'Martha Stewart' among Phoenix FBI interview scare tactics

8 comments:

• gchu posted at 4:04 am on Wed, Oct 10, 2012.

  Posts: 2

  The scare tactic of the FBI is an assault on the U.S. Constitution, seeking to trump up bogus evidence. This demonstrates a compelling need for the REPEAL of United States Code Section 1001. Clearly, this code section is being abused and misused by the FBI, and placing the name of Martha Stewart on this code section is a reprehensible and abominable FBI tactic.

  Martha Stewart did nothing wrong by the full facts underlying her small, personal, legal stock sale; not one single word spoken by her was recorded in a transcript or in sworn evidence; no evidence existed that she did anything wrong; "Martha Stewart went to jail" because of grossly incompetent legal representation. The FBI agents are LYING in their investigatory scare tactcs.

  The "trump card was Stewart, sentenced to five months in prison" is obviously embedded in FBI training of agents in an affront to the U.S. Constitution. This American democracy calls for the REPEAL of US Code Section 1001, which is no longer used for its original purpose by the FBI bandits.

  The Martha Stewart case stands as a repudiation of the U.S. Constitution, a condemnation of the legal system and a blot on American democracy.

  • Link

   

• Jim Shoo posted at 8:22 am on Wed, Oct 10, 2012.

  Posts: 2

  And what is exactly so "scary" about being warned that lying to a Federal law enforcement official is a crime? Under the Constitution, nobody is ever compelled to talk to any law enforcement official. One can ALWAYS choose to simply walk away and close the door. But I guess, in the twisted view of gchu, we should allow people to lie to law enforcemet officilals thereby resulting in the investigators to waste their time chasing down bogus information that a subject may have lied about. That's a great use of tax payer money! Title 18 Section 1001 should be used more to remind people that you don't have to say anything to any law enforcement officer, but if you choose to speak you had best be telling the truth.

  • Link

   

• Hal Apeno posted at 1:51 pm on Wed, Oct 10, 2012.

  Posts: 11

  Jim Shoo - what's so scary about it is that if one refuses to talk to law enforcement officers and invoke their 5th amendment rights, law enforcement sometimes turn around and reports to the media that you were being "uncooperative", making it "seem" to the people in your community that you're guilty or that you've done something wrong. To me, that's an abuse of power.

  • Link

   

• TempeTownToilet posted at 2:59 pm on Wed, Oct 10, 2012.

  Posts: 29

  You should always take the 5th Amendment and refuse to answer any police questions.

  If you take the Fifth Amendment you can't be charged for refusing to answer police questions.

  When ever you read about cops being questioned about crimes they are accused of the cops ALWAYS take the 5th and refuse to answer questions.

  • Link

   

• TempeTownToilet posted at 3:05 pm on Wed, Oct 10, 2012.

  Posts: 29

  While it is not discussed here the technique that the police use to get confessions is the "9 Step Reid Method".

  The "9 Step Reid Method" replaces the old method where the police beat a person with a physical rubber hose to get a confession.

  The "9 Step Reid Method" uses a psychological rubber hose to get the confessions.

  The "9 Step Reid Method" is a very effective method of getting confessions. Remember the kids from Tucson who falsely confessed to the Buddhist Tempe Murders? Sheriff Tom Agnos used the "9 Step Reid Method" to get that confession.

  The "9 Step Reid Method" is used by most police departments in American.

  The one complaint about the "9 Step Reid Method" is that it works too well. People routinely confess to crimes they didn't do when questioned with the "9 Step Reid Method".

  For that reason England and several other countries have made it illegal to use the "9 Step Reid Method" on children.

  • Link

   

• TempeTownToilet posted at 3:11 pm on Wed, Oct 10, 2012.

  Posts: 29

  I forgot to say this but Google on the "9 Step Reid Method"

  You will get some interesting reading.

  As I said before the "9 Step Reid Method" is basically using a mental rubber hose to get a suspect to confess.

  Of course if you read the literature on the "9 Step Reid Method" the cops consider anybody that is being questioned with the "9 Step Reid Method" to be guilty. So the "9 Step Reid Method" never gets false confessions (according to the cops). And if the suspect doesn't confess, it is not because he is innocent, but because the interrogator didn't do a good job.

  • Link

   

• gchu posted at 3:18 am on Thu, Oct 11, 2012.

  Posts: 2

  In the "twisted view" of Jim Shoo, "a Federal law enforcement official" or the FBI is above the rule of law to coerce and fabricate evidence for their guilt-presumptive mindset.

  The rule of law provides the oath and sworn testimony for the FBI to get truthful information under penalty of perjury from their victims. Using coercion or torture in a "mental rubber hose" is misconduct, malfeasance, and an abuse of power calling for FBI accountabilty in this American democracy.

  Instead of abusing and misusing 'Martha Stewart' as a deplorable scare tactic, the FBI should be reading victims their Miranda rights , abiding by the rule of law. Exploiting the human rights violation of Martha Stewart as the new FBI lingo for "Title 18 Section 1001," the FBI is unbridled in their fishing expedition and witchhunt, trampling the constitutional rights of their victims, especially with incompetent legal counsel.
  
  As an apologist for FBI roguery and using the expression "Title 18 Section 1001," Jim Shoo may have an affinity to its abuse and misuse that mandate REPEAL.

  • Link

   

• Jim Shoo posted at 9:17 am on Fri, Oct 12, 2012.

  Posts: 2

  You're mixing apples and oranges here when you bring up the 5th Amendment (Miranda) warnings. Law enforcement officials DO read these mopes their Miranda warnings. The problem arises when these same mopes are too stupid to invoke their rights and shut-up. They think they can "outsmart" the interviewing officer by providing misleading/false answers. That, in and of itself, is a crime. And as far as the media's involvement, the media is prohibted by its own regulations from publishing the name of anyone who is not charged with a crime. Anyone who is not charged with a crime and who's name apperas in a newspaper story can sue for damages. The late Richard Jewell (from the 1996 Atlanta Olympics) became a very rich man when he successfully sued NBC under this theory.

  • Link