DOJ Attempt to Gag Reporters on High-Profile 2A Case Meets Resistance & Retraction

Circular gun shot Bad Karma of Man iStock-leremy 847506336
iStock-leremy

In recent events surrounding the AutoKeyCard prosecution case, Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) Laura Cofer Taylor faced significant backlash for a motion she filed. The motion sought to silence journalists John Crump and Richard Hughes. However, after mounting opposition, it was subsequently withdrawn.

The initial motion had been an alarming request to suppress the voices of journalists reporting on the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida case titled “United States of America v. Ervin and Hoover.” The core of this case revolves around the convictions of Ervin and Hoover, who, in our opinion, have been wrongly found guilty of “violating the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934 for selling machine guns and conspiracy.” Although this case has gained considerable attention due to its controversial nature, the move by AUSA Taylor to censor AmmoLand News journalists brought another layer of contention.

Lawyers representing the journalists, Crump & Hughes, did not stand idly by. They promptly filed an emergency challenge to Taylor’s request. Bolstering their stance, 17 prominent online video journalists came forth to support them via an amicus brief. But, while these events took shape, on August 11, 2023, the court heard the emergency filing from the two journalists. However, in what can be seen as a surprising move, the government withdrew its motion against Crump and Hughes.



Crump noted in a quote to Bearing Arms, “It seemed like the judge might not… [be leaning towards our way], I can’t say for sure. But the government decided that it was in their best interest to go ahead and withdraw the motion.” Furthermore, the withdrawal meant that the emergency appeal and the accompanying amicus brief were rendered moot.

Richard Hughes, aka “Flying Rich,” on the other hand, took issue with the references Taylor made in her filing. “So she improperly cited the law, whether it was by mistake or intentionally trying to mislead the court.” His insinuations question Taylor’s intentions, hinting at either incompetence or a potential attempt at misleading the court.

Both journalists expressed gratitude for the overwhelming support they received during this time.

Yet, this incident raises essential questions about the balance of power, freedom of the press, and the role of the government in potentially stifling these freedoms.

This episode also serves as a reminder that even in seemingly clear-cut legal situations, there can be underlying complexities. While Taylor’s motion may have been retracted, the implications of such a move still resonate. The case, which Hughes referred to as “an entire miscarriage of justice from the get-go,” is not just about Ervin and Hoover but about the larger issues at play – issues of justice, transparency, and freedom of the press.

In the wake of these events, we now wait for the sentencing of Ervin and Hoover, hoping for fairness and justice to prevail. However, this episode serves as a potent reminder of the fragility of press freedoms, even in a Republic with First Amendment rights, including Freedom of the Press, enshrined in the Constitution.

Read Related:


By Fred Riehl and AI tools. Note: Research behind this article was generated using AI technology and may contain some automated content aggregation and analysis.

12 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Logician

But the undercut in facts and logic, is that the ENTIRE legal system is a crime syndicate!! So why should we care what the Actors, Operators, Officers or Agents in it may say or do? Do you really care what the looters at Nordstrom’s say, when they proclaim that they are owed what they steal in their day time robberies? Just expose the criminals wherever you may find them!! Since when, do criminals of any kind have any amount of legitimate power or authority over others? They NEVER have that! How high does someone’s IQ have to be to see… Read more »

DDS

There is precedent for something like this case.

In order to stop piracy of DVD movies, the contents of the DVD are encrypted. A chip on your DVD player has a licensed copy of software that decrypts the movie as you play it. But some determined soul broke the encryption scheme the wrote and released a program called DeCSS

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeCSS

There were numerous lawsuits trying to stop the copying and distribution of DeCSS. Eventually some brave soul produced a T-Shirt with the code on it.

https://www.wired.com/2000/08/court-to-address-decss-t-shirt/

https://www.cnn.com/2000/TECH/computing/09/08/decss.shirt.idg/index.html

Boz

The DOiJ wanted to suppress reporting so that they could say that “machine guns” were being sold and that is all that people would hear, not that a tiny piece of metal was all that was being sold, if even that, or the outline drawing of the pattern for said small piece of metal.

buzzsaw

“In the wake of these events, we now wait for the sentencing of Ervin and Hoover, hoping for fairness and justice to prevail.”

Fairness and justice have already failed. Sentencing? For what? The “law” Ervin and Hoover “broke” is blatantly unconstitutional and should have been struck down decades ago.

DIYinSTL

AUSA Taylor’s attempt to suppress the press, especially independent journalists, is a logical extension of the administrative state censoring social media on ‘the laptop from hell’, covid-19, Biden corruption, etc. I put Taylor, the law-fare against Trump, the stazi-like behavior of the ATF, and the ‘post-Bruen tantrum’ laws in the same ‘basket of deplorables’ inflicting injury upon our liberty.

Knute Knute

“the withdrawal meant that the emergency appeal and the accompanying amicus brief were rendered moot.”
This is probably another reason for the withdrawal, besides trying to hide. Now the government won’t have to attempt to explain their illegal, immoral, and unlawful action(s) to the appellate court, nor face the embarrassment of having people actually read the no doubt scathing brief by Tim Harmson at Military Arms Channel, et al.

Last edited 1 year ago by Knute Knute