Obstruction: Court of Public Opinion

This is a discussion on Obstruction: Court of Public Opinion within the Off Topic & Humor Discussion forums, part of the The Back Porch category; I have a personal, non firearm, non political, issue that I would like an opinion on by regular everyday people such as myself. Your responses ...

Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Obstruction: Court of Public Opinion

  1. #1
    Senior Member Array mrreynolds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    615

    Question Obstruction: Court of Public Opinion

    I have a personal, non firearm, non political, issue that I would like an opinion on by regular everyday people such as myself. Your responses are all personal opinion & not to be considered legal advice.

    I am involved within a controversy involving a complaint which I filed with the U.S. Department of Justice against a major federal law enforcement agency in reference to false statements they made to Congress in regards to the existence of an internal affairs investigation they were supposed to conduct on my behalf. As well as the arbitrary & capricious statements which I received in response from the U.S. Department of Justice which under current federal statute of law would be considered obstruction of justice. This matter is not currently being litigated within a court of law.

    In my pursuit of justice I reached out to the individuals in government who represented my state on the federal level at the time. As you will see their pictures on my site but their personal views on firearms are not relevant to my topic.

    I feel that the people have a right to know & as such I have created a website explaining what has occurred along with the supporting documents which can all be downloaded as a pdf file. I'm also currently in the process of discussing the issue with the Investigative Team lead of The Washington Times.

    My question to you is in your opinion do "you" believe that false statements in violation of federal law were committed by either of the two senior Chief's who contradicted themselves in writing several times. Then refused to acknowledge my written request as to why I was given one response & Congress an equal but opposite response. Including their failure to respond to my written request to confirm which response was legally valid & which was in violation of federal law. My site contains a great deal of information but I would appreciate your honest thoughts on this matter. Thank you.

    Please review: DaProcess.com
    Last edited by mrreynolds; April 20th, 2009 at 01:42 PM.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    Distinguished Member Array morintp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Vermont
    Posts
    1,233
    I have to ask. What proof do you have that they were spying on you?
    64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.

  4. #3
    DC Founder
    Array Bumper's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    20,045
    What, specifically, are the details that you are accusing them of. We can see the documents back and forth about it, but you haven't published your letters to them documenting the accusations. With the limited information you have given us, unfortunately, I think you may be chasing your tail....
    Bumper
    Coimhéad fearg fhear na foighde; Beware the anger of a patient man.

  5. #4
    Senior Member Array mrreynolds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    615
    "The USMS Congressional affairs division stated in "writing" that no such investigation was required "prior" to the internal affairs division making a decision. Then "contradicted" the internal affairs division by denying the existence of the investigation "after" internal affairs made a decision to investigate".

    They contradicted themselves I "asked" them why? Either there is an investigation or there is not. No one stated that it was but it was "concluded" they both made specific statements of "Yes & No".

    Internal affairs stated that I was not entitled to know "anything" about the investigation or it's conclusion. Congressional Affairs stated I was given "full disclosure" how is it possible that they did both? Obviously they know that I know what occurred did they expect me to ignore that? Three individuals including myself, three different stories either way one party has lied & it's not me I "want" to go to court.

    I explained it in intricate detail I don't believe all of that information is limited at all.

  6. #5
    Senior Member Array mrreynolds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    615
    Quote Originally Posted by morintp View Post
    I have to ask. What proof do you have that they were spying on you?
    I'll put it this way "they are" my proof why are they saying two distinctly different things yet both conclusions remove me from the equation? Why do I have a letter from the USDOJ stating that illegal electronic surveillance conducted by a federal law enforcement agency of private citizens is not a prosecutable civil rights violation when federal law states it is?

    I call it the Al Capone theory if I couldn't take them on the surveillance alone they just made themselves look guilty as hell with a paper trail that can be used by the prosecution against them.

    If they are in the clear there should be "no discrepancies" on their part but there are many, was that an accident, are they just incompetent they had a new hire who was confused?

  7. #6
    DC Founder
    Array Bumper's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    20,045
    So you really have no evidence that you were the subject of a surveillance. I expect that what you are experiencing are "standard" letters (form letters) that someone keeps filed to respond to all of the mail they get. You have to have hard evidence that you were under surveillance to really have a leg to stand on. And, I'm not sure that they have to disclose anything to you if you are not personally affected in any way....
    Bumper
    Coimhéad fearg fhear na foighde; Beware the anger of a patient man.

  8. #7
    Distinguished Member Array morintp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Vermont
    Posts
    1,233
    I'd have to agree with Bumper here. If the only evidence you have is two somewhat contradictory letters that may be form letters, I can see why they are responding the way they are.

    What did you have for evidence before you had these 2 letters? What was the reason for contacting them in the first place?
    64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.

  9. #8
    Senior Member Array mrreynolds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    615
    Quote Originally Posted by Bumper View Post
    So you really have no evidence that you were the subject of a surveillance. I expect that what you are experiencing are "standard" letters (form letters) that someone keeps filed to respond to all of the mail they get. You have to have hard evidence that you were under surveillance to really have a leg to stand on. And, I'm not sure that they have to disclose anything to you if you are not personally affected in any way....
    The issue I present here is a separate complaint from the surveillance as it refers to the investigation of the complaint. If the FBI questions you about something they "suspect" you did they might not have grounds to arrest you but if you "lie" during the questioning you just made yourself a potential suspect. Anyone in law enforcement has enough sense to know you don't comment on an ongoing internal affairs investigation so where did the Congressional affairs guy get his info from if he's saying the opposite of internal affairs? Even if they find no trace of wrong doing the rules about investigations still apply yet Congressional affairs had a story for Congress "before" internal affairs even made a decision how the hell is that possible when the first department I contacted was internal affairs I never sent Congressional Affairs anything?

    The same rule of law applies to everyone they don't get free reign to say anything because they work for the government. The question is now if they are innocent why are they violating the law in reference to the investigation. My site has issue after issue of crimes their agency was involved in & the BS they do around it. Obviously if I have a potential law suit their agency is not going to be complicit in helping me. I have hard evidence that they "lied" with signatures affixed that's my in let the federal grand jury ask them the hard questions. Remember Al Capone they got him for what was done as a result of his criminal behavior. Same applies here.

    It amazes me that if I'm accused of a crime those guys (federal law enforcement) are at my door in full tactical if required. If they are accused of a crime the government writes them a letter when they respond saying "hey we didn't do anything" it's a done deal. You have got to be kidding me. Those are not form letters as the responses are specific to my inquiry. The letter from Nancy Pelosi "is" a form letter.

    I have proof that they "lied" about an internal affairs investigation but once again no one talks about what I have proof of. You don't lie unless you have something to hide. How can anyone get indicted if the outcome of their investigation is a secret are you serious they control all the pieces when they are the accused? That's a "conflict of interest". The former head of the USDOJ & his top people are caught lying at a Senate subcommittee investigation & people still respond like hey that doesn't count these people do no wrong. What does it take? I do appreciate all input for the record keeps me sharp.

    Separate issue but used as a reference point just like they do in court past crimes can be used against you to determine character & ethics the statement below is a fact which occurred that reinforced my point of what they don't do:

    "The marshals' dubious conduct is further indicated by the Marshals Service's refusal to do routine internal investigations after the fatal shootings. The Senate subcommittee noted:

    "We were disappointed to learn that, based on his desire to avoid creating discoverable documents that might be used by the defense in the Weaver/Harris trial . . . former [Marshals Service] Director Henry Hudson decided to conduct no formal internal review of USMS activities connected with the Weaver case and the Ruby Ridge incident."

    James Bovad


    LINK

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. San Diego Court Rules Against Concealed Carry - NRA to Appeal to 9th Circuit Court
    By LanceORYGUN in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: January 6th, 2011, 11:44 PM
  2. Otis kit obstruction removal tool
    By Paladin132 in forum Firearm Cleaning & Maintenance
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: January 29th, 2009, 01:04 PM
  3. Oregon appeals court ruling: Your car is a "public" place.
    By ccw9mm in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: December 17th, 2008, 08:25 PM
  4. US Supreme Court Over Rules Bush and The World Court (Merged)
    By Sig 210 in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: March 28th, 2008, 08:56 PM