Gawker 
Enter your username and password.
New York, 6:38 AM
Mon Nov 9
14 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip Your Editors:
tips@gawker.com
Tipline: 646-214-8138
Editor-in-Chief:
Gabriel Snyder | Email
West Coast Editor:
Richard Rushfield | Email
Contributing Editors:
Valleywag:
Ryan Tate | Email
Media:
Hamilton Nolan | Email
Politics:
Alex Pareene | Email
Investigations:
John Cook | Email
Entertainment:
Brian Moylan | Email
Weekends:
Foster Kamer | Email
Video Editor:
Richard Blakeley | Email
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
10/01/09
10/01/09
10/01/09
- Really?
"But the U.S. Attorney's Office insisted on dropping the charges, to keep Sullivan's record clean so his immigration can go through." - Ryan Tate, Gawker
It seems Gawker provided me with an eminently plausible explanation and reported it as fact not speculation.
Dropping the charges may be hypocritical, but mustering up some faux-outrage over Sullivan's silence seems misplaced.
10/01/09
10/01/09
1) He is rich and famous (relatively speaking).
2) The effective penalty here would not have been a fine in the hundreds of dollars, but the likely denial of his immigration application. An application still in flux because the United States still bans HIV+ immigrants despite a Congressional vote to reverse the ban back during Bush's administration and also because the federal governement affords zero significance to his legal MA marriage to a US citizen, despite doing so for straight Americans.
Which strikes you as the larger hyprocrisy?
10/01/09
10/01/09
Furthermore, it seems we are both on the same page regarding the drug laws and harsh messiness of immigration proceedings. Aside from not speaking publicly on this delicate issue on the advice of his counsel, has Sullivan acted hypocritically. Has he argued in the past, no exceptions should be made? It's my understanding that he is vocal about relaxing our drug laws. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I just don't understand what larger point you are trying to make. Is it that if some suffer the capriciousness of our justice system, all should?
10/01/09
Look, I see your point, and pot laws are dumb, but Andrew can be as well. Most people without his access to good lawyers, and probable status as a "desirable alien resident" in immigration terms would never have gotten off as scot-free as Andrew. That's Cook's point, he is correct, and it's not incumbent on him to prove your negative.
Frankly, i don't understand your point, and I wonder if you're high.
Nothing wrong with that! Don't get busted with drugs on federal land if you're applying for citizenship, is all. And I mostly like Sully, for the record.
10/01/09
Just off the top of my head: I can recall seeing lots of kids being granted a deferred judgment because they were going into the military or because it'd mess up a scholarship. Personally, I've been charged at least six times that I can remember and I'm pretty sure that once or twice, the charges have been dropped.
I don't know the specific circumstances of Sullivan's arrest, but the prosecutor felt that the punishment would be greater than the crime. It was his perogative, much like it was the judge's to ask for an explanation and Mr. Sullivan's to go along with the arrangement.
10/01/09
Oh, and he probably would've also taken note that though his possession would've been legal most everywhere else in Massachusetts, he needs to watch himself on federal land.
10/02/09
10/02/09
I mean, were the situation somewhat different, Sullivan would argue that the law is what it is and that, if you disagree, it's your responsibility to work to change it. Not to break it, get away with it, then snicker about it.
But then again, he's never been one for recognizing hypocrisy and is often a walking example of cognitive dissonance.
10/02/09
I'm almost 50, a "Contentious Objector" and for the record, I haven't spent an hour in jail.
10/02/09
When he was approached by the Ranger and was asked if he had any more, he reportedly volunteered the rest of his stash, while saying that he had a legal amount.
Now, I'll assume that once he had been charged, he did contact an attorney, who contacted the prosecutor's office to inquire about the options. I don't know this, but if it had been me and if a conviction would've cost me more than a simple fine or a standard sentence, I (or anyone) would've done the same thing.
ETA: In Provincetown, the beach wraps around town, so though I don't know exactly where the infraction occurred, it is quite possible that Mr Sullivan didn't know that he was on NPS land.
10/01/09
09/16/09
09/16/09
09/16/09
09/11/09
09/11/09
09/11/09
09/11/09
07/07/09
07/07/09
07/07/09
07/07/09
05/25/09
05/24/09
And Andrews not credible when he says he "wasn't allowed" to use his 401K: one can take an early distribution and pay a penalty (10% federal, plus a state penalty that's 2.5% here in CA), and plenty of people do exactly that to survive and avoid bankruptcy.
The NY Times has had an unfortunate relationship with the truth in some famous instances lately, and you've got to wonder whether Andrews is yet another sign of terrible management at that paper.
05/24/09
05/23/09
05/23/09
05/23/09
05/23/09
05/26/09