Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: DHS confiscate Wash. Times reporter’s files during raid warranted for hubby's guns

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,157

    DHS confiscate Wash. Times reporter’s files during raid warranted for hubby's guns

    "A veteran Washington D.C. investigative journalist says the Department of Homeland Security confiscated a stack of her confidential files during a raid of her home in August — leading her to fear that a number of her sources inside the federal government have now been exposed. In an interview with The Daily Caller, journalist Audrey Hudson revealed that the Department of Homeland Security and Maryland State Police were involved in a predawn raid of her Shady Side, Md. home on Aug. 6. Hudson is a former Washington Times reporter and current freelance reporter.

    A search warrant obtained by TheDC indicates that the August raid allowed law enforcement to search for firearms inside her home. The document notes that her husband, Paul Flanagan, was found guilty in 1986 to resisting arrest in Prince George’s County. The warrant called for police to search the residence they share and seize all weapons and ammunition because he is prohibited under the law from possessing firearms."

    http://dailycaller.com/2013/10/25/ex...s-during-raid/

    http://www.theatlanticwire.com/polit...me-guns/70941/

    G00gle Real Time coverage link URL
    https://news.google.com/news/rtc?ncl...501488bec6529d
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    If the search warrant indeed said to search for and seize "all weapons and ammunition" then there certainly sounds like there's something hinkey going on if they seized pieces of paper.

    Of course, any competent lawyer will get these returned and they'll never be introduced in court, but I suspect the purpose in the seizure wasn't to produce in court but to see what they said and who said it.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Fallschirmjäger View Post
    If the search warrant indeed said to search for and seize "all weapons and ammunition" then there certainly sounds like there's something hinkey going on if they seized pieces of paper.

    Of course, any competent lawyer will get these returned and they'll never be introduced in court, but I suspect the purpose in the seizure wasn't to produce in court but to see what they said and who said it.
    Agreed ... sounds more like they were looking for papers.

  4. #4
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Transparency is a bad word. This incident clearly displays for all who care to see how the government is used to intimidate those who seek transparency in government.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Bothell
    Posts
    586
    What month is it? When did this occur? Right.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,157

    UPDATE Armed agents seize records of reporter, Washington Times prepares legal action

    "The warrant, obtained by the Times, offered no specific permission to seize reporting notes or files. The Washington Times said Friday it is preparing legal action to fight what it called an unwarranted intrusion on the First Amendment.

    “While we appreciate law enforcement’s right to investigate legitimate concerns, there is no reason for agents to use an unrelated gun case to seize the First Amendment protected materials of a reporter,” Times Editor John Solomon said. “This violates the very premise of a free press, and it raises additional concerns when one of the seizing agencies was a frequent target of the reporter’s work."

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ashington-tim/
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,510
    I was curious about resisting arrest making one a prohibited person. I checked the MD statutes (§9–408), and found that sure enough, it's a misdemeanor...but unfortunately the maximum penalty is three years' imprisonment and/or a fine up to $5,000.

    Federal law makes one a prohibited person if convicted of a crime where the maximum penalty is more than one year confinement, or a misdemeanor with a maximum penalty of more than two years' confinement.

    So yup, he's prohibited, even though he works as a Coast Guard ordnance technician.

    Ironically, he works for DHS, and this looks like a fishing expedition by DHS to find the canaries in their own organization.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,157
    Quote Originally Posted by KBCraig View Post
    I was curious about resisting arrest making one a prohibited person. I checked the MD statutes (§9–408), and found that sure enough, it's a misdemeanor...but unfortunately the maximum penalty is three years' imprisonment and/or a fine up to $5,000.

    Federal law makes one a prohibited person if convicted of a crime where the maximum penalty is more than one year confinement, or a misdemeanor with a maximum penalty of more than two years' confinement.

    So yup, he's prohibited, even though he works as a Coast Guard ordnance technician.

    Ironically, he works for DHS, and this looks like a fishing expedition by DHS to find the canaries in their own organization.
    Lowering of the bar of felony continues. If a felon may properly be disbarred his rights under color of law, then we all can be legally disarmed merely by sufficiently lowering the bar of felony - in progress.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  9. #9
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    Lowering of the bar of felony continues. If a felon may properly be disbarred his rights under color of law, then we all can be legally disarmed merely by sufficiently lowering the bar of felony - in progress.
    +1
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

Posting Permissions

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