Illinois lawmaker uses police to intimidate gun owners.

[samoand]

My point here is this a tinfoil hat issue, or do you have some actual experience in this?

Experience in what? I haven't had ISP detectives knocking on my door for contacting an official, neither was I such a detective. I don't believe that this is a tinfoil hat issue either though. "Precedent" is a legal concept, and I understand that this is not a legal case. Not yet, anyway.

See, it's hard to prove that you DIDN'T do something. Even if you keep the fax, how do you prove that it was the ONLY fax that you've sent? That's why people just don't do this, and should not be expected to do this. That's why we use presumption of innocence. It's much easier to show that the act DID take place, provided that the evidence is in fact there. There is proof that Kotowski sent ISP detectives homes of people (person?) who wrote him, so much for presumption of his innocence. Now the ball is in his court - to show that he had a reason to do that. As I said earlier, the ball seems to be resting peacefully there.

Whats the abuse?

Use of public resources for own amusement. This is an opinion, but opinion based on fairly strong indirect evidence. Kotowski just may produce the threatening fax. I personally would bet against it.

 

[jselvy]

I find it odd that the ISP is so eagerly investigating this but Rev. Pfleiger (sp.)
walks around free after making death threats that were broadcast on the evening news.
What, if anything, is the operative difference between the two cases?

Jefferson

 

[JR47]

Releasing the fax sent to the good Senator (or whatever he is) would require him to release his copy of it, as well as what he provided the police with. Faxes are in the hands of the ISP, or they would have nothing to base the investigation upon.

I have a feeling that there is something missing here, or BOTH parties would be waving the faxes on the evening news. Could this be a "literal reading" controversy?

 

[ISP2605]

ISP, let me ask you this, because now that I've asked Kotowski to produce the threats, I've been wondering--is there any reason why he (or the guy who was interviewed) would be prevented from making the FAXes public?
We often hear people say "I cannot comment on an ongoing investigation" or the equivalent. Is that a factor here, legally, for either side?

Without being familiar with the details of this particular investigation it's impossible to answer those questions. If this is a being conducted under a grand jury then there could very well be prohibitions from either side talking of the incident. Generally details of an investigation are not released during the course of the investigation. To do so could cause witnesses to change their stories either to support what was released or to counter. You'd be surprised when doing investigations where someone will tell you something but then later admit they had changed their story because of something they had read in a paper. They change their stories either because they think what they saw must be wrong because it differed from published reports or they'll change their story because they don't agree with the published report and they embelish their story.
In the media is not a place to be conducting a fair investigation and trying to ascertain facts. Pertinent facts are often left out by the media because the media doesn't have the full story and things that might seem insignificant to either the media or public could very well be a major factor in determining the outcome. The media often goes for sensationalism, not unlike many posters do on this and other forums by sensationalizing titles of threads.
Legislators get hundreds and sometimes thousands of correspondence on a daily basis, some supporting them but usually against a position they've taken. With the trucks load of correspondence, faxes and emails that flood the capitol building on a daily basis what was there by this one individual's fax that brought this one individual to the forefront?
As I wrote earlier, there are some folks who write articles for the ISRA who would put to shame writers for the National Enquirer.