Cameron Atkinson

Stand-up philosopher. Raw take producer. Guns, free speech, religious liberty. I lawyer too.

[Cameron Atkinson @camlatkinson]

This is why I have stood by WTP through thick and thin. They’ve never sought to make a fast buck off prosecuting Fauci even though doing so would be extremely lucrative. WTP has principles.

“As a people, we have made the mistake far too many times of sacrificing liberty for the sake of temporary safety or security. Let’s not now make the mistake of sacrificing liberty for the sake of one man’s prosecution - however horrible his crimes.”

[We The Patriots USA @WTPatriotsUSA]

Fauci pled the Fifth over 100 times yesterday. Be mad that he did. Be glad that he can.
https://t.co/4q6uB0Y2cU

[Cameron Atkinson @camlatkinson]

Yup, they have the power to do that, but boy would that set off a constitutional crisis, especially since they ejected his lawyer from the proceedings.

There are little to no limitations on that inherent contempt power, and, when I did research on the J6 deponents, it was an open question of whether the lawyers could be held in contempt for obstructing Congress and jailed too. There was a lot of contingency planning.

[Cameron Atkinson @camlatkinson]

Field sobriety tests look for physical symptoms of impairment. Her exercises never went through medical vetting to actually determine whether they can reliably demonstrate physical impairment - which ordinarily would be a prerequisite to admissibility in a court of law.

I have repeatedly shredded DUI cases where officers confused disability for impairment or confused a natural reaction to external stimuli for impairment.

I can go do all the research I want just like she did, but I, just like her, lack the medical knowledge to develop an assessment that reliably diagnoses impairment due to intoxication.

[Cameron Atkinson @camlatkinson]

I am no fan of Fauci and would gladly see him prosecuted for anything, but I would have advised him to plead the 5th.

The design of the hearing today was to create a perjury trap. If he answered the same as what he was pardoned for, he would’ve been charged for perjury. If he answered differently, he could still potentially be charged for perjury today because his older answers could arguably be true and he could legitimately believe them to be.

No one, including an experienced lawyer, is capable of navigating that line with any degree of confidence even in a scripted setting, let alone a non-lawyer on the fly.

Beyond this issue, Fauci legitimately invoked the 5th because there is an open debate on whether his pardon is valid due to autopen and Biden’s competency.

I also don’t mind him invoking the 5th here for another reason. I conducted a ton of research back in the day to try to get J6 deponents out of their depositions. Congress has broad power to compel testimony for virtually any reason that can be arguably related to a legislative purpose. It has sought to abuse that authority by functioning as an investigative grand jury and smear machine rather than a legitimate legislative body. It is relatively easy to hide that malevolent motive behind specious arguments of legislative interests.

The 5th Amendment protects every American even against Congress. Congress doesn’t get an end-run around it simply because it is Congress. We desperately need the 5th in interactions with Congress, given how it acts.

I am a mortal enemy of Anthony Fauci. I believe his management of the pandemic costs thousands of lives. I believe that he dishonorably lied to the American people repeatedly to violate our constitutional rights. I even once told a panel of Second Circuit judges that we should depose him with the full intention of setting my own perjury trap for him.

But taking the 5th was the right legal move. Even the worst among us still have rights. I’d rather see Anthony Fauci walk free than sacrifice the rights that protect us from a tyrannical government.

[Cameron Atkinson @camlatkinson]

I am no fan of Fauci and would gladly see him prosecuted for anything, but I would have advised him to plead the 5th.

The design of the hearing today was to create a perjury trap. If he answered the same as what he was pardoned for, he would’ve been charged for perjury. If he answered differently, he could still potentially be charged for perjury today because his older answers could arguably be true and he could legitimately believe them to be.

No one, including an experienced lawyer, is capable of navigating that line with any degree of confidence even in a scripted setting, let alone a non-lawyer on the fly.

Beyond this issue, Fauci legitimately invoked the 5th because there is an open debate on whether his pardon is valid due to autopen and Biden’s competency.

I also don’t mind him invoking the 5th here for another reason. I conducted a ton of research back in the day to try to get J6 deponents out of their depositions. Congress has broad power to compel testimony for virtually any reason that can be arguably related to a legislative purpose. It has sought to abuse that authority by functioning as an investigative grand jury and smear machine rather than a legitimate legislative body. It is relatively easy to hide that malevolent motive behind specious arguments of legislative interests.

The 5th Amendment protects every American even against Congress. Congress doesn’t get an end-run around it simply because it is Congress. We desperately need the 5th in interactions with Congress, given how it acts.

I am no fan of Fauci, but taking the 5th was the right legal move. Even the worst among us still have rights.

[Ethan Savka @eesavka]

Let's make something CRYSTAL CLEAR.

Fauci can't plead the Fifth.

You can't argue self-incrimination once you're pardoned.

If he refuses to answer, he's in contempt of Congress.

Prosecute Fauci.

[Cameron Atkinson @camlatkinson]

I am no fan of Fauci and would gladly see him prosecuted for anything, but I would have advised him to plead the 5th.

The design of the hearing today was to create a perjury trap. If he answered the same as what he was pardoned for, he would’ve been charged for perjury. If he answered differently, he could still potentially be charged for perjury today because his older answers could arguably be true and he could legitimately believe them to be.

No one, including an experienced lawyer, is capable of navigating that line with any degree of confidence even in a scripted setting, let alone a non-lawyer on the fly.

Beyond this issue, Fauci legitimately invoked the 5th because there is an open debate on whether his pardon is valid due to autopen and Biden’s competency.

I also don’t mind him invoking the 5th here for another reason. I conducted a ton of research back in the day to try to get J6 deponents out of their depositions. Congress has broad power to compel testimony for virtually any reason that can be arguably related to a legislative purpose. It has sought to abuse that authority by functioning as an investigative grand jury and smear machine rather than a legitimate legislative body. It is relatively easy to hide that malevolent motive behind specious arguments of legislative interests.

The 5th Amendment protects every American even against Congress. Congress doesn’t get an end-run around it simply because it is Congress. We desperately need the 5th in interactions with Congress, given how it acts.

I am no fan of Fauci, but taking the 5th was the right legal move. Even the worst among us still have rights.

[Cameron Atkinson @camlatkinson]

I will not hesitate to try a DUI case if field sobriety tests are all they have. The standardized tests were developed by a psychologist student for her dissertation, were never medically tested or proven, and have been accepted despite being junk science.

I have an entire cross examination script built around exposing the ridiculousness of the tests in a way most normal folks totally get.

[Cameron Atkinson @camlatkinson]

Because the design of the hearing today was to create a perjury trap. If he answered the same as what he was pardoned for, he would’ve been charged for perjury. If he answered differently, he could still potentially be charged for perjury today because his older answers could arguably be true and he could legitimately believe them to be.

This issue came up in Alex Jones’ CT trial. The sanctions prohibited him from testifying to what he actually believed to be true and arguably required him to affirmatively testify falsely. Plaintiffs’ counsel openly asked if an invocation was necessary in front of the jury.

Additionally, because there is an open debate over whether the pardon is valid, I would have advised him to take the 5th.

In any perjury prosecution, proving an intentional or willful lie is an uphill battle, but why open the door?

I am no fan of Fauci, but I did a ton of research on this stuff for multiple J6 Committee deponents. Taking the 5th was the right legal move. There are no riskless ones here.

[Cameron Atkinson @camlatkinson]

I want reprisals, but not in a way that violates his 5th Amendment rights. I once told a 2nd Circuit panel during a COVID religious exemption argument that we should all agree to depose him and I accused him of lying about herd immunity in the briefs. But I want to nail him constitutionally.

[Cameron Atkinson @camlatkinson]

An state AG can’t charge for lying to Congress. No jurisdiction. The rest of your argument is too generic here. This was very complicated as to the perjury question and the 5th was the only right answer. Better to take the contempt case to court on this record than stick your head in the noose.

[Cameron Atkinson @camlatkinson]

Agreed. Fighting words has become code for content-based speech censorship of speech we hate. My Idaho paralegal just asked me to explain it to her, and I had to confess that I can't provide an objective definition of how it works in practice anymore. When she asked why, I had to tell her about State v. Baccala, 326 Conn. 232 (2017) (profane insults of the female variety not fighting words) and State v. Liebenguth, 336 Conn. 685 (2021) (the n-word is fighting words).

[Cameron Atkinson @camlatkinson]

@AtkinsonLawLLC just asked SCOTUS to take a case that guts "proof beyond a reasonable doubt."

The only evidence that our client was invovled in a murder: a written statement the star witness herself disavowed on the stand — read to the jury by a detective, after she'd already left it for good.

CT's Supreme Court said "must have been him" is enough to convict.

Due process says otherwise: the government must prove guilt. It doesn't get to force anyone to prove their innocence.

Anything else resembles Idiocracy.

https://t.co/DTSMjLp97p

[Cameron Atkinson @camlatkinson]

“Our Founders understood sensitive places. They restricted firearms in deliberating legislatures, before courts in session, and at polling places on Election Day. In each instance, the same logic applied: the deliberative acts of self-government cannot reliably occur when those conducting them face armed intimidation. The Founders restricted firearms where that threat was real and where the integrity of deliberative self-government depended on freedom from it.

They did not restrict firearms in post offices. Not because post offices were rare — they were operated by the Continental Congress before the Constitution was ratified. Not because the Founders were unaware that post offices were government facilities — they built them. But because a post office is not a deliberative proceeding, a postmaster processing mail is not a judge adjudicating cases, and the right to send a letter does not depend on freedom from armed coercion the way the right to vote does on Election Day. The Founders drew that line. This case is about whether the district court was right to erase it.”

[We The Patriots USA @WTPatriotsUSA]

Because your right to bear arms is non-negotiable. https://t.co/a4W8Yj8MFz

[Cameron Atkinson @camlatkinson]

I have officially finished my move to God’s country. Now when I am bad at fishing, I can literally see the fish swim by my lure.

[Cameron Atkinson @camlatkinson]

I understand why 2A people are fixated on Wolford. It's a great decision, but I think that it's a mistake to ignore Hemani or not use it in conjunction with Wolford.

Wolford fixes a long-running problem that has plagued First Amendment law and which threatened to swallow Second Amendment law. Anti-gun judges and governments would just elevate the level of generality in the comparison to the broadest possible extent of the police power. Doing so would render it impossible for any plaintiff to win because the police power, at its broadest expanse, can cover anything. Wolford requires courts in the 2A context to actually confront laws at their actual level of operation instead of at a high level of generality.

Hemani fixes the problem of when the government doesn't over-generalize and appeals to laws that superficially mirror what it is trying to do. Anti-gun judges love superficial mirroring because it allows them to pretend that they faithfully applied Supreme Court precedent. Hemani says no and requires a tight fit in Bruen's "how" and "why" to uphold a law. Again, the focus is on actual operation and why the historical laws operated that way.

If you feel the need to invoke Wolford in one of your cases, I think you're committing 2A malpractice not to invoke Hemani at the same time. They are two different safeguards to solve two different problems that often accompany each other.

[Cameron Atkinson @camlatkinson]

Fire alarms and emergency announcements going out in Domestic Terminal E in the Atlanta Airport