pudge's Journal: Woman Who Registered Her Dog

The EFF interviewed the woman who registered her dog. She's done a good thing by bringing this serious security hole to the forefront.

Note that the immigrant who apparently kidnapped and murdered Zina Linnik this month, who was illegally registered to vote, served only 60 days in jail for raping a minor relative, which he pleaded down to incest. But the woman who falsely registered her dog to vote is looking at possibly 90 days for her crime, making a false statement to a public official. Let's see: false statement to the government, or rape of a child ... which is worse?

Not to minimize...

[FroMan]

Not to minimize the rape of a child, but only 90 days for registering illegally to vote should carry a much larger sentence than 90 days. I would think a minimum sentence for such a crime should be at least the shortest duration which an elected official could serve. Granted a judge should be allowed in the sentencing to waive that, if the person simply did it to bring something to light.

Re:

[pudge]

Shrug. As long as the sentence for child rape/incest is much longer ...

Re:

[jdavidb]

I don't fully understand the case and can't get to YouTube at work, but if the story is that a woman filed to register her dog to vote, then the culprit is not the woman but the official who allowed the registration to go through.

Re:

[pudge]

I don't fully understand the case and can't get to YouTube at work, but if the story is that a woman filed to register her dog to vote, then the culprit is not the woman but the official who allowed the registration to go through.

Wrong for two reasons. First: no, she intentionally and knowingly made a false statement, and she should be held responsible for that crime. Granted, that is my opinion, but it is backed up by the law.

The other way you're wrong is more concrete: the law says the registration has to be accepted. They do no checking of any kind, and are not ALLOWED to do any checking. In fact, if they did check suspicious registrations, they would get sued by some leftwing group for racial discrimination.

We're pretty scr

Re:

[jdavidb]

First: no, she intentionally and knowingly made a false statement, and she should be held responsible for that crime.

I'm cool with that, then.

the law says the registration has to be accepted.

Oh.

Okay, I didn't realize we were dealing with a completely insane system, then.

In that case, the people who wrote and passed the law are the culprits, and capital punishment would seem to be just the thing. :)

Re:

[FroMan]

Ditto on the youtube thing. I have read about this from other places though, so I did not make an effort to look into the specific article pudge linked to.

That there is no checking is truly a crime against the people of the state. There ought to be reasonable checking to validate someone is legally allowed to vote. But as pudge brings up, the lawmakers and the Left in the area actively work against the people of the state in the area.

I think a judge ought to be able to sentence this woman reasonabley as

Re:

[pudge]

I think a judge ought to be able to sentence this woman reasonabley as the case warrents. Perhaps community service as a poll worker would be more fitting. She did break the law, if only to expose the wrongness of the situation. Even in a righteous fashion, those that break the law ought to expect to be held accountable.

Agreed ... except for the "reasonable sentence" thing. She is pleading not guilty, so she might not get much lenience. She's pleading not guilty because the government is pretending that there is no problem, and so she is pushing the case to make her point. Good for her, I say!

Re:

[FroMan]

Well, civil disobedience is breaking the law, and one should expect there to be ramifications. I would still think that community service as a poll worker would be an adequate sentence, assuming she loses as I would expect.