Here is the problem. The burden is put on the individual to tell the truth, be honest, either implicate guilt by refusing to talk or talk and possibly incriminate oneself when not even guilty. And not talking is also construed as an indication of guilt. Does the government have that same burden? No! Does the government lie to us often? Yes! Do we send those officials to jail or receive money from them when they lie? No! There is a double standard here and it is used to intimidate and prosecute otherwise innocent people. Saying, "I don't recall" is reason to be jailed! Rediculous. This must be George Orwell's 1984. But the irony here.....if she had just cooperated she would not be where she is today.....can't you see that?...if you knew the details you would understand. Yes, I understand that. Why should the individual have to "cooperate"? I think the burden should be on the Feds, not the one being investigated. And don't give me that "she didn't have to talk to them". If she did that they would be at her business the next day with a court order searching everything and everywhere to turn up something. For instance. I sell a few 'as seen on tv' type items on-line. The FTC decided they didn't like a particular item so they sued the manufacturers (and lost) and started collecting information on every little home business that had sold the item. I had sold about $5,000 worth with net profits of a few hundred but received a call from an FTC attorney telling me that I was "under investigation" and asking questions about my business and demanding that I send him complete sales records, costs, net profit, web site copies for the last year, etc. etc. And possibly be sued just for listing this product. Well, my choices were to talk to the "FEDS" and spend a couple days breaking down costs, etc. or not talk to them and probably have them show up at my door with a court order to search my house or possibly, go spend money asking an attorney what to do a probably still have the same choices. I considered the action clear intimidation. And, I don't think any of us want the Feds rifling through our business looking for any thing and everything. Was every word I spoke the truth? I think so but who knows. Maybe I said "I don't recall". In fact, I'm sure I said something like that because it took me days to pull the info together that he wanted. That was about a year ago. I guess I'm still under investigation since I never received anything to the contrary. So don't fool yourself into thinking all you have to do is tell the truth when the Feds come calling!
Are you referring to a guilty defendant, or an Innocent one? I think the Gov. don't care, as long as they get a successful prosecution out of it.
Sulong: >Are you referring to a guilty defendant, or >an Innocent one? Either. >I think the Gov. don't care, as long as they >get a successful prosecution out of it. And the defendent doesn't care either as long as they get a successful defense out of it. JB
no, where do you live? Your under arrest! Michael B. P.S. but if its speech your talking about ...well yes Now, If I abused my authority and arrested you with a technicality.... my government has to pay you your losses... NEWS AT EIGHT...MORE MARTHA TO COME....ACTIVISTS REVOLT...HARRYTRADER HOLDING THE SIGN....DOWN WITH GOVERNMENT...PICTURE OF MARTHA THAT WAS ON THE SIGN SLIGHTLY RIPPED.....Martha's attys bring her case to the supreme court for review...more to come....
>Ever hear of freedom of speach? And unless you are a complete moron you know that even the freedom of speach has real and legal limits. There are MANY things that I can tell you that aren't protected by that right. JB
ES, don't you live in California? You have the SF mayor breaking California law and liberal prosecuters refusing to prosecute him and liberal courts refusing to uphold the law. Maybe Martha should have told the court that she thought the law discrimated against her. Powerful business women are always being discriminated against. The Cal. court upheld the right of the mayor to make that determination and violate the law.
The wheels of just are turning in California...no "liberal court" is refusing to do it's part in the process, it just takes time to wend it's way through. The law in question in California has not has it's Constitutional test yet (it was a voter mandated law) and the entities are working towards that test as we speak. If the law is deemed constitutional, those contracts will be voided. JB