You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
M
Maximus1
Guest
All of a sudden asking something under oath is entrapment( for anyone who does not know that entrapment is a difficult defense a defendant must proove), if, the affiant lies.
He set me up asking," knowing I would lie," is now the fault of the questioner. Another development of the Trump presidency.
He set me up asking," knowing I would lie," is now the fault of the questioner. Another development of the Trump presidency.
R
Roselle
Guest
Interesting interview. It is frightening how the FBI have acted, and possibly the previous administration.
I can remember being told by an attorney that one should not talk with the police/FBI, even casual conversations, without an attorney present. At the time I thought it was self serving, but now I’m beginning to think that’s good advice.
I can remember being told by an attorney that one should not talk with the police/FBI, even casual conversations, without an attorney present. At the time I thought it was self serving, but now I’m beginning to think that’s good advice.
M
Maximus1
Guest
As a member of the General Public, you should always seek assistance of counsel.
Flynn was the HEAD OF MILITARY INTELLIGENCE. The in’s and outs of FBI statements for him, is like the in’s and outs of a lifeguard opparating a whistle. Talking to the FBI is part of the job description in this work.
Flynn was the HEAD OF MILITARY INTELLIGENCE. The in’s and outs of FBI statements for him, is like the in’s and outs of a lifeguard opparating a whistle. Talking to the FBI is part of the job description in this work.
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
That is generally good advice as a regular person doesn’t even necessarily know how they may be incriminating themself. Sometimes it is good to go through a legal advisor when talking to a reporter too.I can remember being told by an attorney that one should not talk with the police/FBI, even casual conversations, without an attorney present.
If the police are asking questions it may be from lack of sufficient information to prosecute. As a defendant why help them get their story straight? The burden of proof is on the prosecutor.
If you don’t talk you might walk.
P
PaulinVA
Guest
As I said before, this reminds me of the trial of Oliver North in 1989, where he was found not guilty on 13 felony counts and guilty of three, which were later reversed.
One defense strategy was to convince the jurors in the District that he was just like them, a poor slob whose boss told him to do something a little fishy and he would lose his job if he didn’t go along. He was a decorated Marine O-5 combat veteran who worked for an Admiral! But he convinced secretaries and others he was just like them.
Same thing is happening here, These are sophisticated people on the national stage, making and implementing policy at the national level. They read. They talk to each other. To say that they are fearful of perjury traps when talking to the FBI or are unaware lying to a federal agent is illegal is not credible. Sorry. Grab your lawyer and have him/her deal with the FBI. Sheesh.
One defense strategy was to convince the jurors in the District that he was just like them, a poor slob whose boss told him to do something a little fishy and he would lose his job if he didn’t go along. He was a decorated Marine O-5 combat veteran who worked for an Admiral! But he convinced secretaries and others he was just like them.
Same thing is happening here, These are sophisticated people on the national stage, making and implementing policy at the national level. They read. They talk to each other. To say that they are fearful of perjury traps when talking to the FBI or are unaware lying to a federal agent is illegal is not credible. Sorry. Grab your lawyer and have him/her deal with the FBI. Sheesh.
Last edited:
M
Maximus1
Guest
That is a really good point.
These people are the super few chosen to speak ( On behalf of the USA)to the enemies most sophisticated spies like Kisleyak.
These people are the super few chosen to speak ( On behalf of the USA)to the enemies most sophisticated spies like Kisleyak.
R
Roselle
Guest
Good advice about journalists also. As I’ve found out journalists tend to be unpleasant people to say the least.
M
maryjk
Guest
I worked at a local news station. I was in accounting, not news.
It was during the first gulf war.
They found out that my family was stationed overseas.
More than one reported tried to talk to me about how it felt to have loved ones in harms way.
Um, hello, I am a co-worker not a story.
Their boss had to tell them to leave me alone.
It was during the first gulf war.
They found out that my family was stationed overseas.
More than one reported tried to talk to me about how it felt to have loved ones in harms way.
Um, hello, I am a co-worker not a story.
Their boss had to tell them to leave me alone.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
A pretty good rule of thumb is that if you’re the target of the FBI you’re pretty much toast no matter what. An FBI agent once explained to me that they’re “person oriented” not “crime oriented” like local cops are. They decide who the target is and then go after them with everything. Charges of other people only serve the purpose of getting someone who’ll help nail the real target.That is generally good advice as a regular person doesn’t even necessarily know how they may be incriminating themself. Sometimes it is good to go through a legal advisor when talking to a reporter too.
If the police are asking questions it may be from lack of sufficient information to prosecute. As a defendant why help them get their story straight? The burden of proof is on the prosecutor.
If you don’t talk you might walk.
They can be enormously clever. I remember years ago a very major chop shop operation that was operating right out in the open. Lots of people were buying the vehicles (big tractor-trailer rigs; Peterbilts and Freightliners worth a hundred thousand or more) They operator had been convicted of it before.
Some people went to jail because they WOULDN’T talk to the FBI about it. Eventually, it turned out the targets were a big truck theft ring in California and the chop shop was a sting operation set up by the FBI itself.
They’re smart, really smart. And their resources are astonishing. No ordinary person can ever stand up against them.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
I remember a long time ago some attorneys in a town near here were charged with tax evasion. Two of them fought the charges, went broke and went to prison. One saved his money and just “went quietly”. The third one still had resources when he got out. The first two didn’t.
I think that’s how one deals with the FBI. If you’re the target, give your wallet to your spouse or kid and hold out your wrists for the cuffs.
I think that’s how one deals with the FBI. If you’re the target, give your wallet to your spouse or kid and hold out your wrists for the cuffs.
C
Cathoholic
Guest
Jeff Cavins wrote a book on suffering.
In it he features an attorney who is also a Catholic deacon who went through Hades with them.
He basically said the same thing you did about dealing with such a powerful bureau.
In it he features an attorney who is also a Catholic deacon who went through Hades with them.
He basically said the same thing you did about dealing with such a powerful bureau.
Last edited:
M
Maximus1
Guest
Or don’t commit a crime
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
Remember the Nancy Pelosi video where she was slowed down and made to appear like she was slurring her words?Good advice about journalists also.
There was a guy that claimed that it was his video. He was on twitter telling people it was his video. On the Facebook page on which had had it posted there was also a link to a site where one could donate money. That site had his legal name on it.
A journalist responded to his tweet asking for an interview. They guy spoke to the reporter and tried to “set the record straight.” They journalist also spoke to the man’s ex girlfriend. The end publication had the details of arrest, a pending domestic abuse case, and some other unpolished details about the man.
The man wanted to take the Journalist to court for “doxing” him. Last time I checked he hadn’t gotten far. He didn’t appear to realize that speaking to a journalist would result in information being shared with the public. Had he kept his moth shut from the start he would have been okay.
I’m assuming that by “jail” you mean “prison.” Someone presumed to not have guilt can be held in jail.Some people went to jail because they WOULDN’T talk to the FBI about it.
What were their charges? Had those people engaged in illegal activity?
The fifth ammendment allows them not not self incriminate. If there is sufficient information to prosecute a person a person may sometimes find themselves in a position of being able to negotiate a lower penalty for cooperating with authorities. If they do not cooperate the basis of their penalty is still their conviction. Not the refusal to cooperate.
One strategy for staying out of prison is avoiding unlawful activities; both participation and association with those that participate.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
I think it was Dershowitz who wrote a book entitled “A Felonly a Day”; the thesis being that federal criminal laws are so vague that nobody can avoid committing at least one felony/day under it. The question is not whether you committed a crime or not, but whether the authority in power wants to destroy you.Or don’t commit a crime
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Arguably. Some were foolish enough to buy and re-sell one of those trucks. The chop shop people really were artists. They could even change the serial numbers. Were the facts such that people should have known the trucks weren’t really reconstituted wrecks, but stolen and rebuilt trucks with “wreck titles” that matched the serial numbers?What were their charges? Had those people engaged in illegal activity?
So some believe. I have seen people threatened if they didn’t “testify right”. It’s naive for people to think that “being innocent” will save them from an aggressive and unethical law enforcement that wants to bring them down.Not the refusal to cooperate.
Last edited:
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
One would expect this. The prosecutor has no case if there is nothing that can be argued.Arguably.
So there was sufficient information and evidence to support the allegations that they engaged in illegal trade, forgery, and possibly other crimes. It sounds like that is the basis of their incarceration and not the refusal to speak to the FBI. They do have a right to remain silent. Practicing that right is not an offense of the law.Some were foolish enough to buy and re-sell one of those trucks.
This is why it is good to know rights and have legal advisors. Some have also been told that things will go easier for them if they just go ahead and confess. Told they will get a minor slap on the wrist and that they can go home that same day. But their outcomes have been otherwise. A lot of cases and prosecutions are successful because people talk. Sometimes they make their confessions willfully before the public on social media. Sometimes it is under pressure. But in either case they have made declarations of having performed illegal action. A person is not obligated to testify at all when they are being prosecuted. The burden of proof for an alleged crime is on the prosecutor. The defendant has no obligation to assist the prosecutor.I have seen people threatened if they didn’t “testify right”.
It sounds like you may primarily be talking about people that didn’t take a deal to reduce their charges are sentencing. This is different than going to prison simply for not talking.
P
petra22
Guest
Hope you remember that when more “crimes” are uncovered…
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
He wrote the forward in a book titled “Three Felonies a day.” The book was written by Silvergate.I think it was Dershowitz who wrote a book entitled “A Felonly a Day”;
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
I probably would also think innocence protects one had I not seen people persuaded to fabricate to aid in the prosecution of others. Just so you know, some were charged with 'receiving stolen property". I feel pretty confident that nearly everyone in the U.S. has “received stolen property” at some time in his/her life, without knowing it. Knowing is the key. You can’t prove you “didn’t” know, and if some threatened person says you did, then you’re done.So there was sufficient information and evidence to support the allegations that they engaged in illegal trade, forgery, and possibly other crimes. It sounds like that is the basis of their incarceration and not the refusal to speak to the FBI. They do have a right to remain silent. Practicing that right is not an offense of the law.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.