Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.7
Site Design by Sekimori

« More on Jay Dobyns case | Main | Busy day »

Judgment in Dobyns case

Posted by David Hardy · 28 January 2015 11:29 AM

I realized I'd misread the court's docket: there were two judgments entered, one still sealed, the other redacted and unsealed. So here's the latter one. Pretty excoriating. Read the footnotes, too.

The court finds in Dobyns' favor, says that the BATF defense witnesses (who were all highly involved in Fast and Furious, BTW) lied on the stand, that their conduct toward Dobyns was "reprehensible." They tried to frame him for the arson of his house, knowing that this was false.

In fn. 25, the court notes that an ATF attorney blocked a reopening of the arson investigation, telling people that it would hurt this civil case (i.e., show that Dobyns was innocent of the arson), and that she covered that up from the court.

The final fn. explains why the judge ordered the judgment served on the Attorney General, the Office of Professional Responsibility, and the Office of Inspector General. He directs the clerk to call their attention to fn. 25, and says that he will put off disciplining the attorney until he sees what Justice is going to do to them.

· BATFE

2 Comments | Leave a comment

Dave D. | January 28, 2015 12:22 PM | Reply

....Our rat faced Atty Gen'l is going to skedaddle out of office with a fake beard and purple hair, that's what he's going to do about this. I say arrest him and extradite to Mexico.

McThag | January 30, 2015 9:58 PM | Reply

Maybe I watch too much TV, but isn't lying on the stand a crime?

Leave a comment