Posted on 06/11/2009 7:28:24 PM PDT by Gomez
Michael Scott points us to the fact that US Attorneys have requested data on anonymous commenters who commented on an article in the Las Vegas Review-Journal. From the description, it sounds like the feds are fishing for a lot more than they should be allowed to get. The subpoena requested:
"full name, date of birth, physical address, gender, ZIP code, password prompts, security questions, telephone numbers and other identifiers ... the IP address," of everyone who commentedSeem a bit excessive? It's not entirely clear what the feds are fishing for, but one indicator? Some of the comments were quite critical of (you guessed it) a federal prosecutor. As Thomas Mitchell, the editor of the Review-Journal notes:
These comment posters are not reporters; they have no shield law protection, especially since Congress has yet to pass the pending federal shield law. A grand jury can subpoena just about anyone for any reason.We've been seeing a lot of similar stories lately -- with gov't officials getting upset at what's being said about them online, and pushing the (or crossing) the boundaries of the law in order to try to find out who is behind those comments.
But what time, effort and tax-funded expenses are being expended by the U.S. attorney's office to track down a bunch of posturing blowhards squandering their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination?
....
What the prosecutors don't appear to understand is that we don't have most of what they are seeking. We don't require registration. A person could use a fictitious name and e-mail address, and most do. We have no addresses or phone numbers.
To add prior restraint to the chilling effect of the sweeping subpoena, we were warned: "You have no obligation of secrecy concerning this subpoena; however, any such disclosure could obstruct and impede an ongoing criminal investigation. ..."
ping
Route through a dozen proxies and trash the jerk.
Why the hell should that matter?
memo to federal prosecutors: stop being corrupt ass-clowns and I’ll bet the critical comments will stop.
See my tag.
"Reporters" are Constitutionally protected. In the end they may end up spilling their guts, but they have support for a fight. You and I are on our own.
Reporters are corporate representatives. If you don't know what that means, then try to deduct your living (operating) costs from your earnings the next time you file your taxes.
I like your tag and an doing just that. More people than we know are getting ready.
Normal people used to be, too.
Last we heard that individual was a woman.
When Sullivan left (after his friends left the White House) I would suspect that woman got RELOCATED.
Wonder if she's got her a%% in hot water again trying to create some BS legal opinions that turn pencil collections and strings of paperclips into 10 year terms.
No free speech issues could possibly be involved. Throw potential tax evaders in jail. Preventive detention you know. Didn't you read the DHS memo about the dangerous folks. Tax protesters.
The Thought Police will save the day.
Next they will pass a law, or, more likely, nomaba will issue an executive order requiring any commenter to submit full demographic details and a DNA sample.
Darn right it’s coming. Sooner rather than later.
How so? Please elaborate on how a 'reporter' has more constitutional protection than a 'commentator'?
Charging the 2000 presidential election was 'rigged', the DUmmies swore they were not going to allow it to happen again in 2004 (Kerry defeated like Al Gore in 2000). Bold-type emphasis added by myself.-etl
Arming the Left: Is the time now?
Post from: Lori Price CLG (1000+ posts) Sun Feb-22-2004 11:17 PM
Response to Reply #10
16. Yes, spread the word, even if you *didn't* read it, that there *will* be riots! Yes! Riots, and a whole lot more!..."
Democratic Underground blogger ("happyslug": 1000+ posts) responds...
"if it is decided to fight, be prepared to fight, bring a backpack, entrenching tool, tent, and other equipment of an Infantrymen. You will need it for Bush and his supporters decides it is better to fight than to accept the will of the people, the fight to overthrow them will be a long fight."
"...it takes three things to overthrow a tyrant;...
1. Popular support, you must have the majority of the people on your side (i.e. Democracy, even the Communists and Islamics both try to show they have the Support of the Majority of the People),
2. Organization to perform the overthrow (This is why Madison wrote the First like he did, these are HOW you organize an opposition. Without the First it is hard to organize an opposition and any resistence organized in absence of the rights stated in the First tend to be as tyrannical as what you are opposing)
3. Weapons to push the issue if the leadership that is being overthrown tries to use force to stay in power. You have to be willing to answer force with force. Weapons do not overthrow a tyrant, weapons just protect the people who are overthrowing a tyrant."
"Now, you may say "Hay, you are talking about Islamic and/or Communists groups not 'Western Liberal resistence groups'". And you would be correct. As I said in the beginning the first step in a guerilla war against a tyrant is to first organize. The Islamic and Communists Groups were the best at organizing people. "Western Liberal Resistence Groups" were less effective in organizing resistence groups (And less liked by the CIA and KGB who tended to fund these groups, remember any war is expensive, money talks).
Furthermore since most Islamic and Communist groups tend to be the first groups outlawed they tend to go underground first. Once underground they start to organize and as other groups are outlawed those groups tend to join the opposition which tends to be either Islamic or Communistic. Once outlawed these groups also tend to be controlled by the most fanatic opponents of the Tyrants and these tend to be either Islamic or Communistic. Thus to oppose the Tyrants you have to support a side with enough discipline to get the job done and that tend to be Communist or Islamic."
"...Any weapons we resort to must be "real" weapons not pistols. i.e. Rifles and shotguns. Due to concerns of re-supply (you have to plan for a long battle) such weapons should be limited to very small number of different rounds. Generally restrict yourself to the following rounds:
5.56x 45 (.223 Remington) 7.62x 63 (30-06) 7.62x 51 (.308 Winchester or 7.62 NATO) 7.62 x 39 (7.62mm Russian 7.62 AK Round) 12 Gauge Shotgun. 30-30 Winchester."
"You have more weapons in the above calibers than any other calibers thus should be your first choice in weapons. Saying this I must point out I like the 7x57 and 7.92x57 Mauser rounds and the M1898 Mauser Bolt action Rifle, but the 7.92 (sometime called 8mm Mauser) but these rounds are less common than the above and thus harder to obtain when re-supply is needed (and re-supply will be needed if the struggle lasts for any length of time).
Re-supply of Ammunition has always been the bane of any military operations. Without ammunition you can not fight. To get you ammunition, it is easier if we can keep the number of different rounds to a minimum (i.e. 5.56x45 and 7.62x51). I list the 30-06 and 30-30 winchester rounds for these are two VERY popular rounds and ammunition for both are easy to obtain (the same with the 12 Gauge shotgun). I list the 7.62 AK round do to the huge number of SKSs and AKs imported since the fall of the Soviet Union. I list it for while there are probably more 30-30s and 30-06 rifles out they than 7.62 Aks and SKSs, the Aks and SKSs may very while outnumber the rifles in 5.56x45 and 7.62 NATO.
Also, if it is decided to fight, be prepared to fight, bring a backpack, entrenching tool, tent, and other equipment of an Infantrymen. You will need it for Bush and his supporters decides it is better to fight than to accept the will of the people, the fight to overthrow them will be a long fight."
[end of excerpts...but many other just as crazy thoughts found at the following link. This thread continued for THREE entire weeks before the moderator finally stepped in. But as of today, Thursday, June 11, 2009, the thread is still up on the Democratic Underground website.-ETL]
Democratic Underground Discussion Board
Topic: "Arming the Left: Is the time now?":
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x41313
"Lori Price CLG (1000+ posts) Sun Feb-22-04 11:17 PM Response to Reply #10
16. Yes, spread the word, even if you *didn't* read it, that there *will* be riots! Yes! Riots, and a whole lot more!..."
_________________________________________________________
CLG Founder and Chair is Michael Rectenwald, Ph.D.
CLG General Manager is Lori Price.
News Updates from Citizens for Legitimate Government (CLG)
http://www.legitgov.org/
Ready for Revolution? Join CLG's Revolution Tactics Group and Get Ready to Overthrow the Establishment.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CLG_Revolution_Tactics/
They will lose at trial and they are scared, I read the article when it was posted here and I agree with the defendant’s. I care not what your silly law says about Legal Tender, My CONSTITUTION is Supreme over your silly law.
Jury Nullification is the answer to most of our problems, especially with regards to the IRS
“Why the hell should that matter? “
Because for a long time now “journalists” and reporters have claimed special privileges that others don’t get, based on the first amendment. Reporters can reveal classified information, making public information that if you did so, you’d be charged with espionage.
Reporters can get access to closed areas with a “PRESS” badge.
Reporters can know details of a crime, like who did it, and can interview the alleged perpetrator. They don’t have to reveal their sources because of a “right to know” not enumerated. But if you had the same knowledge, you’d be an accessory after the fact and subject to arrest.
The Constitution grants certain powers and privileges to certain people, but sets limits and requirements (must be a certain age, must be elected, must be natural born, and so on) but fails to mention any qualification for members of the press, which makes the “journalist’s” claim for special treatment suspect. Yet the Supremes have found emanations from penumbras with reference to foreign law that supports these claims.
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.