GUEST POST: Nuts to Silence

By Jonathan Hutson

Joni Mitchell sang, “Don’t it always seem to go, that you don’t know what you’ve got ’til it’s gone.” When it comes to free speech, I know what I’ve got, but I am concerned that I may soon be silenced. And if I am censored, it ought to give all of us in public life, pause.

It is tempting to think that I’m overreacting. But I have to ask, what if I’m not? An attorney has filed a motion asking a judge in Kalispell to silence me. Of course, just because a lawyer files a motion doesn’t mean he will succeed. But you don’t know what it feels like until someone tries to intimidate you in this way. And I can tell you it doesn’t feel good.

Even if you’re inclined not to take it seriously, you have to take it seriously anyway. And I believe that any Montana Cowgirl reader would probably feel the same way.

Megan Strickland of the Daily Inter Lake just broke the news.

In a nutshell, here’s what happened, and why free speech advocates should pay attention.

Mass shooting threat suspect David Joseph Lenio, 29, threatened to permanently silence the First Amendment rights of school children and Jewish people. Fortunately, he was arrested on February 16 before he could act on his threats. However, his defense attorney, Brent Getty, recently filed a motion asking Judge Heidi Ulbricht to admonish me not to repeat what I stated, here at Montana Cowgirl on November 16 about Lenio going to his storage locker to retrieve a “cache of weapons” after he had issued numerous threats to shoot grade school kids and Jewish leaders.

Police officials told several Montana newspapers that Lenio’s roommate said that on February 15, Lenio went to his storage locker and retrieved rifles, ammunition, and a gun safe. When police executed search warrants on Lenio’s apartment and van, they found a Russian-made, bolt-action rifle that fired NATO .762 rounds, a 9 mm semi-automatic rifle, and a .32 semi-automatic handgun with a round in its chamber, plus ammunition for all three guns. In his van, police discovered the semi-automatic pistol and three fully loaded .32-caliber magazines, along with marijuana, a pipe, and jugs of urine.

But Lenio’s defense lawyer has asked a court to take away my right to state the fact that guns are weapons, and that a collection of stored items, such as guns and ammunition, is a cache. Mr. Getty cites forensic evidence that one of the three guns — the 9 mm rifle — was missing parts and not maintained in working order, and hearsay that Mr. Lenio’s family had reportedly told investigators that the rifle “might be missing parts and probably isn’t functional.”

Did David Lenio know whether his guns were in working order or how quickly and easily they could be put in working order? We don’t know. Those are questions for a jury to determine.

Mr. Getty describes this rifle as a Hi Point Model 995, serial number A62384. There is no record in the filing of whether law enforcement officials have asked the ATF to trace this gun or Lenio’s two other weapons to determine how and when he acquired them, or whether they had previously been used in the commission of any crimes. I have not alleged or implied that Mr. Lenio’s guns were illegal or stolen.

If in fact Lenio’s weapons needed work, it is not unreasonable to think that he might try to put them in good working order. Unfortunately, there is also no record of whether the State has conducted a forensic examination of Mr. Lenio’s computer or smartphone to determine if he had done Internet searches on how to clean and repair rifles. But a casual search of shows 32 listings for Guns & Gunsmiths near Kalispell. The New York Times reports, “In Kalispell, the seat of Flathead County, 250 people earn a living making guns or gun parts, a tenfold increase since 2005.”

So it is also not unreasonable to speculate as to why Mr. Lenio apparently moved his guns to Kalispell from Grand Rapids, Michigan on December 30, when he began tweeting threats to shoot up a Kalispell grade school. It is not unreasonable to wonder why he kept them in a gun safe in a storage locker if he did not intend any use for them. And it is not unreasonable to wonder why, hours after tweeting threats to kill school kids and put two bullets in the head of a rabbi, he retrieved, yes, a weapons cache from his storage locker.

A car that sits in a mechanic’s shop waiting to be repaired is still a car. A rifle that has missing or misaligned parts is still a rifle. And yes, it may be non-functional until it is taken out of storage and put in working order, maybe by the owner, or maybe with the ready assistance of a local gun dealer or gunsmith. Bars, casinos, and gun repairs are easy to find in Kalispell.

If Mr. Lenio had no plans to use his rifles, then why did he store and retrieve ammunition for them? If he had no plan to use his semi-automatic handgun, then why did police find it in his van with a bullet in the chamber, and three full clips of ammunition for it? All this brings me to Mr. Getty’s rationale for asking the court to silence me.

Trappers’ Slang, or The Origin and Meaning of the Word Cache

Mr. Getty doesn’t like it that I used the word “cache” in reference to Mr. Lenio’s guns, gun safe, and ammunition. He doesn’t like the word cache because he claims that according to, (the online edition of the dictionary) a cache refers only to items that have “been hidden in a secret place because they are illegal or have been stolen.” But there is much more that Mr. Getty leaves out. As reasonable readers of Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary can see for themselves, Mr. Getty is hoisted by his own petard because the dictionary actually states that the “full definition” of cache is

1a: a hiding place especially for concealing and preserving provisions or implements; b: a secure place of storage; 2: something hidden or stored in a cache

The full definition is much broader than Getty would like us to think. It’s a secure place of storage, like a squirrel caches nuts.

So I have just one word for Getty’s effort to silence me: Nuts!

Meanwhile, as I write this, Lenio is still living and working in Grand Rapids, Michigan, despite the fact that he’s apparently violated conditions of his release at least 348 times that we know of. Right now, 37 other inmates have been rearrested and locked up in the Flathead County Detention Center on charges of violating their release conditions. So why should Lenio, the white son of an investment banker, receive preferential treatment, and be allowed to reside in his parents’ comfortable home in Grand Rapids, Michigan — without even having to post any bail — despite his apparent serial violations of the judge’s order to stay off of social media?

If Lenio’s Twitter obsession were limited to say, cat pictures, we might not have anything to worry about. But it is important to recall that the waves of tweets that led to his arrest were about mass shootings and his fantasy of dying in a hail of police bullets. There was much that suggested that he was a danger to others and to himself. And much, much more. Among the more recent retweets he posted in defiance of the terms of his release, he retweeted a statement that if someone says they want to kill you, you should believe them.

I hope that the State of Montana and the FBI will believe Mr. Lenio when he suggests that when someone says he is going to kill someone, we should believe him.

Now here’s a cautionary tale. Barry Kirk of Columbus, Ohio threatened a mass shooting in 2009 but was not punished. A year later, he was fined and given one year’s probation for telephone harassment. On November 24, 2015, police arrested him and charged him with shooting and killing three members of a Columbus family, including a 7-year-old boy. His wounded 12-year-old sister staggered to the phone, dialed 911, and said, “Please help.”

Back in 2009, Kirk had told investigators that he would shoot “without hesitation.” They apparently did not take him seriously. Now comes David Lenio, violating his release conditions while spreading the word on Twitter that when someone says they are going to kill someone, you should believe them. This is right above a series of tweets that Lenio retweeted about people wanting to kill other people. Here he is, practically waving his arms, jumping up and down, and saying you should believe a person who threatens to kill. He gets to repeatedly tweet about killing people, but his lawyer wants the court to silence me from repeating the words “weapons cache” to describe the stored guns and ammunition that he retrieved?

Here’s what I believe about Mr. Getty’s efforts to silence me. I believe I won’t surrender my First Amendment rights. “Nuts!” is all he is going to get.

The prosecutor, Deputy County Attorney Stacy Boman, filed a motion agreeing with Mr. Getty’s demand that she not describe the guns and ammunition retrieved by Lenio from storage as a “cache of weapons.” It is her right to allow the defense attorney to edit her public statements, just as it is my right to freely state the facts using no less accurate language.
Deputy County Attorney Boman’s motion, dated November 24, states:

“Defendant seeks to prevent the State and its witnesses from referring to the firearms seized in this case as a “cache of weapons” during the trial. At trial, the State will not refer to the firearms in this case as a “cache of weapons.” The State does intend to present evidence regarding the firearms found in Defendant’s possession and evidence regarding Defendant retrieving a firearm and bringing it to his residence.”

On November 27, I submitted my Declaration to the Clerk of Court, along with a Certificate of Service dated November 25, showing that I had simultaneously served copies to the prosecutor and defense attorney.

(Declaration is posted here.)

My Declaration points out:

“Since I hold a B.A. in French and a Master’s in French and used to teach French, I know that the English word cache comes from the French verb cacher, which means to hide or store away, especially with reference to ammunition, food, or other supplies. See the Online Etymology Dictionary, which states that the French word cache comes from French Canadian trappers’ slang, and means “a hiding place for stores,” and can mean “anything stored in a hiding place.” URL:

My Declaration states: “I have used the word cache in the broad, traditional, and commonly understood sense, to convey a collection of stored items, as in a food cache or an ammunition cache.”

Let’s all agree that the primary meaning of cache offered in the full dictionary definition in stands, and that my use of the term applies to the situation by any reasonable standard.

A Car in Need of Repairs Is Still a Car

According to my Declaration:

Mr. Getty would have the court believe that one of defendant Lenio’s three guns, which had apparently not been maintained in working order when Lenio cached it in a storage locker like a squirrel caches nuts, is no longer to be considered a weapon.
I believe that it would be fallacious to argue that a car which merely needs new tires and an oil change to be functional could no longer be called a car. I believe that a person who takes possession of a gun that has dirty, missing, or misaligned parts could state, with good reason, that he had in his possession a gun, which is to say a firearm or a weapon.”

My Declaration concludes:

I believe my descriptions of Mr. Lenio’s retrieval of his two stored rifles, gun safe, and ammunition from his storage locker are fair and accurate, do not indicate bias or convey prejudice to a reasonable person, such as the editors of, who offer a broad, traditional, and commonly understood definition of cache. I believe that the State has no compelling interest in imposing prior restraint on my First Amendment rights to publish essays or guest columns, or to author or co-author opinion pieces, or to make factual statements and accurate descriptions to the news media that no reasonable person would interpret as either factually incorrect or prejudicial.
In stating that a squirrel caches nuts, I in no way imply that the squirrel’s nuts are illegal or stolen. However, I do believe it would be reasonable to conclude that a squirrel who suddenly retrieves nuts after collecting, transporting, and storing them is more likely, not less likely, to use them.

When Judges Become Censors

Mr. Getty makes an unreasonable demand for prior restraint forbidding the dissemination of information from public records, already known to and published by the news media, and thus public. Mr. Getty disingenuously argues that my statements that defendant Lenio retrieved a cache of weapons is inaccurate and thus prejudicial, when common sense, as well as the authority he cites — — proves the opposite to be true.
According to the news media accounts of public records, which I cite, Lenio retrieved from storage two rifles, a gun safe, and ammunition for all three of his guns, including his semi-automatic handgun, which had a bullet in the chamber and three loaded ammunition clips.

Therefore, it is fair and accurate to state that this mass shooting threat suspect retrieved a weapons cache.

Under the right of access to public records, recognized under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, and under the Right to Know provision of Article II, Section 9 of the Montana Constitution, Montana Cowgirl and its contributors have a right to know as well as a right to engage in an editorial process free from government intervention, which is the core guarantee of a free press. These rights have to be balanced by the defendant’s right to a speedy trial before an impartial jury.

The Montana Supreme Court has stated in Montana ex rel Missoulian v. Montana Twenty-First Judicial Court that under the State Constitution, “We hold that the right to know extends to receiving any information which pertains to the criminal law process, regardless of whether that information emanates directly from the courthouse or indirectly from those who are participating in the system as law enforcement officers, attorneys, parties or witnesses and who may wish to communicate with the public or the press about the process.”

Mr. Getty muddles the facts and cites an online dictionary that actually dispels his argument for prior restraint, even as he fails to meet the standards, as the Montana Supreme Court discusses in the Missoulian case, of showing either “a clear and present danger” or even a “substantial probability” that my exercise of free speech rights, or publicity about facts known to the media from public records, jeopardizes his client’s right to a fair trial.

If the court were to consider prior restraint, then the media and any parties restrained should first be given notice and have the opportunity to be heard, and the court should explain what reasonable alternatives have been considered and why those reasonable alternatives could not adequately protect the defendant’s fair trial rights.

There is no evidence in the record of this case that would support a conclusion that defendant David Lenio’s right to a fair trial is threatened or that prior restraint would be a reasonable solution. Less restrictive alternatives, such as extensive questioning of potential jurors, are available. 

As the dissent in the Missoulian case argues, when judges become censors, the opportunity for arbitrariness is great, and there are few timely and effective checks and balances to undo the damage. Prior restraint, including unwarranted gag orders, would be a preemptive strike against the fundamental rights of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and the public’s right to know, which would destroy the values that open, public trials promote.


41 Comments on "GUEST POST: Nuts to Silence"

  1. Nicely done. I know what you have been through. It is frustrating. Good luck and I think you will win this. Cache has numerous descriptions, and companies actually make plastic Caches for people called preppers now.

    Attacking people by threatening numerous court actions is a lawyer’s stunt to frighten you. I have been through it numerous times.And once able to to explain my side to a judge have won every time. i.e. walking out on depositions that didn’t pertain to facts….. Lawyers hate I not gonna stick around when they are on a fishing expedition , trying to find something else to hang their particular case on as it falls apart. they will take you to court on a moments notice when you state you will not answer any more Questions that aren’t part of a case. Judges agree with that too. Questions have to be pertinent. Sound like this lawyer thinks if he shuts you down, he will have a better case to prove his client’s innocence. and he is doing whatever he can to keep you quiet.

    I think you have this!

  2. “Cat pictures”

    I need to hide my FB better.


    I don’t disagree. The timing of his getting the weapons out of storage is suspect when attached to those tweets… working or not. As Mr. Hutson knows… I own guns. Assume I had them in storage, and one wasn’t working.

    Well, if I take them out of storage, I still have ones that work,and getting the non-functional one working is easy around here.

    If I made tweets like he did ahead of time, I would hope people would see why I took them out.

    Look at it this way. If he can’t follow the judges order over something as simple as no social media usage,how can anyone expect he would follow the law?

  3. So far I am not impressed by any of the local lawyers or judges… and if Lenio does something, I hope they are all prosecuted for their parts of it.

  4. As for the word “cache”. I have an emergency bag in my vehicke. I hate to break it to the obviously undereducated… but that is a cache. I have warm clothes, first aid kit and many other things for an emergency. Nothing illegal, nothing hidden, and it is still a cache.

  5. Still trying to not only make a national show trial of this, but trying to poison any jury and force change of venue? Nice work.

    • Dave the same could be said of the Lawyer. After all he is initiating the attack on the poster here. Example: If I were a lawyer, I would make damn sure my Client said nothing.

      This is a high profile case in the news I would want to see go away. that means I would delay first primary court appearances as long as possible till your clients name is out of the news. Obviously, this isn’t the case with this lawyer he is stirring the pot and so is his client.

      Seems to me this Lawyer has no control of his client at all, and the jackass is posting on twitter…… You don’t go after someone else because of that.

      • Norma, I must admit to some puzzlement when I first read this bloviation (and the linked Declaration) because Mr. Hutson appears to believe that the motion in limine #67 somehow applied to him and his ability to speak about Leonis. I must admit that I wasn’t sure about this because such a belief would be really ignorant.

        Here’s a definition of “motion in limine” from “[a] motion made before a trial begins, asking the court to decide whether particular evidence will be admissible. A motion in limine is most often made to exclude evidence by a party who believes that evidence would prejudice the jury against him or her.”

        Since the motion only applies to evidence which might be offered at trial, a resulting order only applies to the witnesses and the lawyers at the trial. It would not apply to journalists, columnists, bloggers or anyone else who wants to exercise their right of free speech about the trial. It would not and does not apply to Hutson. To be sure, I would not put it past the attorney to take a shot at Hutson with the motion in limine but that maybe overthinking things.

        I don’t know if you have been watching SNL as long as I have but one of the continuing skits I remember involved Chevy Chase as himself and Gilda Radner as Emily Litella. Here’s a sample: Hutson’s no Gilda Radner but he’ll have to do.

  6. He deserves it. I was originally supposed to meet Lenio when he first got here, since I was one of the main PLE people. I never did. A gut feeling kept me away. He’s lucky. If I had met him, got to know him, and read those tweets… I would have turned him in myself long before then. He would have never got any skiing in at all.

    Which, if you are going to complain about being poor… make sure you don’t have a wealthy family and go skiing at the skim resort every day. He wouldn’t know poor if it snacked him over the head.

    That alone showed the threats weren’t trying to bring social issues to anyone.

    He deserves to never get his guns back. He is a danger.

  7. Getty is just trying to do his job. The motion isn’t going anywhere — at least it shouldn’t — but the Flathead County criminal justice system is such a whack job that who knows?

  8. Doing the right thing | November 29, 2015 2:08 AM at 2:08 AM |

    Seems to me the Flathead County criminal justice system should pay attention or next time the blood can be on their hands.

  9. I find it astounding that David Skinner cannot resist the urge to insert his bit of contrary vitriol into even the most overwhelmingly rational editorial effort to inform readers. I wonder what “skin” David has in this topic.

    • Actually Dave is asking the right Question here(That’s right I have to agree with Dave asking such a question). We may not like it but It is Important sometimes to be the devil’s advocate.

    • Well, Mr. Feyhl,
      Your classless card play failed. You have 51 left, plus the joker. Try playing them correctly. I don’t play cards, but I did used to play chess — in Washington Heights with a bunch of old fellows with strange tats on their forearms.
      You’ve heard of the First Amendment, and read the Montana statutes upon which the charges are based? I for one would really like to know where the legal line happens to be, for real. There needs to be a sound ruling here, not a circus. If this fiasco turns into what Mr. Hutson would like it to be, we’re all going to lose some First Amendment skin in the outcome.
      The perp in this case is an idiot, that’s certain. Last I checked, however, stupidity is still legal — Mr. Hutson being another shining example.
      Whether Lenio is certifiably nuts, that’s up to a shrink and a judge. Whether he’s a criminal, that’s also up to the judge, perhaps a jury, which shouldn’t be poisoned by anyone, especially not a French major spin doctor schmuck grubbing for a scapegoat in hopes of more clients. Mmmkay?

  10. A few years ago my nephew made the unfortunate decision to hire Brent Getty. To put it mildly, you won’t find Getty’s photo in one of those “Best Lawyers in America” articles any time soon. Then again, maybe he just wasn’t motivated to provide an adequate defense. The case was far more mundane and my nephew isn’t a gun-crazed bigot. Maybe Brent Getty is more comfortable working with the David Lenios of the world.

  11. There is no 1st amendment case here. He made threats… random children, random school. He had the means to carry out the threat, which he brought home just after making them.

    My politically incorrect posts on places like Stormfront were 1st amendment protected. I never threatened anyone.

    This case, and others like them are why I left WN. People like Lenio are common… and many of them are like you, give a pass to criminals like him… and are also common.

    I disagree politically with much of what is on this blog, and with Mr. Hutson himself. But in this case, it is correct. I may no longer be a nationalist, but I still am not fond of a lot of leftwing ideals.

    I bet if Lenio was a leftwinger though, you would be spouting a different tune. Because when partisan politics are involved, people get stupid.

    Think about this. Lenio (a fake nationalist anyway) basically came here like many nationalists… this place is a very live and let live place… and there is a nationalist community here. One that has children in these very schools, schools he threatened to shoot random children in.

    I can guarantee that most nationalists here, especially ones with children,believe he is a danger. The only people that view it as a 1st amendment thing are those obnoxious POS ones like Gharst, who get rejected by normal communities and even pro-white communities. And the other ones that view it as a 1st amendment issue is those nimrod that believe free speech means it is ok to make threats.

    Should Lenio be executed? No. But he should lose all access to firearms, and receive mental health help.

    • Lenio probably IS a leftie. An Aryan leftie. There he was, hanging around OWS Denver getting all upset because he couldn’t get camping for free.
      In other words, the guy’s one of those who closes the circle between the crazies on both ends of the political spectrum.
      But again, if he’s nuts, let that be due-processed. And if there’s a criminal violation of the Montana intimidation statute, there’s a burden of proof and a matter of degree.
      Or, maybe all this guy needs is a detox and a cool job as janitor at Dad’s bank.

      • NO, that I disagree with Dave wholeheartedly. Lefties, Dont threaten to kill children, or threaten to kill Jews. We actually have a famous nut example who pretty much said the same thing. and he is still walking around, and not in Jail. A republican, anti Government conspricy nut who founded a church named “Mel Gibson.” he is only one example.

        • Yeah, and Mel’s buddy Danny Glover is about as far to the Left. Yet they were SUCH a team….\
          Bottom line is, this case is an important test for the justice system. If Lenio deserves to have his rights abridged, that abridgement should be copacetic. Otherwise, I’m concerned that the rights of the REST of us might be abridged unjustly.
          Hutson makes much of the “white banker’s son.” What would the narrative be for a “black banker’s son?” If Lenio was a disciple of Louis Farrakhan, perhaps?
          How would we all shade this then? Differently, I’m sure, which we all know in our hearts we should not. Equal justice under law, please.

          • His rights are not being abridged in this.

          • That wasn’t an answer Dave, but hey since we are swishing around justice like it was at the bottom of a barrel answer me this…..

            Why is it our rights that get hurt on this?

            When Lenio is convicted and he will be convicted, how is his case different than any other criminal? Any criminal who breaks the law with the intent to do bodily harm with a gun always gets those gun rights taken away, they lose them. That’s federal law.

            And if he does his time and pays for the crime…. he can always ask down the road for those Gun rights back by going back to court as people before him have done, and plead his case.

            Its pretty simple, it has been done thousands of times before, and it serves justice quite nicely.

            Chances are he won’t if he balks at seeking help with medical professionals, and Montana as a state can say they don’t want him with guns in our state… because that’s a state issue the feds will agree on as well…. So why all this funny crap about it being our rights that will be toileted as well??????

            • The statute under which he is being prosecuted is Montana law that has not been tested in court, at least not in this way. A trial will set a precedent, either clarify or muddle the “do not cross” line. I’m hoping for clarification here — as to whether a crime was actually committed under existing Montana law, and whether or not that crime is a felony rap or misdemeanor. There are very narrow, thankfully not broad, criteria for whether or not speech is actionable.
              For example, Montana’s defamation statute, under which charges were initially brought then dropped? The consensus from intellects superior to both you and I is the statute is overly broad and not constitutionally viable.
              I’m sorry, yet somehow not surprised, that you would view a legitimate concern for externalized consequences as “funny crap.”
              Remember, I’m not saying this strictly as the token conservative whipping post on this rather repressive “free speech” forum. View it through that narrow lens if you insist, but the issue at trial is nonpartisan — no matter the partisanship of certain, um, players.

              • I am not sure you are as “conservative” as you think you are. Most conservatives, especially gunowners… would want someone like Lenio to lose his gun rights. Because if he went on a spree, you know what talk comes after.

              • Ah Dave, eh Lenio doesn’t have to be tried on state statute alone. A state court can use Federal law when state law is not efficient in scope.

                • Norma, the Feds investigated and chose not to prosecute under federal law.
                  And Scott, if you don’t think I’m conservative, that’s your problem. I am conservative, and one of the things I’d like to conserve most of all is the civil liberties of every American citizen and the concept of equal protection, equal justice under the law.
                  I really don’t give much of a rip whether Lenio keeps his firearms rights or not. If he’s adjudicated unfit, on the merits, fine, that’s the way things are supposed to work.
                  Even if Lenio is set free — what he did will follow him everywhere and limit his future. It was a spectacular, and spectacularly stupid, act of reputational self-immolation.
                  But I’ll be darned if I’d just take your prejudicial position, where you’ll be willing to stiff Lenio simply to keep the progressive loudmouths from having another political bullet point to endlessly regurgitate.
                  Never mind that we have the neo-Aryan “movement” to thank, for attracting such a wonderful person to Montana to clutter up our court system. Took him what, six weeks? Classy. So thank you, Pioneeeeeeers.

  12. And if he is crazy.. then people pointing that out, and requesting he not be allowed firearms shouldn’t “poison the jury” should it? If he goes to trial, it should be a felony. If he goes into a mental health program and loses legal access to weapons… I am sure even Mr. Hutson would prefer that over a simple misdemeanor. Whatever it takes so this person that stated he wanted to shoot random kids never legally owns a gun.

    I own guns. I fully support fighting so law-abiding citizens can own guns. I will never understand people that fight so that criminals can own guns… or complain when people want those criminals charged in a way they lose them.

    • Unless you’re on the jury, Scott, that’s not for you to decide. Nor is it a matter for material witness Hutson to decide by proxy.

  13. You do realize I can decide whatever I want? Right? I can post my opinions the same way you can… and guess what.. it is not poisoning the jury pool.. any more than Mr. Hutson is, it is saying exactly what needs to be said.

    You obviously have no problem posting your opinions. So you should not be against others doing the same.

    In my opinion.. as a law-abiding gun owner.. that Lenio is a danger.

    Remember, I have unfortunately associated with several people in the past decade that have made similar threats that he has, that went off and did it. When it comes to many of those people.. I tend to take them at their words. If they say they want to kill someone, it is very likely it is because they want to kill someone.

    • Sorry, Scott, but Lenio’s legal fate just might matter a little bit to our own, hmmm?
      And yes, you can have opinions, and I get to disagree just like I do with all my progressive cronies here at Cowgirl.
      But your opinions here have no effect, and SHOULD have no effect, AT TRIAL. In fact, our mutual bickering has disqualified both of us from deciding Lenio’s fate where it matters, as it should disqualify Hutson and all the others he has tried to influence post-arrest.
      Hutson is a MATERIAL WITNESS, for gosh sakes. His grandstanding here is just off-the-charts bad form, and that deposition thing he sent the court is absolutely pathetic. The trial is not about Hutson, although it might become precisely that. Guy shoulda stuck to French, for goodness sakes.
      As for you, you claim you were supposed to meet this shining example of modern neo-Aryanism. What if the court wants to know why you didn’t? Wanna air THOSE white linens? GMAFB.
      Let’s not be friends.

      • Dave, Hutson is not a material witness because he is not a witness at all. All he knows of his own knowledge is the tweets he found in Lenio’s twitter account. After he brought these to the attention of the SO/PD, the investigation would verify that the tweets were indeed on the account by accessing the account and reading them. Since the officer who read them can testify about them at trial, Hutson is not necessary.

        As far as Lenio’s guns go, all Hutson knows is what he has read on-line about them. Hutson was not present when the officer learned from the roommate that Lenio had retrieved them from the storage locker, he was not present when Lenio’s residence and car were searched and the guns found nor did he examine the guns and discover that the rifle was inoperable.

        It may be that Hutson has a different concept of his relevance to the trial and his Declaration suggests that he does but he is, after all, a publicist, not an attorney.

        • A publicist, precisely. Spin doctor. For an anti-firearms-rights group. Nothing relevant.
          Supposed to be a hearing tomorrow, hopefully the facts will out and justice done properly.

      • No, his fate won’t affect me at all. I have never threatened to shoot children, or Jewish people.

        Yes, of course you can have an opinion… and you should. But don’t preteND that the Lenio case will affect our rights. It only affects his future home, and future access to guns. This is not “the case” that worrying about the jury pool needs to happen.

  14. What exactly is “WN”?

  15. While I agree that trying to silence the author for his description of the Lenio incident is not warranted, I disagree with the reasoning used. And that’s important – if we can’t articulate *why* we have the First Amendment, with respect to “free speech,” we will indeed lose it. It’s unfortunate that we live in a time when the right has been watered down to a knee-jerk reaction against any kind of utterance deserving special sanctity, despite often being in bad taste. In short, we are getting kind of off track about free speech. It wasn’t provided to allow us carte blanche in all that we say and print. It was specifically provided to protect citizens from being censored (silenced) by the *government*. Congress cannot make a law to abridge free speech – there is nothing there to say a court can’t hear an argument to silence someone for making ostensibly detracting or slanderous statements about another person. Again, I don’t think Lenio’s lawyer has a leg to stand upon; but he certainly has the right to make the argument. What’s striking about the article here on Cowgirl, is how it is strikingly contradictory. The author contends that he should have the right to say things that are argumentative from another’s point of view; the author then proceeds to scold law enforcement for not stepping in to arrest a man for freely making statements in Columbus, Ohio. Yes, the statements were offensive and smacked of harassment. And the man did eventually commit a crime connected to the statements. But you cannot claim you have the right of unfettered speech without consequences (say, of being taken to court) and at the same time suggest that we should arrest people for making offensive statements because they *might* act on them. This is what I refer to as the watering down of free speech discourse. The last time I checked, we do not have Precog’s or a Future Crime Unit. While offensive and combative speech has sometimes resulted in violence, in the vast majority of cases it has not. If we want to have a discussion about the true intention of the first amendment with respect to free speech, look no further than the movement known as Political Correctness. This movements consists of having an elite, government sponsored minority determine what the public shall and shall not say – this is what the first amendment is supposed to protects us against. If a science teacher is no longer allowed to point out a stark lack of data for anthropocentric global warming because such speech is opposed to the administration’s agenda, then we are living in a time when free speech must be defended in the proper way and for the right reasons. Otherwise, we *will* lose it.

    • Well said.

    • An order granting the motion in limine applies only to the trial and the persons who participate in it. Hutson does not understand this and is under the mistaken belief that such an order would have an effect on what he says or writes.

      Google Emily Litella and watch the video.

  16. Its not Wisconsin?, I was a little confused about the acronym in this context and found it strange that there are Americans who describe themselves as white nationalist when our nation is made of citizens of many colors, but thanks Dave for clearing that up. You rock!!!!!

1 Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. Week in Review | Reptile Dysfunction

Comments are closed.