Man critical of Obama case judge visited by marshals
We read:
"A Washington, D.C., man who believes Barack Obama probably isn't eligible to be president – and colorfully stated as much to a federal judge who dismissed a case challenging Obama's residency in the White House – says he got a visit from U.S. marshals for his exercise of free speech.
Jesse Merrell told WND he was reacting to Judge James Robertson's decision to throw out a case challenging Obama's eligibility because the issue had been thoroughly "twittered." Merrell sarcastically gave the judge a "good-for-you."
"How dare people use a flimsy thing like the Constitution to darken your sanctimonious door!" he wrote to the judge. "The insane idea that a blue-gum baboon slashing our Constitution has to prove U.S. citizenship – as our silly old Constitution demands – is too absurd to consider in the sacred chambers of the tiny tin gods of the Potomac, adorning the royal purple and sipping Jim Jones Kool-Aid.
"Thanks to smug, slimy shysters like you, Obama gets a free ride – snootily stomping on our foolish Constitution, which supercilious idiots like you have long ago shredded for their own stupid opinions!" Merrell continued in the letter, a copy of which he provided to WND. He finished with his speculation on what "ought" to happen to the judge, a physical act not appropriate for a family-oriented report.
A short time later, he said he found two U.S. marshals on his doorstep. "I told them unless the First Amendment had been repealed, or they had a warrant for my arrest, we had nothing to discuss," he continued. "But they insisted on coming in, and making further threats.
WND called the U.S. marshals service for comment, but there was no comment on the specific case. A WND message left for one of the officers involved also was not returned.
Source
He certainly pulled no punches so the fact that they have made no attempt to charge him with anything so far may indicate that they don't want any publicity about challenges to Obama's citizenship.
28 comments:
We need more like him.
If it were me, and the Marshall's "insisted" on coming in, after having put one foot in my home, would have been meet with the barrel of my .45!
Hello Good Gentles All!
Now you begin to understand why I was so upset at what happened to that man OK when two SS men (secret service) 'politely' forced their way into his home 'just to see if he was a member of any hate groups.'
When the police come to your door talk to them through it. If they want entry have them show their badges and the warrant at the peephole. If they demand entry then make them explain their basis, warrant, probable cause or exigent circumstances.
If they have probable cause or exigent circumstances they can break in your door and will do so, they have the legal right and your permission is not required. If they do not have cause they will talk to you through the door because that is all they are allowed to do. The castle doctrine is as old as the common law and is still a part of our jurisprudence. If they have a warrant they will break in your door only if refuse entry, which you are not entitled to do.
Increasingly I see people knuckling under to these gestapo tactics and that bodes ill for our future liberty. It weakens the rest of us and emboldens the government to further trample on our liberties.
Pax,
InFides
One of the things that must be mentioned here is the lousy and biased "reporting" of WorldNewsDaily.
This case revolves around a guy who believes that Obama is not a natural born citizen because he has not personally seen Obama's birth certificate.
In the article, WND says "Where's the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the "natural-born American" clause in the Constitution? If you still want to see it, join more than 335,000 others and sign up now!" and links to an online petition.
There is a problem with this.
In a WND article found here:
http://tinyurl.com/6quwgw
WND states: "A separate WND investigation into Obama's birth certificate utilizing forgery experts also found the document to be authentic. The investigation also revealed methods used by some of the bloggers to determine the document was fake involved forgeries, in that a few bloggers added text and images to the certificate scan that weren't originally there."
See also FactCheck.org for more on the birth certificate issue at:
http://tinyurl.com/6n9zka
There is a problem when a "news organization" keeps pushing something that they themselves have said is false.
There is also the issue that WND was given a copy of the letter written by Jesse Merrell yet that letter is not reproduced anywhere in the article. Only selected quotes are made.
Is it possible that some of the things Merrell wrote were a threat to the judge in this case? The fact of the matter is that we don't know. We are relying on WND for all of this and as shown, they have a definitive, provable bias.
It makes a better story to say that the little man was trampled on.
And maybe he was.
I don't know and neither does anyone here.
The problem is when conservatives rail at the main stream media for their obvious bias, and then turn a blind eye to a site such as WND that has the same type of bias.
WND should never be used as a source of truth anymore than the NY Times or CNN.
First, only a true asshole would say the man sounds like an asshole!
Based on the limited amount of information we have, and assuming it's true, it sounds like the mans remarks were politically motivated, and therefor, protected speech. Also, it has been recently reported that Chief Justice Roberts has said he will personally look into the matter of Obama's "refusal" to provide these essential documents, after being handed a legal request by an attorney.
"There is a problem when a "news organization" keeps pushing something that they themselves have said is false."
Where in the article did they do anything but report on the positions and lawsuits of the people involved? In other words, where did they contradict their reporting in the article you linked to?
It sounds to me that he got a visit from the Marshals not because of what he wrote about Obama but because it sounded as if he threaten the judge. That's a huge no no.
"He finished with his speculation on what "ought" to happen to the judge, a physical act not appropriate for a family-oriented report."
I'm surprised that no one commented on that yet, unless I missed it.
Where in the article did they do anything but report on the positions and lawsuits of the people involved?
Once again, the article has a link labeled "Where's the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the "natural-born American" clause in the Constitution? If you still want to see it, join more than 335,000 others and sign up now!"
The petition itself is called "PETITION FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OF BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA'S BIRTH CERTIFICATE."
The birth certificate has been released, and has been examined. WND itself concluded that the birth certificate released by the Obama camp was real.
In other words, where did they contradict their reporting in the article you linked to?
It is not the reporting of the events in this case, Ed. It is the continal pushing of an point and agenda for the birth certificate contanined within the article that they themselves have said is genuine.
THAT'S the contradiction.
Hello Good Gentles All!
Hello The Times Observer!
"It sounds to me that he got a visit from the Marshals not because of what he wrote about Obama but because it sounded as if he threaten the judge. That's a huge no no."
"He finished with his speculation on what "ought" to happen to the judge, a physical act not appropriate for a family-oriented report."
I have tried to find the full text of this letter. Does anyone have a link to the full text?
As for what 'ought' to happen to the judge, what he said is critical.
If he said 'rot in hell,' then unpleasent but not a threat. The article indicates something more direct was said.
If he said, 'I hope someone does to you what they did to JFK,' then we are in dangerous territory but not quite committing a crime.
If he said, 'I hope some terrorist cuts off your head and shoves it up your ...,' then a serious wish for harm to befall him but still not a director or credible threat.
If he said, 'If I can get a clear shot at you I will end your injustices against the people,' then we have a crime.
The text is critical and we can not say if he crossed a line or not until the text is made pubic.
Not only is this a 1st amendment issue of free speech but it also speaks to the right of citizens to petition their government for redress. I would suggest the petition be written more politely but the people have the right to speak, even harshly, to their government.
Pax,
InFides
"The birth certificate has been released, and has been examined. WND itself concluded that the birth certificate released by the Obama camp was real."
Has it. If that is the case, how come it wasn't front page news for at least a week? How come every liberal news network didn't run with that headline every day, non-stop? It's the story they would salivate over!
I pay rather close attention to the days events, and i haven't seen his documents, nor have i heard any responsible person say they did.
I pay rather close attention to the days events, and i haven't seen his documents, nor have i heard any responsible person say they did.
Did you miss the link to FactCheck.org?
http://tinyurl.com/6n9zka
Hello Good Gentles All!
Hello Anonymous!
This link might be of interest to you:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=92810
These are some relevent paragraphs:
"Taitz was informed by Karen Thornton of the Department of Justice that all of the case documents and filings have arrived and have been forwarded to the Office of Solicitor General Elena Kagan, including three dossiers and the Quo Warranto case.
"Coincidently, after Dr. Taitz called me with that update, she received another call from Officer Giaccino at the Supreme Court," the website posting said. "Officer Giaccino stated both pleadings have been received and [are] being analyzed now."
The report from the Supreme Court said the documents that Taitz hand-delivered to Chief Justice John Roberts at his appearance at the University of Idaho a little over a week ago also were at the Supreme Court."
Now things should get interesting.
Pax,
InFides
Now things should get interesting.
No more "interesting" than they already are. The Supreme Court cases (of which several have already been dismissed) have nothing to do with WND's hypocrisy in this issue.
They are no better than the so called "9/11 Truthers" that are out there.
WND has an agenda. While we decry the agenda of the mainstream media and others on the left, apparently there are some on the right that blindly turn their eyes to the same type of agenda in a "news media" such as WND.
Hey Anon from 6:09 am, the issue here is hypocrisy. Much, much, much worse things have been said to judges and politicians on the right (for reference, search for "prop 8 california") and I haven't heard of marshall visits or other intimidating tactics happening to the leftists who said those things. In fact, I don't recall ever hearing about a situation where marshalls or the like visited the folks who were saying horrible things about GWB. I take that back, the guy in CA who had a lifesize replica of a severed head of GWB on his lawn did get a hello from the secret service. Anyway, most people who read this blog hate hypocrisy.
Hello Good Gentles All!
Hello Anonymous!
"WND has an agenda."
Probably, that is ture.
" While we decry the agenda of the mainstream media and others on the left, apparently there are some on the right that blindly turn their eyes to the same type of agenda in a "news media" such as WND."
Well said , sir. I was not attempting to defend WND's obvious bias but merely to point out that, their bias notwithstanding, SCOTUS is now appearing to accept briefs.
I agree that no news agency should have a bias though since we are all human I am not not sure how to avoid bias, if only subconscious.
I think your concerns are valid. I stand with you in your argument against the blatant partisanship of WND (and all the others as well.)
Pax,
InFides
Much, much, much worse things have been said to judges and politicians on the right (for reference, search for "prop 8 california") and I haven't heard of marshall visits or other intimidating tactics happening to the leftists who said those things.
I have heard of visits from marshals here in my county for the types of things you mention. When Bush visited here several years ago, there were people who were visited by the Secret Service or the FBI.
I would not want someone's freedom of speech to be abridged simply based on their opposition to another person's ideas. However, given the number of whacko's out there, a threat made against a judge or president should be taken seriously. I have no problem with that person having a visit to reinforce the idea that threats are not acceptable while free expression of ideas is.
It appears that this guy crossed the line with his letter to the judge. Even WND said they wouldn't print what the guy said he hoped happened to the judge because it was against the family friendly nature of their site.
I agree that no news agency should have a bias though since we are all human I am not not sure how to avoid bias, if only subconscious.
I agree that some bias is subconscious. Bias on that level is difficult to deal with. However, my point with WND is not that the bias is subconscious, but it is out in the opne. They keep calling for the birth certificate when they themselves have said that the certificate is valid.
Why?
Is it just a case where WND needs to rabblesouse? It is just a case where WND wants to be like the 9/11 Truthers who won't accept any proof that doesn't fit their own preconceived notions of the "truth?"
That is my main problem with situations like this. There is so much to be upset about with Obama that it is not funny. Yet we get sidetracked by resolved issues and thereby allow the left to paint us all as nutcases.
It is classic magic tricks that are being used here. "Let's look at the settled birth certificate issue!" while the other Constitutional guarantees are obliterated by Obama and the left.
Let's rail and scream about $165 million to AIG employees as being wasteful while outrage against $410 billion in pork and earmarks gets shunted aside.
Obama and the left need the outrage on the smaller issues to distract us from the larger ones.
Hello Good Gentles All!
Hello Anonymous!
"It appears that this guy crossed the line with his letter to the judge. Even WND said they wouldn't print what the guy said he hoped happened to the judge because it was against the family friendly nature of their site."
I hate to be pedantic but we can not know that his letter was criminal in nature. The language may have been course and offensive but not illegal. Remember what happened to the man in OK? He crossed no line but had SS men on his doorstep before he even got home and the insisted on searching his domicile without a warrant on a broad and nebulous fishing expedition to see if he was 'a member of any hate groups.'
Has anyone seen the actual letter?
Open bias is a major problem and WND is by no means the only culprit. It is a great shame because the 4th estate is supposed to inform not indoctrinate.
Pax,
InFides
He finished with his speculation on what "ought" to happen to the judge, a physical act not appropriate for a family-oriented report.
Another possibility of what the man said, considering the "not appropriate for a family-oriented report" part, may have been along the lines of "the judge ought to go get f***ed". That's what I would bet on.
I hate to be pedantic but we can not know that his letter was criminal in nature.
From the article:
He finished with his speculation on what "ought" to happen to the judge, a physical act not appropriate for a family-oriented report.
Is "'ought' to" a threat? I don't know and that is why you send the marshalls to talk to the guy. You want to make sure that "ought to" doesn't become a threat and eventually an action.
If this were a case of a woman and a man who said to her "someone ought to...," I would think that we would all feel better if the guy got a visit from the cops making sure that he words were rhetoric and not actual intentions.
The same thing holds true here.
The man may have been breaking 18 U.S.C. 115 and the marshalls had every right to investigate what may be a crime.
You mention someone in Oklahoma who had law enforcement on his door when he came home. I hope that you also remember the case of U.S. District Judge Joan Lefkow, whose husband and mother were killed because of her work on the bench.
Because of the high profile nature of their rulings, a threat or perceived threat against a judge should be investigated by the authorities just as any threat against anyone should be.
That seems to be all that happened here.
Hello Good Gentles All!
Hello Anonymous!
"Is "'ought' to" a threat?"
In law, no. If, for example, I say, "I think God should strike you dead," or "I hope the first person these terrorists behead is you," those are not threats. In law a threat must be credible and capable of action and not knowing the text of the letter you can not make that assertion. We need to know what he said.
" I don't know and that is why you send the marshalls to talk to the guy. You want to make sure that "ought to" doesn't become a threat and eventually an action."
Wow, have you been sleeping in your criminal law classes! The government is not entitled to question you regarding such matters unless you choose to be questioned. This man had no desire to speak with the police and they forced their way into his domicile in order to pursue a line of questioning not supported by our system of law.
"If this were a case of a woman and a man who said to her "someone ought to...," I would think that we would all feel better if the guy got a visit from the cops making sure that he words were rhetoric and not actual intentions."
I would not feel better if the police showed up at his door and forced their way in without let or warrant or probable cause or exigent circumstances. I am anxious to protect the rights of others as a preemptive protection of my own rights. You should be very careful about sacrificing other people's rights because one day you may need those rights yourself.
"The same thing holds true here."
Actually, it is not. This man wrote a letter to an official of the government. This is constitutionally protected speach (assuming he made no threat and was just rude, we do not know) and ALSO a constitutionally protected petition to the government. The cases are not similar.
"The man may have been breaking 18 U.S.C. 115 and the marshalls had every right to investigate what may be a crime."
Fine, then let them get a warrant and speak to him. Let them invite him and his lawyer to a conference. Do not let them fail to follow the established legal procedures. If we can abuse one person's rights then none of us are safe.
"You mention someone in Oklahoma who had law enforcement on his door when he came home. I hope that you also remember the case of U.S. District Judge Joan Lefkow, whose husband and mother were killed because of her work on the bench."
So what? The issue is whether the government has to follow the law and established procedure. My citation of the OK incident speaks directly to the issue, respect for the rule of law, yours does not. We are all vulnerable but I am not prepared to sacrifice my constitutional protections in order to preserve myself from all possible harm.
I am sure if I was a complete slave of the government and under their total control I could maybe be safer, maybe. Frankly, I would rather preserve my rights and my liberties and take the risk of something bad happening.
There are clearly established procedures for situations such as this and they should be expected to follow them. I find it odd that you seem so anxious to grant the government the right to ignore the rules on occasions when you think it is fair. What about when you do not think something is fair but others do? What will you say to them when they support the government's trampling on your rights and use the exact arguments you are using to justify the same kind of abuse? What will be your reply?
"Because of the high profile nature of their rulings, a threat or perceived threat against a judge should be investigated by the authorities just as any threat against anyone should be."
First, we have still not established that any threat, perceived or otherwise, was made. I suspect not and the reason is that if a genuine threat was made they would not have behaved as they did. A clear and credible threat would have brought a totally different response.
The man was correct whan he said that if he had done anything wrong then charge him, or arrest him or produce a warrant. They did none of those things. You are making assumptions of facts not proved by the circumstances as we understand them.
Of course, it should have been investigated - legally investigated. Following the law is not rocket science. Everyone involved knows what to do. It is inexcusable to simply say, "well, I thought I would save some time and skip following the rules."
Here is an idea, why do we not just lock this guy up? Since due process is something you are prepared to discard, now the threat is entirely gone. In fact, we should allow the police to question us at any time, in our homes, without anything other than the suspicion that we might be doing something wrong. I have no doubt that if the police could conduct warrantless searches and interogations at any time we would uncover a lot of crime. And all we sacrificed for this marvelous sense of security are our God given and constitutionally protected rights.
"That seems to be all that happened here."
If trashing our constitutional protections and established legal procedureds is what you are saying I can agree.
Pax,
InFides
In law, no.
In law, maybe. A determination must be made if that statement is a threat or just idle chatter.
That is what the marshals did.
The government is not entitled to question you regarding such matters unless you choose to be questioned.
Wow have you been sleeping in your criminal law school. The government IS entitled to question concerning what may be a crime. It is called "investigating." However, if a person does not choose to speak to them, that is the person's right. Your assertion that the government cannot investigate a crime or criminal allegation is laughable.
You should be very careful about sacrificing other people's rights because one day you may need those rights yourself.
I am very careful about it. That is why I am not upset when no rights were broken here. You should be careful to learn what are actual rights and what you think are rights.
Fine, then let them get a warrant and speak to him. Let them invite him and his lawyer to a conference. Do not let them fail to follow the established legal procedures. If we can abuse one person's rights then none of us are safe.
They do not need a warrant to question or talk to the man. Get that through your head. The man can refuse to talk to them, tell them to leave, or ask that his lawyer be present. It is not up to the government to make those choices for him.
The cases are not similar.
Are you really trying to say that just because a potential threat is written as opposed to spoken, the written threat is somehow Constitutionally protected? Absurd.
The issue is whether the government has to follow the law and established procedure.
As the marshals followed the law and "established procedure" (whatever that is) there is no issue here.
First, we have still not established that any threat, perceived or otherwise, was made.
Which is why the marshals came to talk to the man. That is their job. For all your hype and blathering about the law and "established procedures," you are now railing against the law and "established procedures" being followed.
The man was correct whan he said that if he had done anything wrong then charge him, or arrest him or produce a warrant.
I agree. However, your contention is that the marshalls did something wrong by talking or wanting to talk to him. They did not. The marshalls followed the law and so did the man.
Of course, it should have been investigated - legally investigated.
Then why are you arguing that the marshalls have to follow some law that doesn't exist? Is it really your contention that the marshalls were not following a law that exists in your mind?
Here is an idea, why do we not just lock this guy up?
Guess what? People can be held for QUESTIONING without a charge or warrant. But that didn't happen in this case, did it? So for all your blustering, the marshalls did not go as far as the law allows them to. They stayed within the law and "established procedures."
Since due process is something you are prepared to discard, now the threat is entirely gone.
Nice strawman. I never said I was prepared to discard anything. Perhaps you should learn to discard what you believe is the law and what actually is the law.
If trashing our constitutional protections and established legal procedureds is what you are saying I can agree.
Investigating a crime or potential crime is not "trashing constitutional protections." Talking to a man about what the judge took to be a threat is not wrong or contrary to any law. Your continued assertion that it is is one based on ignorance.
Hello Good Gentles All!
Hello Anonymous!
Excellent post.
"In law, maybe. A determination must be made if that statement is a threat or just idle chatter.
That is what the marshals did."
But not all they did. Once the man refused to talk they were done, for the moment.
"Wow have you been sleeping in your criminal law school. The government IS entitled to question concerning what may be a crime."
Not after you say 'No,' which is what this man did.
" It is called "investigating." However, if a person does not choose to speak to them, that is the person's right."
Which is my whole point. Once he said 'No' they had no further basis to force their way into this man's domicile. Period.
This is what the man alledges he did when confronted by the officers at his residence:
"I told them unless the First Amendment had been repealed, or they had a warrant for my arrest, we had nothing to discuss," he continued. "But they insisted on coming in, and making further threats."
This seems a clear and unambiguous assertion of this man's rights. Can we reasonably interpret it any other way?
" Your assertion that the government cannot investigate a crime or criminal allegation is laughable."
I never said that. What I am trying to say is that unless they have something a lot stronger than what we know from the limited information presented on WND this man was coerced.
"I am very careful about it. That is why I am not upset when no rights were broken here."
The man's initial refusal to speak to the officers invokes his rights.
" You should be careful to learn what are actual rights and what you think are rights."
The rights to be silent and to be secure in my domicile are two I value highly. Perhaps the police should have valued them equally.
"They do not need a warrant to question or talk to the man."
True, until he says 'No.' Get that through your head. He refused. He did not have benefit of counsel and had invoked his right to silence.
"The man can refuse to talk to them, tell them to leave, or ask that his lawyer be present. It is not up to the government to make those choices for him."
He made those choices. He told the police to either produce a warrant (such as a warrant for questioning) or arrest him (such as for an act liable to arrest) or leave him alone (respect the 5th amendment.) They did none of those things.
He made his choice, he asked to be left alone. They refused to accept that and proceeded to interrogate him anyway.
"Are you really trying to say that just because a potential threat is written as opposed to spoken, the written threat is somehow Constitutionally protected? Absurd."
No, what I am saying is that when it is not a threat, no matter the communication, it is not a threat. We still do not know what this man said. I would like to see what he said before I assume a threat was made. The fact that the police exercised none of their authority if it had been a legitimate threat is highly suspicious. If they had an actionable situation they would have acted, I assure you.
"As the marshals followed the law and "established procedure" (whatever that is) there is no issue here."
Once, he said 'No' they ceased to follow the law and, yes 'established procedure,' (I refer you to Miranda for an example of how an 'established procedure' is established by the judiciary. Forcing their way into his domicile after his refusal is a clear violation.
"Which is why the marshals came to talk to the man. That is their job. For all your hype and blathering about the law and "established procedures," you are now railing against the law and "established procedures" being followed."
Only until the man said 'No.' Once you assert your right to remain silent then it stands. Further interrogation after a clear indication of the intent to remain silent is not allowed. To proceed further would require them to inform the man of his rights, including the right counsel, and then to take him in.
"I agree. However, your contention is that the marshalls did something wrong by talking or wanting to talk to him. They did not. The marshalls followed the law and so did the man."
Yes, they followed the law right up to the point they were told 'No' and then they went off the rails by continuing. An assertion of a right can not be ignored.
"Then why are you arguing that the marshalls have to follow some law that doesn't exist? Is it really your contention that the marshalls were not following a law that exists in your mind?"
I am pretty sure that right to silence exists. I am also pretty sure that the right to be secure in one's person, papers and effects also exists. If I can only remember where I saw those rights enumerated ...
"Guess what? People can be held for QUESTIONING without a charge or warrant."
True, but only with probable cause and it better be able to withstand judicial review because defense counsel will demand it.
Furthermore, this man was not held. This is a very important point. He was not in police custody. As a student of the law this should be clear to you. There is a point at which custody exists and this situtaion does not appear to meet that threshhold. Furthermore, when being taken into custody you will (or at least you better be) informed of that fact. You will also be read your rights.
" But that didn't happen in this case, did it?"
No, what they did was disrespect and ignore this man's right to be left alone in his domicile. He clearly said, 'Put up or shut up.' They chose to do neither and that is where they erred.
" So for all your blustering, the marshalls did not go as far as the law allows them to. They stayed within the law and "established procedures."
Wrong on the facts. I have to also point out that once he had asserted his right to silence any evidence obtained would be tainted and probably rejected. Furthermore, any evidence that might come from clearly tainted evidence (fruit of a poisoned tree) will also be rejected unless the prosecution can show the discovery was inevitable. Not only was this arrogant and sloppy police work but if anything useful had been discovered they would have shot down the DA's case before he even got to discovery, let alone trial.
"Nice strawman. I never said I was prepared to discard anything."
No but you are prepared to support those who do.
"Investigating a crime or potential crime is not "trashing constitutional protections."
It is when they elect to disregard the 5th amendment.
" Talking to a man about what the judge took to be a threat is not wrong or contrary to any law. Your continued assertion that it is is one based on ignorance."
I may be just an old student of the law from way back when but I know enough to know that once someone asserts his right to silence the rules of interrogtion change.
The salient points are these:
1. We do not know what this man said in his letter, if you do then you are holding out on me.
2. The police came to his domicile, a private location protected by the 5th amendment.
3. They asked to speak to this man regarding a communication in writing to a government official alledged to have been a threat.
4. The man refused to speak to them and unless they either arrest him, serve a warrant, or show probable cause, they were to leave.
5. The police did none of those things.
6. The police then coerced this man into granting admission into his domicile even after this man had clearly and unambiguously asserted his rights to be silent and to be left alone.
7. The police did not place this man into custody nor did they advise him of his rights but they did continue the interrogation despite his direct assertion of his rights.
The police are obligated to respect the assertion of a person's rights once made, which these officers failed to do so. Even if they had placed him into custody further interrogation without benefit of counsel or unless freely given by the individual is proscribed.
Have I left out anything?
Pax,
InFides
Hello Good Gentles All!
Sorry, I should have said 4th re: person, papers and effects.
Sometimes I get in a hurry.
Pax,
InFides
But not all they did. Once the man refused to talk they were done, for the moment.
His contention that he declined to speak with them is contradicted by his own statement: "One of your Brown-Shirt Nazi bullies, however, could not resist threatening me with some obscure law – one he didn't know where it was, or when it was created – which he said made it a crime to say something that caused a federal judge 'emotional distress.'"
Notice that he must have asked the agent what law he was being investigated for or else the agent would not have brought up that he allegedly did not know the law.
If the man keeps talking to the marshalls, that is on him.
So once again, no laws or procedures were broken by the man's own actions.
The first part of your post continues to deal with the man's refusal to speak with the marshalls. Such a claim is contradicted by the man's actions and admission in the second letter to the judge.
True, until he says 'No.' Get that through your head. He refused. He did not have benefit of counsel and had invoked his right to silence.
Get it through you head.
He did not invoke the right. He talked to the marshalls.
True, but only with probable cause and it better be able to withstand judicial review because defense counsel will demand it.
So let me get this straight.... the guy writes a letter that the judge turns over to the marshall service because of its contents that may violate the Federal Statute, and you say there is no "probable cause?"
Excuse me while I laugh.
Wrong on the facts.
Nope. The marshalls were investigating a crime. They went to talk to the man. Initially, the man may have invoked his right to remain silent but it is clear that he waived that right by continue to talk to the marshalls.
I may be just an old student of the law from way back when but I know enough to know that once someone asserts his right to silence the rules of interrogtion change.
The rules change if he asserts and maintains those rights. That is what you are missing.
1. We do not know what this man said in his letter, if you do then you are holding out on me.
We know it was enough to start an investigation on the incident. We know that what the man admits to in the article may be against the stated statute.
2. The police came to his domicile, a private location protected by the 5th amendment.
Nice try, but no.
3. They asked to speak to this man regarding a communication in writing to a government official alledged to have been a threat.
That is correct.
4. The man refused to speak to them and unless they either arrest him, serve a warrant, or show probable cause, they were to leave.
That is correct. That is what he told them initially. Yet he continued to talk to them.
5. The police did none of those things.
As the man did not maintain his right to silence, the marshalls were not obligated to do anything but continue their investigation.
6. The police then coerced this man into granting admission into his domicile even after this man had clearly and unambiguously asserted his rights to be silent and to be left alone.
Well, at least you admit that he changed his waiving of his rights. At that point, the game is back on.
7. The police did not place this man into custody nor did they advise him of his rights but they did continue the interrogation despite his direct assertion of his rights.
The man was not placed in custody although they probably could have. He was not advised of his rights because he was not under arrest.
Have I left out anything?
A few things....
We agree that the man wrote a letter to a judge. What he specifically said may not matter as the marshall service took it to be a threat and start an investigation on it. We know that there is an "ought to" statement in there which law enforcement generally will act upon to determine if it is an actual threat. The Marshall Service is well within the law at this point.
So they go talk to the man. You assertion is that once the man asserts his fifth amendment rights, the marshalls have to leave. That is factually incorrect. They may continue to investigate and continue to talk to the man for a reasonable length of time. It appears that the marshalls warned him that his letter may have violated the Federal statute. At that point, even if the marshalls have been told to leave, they are still okay. The man then starts yapping again. The fifth amendment assertion is gone at that point. He may assert it again at some point, but as long as he keeps yapping, his actions are a waiver of the right.
The marshalls were right in this case. They had an alleged crime which they investigated. They had the "suspect" in front of them who apparently was ignorant of the law under which they were doing the investigation. He told them to leave. They told him the law. He started talking and thereby waiving his previously asserted rights.
End of story.
Hello Good Gentles All!
Hello Anonymous!
So your contention is that if I ask the officers to leave, a valid request, and they refuse and continue to harrass me until such time as I give way then I am at fault.
Yes, he should have stood his ground but the judge is going to have a problem with the fact that the marshals refused to abide by his lawful request.
If the assertion of a right can simply be ignored by law enforcement until the person is badgered into giving way then we are in trouble.
The only way the marshals can remain after being told to leave is if they have some cause which compels their presence. If thay had had such a cause they would have acted on it. Merely stating that he might have broken a law is not a sufficient cause to refuse a lawful order to leave the property. If he had broken the law then they should arrest him, if not then they are obliged to respect a lawful request to leave his property. But you are correct, the man must stand his ground.
"So let me get this straight.... the guy writes a letter that the judge turns over to the marshall service because of its contents that may violate the Federal Statute, and you say there is no "probable cause?"
I am not disputing that they have cause to talk to him, and I never did. They can certainly do that. But when told to leave they have an obligation to do so. The police can not simply refuse to obey a lawful request. The issue is if there is no crime worthy of arrest then can the police remain in spite of a lawful request to leave.
"The man was not placed in custody although they probably could have. He was not advised of his rights because he was not under arrest."
The key here is not to place him into custody. If they place him into custody things change dramatically. They refrained in order to try to get him to help them build their case against him. It is a clever trick and one I have seen before.
I agree that the police can talk to anyone. I also agree that the police ultimately badgered this man into allowing entry and that did not serve the man's interests. But he did have rights which were not respected and that is a problem.
Pax,
InFides
P.S. I really enjoyed the debate. You are truly a worthy opponent.
D
So your contention is that if I ask the officers to leave, a valid request, and they refuse and continue to harrass me until such time as I give way then I am at fault.
No. That is not my contention. Even further, there is no indication that is what happened here. There is no indication of "harrassment." That is something that you are making up.
Yes, he should have stood his ground but the judge is going to have a problem with the fact that the marshals refused to abide by his lawful request.
What the heck are you talking about? The only indication that the marshals did not abide by his request is from the guy. You know - the guy that continually talks to the marshals.
According to you, if in an investigation a guy asserts his fifth amendment rights, and the cops say "Okay, we'll contact your lawyer for you and let you know when he is here," if the man suddenly says "I killed JFK!" that confession would not be allowed.
That is lidicrous and you know it.
If that marshalls, as a parting comment, cite the law that the man may have broken or the incident they are investigating, that is perfectly within the letter, spirit and case law.
I am not disputing that they have cause to talk to him, and I never did.
Oh yes you did.
Quote: "This man wrote a letter to an official of the government. This is constitutionally protected speach (assuming he made no threat and was just rude, we do not know) and ALSO a constitutionally protected petition to the government."
I agree that the police can talk to anyone.
Which is a shift from your original position.
I also agree that the police ultimately badgered this man into allowing entry and that did not serve the man's interests.
You may agree with the man, but you are not agreeing with me. There is no indication that the man was badgered other than what this clown says.
But he did have rights which were not respected and that is a problem.
No, that is a conclusion that is not supported by facts. The marshals legally talked to the man. Period.
Hello Anonymous!
Upon reflection I must concede your argument.
I accept that ultmimately since the man did not stand his ground he is at fault. In fact, he is ultimately at fault for writing the letter in the language he chose and precipitating the entire matter.
I accept that an excited utterance is a useable confession. I never disputed that. If it is volunteered it then that is admissable. Previously I stated that if he volunteers anything it is fair game. I should have been more attentive to my own words. Even if the man felt pressured it is still his obligation to assert his rights.
I always accepted the police can talk to anyone, what I was disputing was how far they went in pursuing that. I felt it was too far but, and I must be honest to everyone, if I am haing trouble seeing if there is a threat because I have not seen the letter, I owe the police an equal treatment. I have not heard the marshalls' side of this. You are absolutely correct that their version of events may be diametrically opposed to what this man says. I must further admit that when too diametrically opposed arguments are offered I tend to put more faith in the police than in this man given his letter and temperament. There are also two marshalls and if they attest the same thing then it is difficult to accept that the man did not 'embellish' (I am being polite) his story.
I can only plead emotion and an addled sense of the situation. I was conflating the OK situation with this one combined with much of what I am seeing transpire and I, and I must admit this publickly, lost my sense of perspective. I can only say in my defense that I do so rarely. Every few years my blood gets up and this was one of those times.
This is why I like teams. When one person (me) looses his perspective there is another (you) to to help him get it back.
I salute you sir. Your level headedness does you credit. Your skills of advocacy are most persuasive and well argued.
I bid you all peace.
Pax Domini Sit Semper Vobiscum,
InFides
Hello Anonymous!
I forgot to mention that I will be away for possibly the next few days (which is why I making these posts so early on a Sunday morning.)
If you leave a response and if I do not reply, please do think I am being rude, I am merely absent.
Pax,
InFides
Post a Comment