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