The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Props To Prof. William Jacobson And Judicial Watch

Posted on | January 24, 2015 | 20 Comments

by Smitty

Legal Insurrection does the Founder’s Work:

The short version is that the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department warned NBC News that it could not possess an actual high-capacity magazine, but NBC News went ahead and did it anyway. The MPD recommended a warrant for Gregory’s arrest, but that request was nixed by the D.C. Attorney General Irvin Nathan because — my paraphrase — Gregory was just too nice a guy and had no other criminal intent.

That attitude stood in stark contrast to the D.C. Attorney General’s vigorous prosecution of other lesser-known people who also were nice people and had no other criminal intent, but violated D.C.’s gun laws.

We served a Freedom of Information Act request but D.C. held back numerous documents. So we filed suit.

We were assisted by attorneys Jim Peterson and Ramona Cotca of Judicial Watch, who did a great job. Everybody give them a round of applause.

This is another tiny step along the way toward recovering from a system awash in too many laws, “unexpectedly” unwilling to enforce them, and thus veering toward tyranny.

via Hot Air


20 Responses to “Props To Prof. William Jacobson And Judicial Watch”

  1. Evi L. Bloggerlady
    January 24th, 2015 @ 8:53 pm

    Some people are above the law…

  2. Jim R
    January 24th, 2015 @ 9:46 pm

    This is part of the reason that there is mistrust of the police and the justice system in general: it’s blindingly obvious that there are two laws in our country: one for “us”, another for “them”.

    Gregory had a hi-cap mag… and is not only walking free, but apparently never even saw a cop despite breaking the law
    live on national television. Eric Garner sold loosies… and is dead. Two men. Two stupid, pointless and petty laws. Two very different outcomes.

  3. M. Thompson
    January 24th, 2015 @ 10:09 pm

    The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it vigorously.

  4. Adobe_Walls
    January 24th, 2015 @ 10:12 pm

    I’m pretty sure that doesn’t work for 1st amendment abridgment laws, at least not in places like DC.

  5. WarEagle82
    January 24th, 2015 @ 10:13 pm

    Laws are for “little people.”

  6. Zohydro
    January 24th, 2015 @ 10:16 pm

    I’ve read that the New York State Police and county sheriff departments in New York are deliberately not enforcing my state’s “SAFE Act” as a matter of principle… I had until now thought this was a GOOD thing!

  7. DeadMessenger
    January 24th, 2015 @ 10:19 pm

    But of course, it’s situational. If the claim involves to a “right” to publish depraved pornography or to submerge crucifixes in jars of urine, then the 1st amendment must be preserved at all costs. But if we’re talking about chaplains praying to Jesus, or Christian bakers refusing to bake wedding cakes for homosexuals, then not so much.

  8. DeadMessenger
    January 24th, 2015 @ 10:32 pm

    Really, they’re for “big people” to use to bludgeon and tyrannize “little people” with. This can be seen clearly if you go ask a criminal lawyer (I’m using that term precisely) how much it costs to defend yourself from various criminal charges.

    Let’s just say that you’d best have a high-value home that’s paid off, so you can mortgage it to the hilt and give all the money to the lawyer. Then, if you still lose, your house will be gone and your family will be out on their a$$es. If you don’t want to risk that, or if you don’t have enough home equity, you’re going to jail, whether you’re guilty or not. Sure, a lot of the accused are actually guilty, but a healthy percentage are not.

    But if you have fame and/or fortune, you can get off, guilty or not.

    Now excuse me, while I get some OJ.

  9. Adobe_Walls
    January 24th, 2015 @ 11:56 pm

    Whether they do this out of principle or not remains to be seen.They don’t have the resources to go after violators whole hog anyway. The test comes when they execute a search warrant not related to that violation. For instance if your son who’s living in the basement is suspected of selling pot, they execute a search and find prohibited weapons or magazines upstairs. The principled thing to do would be to ignore them and keep them out of the report.

    As long as that law is on the books it WILL be enforced selectively and capriciously.

  10. Adjoran
    January 25th, 2015 @ 4:30 am

    I’m glad Jacobsen pursued it and glad he won, but winning a two year fight to get a document clearly covered by FOIA is not encouraging. Government at all levels are doing the same thing. Federal departments ignore requests and claim exemptions which don’t exist. Local and state governments like to demand exorbitant fees for research and copying to discourage requests.

    And when the bureaucrats lose, their only penalty is having to comply with the law they could have obeyed in the first place. Until there is a real cost for violating these laws, it won’t change.

  11. Dana
    January 25th, 2015 @ 11:52 am

    Well, you have to remember: we need to have Our Betters able to do what they wish to show us the error of our ways.

  12. WarEagle82
    January 25th, 2015 @ 12:10 pm

    I think that is what I said, basically, but I did it in 5 words….

  13. kilo6
    January 25th, 2015 @ 12:16 pm

    Now excuse me, while I get some OJ.

    Uh oh

  14. Adobe_Walls
    January 25th, 2015 @ 1:56 pm

    Federal departments do the same thing to their respective Inspectors General. They cite privacy rules or other invalid reasons which specifically by statute do not apply to the IGs. The EPA has it’s own Homeland Security dept, it’s sole purpose is to thwart the investigations by it’s IG. The funny part is the various departmental SWAT team are part of the Inspectors Generals offices.

  15. RKae
    January 25th, 2015 @ 4:53 pm

    Why doesn’t America just go ahead and codify it into law that celebrities are special people? They can rape, use drugs, carry guns, shoplift, etc., and it’s A-OK.

    Let’s just put it in the Constitution and get it over with.

  16. Daniel Freeman
    January 25th, 2015 @ 5:57 pm

    Strong with the sarcasm, this one is.

  17. Daniel Freeman
    January 25th, 2015 @ 6:05 pm

    I think that she is doing what I like to call “aggressive agreement.”

  18. Daniel Freeman
    January 25th, 2015 @ 6:21 pm

    No! Shoplifting is wrong!!

    … What?

  19. Daniel Freeman
    January 25th, 2015 @ 7:06 pm

    You are becoming increasingly eloquent, and I applaud you.

  20. #Michelle_Obama_Immodest??? | Regular Right Guy
    January 28th, 2015 @ 2:00 pm

    […] Props To Prof. William Jacobson And Judicial Watch […]