Reply #158: Back to the beginning.

[one-eyed fat man]

This came to his employers attention when when the Wi-Fi hacking neighbor sent the messages through Mr. Kostolnik’s genuine e-mail account. He e-mailed child porn to one of Kostolnik’s coworkers and sent sexually explicit e-mail to women in his office. Up to this point the authorities were not yet involved.

After the husband explained to his law office superiors that he had no idea what was happening, his bosses hired a law firm that examined his network and discovered that an “unknown” device had access to it. With Kostolnik’s permission, they installed a packet sniffer on his network to try and get to the bottom of the incidents.

The victim, you will note, was an attorney, presumably of good repute and social standing. It would not be far-fetched that his bosses called him in with a view to terminating his services were his explanations not compelling. It was their investigative efforts that unraveled the frame. Would they have expended the resources if instead it had been the janitor who was being accused?

The death threats to the Vice-President and the Secret Service came later.

"Your view of police and prosecutors as stupid and vicious notwithstanding."

They don't have to go that far, venal and lazy is not even needed. All they need is the expediency of "enough" evidence to "probably" convince a jury and clear a case.

Eons ago, one my classmates in high school showed up with the back end of his car bashed up. Asked as to the cause, he recounted with great mirth his exploits of the weekend. Seems he, a friend and a couple of girls had been riding around town when they came upon a drunk driver. Short version, they got in front of him at a light, when the light changed he deliberately backed into the front of the drunk's car. Cop comes, drunk complains the kids backed into him. Cop sees the man is decidedly drunk, does not believe him and hauls him off to jail.

The cop was not stupid or vicious, the victim was unsympathetic and the cop felt he was not credible. Would it had made a difference if the guy had not been drunk? Quite likely. As it was the cop decided he had all the evidence he needed for the crimes he though had been committed, why bother to look for more?

"I'm not sure how you're saying that the legislation that was actually under discussion..."

What legislation? What was under discussion is the Mikey blames the woman who owned the gun shop for being duped by someone who took advantage of the trust from a 26 year relationship, inside knowledge of audits and controls, and used that to embezzle over a period of years a massive amount of money and inventory.

Persons prohibited from buying firearms under Federal law are likewise prohibited from possessing them, and have been for over 50 years. As the malefactor in this case was a part-time employee and at least for part of the 26 year time period a full-time Law Enforcement Officer what elements of the offense escape him that he should wish to assign more blame to the victim than the thief?

He gave us his answer, "my idea only applies to guns."