National Review Explains How to Indict ICEBlock OperatorFormal Complaint to Which DoJ Must Respond Could Break Logjam
This has led the National Review to publish a comprehensive study (https://www.google.com/ "The DOJ could be waiting for a third party to file a formal complaint, which John Banzhaf, professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University, plans to do later this week." . . A second reason why such a formal criminal complaint cannot be ignored is that 5 U.S.C. § 555(b) requires federal agencies to "proceed to conclude a matter presented to it" within a reasonable time, and, if the request is denied, the agency must provide "a brief statement of the grounds for denial." Professor Banzhaf maintains that there is overwhelming evidence that those who operate ICEBlock are committing a federal crime, and certainly more than enough to create "probable cause" which is all that is need for an indictment 18 U.S. Code § 111 provides that any person who "impedes, intimidates, or interferes" with any federal official "while engaged in or on account of the performance of official duties" is guilty of a federal felony. Moreover, any person who did anything to encourage, aid, or assist in any material manner in the commission of a crime is equally guilty as an accessory before-the-fact, explains Banzhaf. The very name of the app - ICEBlock - says it all, since blocking a federal official from carrying out any official duty is an extreme form of impeding or interfering. . . it's hard to see why that no indictments have yet to be returned, says Banzhaf, although the National Review did report the following: . . . But many crimes consist of and are committed simply by uttering speech. So although blackmail, extortion, perjury, and many other crimes consist solely of speech, it is obviously not "100 percent protected speech" when it facilitates crime. Indeed, as the National Review reported: . . . Developers have argued that their ICE apps, which warn about enforcement activities, are no different from cases where motorists flash their lights to warn drivers of the location of police using speed-detection radar. But Banzhaf notes that in such situations, the "speech" (flashing lights) is not designed to - and clearly doesn't - encourage anyone to violate the law. If anything, it encourages them to obey speed limit laws, which is why it isn't prosecuted. http://banzhaf.net/ End
|
|
Account Phone Number