Last year, a story broke that had a little something for everyone – where by “everyone” you’re referring to “incurious, uncritical consumers of shabby information”.
It involved a professor from the University of MInnesota, Dr. Massoud Amin. Amin was convicted of “Theft by Swindle” for, it was alleged, concealing funds from his soon-to-be ex wife during a nasty divorce.
We’ll come back to that.
The story got liberals exercised because Amin was a gun collector (with, dare I say, a penchant for finding bargains). That is a classic dog whistle for the left.
And for the, shall we say, less bright on the right? A middle-eastern sounding name like Amin’s is enough to get the “WATCH FOR TEH SHARIA” crowd into a froth.
And the media coverage of his divorce proceedings – including the swindle allegations – were decidedly unsympathetic.
Sentencing in his trial is scheduled for November 9.
The client is obviously guilty – right?
Not so fast. And according to sources with close knowledge of the case, the charges and conviction are well beyond a miscarriage of justice; they were the tip of an iceberg of shenanigans – borne of malice up against incompetence at best, cynical ambition at worst, all slathered with a layer of legalism.
And when you peel back the onion, you still have something for everyone – among critical thinkers, this time:
- A divorce from hell
- City bureaucrats hamfistedly persecuting a law-abiding gun owner
- A legal process that reads like something between Michael Crichton and Franz Kafka, tainted by racism and amoral careerism
- And, at the end of the day, an American who has done decades of groundbreaking work defending this country from cyberterrorism, facing ten years in prison for something that, even if it were a legitimate conviction.
- Which, given the evidence I’ve encountered, it was not.