4 ms·

The gun parts in 44 and 47 are strange and don't seem to have much meaning except to enhance the perceived threat of the actual threats which are mostly legal/n

The gun parts in 44 and 47 are strange and don't seem to have much meaning except to enhance the perceived threat of the actual threats which are mostly legal/non-violent/career-centric in nature.

ajross 14y ago
The allegation is apparently that Nguyen invited someone into the office environment, with a visible weapon, and called attention to that. That would certainly seem to constitute a "threat" to most people. I don't really see why you wouldn't think so. I'm going to guess that you feel this is an infringement on "Dunphy's" right to carry that gun. It's not. The right to bear arms doesn't extend to the unrestricted ability to use them as a means of intimidation.
- codewright 14y ago
  >The allegation is apparently that Nguyen invited someone into the office environment, with a visible weapon, and called attention to that. This is the part I would have qualms with. The problem is that the presentation of context in the filing isn't great. I saw a one-liner that mention Nguyen telling somebody else about Dunphy having a Glock or something. >I'm going to guess that you feel this is an infringement on "Dunphy's" right to carry that gun. Please no. Not what I was getting at. I'm mostly concerned with the dissonance in what the filing is trying to convey versus how it might be perceived. Mentioning that somebody carries a firearm in itself isn't a threat, it's heavily contextual. I have little trouble imagining that Nguyen was mentioning it in a threatening manner from what's provided in the filing though.
  - rhizome 14y ago
    The 'presentation of context in the filing' is only to establish some circumstance, the very definition of "context." the details will come out in court if it gets that far.
  - trhtrsh 14y ago
    There are different laws for concealed carry vs open carry, and "brandishing" a weapon is a crime. It is very much a relevant issue to determine the context in which a gun is mentioned. Connecting a firearm mention to an otherwise unrelated statement is quite reasonable interpreted as an implied threat to use the firearm.
    - mjwalshe 14y ago
      And there is a lot of specific case law in terms of guns in the work place which many employers do have problems with.
  - justin66 14y ago
    After reading #44 through #50 it's completely unclear what problem you could have with the way the information was presented.
droithomme 14y ago
Well the allegation that Corey Dunphy, working for the US Department of Justice and a friend of Nguyen, was armed, and made threats against employees who crossed Nguyen to use his resources at the OIG to ruin their lives by destroying their credit and getting them declared as terrorists (this is my interpretation of a threat by a government official to put someone on the no fly list) is pretty amazing. You'll also never be able to get this guy to admit to it because it is an extreme abuse under color of authority that could get him charged with civil rights violations: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/civilrights/color_of_law http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/civilrights/color_of...
- codewright 14y ago
  >Well the allegation that Corey Dunphy, working for the US Department of Justice and a friend of Nguyen, was armed, and made threats against employees who crossed Nguyen to use his resources at the OIG to ruin their lives by destroying their credit and getting them declared as terrorists This is my point, it's a non-sequitur. Being armed is irrelevant. Millions of American citizens carry firearms everyday. Everything you mentioned has nothing to do with the firearm. Mentioning it is just a way of scaring people with irrationality. That aside, that Nguyen mentioned (from what I can tell) that Dunphy owned a weapon in a context where it seemed like he was making a threat is the real problem. Mentioning that a buddy/colleague owns a weapon as if they're going to go shoot somebody for you is...immature to the point of being psychotic... That's the more relevant part here, I just found the placement, phrasing, and framing of it in the filing to be pretty poor.
  - danso 14y ago
    So if Dunphy works for the OIG...seems like someone should FOIA his emails and see if anything comes up related to this matter
    - rdl 14y ago
      http://www.linkedin.com/pub/corey-dunphy/33/404/9b1 http://www.linkedin.com/pub/corey-dunphy/33/404/9b1 right? I see a postal dispute: https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:TRTRSY2PM0kJ:www.nalcbayarea.com/PDF%2520Files/Rong%2520Arbitration.pdf+&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESiVjoPx5kZLhogBNLye1JCHyajylAI6FU0cJQNpW7Jjw9Ga9XZKHZlpO5IYZsG1_w6RnATDDoZn8NClZHfIuEQ3kCkqwtJjSWaCjDNYIs2-4oeYEi0qqRMU0UFYZI2B5dTpJNmG&sig=AHIEtbRRZMONOONgtMVh9EoNhsZZJ3ktPg https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:TRTRSY2PM0kJ:... He's a US Postal Service Office of the Inspector General Special Agent. Which is interesting because 1) the USPS Postal Inspectors are no joke when it comes to the mails, but have exceedingly limited jurisdiction otherwise -- I assume this extends to their OIG as well, if not more so and 2) they are one of the least internally corrupt USG agencies (DEA is probably the worst; FBI and USSS are also pretty bad; various OIGs vary wildly down to HHS OIG; US Army CID and USAF OSI are probably the best). So maybe this claim is totally baseless, but I'd probably not brag about my post office friend's ability to put people on no fly lists or brandish his Glock.

The gun parts in 44 and 47 are strange and don't seem to have much meaning except to enhance the perceived threat of the actual threats which are mostly legal/non-violent/career-centric in nature.

ajross 14y ago

The allegation is apparently that Nguyen invited someone into the office environment, with a visible weapon, and called attention to that. That would certainly seem to constitute a "threat" to most people. I don't really see why you wouldn't think so. I'm going to guess that you feel this is an infringement on "Dunphy's" right to carry that gun. It's not. The right to bear arms doesn't extend to the unrestricted ability to use them as a means of intimidation.

codewright 14y ago
>The allegation is apparently that Nguyen invited someone into the office environment, with a visible weapon, and called attention to that. This is the part I would have qualms with. The problem is that the presentation of context in the filing isn't great. I saw a one-liner that mention Nguyen telling somebody else about Dunphy having a Glock or something. >I'm going to guess that you feel this is an infringement on "Dunphy's" right to carry that gun. Please no. Not what I was getting at. I'm mostly concerned with the dissonance in what the filing is trying to convey versus how it might be perceived. Mentioning that somebody carries a firearm in itself isn't a threat, it's heavily contextual. I have little trouble imagining that Nguyen was mentioning it in a threatening manner from what's provided in the filing though.
- rhizome 14y ago
  The 'presentation of context in the filing' is only to establish some circumstance, the very definition of "context." the details will come out in court if it gets that far.
- trhtrsh 14y ago
  There are different laws for concealed carry vs open carry, and "brandishing" a weapon is a crime. It is very much a relevant issue to determine the context in which a gun is mentioned. Connecting a firearm mention to an otherwise unrelated statement is quite reasonable interpreted as an implied threat to use the firearm.
  - mjwalshe 14y ago
    And there is a lot of specific case law in terms of guns in the work place which many employers do have problems with.
- justin66 14y ago
  After reading #44 through #50 it's completely unclear what problem you could have with the way the information was presented.

droithomme 14y ago

Well the allegation that Corey Dunphy, working for the US Department of Justice and a friend of Nguyen, was armed, and made threats against employees who crossed Nguyen to use his resources at the OIG to ruin their lives by destroying their credit and getting them declared as terrorists (this is my interpretation of a threat by a government official to put someone on the no fly list) is pretty amazing. You'll also never be able to get this guy to admit to it because it is an extreme abuse under color of authority that could get him charged with civil rights violations: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/civilrights/color_of_law http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/civilrights/color_of...

codewright 14y ago
>Well the allegation that Corey Dunphy, working for the US Department of Justice and a friend of Nguyen, was armed, and made threats against employees who crossed Nguyen to use his resources at the OIG to ruin their lives by destroying their credit and getting them declared as terrorists This is my point, it's a non-sequitur. Being armed is irrelevant. Millions of American citizens carry firearms everyday. Everything you mentioned has nothing to do with the firearm. Mentioning it is just a way of scaring people with irrationality. That aside, that Nguyen mentioned (from what I can tell) that Dunphy owned a weapon in a context where it seemed like he was making a threat is the real problem. Mentioning that a buddy/colleague owns a weapon as if they're going to go shoot somebody for you is...immature to the point of being psychotic... That's the more relevant part here, I just found the placement, phrasing, and framing of it in the filing to be pretty poor.
- danso 14y ago
  So if Dunphy works for the OIG...seems like someone should FOIA his emails and see if anything comes up related to this matter
  - rdl 14y ago
    http://www.linkedin.com/pub/corey-dunphy/33/404/9b1 http://www.linkedin.com/pub/corey-dunphy/33/404/9b1 right? I see a postal dispute: https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:TRTRSY2PM0kJ:www.nalcbayarea.com/PDF%2520Files/Rong%2520Arbitration.pdf+&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESiVjoPx5kZLhogBNLye1JCHyajylAI6FU0cJQNpW7Jjw9Ga9XZKHZlpO5IYZsG1_w6RnATDDoZn8NClZHfIuEQ3kCkqwtJjSWaCjDNYIs2-4oeYEi0qqRMU0UFYZI2B5dTpJNmG&sig=AHIEtbRRZMONOONgtMVh9EoNhsZZJ3ktPg https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:TRTRSY2PM0kJ:... He's a US Postal Service Office of the Inspector General Special Agent. Which is interesting because 1) the USPS Postal Inspectors are no joke when it comes to the mails, but have exceedingly limited jurisdiction otherwise -- I assume this extends to their OIG as well, if not more so and 2) they are one of the least internally corrupt USG agencies (DEA is probably the worst; FBI and USSS are also pretty bad; various OIGs vary wildly down to HHS OIG; US Army CID and USAF OSI are probably the best). So maybe this claim is totally baseless, but I'd probably not brag about my post office friend's ability to put people on no fly lists or brandish his Glock.