Time: Fri May 09 06:24:09 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id FAA16359;
Fri, 9 May 1997 05:58:52 -0700 (MST)
by usr06.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id FAA21554;
Fri, 9 May 1997 05:58:46 -0700 (MST)
Date: Fri, 09 May 1997 06:02:19 -0700
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: OKC/McVeigh, yet another interesting lesson... Miranda!
(fwd)
Dear Clients,
I had the very distinct pleasure of attending
an informal computer study seminar last evening
in my home town. The seminar was given by a
client of SLS who also happens to be a wizard
with Windows 95. He told us that he is spending
many hours per week, reading the entire transcripts
of the OKC bombing trial underway in Denver.
So, I learned much more than I had expected,
because I wasn't aware that the transcripts
were being made available so quickly. By comparison,
we have had to pull teeth to get a sentencing
transcript out of the USDC in Minnesota; we even
had to request an extension of time to file a
Motion for Rehearing En Banc, due to the unexpected
and "heretofore unscheduled delay" (as we put it)
in the availability of the sentencing transcript.
I vote to commend this SLS client for taking on a
monumental task, and I certainly do hope this client
will continue to share important aspects with us.
This is one of the best ways to become an expert in
law -- jump in and master a facet which you happen
to find extremely interesting.
/s/ Paul Mitchell
http://www.supremelaw.com
p.s. At an IRS administrative summons one time,
I answered every question the same way, "I decline
to answer your question because I cannot be compelled
to be a witness against myself."
"I decline to answer your question because I cannot
be compelled to be a witness against myself."
"I decline to answer your question because I cannot
be compelled to be a witness against myself."
"I decline to answer your question because I cannot
be compelled to be a witness against myself."
...
It got pretty boring for the IRS Special Agent
(oops! Puerto Rican Trust #62 Special Agent)
<snip>
>
>Subject: OKC/McVeigh, yet another interesting lesson... Miranda!
>
>from: http://courttv.com/casefiles/oklahoma/documents/july15.html
>
>I"m not going to go into details, this is a DIFFERENT case that's being
>used as a citation for what they did to Terry Nicholos. Personally I fell
>he did waive his right to remail silent by talking to them. (I"ve read his
>stuff to the IRS and other court documents. He knew his rights.) But I put
>this here for informational purposes only. Especially the conspiring
>between judge and prosecutor. I repeat, this has nothing to do w/the
>McVeigh case, it's another case being cited in the motion to supress
>evidence on Nicholos arrest, that's all.
>
>
>THE COURT: I'm not familiar with the case. This
>person was a witness at a trial?
>
>MR. CONNELLY: Witness at a trial; and there was an
>arrest warrant issued for him, but he did not know about it.
>And the judge and the government together -- got together and
>agreed that they would delay mention -- delay execution of the
>warrant and delay mentioning the fact of the warrant to him so
>that -- that he would not be chilled in his testimony. His
>statements at that trial were later used against him in his own
>trial, and he claimed that it was involuntary because he was
>not given critical knowledge of the fact that there was an
>arrest warrant for him.
>
>THE COURT: What's the name of that case?
>
>MR. CONNELLY: Valdez. 16 F.3d -- I don't have the
>page, but it is cited in our brief. It's a Second Circuit case
>directly on point. It implies -- it really is consistent with
>the Supreme Court's teaching in cases like Colorado vs. Brady
>and Moran where the fact is that you have to know your right to
>remain silent. You have to know the fact that anything you say
>can be used against you. You have to know you have a right to
>an attorney if you want.
>
>All those things are implicit in the Miranda warnings,
>and that's what Mr. Nichols know -- knew. The teaching of the
>Supreme Court and relied on in the Valdez case is that you need
>not know information that may bear on the wisdom of whether you
>should talk to the authorities or not. All you have to know is
>the consequences of what you -- if you do talk to them, they
>can use anything you say against you.
>
>THE COURT: Okay.
>
>pretty amazing huh? God I wish I raise this stuff up a flagpole in every
>city and town in this country. NEVER, NEVER say anything. Unless you are
>sure of what you are saying. If there is any doubt or fear, say NOTHING. In
>fact, the more fear or confusion you have, the tighter your lips should be.
>
<snip>
========================================================================
Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. : Counselor at Law, federal witness
email: [address in tool bar] : Eudora Pro 3.0.1 on Intel 586 CPU
web site: http://www.supremelaw.com : library & law school registration
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best
Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone
Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this
========================================================================
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail