NFAB: You have received all appropriate documentation and proofs, but your actions show you are disregarding them. A verifiable record of compliance exists. Back off. Acknowledge to the principal that you have no cause to escalate. Any action on your part now will be exposed and contacts exist to elevate the level of attention.
The rest of you: Sorry to be cryptic. The important thing here is the people I'm addressing this to know exactly what I'm talking about. So does Mike.
Thursday, September 26, 2013
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
You certainly know how to garner curiosity :)
If whomever it is complies with your request, will we get the whole story or is that reserved only for noncompliance?
-ML
As much as I would like to agree that the 2A protects our RKBA, I can't. Regardless of the SCOTUS ruling the 2A only codifies our right. It is, and always has been necessary for us, the "We the People" to take the appropriate actions to live up to meaning of the 2A.
Personally, I think ANY law or rule put in place to restrict our RKBA is unlawful.
Richard J. Medicus
militialaw--that is entirely up to the recipients of my message.
IMO it's not so good to be opaque. Even if you don't name names & places, at least a general outline of what seems to be up is warranted... otherwise there's no need to mention to the public, since you can contact ATF, DoJ, etc. directly.
MilitiaLaw, as I posted in reply to Charles on my blog:
Charles, we are not being cute. You must understand that we are read by many OFUs -- Official Folks, Unfriendly (or words to that effect) -- and at the same time the legal case of the target of this threat (as with several targets in the past) is not well-served by specific publicity at the moment. Disinformation sometimes gets planted to see how people will react. Yet in this case, there are both rumors and official communications leading to a calculation of "intentions of the enemy" in certain bloody directions.
How then to let the OFUs know that we know what is up within their nefarious skulls up there in Mordor-on-the-Potomac? Just so. This is a cold war of nerves we fight, and has been since the 90s.
If you go to my original letter to Holder in 2009, you will see that the intended victim there wasn't named either.
There come times that the rattlesnake must rattle, even if it doesn't reveal which bush it is under. A reminder of the general formulation of "no more free Wacos" was judged to be both important and timely, since to count on the adult supervision and informed institutional memory of either the ATF or Main Justice is a slender reed indeed -- and a man's life may be at stake.
These OFUs get focused on their target without considering the larger ramifications and unintended consequences of their actions. Like the FBI SAC in New Mexico, they have to be reminded a la Bob Wright, "Why would I want to do that?" (Go to another state in the event of another Waco.) "There's plenty of you federal sonsabitches around here."
Hope this helps explain the purpose of both the posts and their maddening unspecificity.
And my response to Mike V.:
Thanks for the response. I see your point, and accept your (and David's) judgement on this.
Post a Comment