Article: Prosecutor Who Let David Gregory Go Is Destroying the Life of a DC Businessm

[Admin]

You can view the page at http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/content/397-Prosecutor-Who-Let-David-Gregory-Go-Is-Destroying-the-Life-of-a-DC-Businessman-Over-an-Empty-Shotgun-Shell

 

[mke0039]

As if I needed anymore confirmation of the stupidity of talking heads.

 

[Horrible]

The Progressive's strategy to control the populace and enjoy unlimited power (and $):

1) Make as many invasive laws as possible, such the everyone is a criminal.
2) Only enforce the laws against your political enemies, while sparing those that support you.
3) Scare the populace into compliance and make them fear the state

This isn't very complicated. Control leads to power. Power leads to $$.

 

[Tackdriver VillenTactical]

I am not arguing whether the law is stupid, it is. But why were the police at the guy's house to begin with? It sounds like this guy was up to something, the police searched and found this shotgun shell instead of what they were looking for. To me, there are pieces of this puzzle missing.

Dave

 

[beaker]

Sounds like thought crimes.

Gest told her, "Mr. Nathan and our prosecutors believe this is in the interest of public safety" while attempting to smear Witaschek with an allegation of domestic violence that has never been investigated or proven by police. “Accusations that are unproven in court factor into prosecution decisions," Gest told her.

 

[Smokewagon]

Disgusting.

 

[Volkl78]

Liberal media elites get a pass because their pro gun control but if you actually own a gun well.........

 

[browncoat]

When I was at a range a couple weeks ago, one of the guys warned me to check my boots for shell casings. Since my LTC hasn't come in yet, I could get in trouble for accidentally possessing shell casings (like a 22lr shell) that got stuck in my boot and fell out later. Of course, it is a long shot that that would happen, but still, MA law is not so much better.

 

[s4mt3k]

I am not arguing whether the law is stupid, it is. But why were the police at the guy's house to begin with? It sounds like this guy was up to something, the police searched and found this shotgun shell instead of what they were looking for. To me, there are pieces of this puzzle missing.

Dave

The way this shit is; someone could've reported a facebook picture of the guy at a range with friends;

omgawd hes dangerouth pls help mr policeman

life ruined.

this shit pisses me off.

 

[goodlife30]

The Progressive's strategy to control the populace and enjoy unlimited power (and $):

1) Make as many invasive laws as possible, such the everyone is a criminal.
2) Only enforce the laws against your political enemies, while sparing those that support you.
3) Scare the populace into compliance and make them fear the state

This isn't very complicated. Control leads to power. Power leads to $$.

Right out of Hitlers play book

 

[Lucus]

Sounds like the guy's being framed..Nice high profile opportunity for the NRA or a good constitutional lawyer to get involved to assist in his 2nd amendment rights..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJ3dk6KAvQM

 

[RImike]

Would would make these articles worth while would be phone numbers of people to contact. It should be the first and last line in every article so people can inundate those seeking to deprive us of our god given rights.

 

[DarrenL]

Some are more equal than others

 

[exo]

The lesser charge carries a penalty of six months in jail, which means Mr. Witaschek was not eligible for the jury trial he wanted.

So it's OK to put you in jail for 6 months without a trial by a jury of your peers? WTF, over?

 

[Matt E]

So it's OK to put you in jail for 6 months without a trial by a jury of your peers? WTF, over?

Uhhhh how the hell does that work? WTF

 

[Aaron[MA]]

I am not arguing whether the law is stupid, it is. But why were the police at the guy's house to begin with? It sounds like this guy was up to something, the police searched and found this shotgun shell instead of what they were looking for. To me, there are pieces of this puzzle missing.

Dave

Police based their search on a charge made by Mr. Witaschek’s estranged wife, who had earlier convinced a court clerk to issue a temporary restraining order against her husband for threatening her with a gun, although a judge later found the charge to be without merit.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...n-faces-two-years-jail-unregis/#ixzz2uYcsd9T8
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter


So just another Ex, f*cking up some guys life!

 

[Bonesinium]

So it's OK to put you in jail for 6 months without a trial by a jury of your peers? WTF, over?

Uhhhh how the hell does that work? WTF

It works based on SCOTUS rulings that are blatantly inconsistant with the 6th Amendment. The 6th Amendment says "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed,"

Yet SCOTUS has multiple times ruled that 'petty' crimes do not apply, and that if the punishment is 6 months or less, that it is petty.

Do any of you see where the word 'petty' or the the punishment of '6 months' appear in the 6A? No, of course not. They don't exist.

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/399/66/case.html

But there you have it. The US Supreme Court ruling at least 3 times on the issue.

Now if you think about it, to make matters worse in this case (well, all really), you have the AG saying that this is a matter of public safety. However you also have them admitting that this is a petty crime. Are petty crimes really a matter of public safety?

No, of course not. It is total bullshit, and they know it. That is because our judicial system is corrupt to the core. No doubt.

I'd love to hear a sensible argument on how a petty crime isn't a crime, how a petty crime is a matter of public safety, and how caging someone for 6 months isn't a big deal.

It's a big ****ing joke.

 

[Helix]

What a joke this country has become.

 

[slap shot]

Where the hell is the NRA on these issues? Only time i hear from them is when they want my CC number...

 

[Matt E]

It works based on SCOTUS rulings that are blatantly inconsistant with the 6th Amendment. The 6th Amendment says "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed,"

Yet SCOTUS has multiple times ruled that 'petty' crimes do not apply, and that if the punishment is 6 months or less, that it is petty.

Do any of you see where the word 'petty' or the the punishment of '6 months' appear in the 6A? No, of course not. They don't exist.

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/399/66/case.html

But there you have it. The US Supreme Court ruling at least 3 times on the issue.

Now if you think about it, to make matters worse in this case (well, all really), you have the AG saying that this is a matter of public safety. However you also have them admitting that this is a petty crime. Are petty crimes really a matter of public safety?

No, of course not. It is total bullshit, and they know it. That is because our judicial system is corrupt to the core. No doubt.

I'd love to hear a sensible argument on how a petty crime isn't a crime, how a petty crime is a matter of public safety, and how caging someone for 6 months isn't a big deal.

It's a big ****ing joke.

Unbelievable

 

[EC1]

I think one thing about the DC and MA laws regarding "ammunition". I wonder how safe the pols would feel if for their police escorts we issued brass cases only or perhaps just the bullets; no primers or powder? After all they are calling live ammo and the separate components the same thing.

 

[jar]

I am not arguing whether the law is stupid, it is. But why were the police at the guy's house to begin with? It sounds like this guy was up to something, the police searched and found this shotgun shell instead of what they were looking for. To me, there are pieces of this puzzle missing.

Dave

So, if he did something else, make the police prove it.

 

[drgrant]

I am not arguing whether the law is stupid, it is. But why were the police at the guy's house to begin with? It sounds like this guy was up to something, the police searched and found this shotgun shell instead of what they were looking for. To me, there are pieces of this puzzle missing.

Dave

DC has arrested people for ammo in their car on traffic stops, etc... so this isn't inconsistent for them. The only part that is inconsistent is that Gregory did not get arrested for waving around an illegal LCAFD on television. If this wasn't DC you could let it slide, but they pretty much rape everyone else when it comes to guns.

-Mike

 

[Mudfish]

I think one thing about the DC and MA laws regarding "ammunition". I wonder how safe the pols would feel if for their police escorts we issued brass cases only or perhaps just the bullets; no primers or powder? After all they are calling live ammo and the separate components the same thing.

Why isn't a pressure cooker considered a bomb?

 

[Mr Weebles]

Guilty.

In a surprising twist at the end of a long trial, a District of Columbia judge found Mark Witaschek guilty of “attempted possession of unlawful ammunition” for antique replica muzzleloader bullets.

 

[DarrenL]

Nevertheless Judge Morin said, “I’m persuaded these are bullets. They look like bullets. They are hollow point. They are not musket balls.”

This is the level of intelligence required to be a judge? What must it be like to be that moronic? is it bliss, like they say?

 

[NEVER SURRENDER]

UNBELIEVABLE!! Can someone please wake me up from this nightmare.

 

[economist]

I wish I believed in hell, karma, or some other force of nature to stick it to people who bring prosecutions like this.

Right before the trial began, Mr. Nathan’s office dropped the charge from possession of unregistered ammunition to attempted possession.

It’s unclear how Mr. Witaschek could attempt to possess something that was in his home, but the facts aren’t the reason for the shift. The lesser charge carries a penalty of six months in jail, which means Mr. Witaschek was not eligible for the jury trial he wanted.

The sixth amendment:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Naturally, the courts turned the above into "unless we say so"... The legal system is a joke.

 

[Bonesinium]

Naturally, the courts turned the above into "unless we say so"... The legal system is a joke.

It's not a joke, just corrupt.

U.S. Supreme Court
Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 (1968)

A right to jury trial is granted to criminal defendants in order to prevent oppression by the Government.

Those who wrote our constitutions knew from history and experience that it was necessary to protect against unfounded criminal charges brought to eliminate enemies and against judges too responsive to the voice of higher authority. The framers of the constitutions strove to create an independent judiciary, but insisted upon further protection against arbitrary action. Providing an accused with the right to be tried by a jury of his peers gave him an inestimable safeguard against the corrupt or overzealous prosecutor and against the compliant, biased, or eccentric judge.

Yet from the same ruling (and the same sentiment was held in others)...

Thus, we hold no constitutional doubts about the practices, common in both federal and state courts, of accepting waivers of jury trial and prosecuting petty crimes without extending a right to jury trial.

Yep, despite the 6th Amendment saying "in ALL criminal prosecutions" the SCOTUS has repeatedly ruled somehow that it only applies to serious crimes and not petty crimes. And then have defined what serious and petty mean. Of course neither are in the 6th and this is nothing more than legislating from the bench.

I mean, what is stopping them from saying you have no right to council for petty crimes, or you have no right to NOT testify against yourself?

But this is what I have come to expect from the oligarchy that is the SCOTUS.