between what the Federal government should be focused on and what is appropriate for individuals.
How so?
Bond's actions were of a criminal nature - she assaulted a fellow citizen. Lacking any other federal interest in the case she should have been prosecuted under Pennsylvania law - the fact that local authorities did not take Haynes's accusations of Bond seriously not withstanding. The Supreme Court has made this perfectly clear with this case.
Had Bond acted differently, for example terrorizing Haynes workplace, then there might have been a different outcome - but she did not do that - her focus was specifically on assaulting Haynes.
This decision opens up the courts to citizens to challenge any number of federal laws for which they (the citizens) do not feel the federal courts have "standing".
The Supreme Court did not strike down the treaty laws because Congress has the authority to make them and they should be applied in cases where someone acts as a terrorist as opposed to a common criminal.
But they do send a message to the Federal Prosecutor trying the case against Bond - the Constitution limits your reach under Federal law - criminal actions are not necessarily Federal crimes.
(This is a good thing because when little Johnny launches his home made rocket into space and accidentally hits an airplane little Johnny is a criminal, not a terrorist.)
The Supreme Court also sent a message to the Federal government making it clear that unless the Federal Government has explicit standing then it cannot unduly prosecute citizens. Further, and perhaps most importantly, citizens who feel they are being unduly prosecuted by the Federal government also now have "standing" on their own - merely by being a citizen - to pursue a case against the Government.
This was rare unanimous decision by the court.
No comments:
Post a Comment