>>188918, >>188919, >>188920, >>188921, >>188922, >>188923, >>188924, >>188925, >>188926, >>188927, >>188928, >>188929, >>188930, >>188931, >>188932, >>188933, >>188934, >>188935, >>188936, >>188937, >>188938, >>188939, >>188940, >>188941, >>188942, >>188943, >>188944, >>188945, >>188946, >>188948, >>188949, >>188951, >>188953, >>188954, >>188955, >>188956, >>188957, >>188958, >>188959, >>188960, >>188961, >>188962, >>188963, >>188964, >>188965, >>188966, >>188967, >>188968, >>188969
James O'Keefe @JamesOKeefeIII - Today, I walked into the West Palm Beach Police Department to retrieve my firearms and I walked out with every one of them.
Earlier this spring, my firearms were confiscated after I published my investigation into former Project Veritas board member Matthew Tyrmand, who publicly stated "I would kill him [O'Keefe]", "eat my [O'Keefe] heart out," and fired a bullet through my image on my book.
Just last week, I was denied when I tried to retrieve my firearms. Thirty minutes after we published our denial, I got a phone call from the police department. Today, they're finally back.
This case has never been just about my rights. It's about what happens when a journalist faces legal consequences after reporting on someone who publicly threatened him.
Watch until the end, because with me...there’s always something that happens along the way.
Parent Post:
James O'Keefe @JamesOKeefeIII - Video: JUST IN: O'KEEFE GETS HIS FIREARMS BACK
My firearms have been returned to me by the West Palm Beach Police Department after Matthew Tyrmand publicly threatened me, saying, "I would kill him [O'Keefe]."
https://x.com/JamesOKeefeIII/status/2080761916855566694

James O'Keefe @JamesOKeefeIII - Tyrmand Court Case Update: James O’Keefe’s Constitutional Lawyer Ben Barr argued today in Miami family court for an Anti-SLAPP claim against Matt Tyrmand. Granting O’Keefe’s Anti-SLAPP motion would allow the case to be dismissed and require Tyrmand to pay for O’Keefe’s attorneys’ fees.
Ben Barr stated that Matthew Tyrmand is attempting to do the "Tyrmand Shuffle." Mentioning how Matt is throwing around unsupported claims in order to stop "basic news-gathering,” Barr stated: "Freedom of speech is the default in America and as the Supreme Court said in the Pentagon Papers case, any system of prior restraint of expression comes to this court bearing a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity."
Tyrmand's lawyer Christian Maroni counter argued that "not all speech is constitutionally protected,” and even claimed James O’Keefe “knew that Tyrmand was going to get anti-semitic threats” from random third parties, despite there being NO FACTS in Tyrmand’s petition tying O’Keefe specifically to these third parties.
Judge Amato has officially called for a hearing to review the case and then make a decision on the stalking petition filed by Matt Tyrmand against James O'Keefe.
Judge Amato further DENIED Tyrmand’s motion to compel O’Keefe to produce more discovery. The Judge reasoned that O’Keefe had already produced relevant discovery in his possession.
Finally, Judge Amato rejected Tyrmand's attempt to have James O'Keefe held in contempt of court. The judge ruled that O'Keefe did not violate the temporary injunction, finding no basis to punish him or hold him in contempt. The court also rejected Tyrmand's effort to force additional discovery, explaining that O'Keefe had already produced the relevant materials in his possession.