This is a listed crime?

#   Bin Laden has suffered other setbacks recently. On Wednesday night, the
#   FBI arrested Wadih el Hage, an Arlington, Texas man who law enforcement
#   officials charge worked with bin Laden and Al-Din in Sudan, and with
#   Fazil in Kenya from 1994 to 1997. He has been charged with lying to the
#   FBI about his relationship with other bin Laden operatives, including a
#   senior bin Laden lieutenant who drowned in a 1996 ferryboat accident in
#   Tanzania.

Is "lying to the FBI" a law on the books, or is the actual
charge something else?
---guy

On Mon, 21 Sep 1998, Information Security wrote:

>#   Bin Laden has suffered other setbacks recently. On Wednesday night, the
>#   FBI arrested Wadih el Hage, an Arlington, Texas man who law enforcement
>#   officials charge worked with bin Laden and Al-Din in Sudan, and with
>#   Fazil in Kenya from 1994 to 1997. He has been charged with lying to the
>#   FBI about his relationship with other bin Laden operatives, including a
>#   senior bin Laden lieutenant who drowned in a 1996 ferryboat accident in
>#   Tanzania.
>
>Is "lying to the FBI" a law on the books, or is the actual
>charge something else?
>---guy
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

  dont want to take the time to look up the 18 USC reference, but
  providing deliberately false information to _any_ federal agent 
  is a felony--  that includes the IRS. if nothing else, such as
  telling a federal agent to fuck-off, they will charge you with
  obstruction of justice.
  
  for all who think the Bill of Rights really means something, 
  consider:
  
    silence 		obstruction of justice
    false information	lying to a federal agent in course of ...
    ...
  
  too many to list; also, each of the regulatory agencies have
  their own courts and regulations which usurp the Congressional
  mandate for legislation of the Constitution. The regulatory
  courts have broad powers and their decisions, both criminal and
  civil, can be entered in Federal District Court; you, of course,
  have right of review in Federal District Court, for what that is
  worth --by the time you get that far in the procedings, you're
  out of money for the mandatory lawyers the original 13th amendment
  was created to prevent --the government has confiscated your
  property without due process, and before "conviction" under the
  seizure laws which permit them to grab assets at the time of
  the arrest --even if you are acquitted, there is little if any
  guarantee your property will be restored --if in the meantime
  it is sold at 10 cents on the dollar at auction, you may be 
  entitled to that dime.
  
  welcome to democracy in action.
  
  	attila out....
  

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.0i for non-commercial use
Comment: No safety this side of the grave. Never was; never will be.
Charset: noconv

iQA/AwUBNgZfzz7vNMDa3ztrEQIwlwCdGMfStrZLM9b3QFss95M/oxiuUHQAn1s9
ETc8Fr1fsDRoBjwZlFvKlBK5
=QsY1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


__________________________________________________________________________
    go not unto usenet for advice, for the inhabitants thereof will say:
      yes, and no, and maybe, and I don't know, and fuck-off.
_________________________________________________________________ attila__

    To be a ruler of men, you need at least 12 inches....
    There is no safety this side of the grave.  Never was; never will be.

> if nothing else, such as
>   telling a federal agent to fuck-off, they will charge you with
>   obstruction of justice.
> 
Not too long ago the New York State Court of Appeals struck down some
local ordinance outlawing public profanity stating that it was
unconstitutional. Looks like not all courts are enemies of the Bill of
Rights. Bottom line is that you can say 'Fuck You' in New York. That's
not to say that some tallboot won't abuse his power and crack your skull
or set you up if you dis him.

>   dont want to take the time to look up the 18 USC reference, but
>   providing deliberately false information to _any_ federal agent
>   is a felony--  that includes the IRS.
>
Perhaps you could deliberately mislead them without actually
representing the information as true. Would these disclaimers indicate
that the following information is not suitable for any purpose and that
the provider takes no responsibility for any confusion resulting from
the use of the information? Like a Microsoft software license. A
tail-light warranty for the spoken spam.

I heard that ...
I believe that ...
In my opinion ...
I'm not sure ...
I don't recall exactly ...
I think you should consider looking into ...
It is possible that ...
I thought that ...
What if ...
Didn't he once ...

Or use these:

I'm truly, truly sorry I can't help you. Would you like some more
coffee?
Piss off.

>     silence             obstruction of justice
>
Silence is allowed, 5th ammendment. Where in the BOR does it say that
this only applies under oath in a court of law?

>     false information   lying to a federal agent in course of ...
> 
Golly, can't lie under oath, can't lie not under oath. Can't just be
quiet. I guess they win. Justice prevails.

At 02:39 PM 9/21/98 -0400, Duncan Frissell wrote:
>False.  You are never required to talk to a peace officer, Fed, or
>investigator unless you want to.  They can arrest you of course (with
>probable cause ha ha).  Even then, you still don't have to talk to them.
>In criminal cases you *never* have to talk to anyone.

The Supremes have, unfortunately, decided that police can hold you
for up to 48 hours without getting around to charging you,
and if there's a weekend around they can often stretch that.
Some cops find that an interesting answer to the question
"You've read me my Miranda rights and now you're insisting
that I tell you what you want before I can speak to my lawyer who's
in the next room?" "Yup, you can be as silent as you want in the
county jail, and [since we're charging you with a bogus municipal charge anyway],
we can charge you with a [bogus] misdemeanor instead.",
which had a certain craftiness I hadn't really expected out of them :-)


				Thanks! 
					Bill
Bill Stewart, bill.stewart@pobox.com
PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF  3C85 B884 0ABE 4639

On Tue, 22 Sep 1998, Bill Stewart wrote:

>At 02:39 PM 9/21/98 -0400, Duncan Frissell wrote:
>>False.  You are never required to talk to a peace officer, Fed, or
>>investigator unless you want to.  They can arrest you of course (with
>>probable cause ha ha).  Even then, you still don't have to talk to them.
>>In criminal cases you *never* have to talk to anyone.
>
>The Supremes have, unfortunately, decided that police can hold you
>for up to 48 hours without getting around to charging you,
>and if there's a weekend around they can often stretch that.
>Some cops find that an interesting answer to the question
>"You've read me my Miranda rights and now you're insisting
>that I tell you what you want before I can speak to my lawyer who's
>in the next room?" "Yup, you can be as silent as you want in the
>county jail, and [since we're charging you with a bogus municipal charge anyway],
>we can charge you with a [bogus] misdemeanor instead.",
>which had a certain craftiness I hadn't really expected out of them :-)
>
>
>				Thanks! 
>					Bill

    Duncan is correct in that they can not make you talk; but as 
    you point out, there is the 48 hour issue, and bogus charges
    which are throwaways, if need be. they are the keeper, you are
    the kept.

    that was part of the point I was making; but they can also charge
    you with obstruction of justice which is one of those were you
    are really left with the burden of proof, not them. it is a whole
    easier to defend a guilty party than it is to defend a party who
    been unjustly charged --as a form of coercion or politics. if their
    is no guilt, on what basis do you defend other than mistaken
    identity and the corrupt officers are firm in their ID --you?

    as a related issue, the public often rails against a judge who
    releases more than average for technical reasons; I dont agree:
    the judge is just more honest and expects "lawless" and LEOs
    to obey the rules.

    jury nullication is a serious risk.  judges believe they have the
    right to define the rules under which you vote and are likely to
    order serious sanctions or even time for defying his house rules.
    I view it as a matter of Constitutional right and the choice of
    arriving at the gate with the truth in hand.  I expect prosecutors
    are including questions on nullification more often.  Aspen, or
    Denver has a case know where a judge is nailing a juror who did not
    volunteer the information she was an advocate of juror's right
    -she did what I would suggest: showed up non-descript, and sat
    there dumb and happy, and never objected to anything. it is 
    highly questionable that she was silent with the intention of
    impeding justice.

    what most Americans are just beginning to grok is that LEOs and
    the Judges are part of an ongoing enterprise which in theory is
    designed to protect us from the forces of evil. however, it must
    be considered that the person on trial is facing a "me v.them"
    arrangement of convenience.

	attila out...

At 12:04 AM -0700 9/23/98, attila wrote:

>    Duncan is correct in that they can not make you talk; but as
>    you point out, there is the 48 hour issue, and bogus charges
>    which are throwaways, if need be. they are the keeper, you are
>    the kept.
>
>    that was part of the point I was making; but they can also charge
>    you with obstruction of justice which is one of those were you
>    are really left with the burden of proof, not them. it is a whole
>    easier to defend a guilty party than it is to defend a party who
>    been unjustly charged --as a form of coercion or politics. if their
>    is no guilt, on what basis do you defend other than mistaken
>    identity and the corrupt officers are firm in their ID --you?

I believe this misstates the actual role of "obstruction of justice."

So far as I know, and I admit that I am not a lawyer and am not current on
case law, one cannot be charged with "obstruction of justice" for remaining
silent. O.J. Simpson, for example, was not charged thusly for not talking
(he of course stopped talking a few days after the murders, gave no further
interviews with the police and DA, and of course never testified in court).

Even Slick Willy is only being charged (by Starr) with obstruction of
justice for using his office to send out his underlings to propagate his
lies, and various things related to using his office to impede Starr's
investigation.

Merely asserting Fifth Amendment protections and Miranda rights should not,
except in Wonderland, trigger "obstruction of justice" charges. Though
we're almost in Wonderland, we're not quite there yet.

>    jury nullication is a serious risk.  judges believe they have the
>    right to define the rules under which you vote and are likely to
>    order serious sanctions or even time for defying his house rules.
>    I view it as a matter of Constitutional right and the choice of
>    arriving at the gate with the truth in hand.  I expect prosecutors
>    are including questions on nullification more often.  Aspen, or
>    Denver has a case know where a judge is nailing a juror who did not
>    volunteer the information she was an advocate of juror's right
>    -she did what I would suggest: showed up non-descript, and sat
>    there dumb and happy, and never objected to anything. it is
>    highly questionable that she was silent with the intention of
>    impeding justice.

I'll be interested to hear the outcome of this case.

I haven't been called as a juror since 25 years ago, but I certainly don't
plan to "volunteer" any information not requested of me. (And I may decide
not to even answer some questions they _do_ ask me. How we have come to a
situation where a court and jury consultants may ask highly personal
questions of prospective jurors is a sign of the train wreck that America
has become.)

--Tim May

(This space left blank pending determ. of acceptability to the gov't.)
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
ComSec 3DES:   831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Licensed Ontologist         | black markets, collapse of governments.

Information Security wrote:
> 
> #   Bin Laden has suffered other setbacks recently. On Wednesday night, the
> #   FBI arrested Wadih el Hage, an Arlington, Texas man who law enforcement
> #   officials charge worked with bin Laden and Al-Din in Sudan, and with
> #   Fazil in Kenya from 1994 to 1997. He has been charged with lying to the
> #   FBI about his relationship with other bin Laden operatives, including a
> #   senior bin Laden lieutenant who drowned in a 1996 ferryboat accident in
> #   Tanzania.
> 
> Is "lying to the FBI" a law on the books, or is the actual
> charge something else?
> ---guy
Not in my book but look very carefully at INS law. It may have to do
with documentation generated during his admission to the country rather
than after. INS law, to a nonlawyer, looks like the Constitution can be
held at arm's length. Still sounds pretty shaky. After all, who
remembers everything? I can't even remember what I had for supper last
night no less the names of all the people I've worked with in the last
few years.

At 02:22 PM 9/21/98 +0000, attila wrote:
>  dont want to take the time to look up the 18 USC reference, but
>  providing deliberately false information to _any_ federal agent 
>  is a felony--  that includes the IRS. 

True

>  if nothing else, such as
>  telling a federal agent to fuck-off, they will charge you with
>  obstruction of justice.

False.  You are never required to talk to a peace officer, Fed, or
investigator unless you want to.  They can arrest you of course (with
probable cause ha ha).  Even then, you still don't have to talk to them.
In criminal cases you *never* have to talk to anyone.

>  too many to list; also, each of the regulatory agencies have
>  their own courts and regulations which usurp the Congressional
>  mandate for legislation of the Constitution. The regulatory
>  courts have broad powers and their decisions, both criminal and
>  civil, can be entered in Federal District Court; 

The agencies have no criminal adjudicatory power (aside from a few odd
circumstances).  They can seize property of course (if you have it where it
can be seized) but they (mostly) can't lock you up.

>  you, of course,
>  have right of review in Federal District Court, for what that is
>  worth --by the time you get that far in the procedings, you're
>  out of money for the mandatory lawyers the original 13th amendment
>  was created to prevent 

Lawyers aren't mandatory.  Colin Ferguson defended himself on nine murder
counts without one (and lost).  The Long Island Railroad gunman.

DCF