Maura Healey refuses to disclose

[EJFudd]

The irony is that she fought for gay/lesbian civil rights to marry, but doesn't support our civil rights under the 2nd amendment, so again, she's just representing herself as another one in a long line of despots. Civil rights for me, but not civil rights for thee, is her self-imposed decree.

Her causes are all about her... and little or nothing to do with the citizens of Massachusetts. She is a lesbian so she "fights" full-time for LGBT rights. Unfortunately, she says that she fears guns after Orlando where a Muslim terrorist took out many of her LGBT brothers and sisters... so we, the good and licensed gun-owning citizens of Massachusetts, must suffer for the terrorist and her fears.

 

[sig shooter]

Its kind of sickening that apparently all she cares about is the lives of fellow gays. How about the number of people that die every day in chiraq?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Another_David]

.

 

[Alex0311]

GASP Maura Healey refuses to disclose her reasoning for her rule by executive fiat?

Wicked Shockah, Guy.

 

[rcicone]

Why can't one of our Legislators ask AND recieve all of this withheld info? I know there has been no posted replies from the original requests...it's all BS

 

[Whutmeworry]

I'm just throwing this out.
If she had come out and said that schools could be separated, black and white?
Abortion in the state will not be allowed. Federal law will no longer be imposed in the state.
What could be the recourse of the citizenry.

I guess I'm asking, what is the minimum rule over a society, Federal protections, States rights that trample our Federal protections, Federal rights that trample our State protections.
I guess I'm asking who do I allow to have power over me and mine.
Please realize this post comes from not there.

It matters not whether a law is state or federal. It doesn't even really matter whether or not a law is constitutional or unconstitutional. What matters is whether or not a law is just or unjust. Consider this excerpt from Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s Letter from a Birmingham Jail:

"One may well ask, 'How can you advocate breaking some laws andobeying others?' The answer is found in the fact that there are two types of laws: there are just laws, and there are unjust laws. Iwould agree with St. Augustine that 'An unjust law is no law at all.'"

"Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine when a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-madecode that squares with the moral law, or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. Toput it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas, an unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal and natural law. Any law thatuplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust becausesegregation distorts the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated afalse sense of inferiority."...

..."Let us turn to a more concrete example of just and unjust laws. An unjust law is a code that a majority inflicts on a minority thatis not binding on itself. This is difference made legal. On the other hand, a just law is a code that a majority compels a minority tofollow, and that it is willing to follow itself. This is sameness made legal."...

..."We can never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was 'legal' and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did inHungary was 'illegal.' It was 'illegal' to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler's Germany. But I am sure that if I had lived in Germanyduring that time, I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers even though it was illegal. If I lived in a Communistcountry today where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are suppressed, I believe I would openly advocate disobeyingthese anti-religious laws."

This man - Rev. Martin Luther King - was absolutely brilliant. I can guarantee if he were alive today he'd agree with us. Simply substitute "gun control" for "segregation" everywhere above and there you have it!

I know I'm probably raising the hackles of some of you non-religious types but I can think of only one real way to truly define what is truly just and unjust - and that is through God!!!

 

[FreeWillie]

“I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.”
― Robert A. Heinlein

 

[bgoum]

It matters not whether a law is state or federal. It doesn't even really matter whether or not a law is constitutional or unconstitutional. What matters is whether or not a law is just or unjust. Consider this excerpt from Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s Letter from a Birmingham Jail:

"One may well ask, 'How can you advocate breaking some laws andobeying others?' The answer is found in the fact that there are two types of laws: there are just laws, and there are unjust laws. Iwould agree with St. Augustine that 'An unjust law is no law at all.'"

"Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine when a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-madecode that squares with the moral law, or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. Toput it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas, an unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal and natural law. Any law thatuplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust becausesegregation distorts the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated afalse sense of inferiority."...

..."Let us turn to a more concrete example of just and unjust laws. An unjust law is a code that a majority inflicts on a minority thatis not binding on itself. This is difference made legal. On the other hand, a just law is a code that a majority compels a minority tofollow, and that it is willing to follow itself. This is sameness made legal."...

..."We can never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was 'legal' and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did inHungary was 'illegal.' It was 'illegal' to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler's Germany. But I am sure that if I had lived in Germanyduring that time, I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers even though it was illegal. If I lived in a Communistcountry today where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are suppressed, I believe I would openly advocate disobeyingthese anti-religious laws."

This man - Rev. Martin Luther King - was absolutely brilliant. I can guarantee if he were alive today he'd agree with us. Simply substitute "gun control" for "segregation" everywhere above and there you have it!

I know I'm probably raising the hackles of some of you non-religious types but I can think of only one real way to truly define what is truly just and unjust - and that is through God!!!

+1

 

[swampy]

File a class action civil rights suit against her and start a public demand for her to resign.

Get a few noteworthy politicians on board and it may catch some air.

 

[dhuze]

i'm shocked, SHOCKED to hear that she is acting like an *******.

I see too many red asterisks.

 

[Igotid]

What if we get EVERYONE on here to to request the same information? Send 1500-2000 letters asking for the same information using the freedom of info act? Let her know we are watching and bog the hell out of her office?

 

[Bill Katt]

C'mon everyone......give her a break...she'll disclose everything that's been requested......just as soon as all the ink is dry on the fabricated documents.

 

[slipknot]

You might recall the Boston Marathon bombing...they're already here and being sponsored/supported by the state.

no kidding, that is my point

 

[n1oty]

What if we get EVERYONE on here to to request the same information? Send 1500-2000 letters asking for the same information using the freedom of info act? Let her know we are watching and bog the hell out of her office?

This.

 

[vicorjh]

What if we get EVERYONE on here to to request the same information? Send 1500-2000 letters asking for the same information using the freedom of info act? Let her know we are watching and bog the hell out of her office?

Don't do it. The result will be the opposite of what you're expecting to achieve. It will shut-down or impede valid requests for the information.

Instead, send letters opposing the AG to the legislators or something.

 

[jefsemperfi]

This.

Hi dad. Long time no see.

 

[n1oty]

Don't do it. The result will be the opposite of what you're expecting to achieve. It will shut-down or impede valid requests for the information.

Instead, send letters opposing the AG to the legislators or something.

You are wrong. Flooding her office with such requests would bog that office down because they must legally respond to such requests. If GOAL, Comm2A, NRA or NSSF actually sue her, our efforts will NOT impede their efforts in discovery, as the courts usually impose time limits for responses by the parties.

- - - Updated - - -

Hi dad. Long time no see.

Hi

 

[Chris]

Why do these crazed leftist Dems love real criminals and make war against the law-abiding? I'll never understand it.

Because a government has no power over the lawful. It is only criminals that it can control. So, one just makes everyone a criminal and the control is complete.

 

[P-14]

Because a government has no power over the lawful. It is only criminals that it can control. So, one just makes everyone a criminal and the control is complete.

And Atlas Shrugged.

 

[swatgig]

What if we get EVERYONE on here to to request the same information? Send 1500-2000 letters asking for the same information using the freedom of info act? Let her know we are watching and bog the hell out of her office?

If you send in 2000 letters requesting the same information, they'll simply mail 2000 copies of the same letter explaining why the information is not being disclosed.

I just checked. There are 175 Assistant Attorney Generals in Massachusetts. It would only take one person out of 175 a few days to properly ignore the requests.

 

[Bfatz]

Dear Serfs, you are on a need to know basis and right now you don't need to know. Trust us we know whats good for you. We circumvent the Bill Of Rights and follow our UN masters orders on your behalf.

Sincerely Maura ( I'm desperately in need of a hair stylist ) Healey

 

[vicorjh]

You are wrong. Flooding her office with such requests would bog that office down because they must legally respond to such requests. If GOAL, Comm2A, NRA or NSSF actually sue her, our efforts will NOT impede their efforts in discovery, as the courts usually impose time limits for responses by the parties.

- - - Updated - - -

1) Sue = long time frame. I'm currently party to something that involves discovery but at the federal level. Same thing but FOIA requests. Eight years+ we are still trying to get the agencies to fully comply with their own laws. They did the same thing as Healey is doing, sent press releases and other garbage that was already publicly available. They claimed everything else was executive privilege or deliberative process. When they stonewall, it's the long game.

2) Other requests (e.g. media, activism, etc), placed into the same big pile of ignore if they are stonewalling (form letters). And, consider how they might use the flood of frivolous requests to their advantage.

I'd think there are probably better ways to utilize your energy (e.g. let the professionals dig into the discovery stuff). But, I'd be pleased to see if this works out, let us know how it goes.


By the way, I feel that the level stonewalling encountered is proportional to the level of corruption within an agency. They are working an agenda that's antithetical to an open and democratic process.

 

[M125X]

ExxonMobil has filed a counter suit against Maura Healey:
http://newbostonpost.com/2016/08/29...s-indefensible-partisan-and-unconstitutional/

 

[jefsemperfi]

ExxonMobil in its filing disputed Healey’s interpretation.“What the scientist actually said was, if ‘a number of assumptions’ were valid, there could be a three-degree rise in global temperatures ‘by 2090,’” ExxonMobil’s attorneys pointed out.
“ExxonMobil does not object to the Attorney General’s authority to hold press conferences; it objects to, and is aggrieved by, the improper and unconstitutional bias she exhibited during the extraordinary press conference announcing this investigation,” the filing states.

Sound familiar??

 

[Glockster30]

This woman is sick and is wasting our tax dollars! She needs to go!

Specifically, Healey’s office subpoenaed ExxonMobil, demanding 40 years’ worth of documents she believes will prove that the company “knew about the risks of climate change decades ago and fraudulently concealed that knowledge from the public.”

 

[calsdad]

There's a significant uptick the past two years in ME immigration both legal and illegal tourist/student visa overstays in MA. Parts of Boston and Cambridge are now filled with armies of burkha clad women brooding a half dozen children. Gangs of shiftless men standing or wandering around all day. They have family money to come here, but since they use cash and not a domestic bank account, rent paid overseas, they are poor on paper and eligibility for state benefits.Absolutely no desire to assimilate. The same Islamist supremacist/terror issues France, Belgium, Germany, and UK have with enclaves hostile to the host country are going to occur sooner rather than later.

And we are subsidizing it because welfare fraud, MassHealth fraud, and it isn't illegal to be illegal are tolerated.

You know, the STUFF AN AG SHOULD BE INVESTIGATING. But nope gotta kick the law about gun owners in the teeth cuz politics.

I have to say - if they have to go anywhere in MA - they couldn't have picked a better place than Cambridge - the hotbed of liberal lunacy. Since when the terrorists blow shit up they tend to do it locally - this raises the likelihood that a bunch of crazed progressives will be on the receiving end of the next terrorist attack.

- - - Updated - - -

“I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.”
― Robert A. Heinlein

That quote has been making more and more sense to me lately.

It's exactly why I stated earlier - I obeyed the law once , and got screwed for it. I won't make the same mistake again.

 

[calsdad]

Because a government has no power over the lawful. It is only criminals that it can control. So, one just makes everyone a criminal and the control is complete.

That strategy only works when the newly minted criminals feel "guilty" about breaking the law.

If they discover that they don't really give a shit about obeying made up laws - then suddenly the strategy doesn't really work any more.

 

[Mike S]

GOAL filed a FOIA yesterday requesting all comm's, etc, etc, etc leading up to 7/20 that had anything to do with AWB's, copycats and anything else that might have given her input/info leading up to her enforcement notice being published.

 

[bren42970]

GOAL filed a FOIA yesterday requesting all comm's, etc, etc, etc leading up to 7/20 that had anything to do with AWB's, copycats and anything else that might have given her input/info leading up to her enforcement notice being published.

Awesome!

 

[hminsky]

Healey's response will be "go **** yourself, stupid peasant"