The new complaint is calculated to be a death blow to Red's--both financially with additional legal expenses they cannot afford, and by giving the judge an excuse to side with thugs portraying themselves as victims.
Blogger doesn't give me the capability to present .pdf files, so I have converted the documents sent to the judge into jpegs:
"Exhibit A" is a print out of this entry from Red's Blog.
Note assumptions in the accusation--that BATFU now has authority to decide who is an "authorized journalist," that providing oversight of government activities and the identities of those responsible for abuse has "no legitimate purpose but to intimidate and harass," that the distinction between an inspector and an agent is not automatically understood by those outside the agency, and that the only opinion expressed that is cited for judicial cognizance comes from an anonymous comment poster--not from Ryan Horsley. In fact, there is no evidence that the comment in question was not made by a BATFU agent (oh, sorry, "inspector"?), employee, snitch or agent provocateur.
Note that the offending comment has been removed by Ryan. It said this:
This is clearly something Ryan had no control over, makes no specific threat, plus it expresses an opinion that, as much as they don't want to admit it, reflects a sentiment of the agency's creation. But presenting this is designed to prejudice the judge. That said, I too have deleted comments from this blog that I thought crossed a line that would erode the post's credibility or I simply thought was inappropriate.
I repeat my call for a rapid response team of "minuteman" volunteers to make themselves available via a phone tree to go to gun stores being audited, and audit/document/photograph the auditors. Don't let creatures of the shadows hide there--expose them to the light and make them live there--or cravenly slink back under the baseboards where they belong. You can also help by spreading the link to this post to fellow gun owners and letting them know what is going on. BATFU is relying on people remaining uninformed and apathetic.
29 comments:
I swear I read a SCOTUS ruling a while back which came out of some cops objecting to someone videotaping a traffic stop. It basically said that when LEOs are on duty they have no expectation of privacy, and that merely videotaping from a distance is an exercise in First Amendment rights, and does not constitute obstruction, interference or harrassment. I'll see if I can dig up a cite.
Okay, it looks like it was a Pennsylvania case, Robinson v. Fetterman. The .pdf of the ruling is available at http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/05-videotape.pdf
From the ruling:
The activities of the police, like those of other public officials, are subject to public scrutiny. Indeed, "the First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and challenge directed at police officers." City of Houston, Tex. v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451, 461 (1987). Although Robinson need not assert any particular reason for videotaping the troopers, he was doing so in order to make a visual record of what he believed was the unsafe manner in which they were performing their duties. He had previously talked to Arthur Hershey, a Representative in the Pennsylvania General Assembly, about his concerns. Robinson's right to free speech encompasses the right to receive information and ideas. Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 564 (1969). He also has a First Amendment right to express his concern about the safety of the truck inspections to the appropriate government agency or officials, whether his expression takes the form of speech or conduct. See Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 404 (1989); Minnesota State Board for Cmty. Colleges v. Knight, 465 U.S. 271, 308 (1984). Videotaping is a legitimate means of gathering information for public dissemination and can often provide cogent evidence, as it did in this case. In sum, there can be no doubt that the free speech clause of the Constitution protected Robinson as he videotaped the defendants on October 23, 2002. See Smith v. City of Cumming, 212 F.3d 1332, 1333 (11th Cir. 2000); see also Stanley, 394 U.S. at 564 (1969); Whiteland Woods, L.P. v. Township of West Whiteland, 193 F.3d 177, 180 (3d Cir. 1999). Moreover, to the extent that the troopers were restraining Robinson from making any future videotapes and from publicizing or publishing what he had filmed, the defendants' conduct clearly amounted to an unlawful prior restraint upon his protected speech. Vance v. Universal Amusement Co., Inc., 445 U.S. 308, 316 & n.13, 317 (1980); Near v. State of Minnesota ex. rel. Olson , 283 U.S. 697 (1931).
It's the new operational assumption, David. All documents, accounts, hearsay or likenesses of any government activity is automatically classified as a secret.
In short, it's okay for some other party to protest the state of affairs, but the party who has the grievance has effectively lost his guarantee under the First Amendment to complain about the violations of the others.
I'm fairly certain that isn't how it's supposed to work. How we expect a free society without the right to loudly complain about things, is beyond me.
Also: I hope that post wasn't one of mine, but I don't recall commenting on that particular article.
Nope, not mine.
Gee,
I wonder what they'd say if Red's set up a live webcam or six.
Bruce, good find. I have passed it on to Ryan for his lawyer to use.
This makes as much sense as rapists crying out that their victims made unwelcome advances toward them. But... look who it is coming from.
KCSteve,
Wouldn't you agree that considering the ATF's characterization of Mr. Horsley's practices, it would be a good idea to have an extra layer of protection? They certainly can't argue against greater vigilance.
I like your idea. Yes, yes. Security is not a product, but a process!
This petition to the court could have been made by any rapist whose activities had been visually recorded. And it would be just as valid. And actually the crime is the same. Linda Young wants to rape the law and the Constitution, she wants the lights out.
I hope the judge is an honest man. Not of the stripe of Jimm Larry Hendren who was bought or threatened out of his duty.
That's just rich, the BATFE believes it's being harassed.
You know I too would hate having the same heavy handed tactics use against me, of which I use against the targets of my investigations.
Then they want Red to stop his blogging because it’s hindering their case against him. Whatever. Guess they never heard of free speech and a free press.
As for the poster, yes we should keep it civil, even though like you, I understand where those sentiments come from.
Anyone else notice that they can't seem to get their days right? On the first page of the complaint, they mention it happened on July 17, but on the second page, it's April 27th.
The NRA had it right.
The BATF is nothing but a bunch of jack-booted thugs. Their history of dishonorable strong-arm tactics and even murder is long and odious.
It should be disbanded.
The sooner the better.
And then the thugs should be tracked and monitored, because wherever they go, they're almost certainly up to no good.
The NRA had it right.
The BATF is nothing but a bunch of jack-booted thugs. Their history of dishonorable strong-arm tactics and even murder is long and odious.
Those who hate the NRA love to repeat the claim that the NRA was the source of that characterization, but that's like saying that the editors of the Boston Globe wrote the Declaration of Independence just because they print it every July 4th. (Oh, the irony!) The NRA was simply quoting US Congressman John Dingle's (D-Michigan) accurate characterization of their performance at Waco.
Seems to me that the BATFU (ok ... I'm missing it ... what's the 'U' for?) has the full support of the NRA. They even say they want the ATF around to enforce the federal gun laws they support.
Wild deuce: the "U" stands for "You".
BATFU is trying to destroy 2A, why would they care about somebodies 1A rights either.
I hope BATF realizes the number of eyes watching them. Being scardy cats of cameras shows what paranoid wusses they are, but they seem oblivious to the number of eyes watching their every move in Idaho.
In their whimpish court filing it was said, "suspicious nature of the person taking the photos...".
For the benefit of those historically challenged federal agents reading this and taking notes, its called "eternal vigilance", and its the price of liberty. Get used to having eyes (and cameras) on you at all times as you represent the People's business in your daily movement. The People have this right whether you like it or not, whether you go begging some sympathetic judiciary to stop those mean citizens from taking your pictures, it will continue, even when you're not looking. Does that make you paranoid? I'd bet good money (gold or silver) that some of the fed employees are already afflicted with some measureable degree of medically verifiable psychiatric paranoid delusions that they're being watched and photographed at all hours of the day and night, into their windows, into their backyards, while they bank, shop or get a haircut. Its like there's somebody watching all the time. Aluminum foil hats do seem to help.
Wild Deuce,
u=you
f=well, you know
Am fairly sure that I read that the ATF only has authority to audit/inspect once annually, unless there are good, specific, reasons. I'm sure that after they decided to point out the insignificant paperwork errors, that the judge gave them wider latitude. But, we know there were audits where nothing was found. Was the ATF following the annual reg before they found something allegedly 'wrong?'
" In the ATF's motion they state regarding the video tape that "Red's was notified that these images were not to be used for any documentary or without the consent of the ATF." "
What authority does the BATFE or its agents have to restrict publication of the video tape? As it has been previously noted public servants conducting their duties are subject to public scrutiny. If the agents and or inspectors were performing their duties in a professional manner then they should have no problem with a visual record being taken or released.
I guess they have never heard of the First Amendment any more than they have heard of the Second.
Red's is doing a fine job defending both, and may they continue for a long time to come!
See my own blog, which I tried to link: http://www.alicelillieandher.blogspot.com . It is not about any particular aspect of freedom, but generally about freedom. My latest work deals with the religious right. But you can bet I am a hundred thousand percent pro-gun!!!
If you work for the BATF you are No AMERICAN plain and simple fact. You operate under the color of law and that is it. When man's law condradicts God's law mans law is to be REFUSED. God gave us the right to denfend our families , ourselves and eachother from evil. The BATF clearly is a evil force. What the people working for the "BATF" and other organizations fail to relize they ALREADY have lost as Yahweh will always be Victorious! For the BATF that I am shore read this and All of those who have given in to this evil that has always been amongst us since the beginning I say to you it is NOT to late to turn to the light and al that is Good in this world. As the world of man and man's law fails the World of God Almighty will prevail.
Why does this remind me so much of pre-WWII NAZI Germany?
BATFE = SS
Amerika is dying... and our government is pulling the plug.
Why on this whole blog do I not see what the ATF says you have violated? Are you afraid of letting everyone know what laws you have been accused of violating? So Questions:
1. What laws have you been accused of violating?
2. Have you violated these laws?
3. Are you singling out the Investigators for just doing there jobs?
4. Would you like someone following you and taking your picture or video, shopping, getting a haircut, doing your job, selling firearms illegaly, out with your kids, post pictures of you and your kids on there blogs, post your name your families names and addresses on a blog etc... you get my point.
Comments:
You have posted nothing about what the presumed violations are, what laws the ATF have violated or anything of substance. So sounds to me like they have the right to inspect you daily for all I care. Don't get me wrong I am an avid gun owner and beleive any law abiding citizen should be able to own a gun, but I also beleive guns should not be in the hands of criminals. The laws are in place for a reason if you do not like them get the laws changed.
Spoken like a true suck-up to the state, anon. So if they pass a law ordering guns to be confiscated, you'll turn them in and work to change the law? Boy, that 2nd Amendment is really working as intended for you.
If you can't find what the charges are on this blog, you haven't looked very hard and are obviously new here. I've written about them extensively in the past, linked to numerous other posts and news articles, and everyone besides you is apparently up to speed on this. I don't have time to play catch-up with someone who posts before he thinks. If I were you, I'd do a little research and find what I was looking for before complaining the information isn't there.
The War On Drugs is the prototype.
Anything that is legal against drugs will be legal against guns.
http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2007/07/post_403.html
and
http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2007/07/the_home_gun_sm.html
Let me see if I can make nice hyper links:
The Home Gunsmith
Crime and Punishment
> Wild deuce: the "U" stands for "You"
David, I still think their official name change to "BATFE" was appropriate.
Mark Odell
Post a Comment