Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

MILLER: Prosecution rests in trial for D.C. man charged for one shotgun shell
washingtontimes.com ^ | 2/23/2014 | Emily Miller

Posted on 02/25/2014 7:19:25 AM PST by rktman

The District of Columbia has finished presenting its case on why Mark Witaschek is a danger to society for possessing a single shotgun shell and muzzleloader sabots in his home. This outrageous legal battle shows how far unelected, anti-gun liberals will go to attempt to destroy a man’s life.

When Attorney General Irvin Nathan’s prosecutors rested on Tuesday, they established simply that Mr. Witaschek did not have a registered gun in the city, so he violated the firearms laws by having ammunition.

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Government; US: District of Columbia
KEYWORDS: 2a; banglist; didiots; guncontrol
Good work Emily. Keep it up. Not that it will make any difference in soggy bottom. Er, foggy bottom.
1 posted on 02/25/2014 7:19:25 AM PST by rktman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: rktman

Defense should call David Gregory, who will explain that it’s OK to violate DC gun laws if it’s for “education”.


2 posted on 02/25/2014 7:23:02 AM PST by DBrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DBrow
Defense should call David Gregory, who will explain that it’s OK to violate DC gun laws if it’s for “education”.

Or if you're a liberal.

3 posted on 02/25/2014 7:28:17 AM PST by chopperman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: rktman

Some ambitious Machiavellian seeks to boost his own career by ruining a law-abiding man’s life.

Very nice.


4 posted on 02/25/2014 7:33:01 AM PST by Jack Hammer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rktman

Unregistered ammunition?

Insanity.


5 posted on 02/25/2014 7:34:18 AM PST by BenLurkin (This is not a statement of fact. It is either opinion or satire; or both.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FReepers

Click The Pic To Donate

Support FR, Donate Monthly If You Can

6 posted on 02/25/2014 7:35:53 AM PST by DJ MacWoW (The Fed Gov is not one ring to rule them all)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rktman

A ‘shell’ game if there ever was one...................


7 posted on 02/25/2014 7:44:56 AM PST by Red Badger (LIberal is an oxymoron......................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rktman

Trying this guy has cost how many millions of tax dollars spent? Our court systems are backed up to the hilt, and they are doing this? Even the judge is in on it. He should have tossed out this stupid case. Since he did not, then he is of the same mind as the prosecutors. Only the jury can stop this madness.


8 posted on 02/25/2014 7:48:02 AM PST by RetiredArmy (God's judgment on America is here for us to see. If America does not wake up, it is going to suffer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rktman

What goes around, comes around.


9 posted on 02/25/2014 7:52:07 AM PST by The Working Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rktman

Seems there are far worse criminals in D.C., many of whom ‘work’ in buildings with large columns out front...


10 posted on 02/25/2014 7:53:33 AM PST by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rktman
they established simply that Mr. Witaschek did not have a registered gun in the city, so he violated the firearms laws by having ammunition.

So US citizens have the right to bear REGISTERED arms?

In pre-trial hearings, Judge Morin threw out the first search in June 2012 because the cops neglected to get a warrant.

Are the police on trial for home invasion? Does the Fourth Amendment not apply to DC? He should probably be on trial for having shot home invaders who happened to be rogue, law defying police officers. Oh, that's right, he had already been stripped of his right to bear arms, so he couldn't defend his rights to privacy or property from the fascists in his own home.

Mr. Nathan is best known as the lenient prosecutor who let off NBC News’ David Gregory for openly and knowingly possessing an illegal 30-round magazine on live TV.

Those who support the police state are above the law.

Mr. Gest replied that “Mr. Nathan and our prosecutors believe this is in the interest of public safety” because Mr. Witaschek had been “accused of domestic violence.”

Guilty until proven innocent! (Or something like that).

Show me the man and I'll find you the crime. - Lavrentiy Beria

Mr. Witaschek’s ex-wife, Gabriella Landinez, told police in May 2012 that her estranged husband had unregistered firearms in the home, and he said that he said he would kill her on the phone one time.

If the ex-wife said it, it must be true!

A friend of mine went through an ugly divorce about ten years ago. During the proceedings, his wife contacted several Federal agencies, alleging that he possessed illegal firearms. His apartment residence was eventually raided by ATF or FBI, (he was interviewed by both). All of his guns were confiscated. He was kicked out of his apartment due to the raid (they wanted no tenants who were under federal investigation).

For several years, he tried to get some ruling on which of his firearms were 'illegal', and a return of those which were legal. He still believes all were legal. In time, and I think with legal advice, he decided to drop the issue.

As far as I know, he was never charged with anything and the weapons were never returned.

Due process, right?

11 posted on 02/25/2014 7:59:33 AM PST by LucianOfSamasota (Tanstaafl - its not just for breakfast anymore...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rktman

I hope that dump burns to the ground. I will never go to that DC swamp. What an absolute embarassment this nation has become.


12 posted on 02/25/2014 8:18:50 AM PST by Organic Panic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RetiredArmy

A jury trial would be nice but recognizing the uphill battle with a jury (even a DC jury) the prosecution lowered the charges to attempted possession of ammunition for which the defendant is not entitled to a jury trial. Hugo Chavez would be proud.


13 posted on 02/25/2014 8:35:01 AM PST by overtaxedindc (No jury trial)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Jack Hammer

Sounds like a totalitarian government, doesn’t it?


14 posted on 02/25/2014 8:36:42 AM PST by Blood of Tyrants (Haven't you lost enough freedoms? Support an end to the WOD now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants

Sounds like something straight out of the pages of Les Miserables.


15 posted on 02/25/2014 8:39:39 AM PST by Jack Hammer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: RetiredArmy

Since the sentence is less than 6 months, he is not entitled to a jury trial. At least that is how I read it in the article.


16 posted on 02/25/2014 8:41:03 AM PST by Blood of Tyrants (Haven't you lost enough freedoms? Support an end to the WOD now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: RetiredArmy
Only the jury can stop this madness.

This it true — and it is something that judges hate: look at their actions regarding jury-nullification, especially if you mention it in trial (as defense) or during jury-selection (as a potential juror). Look at the you must convict, even if you disagree-style contracts that are common for jurors to be required to sign.

17 posted on 02/25/2014 8:50:36 AM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: overtaxedindc
A jury trial would be nice but recognizing the uphill battle with a jury (even a DC jury) the prosecution lowered the charges to attempted possession of ammunition for which the defendant is not entitled to a jury trial.

That's funny, my Constitution says exactly the opposite:

Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
And this is especially applicable because DC is not part of any State and therefore all the Bill of Rights's restrictions must apply to them.
18 posted on 02/25/2014 8:53:47 AM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants
Since the sentence is less than 6 months, he is not entitled to a jury trial.

Except that the 6th amendment says "for ALL criminal prosecutions" that the accused has the right to "an impartial jury".
Trying to intimate that there is no such right smells like Deprivation of rights under color of law.

19 posted on 02/25/2014 8:57:54 AM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: rktman

Isn’t a “Spent “ Cartridge casing, which is no longer capable of being “Fired” no longer ammunition?
For the past 50 years I have been carrying two small rocks in my pocket. They have protected me all this time from being killed by a Blue Rhinoceros!
With Attorney General Irvin Nathan’s prosecutors thinking they would be ammunition for they sling/slingshot that I did not have.
EIEIO
Dagnabit


20 posted on 02/25/2014 9:01:19 AM PST by GOYAKLA (Waiting for the Golden Screw to be removed from Obama's navel and his a$$ falls off!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GOYAKLA

Tourists with spent brass in their car have been arrested on this same charge.


21 posted on 02/25/2014 9:27:56 AM PST by Pecos (The Chicago Way: Kill the Constitution, one step at a time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: overtaxedindc

attempted possession of ammunition
***That gives me a sick feeling. Not possession of a gun, not possession of ammo (blech, are we really at that point already?), but ATTEMPTED possession of ammo.

Any day now, it will be time to head for the hills. This republic is falling apart rapidly.


22 posted on 02/25/2014 9:33:51 AM PST by Kevmo ("A person's a person, no matter how small" ~Horton Hears a Who)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Pecos

It’s still a money scam that should be covered on ‘American Greed” with all the other Madoffs!
In 1957 after buying a Brand new Ford , I had to have the Dealer remove a door panel to solve a noise problem.
A line worker placed his empty Pepsi bottle in the driver’s door.
The question is, “How many of us are driving vehicles that have caches we don’t know about?” Drugs, weapons(used in a crime? )etc, etc.
It would be so easy to set an enemy up with a plant and then dropping a dime, it is probably done every day.
Good Luck Pecos


23 posted on 02/25/2014 9:52:38 AM PST by GOYAKLA (Waiting for the Golden Screw to be removed from Obama's navel and his a$$ falls off!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

Right before the trial began, Mr. Nathan’s office dropped the charge from possession of unregistered ammunition to attempted possession.
It’s unclear how Mr. Witaschek could attempt to possess something that was in his home, but the facts aren’t the reason for the shift. The lesser charge carries a penalty of six months in jail, which means Mr. Witaschek was not eligible for the jury trial he wanted.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/feb/23/trial-mark-witaschek-washington-dc-one-shotgun-she/#ixzz2uMNPAaBk
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter


24 posted on 02/25/2014 10:40:45 AM PST by overtaxedindc (No jury trial)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: overtaxedindc
The lesser charge carries a penalty of six months in jail, which means Mr. Witaschek was not eligible for the jury trial he wanted.

Why? The Constitution, in amendment 6, specifically states that the accused shall, in all criminal prosecutions, enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury.

The only way that they could assert that there is no right for a jury trial is to have it be a non-criminal trial — and that means a civil case. But if it is a civil case, then the government is claiming to be the wronged party, and how was it wronged? By the attempted possession of ammunition? How can this possibly be a wrong against the government which is specifically prohibited on infringing on the right of the people to bear arms? Moreover, the ammount in controversy is not that of the shell, but the freedom to [attempt] to possess it, which the charging party says is equal to six-months of freedom… even at the ridiculously low price of ¢12/day this exceeds the 7th Amendment's $20 requirements for the amount in controversy* (¢12 * 180 = $21.60) which means he would be entitled to a jury trial.

25 posted on 02/25/2014 11:11:34 AM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: RetiredArmy

“Only the jury can stop this madness.”

What Jury?


26 posted on 02/25/2014 12:41:57 PM PST by GGpaX4DumpedTea (I am a Tea Party descendant...steeped in the Constitutional Republic given to us by the Founders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson