FOIL (like FOIA) for WEINER Laptop Info Denied & Closed by NYPD

Here's theepochtimes response to my email.
They are backing off. Interesting note is bolded, more are coming to that conclusion
maybe brainstain will get back to us.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Petr Svab [mailto:petr.svab@epochtimes.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 9, 2018 13:40
To: Stylin19
Subject: Re: Regarding your epochtimes article of May 19, 2018 - Search Warrant for Anthony Weiner's Laptop Unsealed

Dear Mr. xxxxxxxxxxxxx,
Thank you for your inquiry. It made me to reexamine the article. Indeed, the warrant was issued by a federal court.
The Sept. 26 warrant authorized "law enforcement personnel" to review data found on the devices.

The June 14 Inspector General report states the devices were obtained the same day by the FBI NY field office.
The article has been updated with this information and several other details.

It appears there's a number of inconsistencies between what the IG learned from different sources.
If you have any other questions, feel free to contact me.

Thank you!
Best,
Petr Svab

On 8/9/2018 11:56 AM, Stylin19 wrote:
Mr. Svab,

In your article, you indicate:
“New York City Police obtained a search warrant on his laptop, iPad, and iPhone on Sept. 26, 2016, approved by Magistrate Judge Ronald Ellis.”

Judge Ellis is a federal magistrate judge and it’s a Federal warrant issued on 9/26/2016.

If it’s a warrant issued to NYPD, can you explain how you know that, as there is no affidavit attached to the warrant.

Do you have the actual copy of the NYPD warrant where NYPD is specified as the requester ?

If so, can you share it ?

Thanks. Later

xxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx

-- Petr Svab
Reporter
Email: petr.svab@epochtimes.com
Cell: 917-362-2560
Web: www.theepochtimes.com

You’ve inserted your assertion as if facts were known which they were not, thereby rendering your assertion unsupported and out of context. You can’t apply a legal statute until you know the statute applies. In this case, you don’t know if a statute applies because you lack information.

FBI did not know at the time the laptop held classified material.

The JW letter linked above shows FBI had DVDs and were sending to Treasury to review for classified content. That means they did not know what they had.

FBI originally called in because 15-year old girl was in NC whereas Weiner in NY —> interstate jurisdiction. Then FBI found emails, Comey/Strzok become involved, and shortly after NYPD and everyone else are silenced.

The laptop was evidence to at least two investigations by two law enforcement bodies. A joint jurisdiction agreement would include a joint custody arrangement. Federal statutes were satisfied.

No one here knows what went down. The only reason I interject is when we see persons drawing erroneous conclusions based on scant data, then I concoct plausible alternatives. But usually, I base the alternate scenarios on procedure and in so doing come closer to reality by doing so. Most of government including military is 95% procedure, most of the rest is discretionary to higher paygrades on a case-by-case basis. Less than 1% are ‘in extremis’.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.