TexasCHLforum.com

http://blog.simplejustice.us/2014/07/31 ... or-suffer/

The Justice Department’s motion to dismiss [PDF] plainly argues “there is no constitutional right not to become an informant.” The department cited United States v. Paguio, a case from 1997 in which prosecutors “argued that prosecutors indicted her in order to pressure her co-defendant fiancé to cooperate.” The court ruled “there is no constitutional right not to ‘snitch.’”

So, our "justice" department says it's ok to indict my wife on a phony charge if I won't snitch for them. I remember hearing about another government that felt the same way....it was East something or other.

So why don't they apply this to Lois Lerner?

mojo84 wrote:So why don't they apply this to Lois Lerner?

Well, she's not a prole, like every other law or legal concept, it doesn't apply to our rulers.

VMI77 wrote:http://blog.simplejustice.us/2014/07/31 ... or-suffer/

The Justice Department’s motion to dismiss [PDF] plainly argues “there is no constitutional right not to become an informant.” The department cited United States v. Paguio, a case from 1997 in which prosecutors “argued that prosecutors indicted her in order to pressure her co-defendant fiancé to cooperate.” The court ruled “there is no constitutional right not to ‘snitch.’”

So, our "justice" department says it's ok to indict my wife on a phony charge if I won't snitch for them. I remember hearing about another government that felt the same way....it was East something or other.

IANAL but I think your spouse is not the same as the subject "fiancé". Still, this situation is truly onerous and I am getting very tired of "The United States vs. [any of its citizens]" stories of the past many years.

I would think I the right to remain silent covers that. IANAL but isn't charging a person with a known false charge malicious prosecution?

mamabearCali wrote:I would think I the right to remain silent covers that. IANAL but isn't charging a person with a known false charge malicious prosecution?

The current administration operates "the Chicago way" and most Americans today aren't willing and able to stand up to that.

There is one way to stop a bully. There is a choice either stand up to them or be prepared to give them your lunch money for the rest of the year.

A couple things IIRC.

1. The Lois Lerner thing wouldn't apply because they are going after her. She is protecting herself by choosing to remain mostly silent. That and Holder won't go after her anyway.

2. I thought there was a law that spouses could not be forced to testify against each other.

They are going after a bigger fish and Lerner has the inside info they need. She would have tobadnit to some wrong doing but she doesn't want to because she thinks she's covered her tracks sufficiently. I think she's about to find out she didn't and will end up a target as well.

C-dub wrote:A couple things IIRC.

1. The Lois Lerner thing wouldn't apply because they are going after her. She is protecting herself by choosing to remain mostly silent. That and Holder won't go after her anyway.

2. I thought there was a law that spouses could not be forced to testify against each other.

I think there is....but I am betting that if you want that protection you had better put a ring on it. With the way things are going they might even try to reach around that.

mojo84 wrote:They are going after a bigger fish and Lerner has the inside info they need. She would have tobadnit to some wrong doing but she doesn't want to because she thinks she's covered her tracks sufficiently. I think she's about to find out she didn't and will end up a target as well.

She is going to end up in stripes if she is not careful.

mamabearCali wrote:

mojo84 wrote:They are going after a bigger fish and Lerner has the inside info they need. She would have tobadnit to some wrong doing but she doesn't want to because she thinks she's covered her tracks sufficiently. I think she's about to find out she didn't and will end up a target as well.

She is going to end up in stripes if she is not careful.

I pray she does along with her thug cohorts.

mamabearCali wrote:I would think I the right to remain silent covers that. IANAL but isn't charging a person with a known false charge malicious prosecution?

The part people seem to be ignoring is that there was nothing indicating the charge was false.

EEllis wrote:

mamabearCali wrote:I would think I the right to remain silent covers that. IANAL but isn't charging a person with a known false charge malicious prosecution?

The part people seem to be ignoring is that there was nothing indicating the charge was false.

A very pertinent and important observation, EEllis. To take it a little further, I must ask "what was the 'charge?'" There were apparently no criminal charges threatened or filed against the four American Muslims. The compulsion alleged was just the ease with which one can be placed on the No Fly List, which, in this case, did indeed happen. No criminal charges, be they false or true, are required before that happens.

IMHO the major issue here is the fact that it is so easy for an innocent person to be placed on that list and suffer the ensuing consequences, including the hassle of one's effort to be removed from the list, if it indeed proves to be possible. An innocent person simply having the same name as one who might have been appropriately placed on the list can suffer the same consequences.

I vividly recall my son telling me that he wished I had given him a unique name rather than one taking up pages on a big city's telephone book. His job required and requires him to travel by air frequently, and to his surprise he found himself ensnarled in the List. He is a nationally known very competent trial lawyer, yet he found himself with no obvious or simple way to solve the problem.

One must wonder what a person in the same situation who does not know his way around the law books and the multitude of governmental regulations does?

Jim

b322da wrote:

EEllis wrote:

mamabearCali wrote:I would think I the right to remain silent covers that. IANAL but isn't charging a person with a known false charge malicious prosecution?

The part people seem to be ignoring is that there was nothing indicating the charge was false.

A very pertinent and important observation, EEllis. To take it a little further, I must ask "what was the 'charge?'" There were apparently no criminal charges threatened or filed against the four American Muslims. The compulsion alleged was just the ease with which one can be placed on the No Fly List, which, in this case, did indeed happen. No criminal charges, be they false or true, are required before that happens.

IMHO the major issue here is the fact that it is so easy for an innocent person to be placed on that list and suffer the ensuing consequences, including the hassle of one's effort to be removed from the list, if it indeed proves to be possible. An innocent person simply having the same name as one who might have been appropriately placed on the list can suffer the same consequences.

I vividly recall my son telling me that he wished I had given him a unique name rather than one taking up pages on a big city's telephone book. His job required and requires him to travel by air frequently, and to his surprise he found himself ensnarled in the List. He is a nationally known very competent trial lawyer, yet he found himself with no obvious or simple way to solve the problem.

One must wonder what a person in the same situation who does not know his way around the law books and the multitude of governmental regulations does?

Jim

Well abuse can and dose happen but that isn't what we or the case is really talking about. It's talking about the ability to make deals to get people to inform. Using the discretion of an office to influence people to perform legal actions. Your wife commits a crime which the DA may or may not ordinarily prosecute. You happen to have some connection to someone the Feds are concerned about. "Inform or we prosecute your wife". So? Anything can be taken too far and this case it might well of been but that doesn't automatically make it a constitutional matter. If someone robs you you don't go after them for constitutional violations you go after them for robbery. Complaining because something is not a constitutional issue just shows how little some people understand the concept.