The state unsuccessfully persecuted Cook for drug-related offenses. "Cook was not content with tacitly accepting his victory and made derogatory comments online about various players in his law enforcement in Calhoun County." The government persecuted him again, this time for federal cyberstalking. The indictment alleges that Cook threatened an anesthetic, Lepicier, and fucked his family. However, when one compares the & # 39; items & # 39; that the government presented to the grand jury in the indictment with the full items, it appears that the government has selected certain statements & # 39; selected & # 39; and rearranged them in a different order and context. The posts seem more menacing. “Prosecutors who work to promote public interest would never seek evidence, right ???
The central importance of Cook's social media posts for the prosecutor raises the general question of whether law enforcement relates to behavior or content. In this case, the court said, "Cook is only being prosecuted for the content of his public contributions – not for publication." The court therefore checks whether the prosecution fits into one of the exceptions to the first change. It doesn't.
Cook's contributions were not "real threats":
When Cook's posts are read in context, they lack the specificity needed to shield them from a real threat. Nowhere in a post does Cook explicitly state that he intends to inflict physical harm on Lepicier or another named official. “If God wants me to take them out, it's not the same as telling an FBI agent that you have a gun that kills the President, or repeating and directly telling another person in a chat room that you're killing would your high school students while referring to one of the Columbine shooters…. Cook's sentence, when read about the help of people in the following sentence, could be interpreted as "wanting" to take them out of office or their positions of power based on the context of the entire post, which is "fraudulent." “Go Charges Scheme” or “BUFI,” Cook apparently warns the public. When read in context, Cook's contributions are nothing more than a manifesto of his complaints about people and processes that he believed to have wronged him. You are not reaching the level of real threats.
The court added that doxxing is "potentially offensive and uncomfortable," but it is not a real threat either.
The first change further protects Cook's comments as they relate to matters of public interest. His comments all related to government officials, and Cook nominally tried to expose their alleged wrongdoing:
While the court does not believe it is good to publish publicly available identification documents, “poems” are written that vaguely refer to information known about public sector employees or use sentences such as “and God wants me to take them” out, ”the Court recognizes that Mr Cook has a constitutional right to say such things.
In support of making rough comments on public affairs acceptable today, the court cites Pres. Trump's tweets, which the jury foreman did in the Roger Stone case and metaphorically (?) Said that John Bolton "will drop bombs on him". In what the court appears to consider to be a convincing argument, the court says:
If prosecutors decide to tolerate the above complaints, which come from the country's highest office, a citizen of Calhoun County should certainly be allowed to clear up his complaints. Your complaints are cut from the same fabric. Otherwise, our criminal justice system will appear to be selective enforcement.
Pooh. That made me cry. The judge clearly laments the apparent double standards of the prosecutor's office, which is emerging in the growing lawless zone of the DC swamp (which only exists for those who know the right people and have the right privilege). There are good reasons to worry about our government's seemingly systematic campaign to destroy the “rule of law”. However, the court's comments do not support this point productively. First, prosecutors may not be following Trump for his criminal behavior (including his tweets) as there is some uncertainty as to whether they would be able to do so. Second, and more importantly, the deterioration in our society's talks is not a reason to celebrate, not even as a point of discussion. Trump's words continue to hurt our country, and we shouldn't allow an infant to set the level of acceptable behavior in our society. (Remarkably, this is not even the first time this year that a judge quotes Trump's childish tweets in favor of a defendant and repeats that the judges actually adjust the legal standards they use in their courtrooms.) The Cook indictment had clear reasons for malicious and abusive retaliation for Cook's public criticism, and that's a good reason to question the legitimacy of the charges. The fact that our president routinely makes criminal statements – and gets away with it – is not.
Case quote: USA vs. Cook, 2020 WL 3958194 (N.D. Miss. July 13, 2020)