Stand-up philosopher. Raw take producer. Guns, free speech, religious liberty. I lawyer too.
Connecticut, USA
Joined May 2015
- Tweets4.1K
- Following156
- Followers928
- Likes1.6K
“Everything Unjected has done is precisely what Denver bars invite the public to do,” Cameron Atkinson of We the Patriots USA, the lawyer representing Unjected in the suit, told The Denver Gazette in a statement Saturday.
“It’s disappointing that some people have to attack those businesses based on their fears and misconceptions. Not only are their attitudes and actions at odds with American values of tolerance and respect, but they are also hurting the small businesses in their community. Thank God Grizzly Rose believes in good fellowship for all.”
denvergazette.com/2026/10/24…
If this is the best you can do for exclusive news, you're a bad journalist. Anyone who gets in trouble is going to call their friends for help. That's not news. It's reality.
I got in trouble in law school for running my mouth to the point I thought I'd be expelled or suspended. I told my best friend that he was free to distance himself from me if it was better for him. God love that guy, he looked back at me and said as a true Italian should, "My people don't do that."
Maybe you should get in touch with how the normal world works instead of generating click-bait off normal human behavior.
EXCLUSIVE: Once Kimberly Guilfoyle saw the walls closing in on her tenure in Athens, she breathlessly sought a lifeline to save her ambassadorship.
Three powerful men sat atop her list of frenzied calls. They include Pentagon Secretary Pete Hegseth and U.S. ambassador to Turkey Tom Barrack.
She asked if they would call President Trump on her behalf.
READ MORE HERE: dailymail.com/news/article-1…
I became politically unaffiliated at some point after 2020. Both major political parties were using the power of government to coerce speech censorship by social media platforms. I picked the First Amendment over political affiliation.
I am sitting at the gas pump staring at $4.75 a gallon - the highest I can recall paying in CT. The knee jerk reaction is vote the Republicans out, but you really expect that to work?
The war with Iran - and yes, I think it’s war - has driven the prices up, or so we’re told. Congress neither declared war nor stopped it. But it has not proven capable of doing so regardless of who is in power during my lifetime. Voting for the other major political party won’t change anything. It will just swap one form of jellyfish for another.
Is the solution a national third party? I am skeptical. You need unity around common principles to gain political power, but an established party will always breed graft, abuse of power, and corruption. What may start as a worthy counterbalance will quickly decay.
Our Founders were not blind to these problems. After all, human nature rarely changes. They wrote about them and designed our entire political system to counter them.
In its day, our limited historical snapshot indicates the system worked, but why? Our culture was different. It was more local. We identified with our states, not our federal identity. We controlled our national representatives through our local representatives. We constrained federal power to affect our local lives. Our technological capacity contributed. Mass media of that era - newspapers - couldn’t reach the entire country. Peer to peer communication was slower and demanded more thought.
These factors made us more sensitive to local rights against the federal government and the passions of the national political movements. To the extent there was a national political fight, it primarily took place over the distribution of power between states and the federal government, just as the Framers intended.
Modern mass media provided wings to the expansion of federal power achieved by the Civil War and the change in political structure and attitude. We are more connected than ever to a national discussion. Local problems are now national problems when they shouldn’t be. The increase of national power naturally bred corrupt national entrenchments of interest to plague the nation whereas those interest were more confined to localities.
I am increasingly convinced that we may need a shakeup in our constitutional system of government to restore a structure that dilutes power back to the local level. It’s time to have that discussion.
I once wrote a letter to a CT DCF worker telling her that if she dared to cross the threshold of the driveway, we’d sue her for trespass and a 4th Amendment search. I also informed her that if she stood in the street and tried to talk to my client’s kids without the parents present, I’d sue her. Then I told her that if she didn’t attach my letter to any warrants she applied for, I’d sue her for violating Franks v. Delaware.
Never heard from her again.
Deputy shows zero hesitation following the law when resident demands CPS officer officially tresspassed from her property. 👀
When government officials believe their badge places them above accountability, knowing your rights is your strongest defense.
A Child Protective Services officer, (later identified as Giavana Dawson) arrived at a private residence for an inquiry, accompanied by a sheriff’s deputy for civil standby.
The interaction that followed was a textbook contrast between bureaucratic overreach and lawful police conduct:
Things kicked off with resident documenting via video, the encounter on her property. The CPS worker became combative, demanding to know why she was being recorded and flatly refusing to allow her official agency badge or credentials to be filmed thus refusing to identify.
Instead of complying with public policy and transparency standards, the CPS officer attempted to strong-arm the homeowner, demanding cameras be turned off before showing identification.
State investigators operate under the color of law, not unchecked authority. In absence of an emergency warrant or court order, an uninvited welfare check is purely consensual. When an investigator conceals their identity and weaponizes procedural secrecy against a cooperative citizen, it crosses from routine duty into corrupt overreach.
Things quickly flipped when the homeowner stood her ground showing who is really in charge, revoked access to her property, and turned directly to Deputy Felix demanding action. Rather than shielding the CPS officer's unlawful actions, Deputy Felix followed the law to the letter:
Recognizing the resident’s constitutional curtilage and property rights, the deputy immediately escorted the CPS worker off the premises.
When the resident formally requested a criminal trespass warning against Dawson, the deputy did not hesitate. He entered the trespass directly into the Field Interview Report (FIR) system, confirming that any return to the property without a warrant would lead to immediate enforcement.
The deputy explicitly assured the homeowner that his official narrative would reflect her willingness to cooperate and that the encounter collapsed solely because the CPS caseworker refused to identify herself.
Department supervisors later confirmed that agency policy strictly requires caseworkers to present credentials and does not permit agents to refuse identification simply because a citizen is filming on private property.
This encounter serves as a crucial case study in asserting Fourth Amendment protections: police officers on civil standby are bound by constitutional limits, and public servants who refuse transparency have no lawful authority to linger on private land.
Great job by the deputy by showing no bias by standing up for the constitutional rights of the homeowner. It's rare that you see an officer actually choose the constitution over protecting government officials.
My paralegal overheard my wife and I discussing a First Amendment case and lost it.
My wife: "The only way the judges and clerks get there is to be disingenuous."
Me: "Isn't that an indispensable requirement to be a federal judge or law clerk?"
My paralegal starts laughing like we're joking, and I had to explain that we were both dead serious.
CT Supreme Court granted certification in @AtkinsonLawLLC's free speech challenge to CT's vexatious requester FOIA law. Vagueness and free speech are squarely on the docket.
Any law that permits the government to deny people a public benefit based on the content of their speech is unconstitutional.
appellateinquiry.jud.ct.gov/…
SCOTUS issued a call for a response (CFR) in State v. Edwin Franqui today. I am asking it to determine whether an out of court statement that the witness recants at trial can be used to convict someone. Only 2% of IFP cases get CFRs.
I have some amici who would file a supporting brief, but need counsel to draft the brief. If you're interested in helping out, please let me know. Amicus briefs are now due October 30.
supremecourt.gov/search.aspx…
“Threatening to prosecute a father for refusing to become complicit in an act of abortion is the definition of un-American. No public health concern justifies forcing someone to accept or benefit from such an evil act when it violates their religious beliefs.”
🚨🚨BREAKING: Emergency appeal to First Circuit filed in Maine school vaccine lawsuit. Read more: wethepatriotsusa.org/emergen…
I believe in free speech, not anti-Semitism. I will defend your right to be as anti-Semitic as you want, but I will not endorse your anti-Jewish agenda, just like I won’t endorse an anti-Muslim agenda.
If you call my office to do nothing more than to spew conspiracies, I am going to hang up on you after telling you to get lost.
Another example about how the government's shielding of an industry from lawsuits creates utterly terrible market conditions.
So @united oversold the flight and they are now barking and threatening that we will not board if one person doesn’t volunteer to get off the flight. Their error. Their fault. Their greed, yet somehow we, the paying customers, are the problem.
All the airlines are shit, truly. Ever since COVID they’ve gone downhill even as ticket prices climb and amenities diminish.
What a crock.
Every day, I remind myself that the greatest joy of being a lawyer who owns a firm is that I chose the crap that I deal with. No boss told me to do it. I am not going to get fired for doing what I want to do.
Life is hard. Having freedom to choose your struggle makes it easier.
To those who asked, I unfortunately will not be at GRPC this weekend. I love the First Amendment as much as I love the Second Amendment. Like the 2A, the 1A requires constant defending, and that’s what I’ll be doing this weekend.
Here’s to God, free speech, and guns!
If you’re a member of the media and twist the portion of my pleadings that reflects poorly on you, I have nothing to say to you. You have the right to print it and I have the right to ignore you.
Here endeth the lesson.
Cameron Atkinson retweeted
I don't think the Clancy defense motion seeking an inquiry on the holdout juror has any chance of success. Nor does the double jeopardy argument. The trial court acted properly in all regards dealing with the issue. But the histrionics/hyperbole and bombastic rhetoric by the juror's attorney towards Reddington and the Constitution ignores the role of a criminal defense attorney and his obligation to provide zealous advocacy. Serious allegations were made by other jurors. Other facts about the questionnaire and whether it was filled out accurately remain unknown. A defense lawyer is seeking to explore those issues to the possible benefit of his client. That is what lawyers do. They argue and put forth arguments to defend constitutional rights. Even for clients who may be awful people and are factually guilty. Heaven help us (and the actually innocent) if they didn't.
Cameron Atkinson retweeted
Also dropping this here for the 2A community. If you have a CT matter, we have a small, but egoless set of 2A lawyers in Connecticut who regularly talk to each other. If one of us isn't the best for the job, we usually have the better person a phone call or text away with responses in 24 hours or less.
Been trying to follow orders and eat more healthy. Raw avocado has to be Satan's revenge on the digestive system. It repeats on you all day with the most disgusting taste.
Cameron Atkinson retweeted
When the White House opens its doors to the press, it must comply with the First Amendment. The president is as free as any other person to criticize media coverage. But he can’t ban outlets from the White House just because he doesn’t like their reporting or commentary. Press credentials aren’t a reward for loyalty to the government. A free, even adversarial, press is a sign of our country’s strength. The public deserves to hear about its government from independent voices, not just its leader’s loyalists and allies.
