Slashdot Mirror

Here's a good rundown of the story.

The sad thing is that what is basically the twitter feed of Patrick/Ken at Popehat keeps getting carried as real news. This article should be captured in this addendum: http://popehat.com/2014/12/20/... and http://www.newsweek.com/interv...

If you want an amusing yet informative read on Prenda's exploits, Popehat is the place to go

See here:

http://popehat.com/2015/05/29/...

(Note the writer is a former federal prosecutor)

From the article:

"We imagine law enforcement operating like we see on TV: someone commits a crime, everyone knows what the crime is, law enforcement reacts by charging them with that crime. But that's not how federal prosecution always works. Particularly with high-profile targets, federal prosecution is often an exercise in searching for a theory to prosecute someone that the feds would like to prosecute. There is an element of creativity: what federal statute can we find to prosecute this person?"

Someone wanted to go after Hastert, they found a way.

Okay, so this one had me scratching my head, but I think after reading this analysis, I might have a handle on it:

-This is not a First Amendment issue, but an issue of interpreting a federal statute making threats illegal.

-The issue is not whether a reasonable person would have interpreted what he said as a serious threat.

-The issue is the author's intent, and it matters what the author's intent is, but it's not clear based on the SCOTUS ruling what sort of intent is required to prosecute (actual intent to threaten vs. recklessness--not caring if it was taken as threatening) .

Basically, the long-and-short of it appears to be that SCOTUS just made this shit a hell of a lot more confusing.

Also notable: in 1969 the Supreme Court ruled in Watts v. United States that the following was protected speech:

They always holler at us to get an education. And now I have already received my draft classification as 1-A and I have got to report for my physical this Monday coming. I am not going. If they ever make me carry a rifle the first man I want to get in my sights is L. B. J.

Except there's the whole criminal contempt factor as well which carries a maximum term of life

https://youtu.be/5FDtJlZbCbQ?t... or for a text summary http://popehat.com/2015/05/04/...

Unfortunately, what they're doing is (well, at least technically) legal, so disbarment is not much of an option. :(

Not disbarred for this, disbarred for their previous shenanigans. .

http://popehat.com/2009/01/06/...

And decided to make a factory out of his one-man operation.

Hey, maybe he'll sue them for infringing on his copyrighted business model.

More to the point, did you know that Prendateer John Steel already tried calling a district judge a moron and laughing in his face in his own courtroom, with predictable results.

I'd be interested in more details around this. The document you cited doesn't actually speak to this. It simply says that the plaintiff wanted the judge to recuse themselves for doing their job. It doesn't actually make any mention of anything nearly so contemptuous as calling a district judge a moron in a courtroom. I'd be shocked that something like this wouldn't result in a contempt finding on the spot.

It wouldn't matter what criminal charges I was facing, I would be boldly laughing in the face of this moron who feels the need to go all "sci-fi" while at work, as if the Star Trek embellishments somehow helped here.

Are you suggesting that a court which listened to Prenda's John Steele and Paul Hansmeier, operating under the name 'Lightspeed Media Corporation', argue that Court ordered sanctions don't apply to them because they don't feel like paying, is still somehow dignified and above making references to something as banal as Skiffy? That a defendant who is considered an embarrassment to the entire legal profession cannot ever be subjected to ridicule?

No, I guess what I'm asking for here is for a person that represents our legal system at one of the highest levels to not reduce themselves down to the utter fucking stupidity that may be presented in front of them at any given time.

But I guess asking a professional to maintain professionalism in a courtroom is simply too much to ask.

It wouldn't matter what criminal charges I was facing, I would be boldly laughing in the face of this moron who feels the need to go all "sci-fi" while at work, as if the Star Trek embellishments somehow helped here.

Are you suggesting that a court which listened to Prenda's John Steele and Paul Hansmeier, operating under the name 'Lightspeed Media Corporation', argue that Court ordered sanctions don't apply to them because they don't feel like paying, is still somehow dignified and above making references to something as banal as Skiffy? That a defendant who is considered an embarrassment to the entire legal profession cannot ever be subjected to ridicule?

More to the point, did you know that Prendateer John Steel already tried calling a district judge a moron and laughing in his face in his own courtroom, with predictable results.

If anybody has offended the dignity of the courts and running up the bill for the State of California before running off without paying, it was John Steele, Paul Hansmeier and Mark Lutz.

Perhaps after you have spent six years in law school, nine years in the Marine Corps, served as a county sheriff for eleven years and then put in twenty-five years as a practising lawyer before being appointed to sit in county and state courts, you too will be able to write legal decisions any way you like. Until then, there's always complaining on the Internet.

It wouldn't matter what criminal charges I was facing, I would be boldly laughing in the face of this moron who feels the need to go all "sci-fi" while at work, as if the Star Trek embellishments somehow helped here.

Are you suggesting that a court which listened to Prenda's John Steele and Paul Hansmeier, operating under the name 'Lightspeed Media Corporation', argue that Court ordered sanctions don't apply to them because they don't feel like paying, is still somehow dignified and above making references to something as banal as Skiffy? That a defendant who is considered an embarrassment to the entire legal profession cannot ever be subjected to ridicule?

More to the point, did you know that Prendateer John Steel already tried calling a district judge a moron and laughing in his face in his own courtroom, with predictable results.

If anybody has offended the dignity of the courts and running up the bill for the State of California before running off without paying, it was John Steele, Paul Hansmeier and Mark Lutz.

Perhaps after you have spent six years in law school, nine years in the Marine Corps, served as a county sheriff for eleven years and then put in twenty-five years as a practising lawyer before being appointed to sit in county and state courts, you too will be able to write legal decisions any way you like. Until then, there's always complaining on the Internet.

I consider it to be more like the First Amendment argument that is popular: you can say what you want but you can't shout "Fire!" in a crowded theatre.

What if the theater is actually on fire?

The actual argument was "[t]he most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic." (emphasis is mine).

Please read up the history of that argument before repeating it because it muddies everyone's understanding of the 1st Amendment when repeated incorrectly.

Professor Thane Rosenbaum Deceptively Carries On The Tradition of Censorship-Cheerleading

Free Speech in the states has never been interpreted as a right ... to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

OK, where to start? Firstly it's to "falsely shout 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre"; secondly it wasn't law, it was part of a judges opinion; thirdly that opinion was given while suppressing a very clear cut case of protected political speech; fourthly that precedent has been overturned by later judgements; fifthly the judge who wrote that accepted that it's wrong and, sixthly, in many cases shouting fire in a crowded theatre, even falsely, is protected speech. Please stop using that quote.

https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hackneyed-apologia-for-censorship-are-enough/, http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/

I admit it. I can't get the story of GamerGate straight. And do you know why I can't get GamerGate's story straight? Because GamerGate themself can't get their story straight. GamerGate's story keeps changing every day. (Of course every time it has always been their story, like the war with Eastasia.)

I assure you, this is absolutely the first time I've heard anyone from GamerGate even claim that they have addressed corruption around Shadows of Morder. When I addressed this in a conversation with a GamerGater a few weeks ago, he said exactly that it was okay, because it was a good game, and that it was the terrible corruption around Depression Quest that was the real reason for GamerGate. I've heard other GamerGaters explain that it wasn't really corruption because it was marketing and surely a company should be free to do that sort of thing? I have never seen this addressed in the name of GamerGate, I have never seen anyone claiming affiliation with GamerGate address this. And you are the first person I've met who claims that GamerGaters have addressed this. But maybe they have. Still, they're not giving remotely as much attention to it as they're giving to Depression Quest.

As for slurs, you claim that all the slurs come from the anti-GG side, and yet all the slurs I've seen first-hand, have come from people defending GamerGate. A post about random racists on the internet (props to the person who addressed that, by the way) recognizing an image apparently related to GamerGate (I admit I wouldn't have recognized it as such) doesn't exactly prove that they are representative for people opposing GamerGate. Everybody I know who has criticized GamerGate (and of all the gamers I know, nobody supports it) is quite the opposite of that.

I'm not claiming that all critics of GamerGate are perfect. Every random group of internet people has its fair share of bastards, but the bastards don't dominate as much as they seem to dominate in GamerGate. There's a very good reason why GamerGate has such a terrible reputation. That didn't come from nothing; it is exactly because of the behaviour associated with GamerGate. Read Ken White of Popehat has to say about it. The only people who claim to have a positive impression of GamerGate are the GamerGaters themselves. And their story is honestly not very credible considering the chat logs where they discuss how to sell their story to the outside world, and what stuff they shouldn't be doing anymore. The end result is that by now, their story sounds quite reasonable to anyone not familiar with the history. But most people have a better memory than GamerGaters realize.

University of Utah confirmed that threat was completely un-credible and there was no credible threat to the students or anyone else.

Are you aware that they have a website? Read it. They confirm the threat, and they increased the security, but they also say that, according to Utah law, they can't ban weapons.

panic in an enclosed space. if it hadn't been detected on the ground, panic in an enclosed space 30k feet in the air. what's the imminent danger of somebody shouting ebola on a crowded bus? That's not protected either.

That's simple free speech. Feminism has the same common goal it always has, and people having differing opinions is simply what makes that up. You get a spectrum, not a single viewpoint unless it is a single person view. Feminism is not a 1 person movement, ergo. The only response to speech is speech, and criticizing other people's speech tends to open you up to the same.

This is like criticizing that two people who are are both declared $view, whether that is pro feminism or democrat or geek, are wrong because their opinions disagree, simply because they both still support something - such as equality, or freedom, or being anti-gaming corruption.

You couldn't be more wrong in your understanding because you basically created a strawman and pointed to it. I suggest you read as below.

http://www.popehat.com/2014/10...

Libel, slander, harassment, yes. But not yelling fire in a crowded theatre. That was used to justify censorship of war critics.

Fire in a crowded theater...if you knew the case behind that piece of hackneyed trash you would never dare utter it in polite company again! Mr white has an excellent take down of that piece of claptrap you call a justification here. Short story, it was used to justify the punishment of critics of the government under the espionage act. Three men where sentenced to ten years under those decisions for writing rather mild criticisms of the draft and government. If he were alive today he would of had code pink clapped in irons. And if prison for criticizing the government sounds like the kind of thing you can endorse and stand behind then you do not belong in this country at all. Go be a sycophant somewhere else.

Former US District attorney and now defense attorney has several great posts on the first rule of dealing with the police and prosecutors, namely shut up. Anything you may think you can say to help the police can be said with the representation of a lawyer. If, after reading through those examples and explanations, you still wonder why everyone says to shut up then there is no convincing you and you can go on your merry way. May you never have to deal with the police when there are looking to pin someone for a crime and you happen to be in the area.

Clark from Popehat agrees: http://www.popehat.com/2013/12...

If there is probable cause, then there is no legal problem with obtaining a warrant and searching someone's home or car. The question is whether an anonymous, unverified report from an unknown source counts as probable cause. As usual, Popehat has a much clearer explanation of the subject than anything I have said:

"So, for instance, if you call in an anonymous tip that I am running a meth lab in my blue house on the corner, and the cops confirm that I have a blue house on the corner, those details are not meaningfully corroborative. If the cops find evidence of witnesses seeing me move precursor chemicals into my blue house on the corner, that's meaningfully corroborative. Here, the police observed no erratic driving or other corroboration of meaningful facts. In fact, they observed five minutes of unremarkable driving. The only corroboration was the innocent fact of the truck being present on the highway. "

If you don't see the problem with running the concept of probable cause through a paper shredder and then lighting the Fourth Amendment on fire then perhaps Justice Antonin Scalia's description might help:

"Drunken driving is a serious matter, but so is the loss of our freedom to come and go as we please without police interference. To prevent and detect murder we do not allow searches without probable cause or targeted Terry stops without reasonable suspicion. We should not do so for drunken driving either. After today’s opinion all of us on the road, and not just drug dealers, are at risk of having our freedom of movement curtailed on suspicion of drunkenness, based upon a phone tip, true or false, of a single instance of careless driving."

...addresses this issue

Unless this is another one of them there parody things.

We all know that shouting fire when there is none can get you in a raft of trouble.

I don't think "we all" quite covers it.

TL;DR:
Holmes is often misquoted (more specifically, truncated). Holmes himself recanted that position later.

Shachar

http://www.popehat.com/2013/05...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

Don't talk to the police and don't talk to the FBI. Don't talk to law enforcement of any kind. Ask for a lawyer to protect your interests because the police aren't interested in protecting yours.

1. Lawyer
2. Warrant

Or maybe three words: Just Shut Up.

Police will continue to bully people and overstep their authority as long as we let them.
http://www.popehat.com/tag/shu...

...There are many clauses. The police will start working you towards something that will enable them to search you. You have to practice otherwise you will be an amateur trying to battle professionals.

Yes, I agree. This is also exactly why legal professionals have but ONE recommendation for anyone being questioned by law enforcement, regardless of the accusation or situation: STFU.

Readers in the UK should bear in mind that our legal system is different. If you STFU it may harm your defence if you don't mention something which you later rely on in court.

Are you at least entitled to say that you will talk but want to have a lawyer present? Everyone should be equal before the law and whilst lawyers are at an advantage since they know the system personally, laymen should be entitled to having a lawyer present before deciding whether to talk or not to talk in a system where the latter can be a disadvantage. The principle that "just STFU" is at least easy for a layman to understand (albeit not necessarily to follow) but in a system where you perhaps should talk, it seems to me that it's very unfair if you don't get to consult with a lawyer first. Regardless of the system, not talking can of course seem suspicious but that's another issue entirely and suspicious behaviour should at worst only result in a waste of police resources (in an ideal world).

1. Lawyer 2. Warrant

Or maybe three words: Just Shut Up.

Police will continue to bully people and overstep their authority as long as we let them. http://www.popehat.com/tag/shu...

...There are many clauses. The police will start working you towards something that will enable them to search you. You have to practice otherwise you will be an amateur trying to battle professionals.

Yes, I agree. This is also exactly why legal professionals have but ONE recommendation for anyone being questioned by law enforcement, regardless of the accusation or situation: STFU.

Readers in the UK should bear in mind that our legal system is different. If you STFU it may harm your defence if you don't mention something which you later rely on in court.

1. Lawyer 2. Warrant

Or maybe three words: Just Shut Up.

Police will continue to bully people and overstep their authority as long as we let them. http://www.popehat.com/tag/shu...

...There are many clauses. The police will start working you towards something that will enable them to search you. You have to practice otherwise you will be an amateur trying to battle professionals.

Yes, I agree. This is also exactly why legal professionals have but ONE recommendation for anyone being questioned by law enforcement, regardless of the accusation or situation: STFU.

1. Lawyer 2. Warrant

Or maybe three words: Just Shut Up.

Police will continue to bully people and overstep their authority as long as we let them. http://www.popehat.com/tag/shu...

I faced a similar situation.

They are highly trained. They know how to push buttons, muddy matters to confuse you to get you to do what they want you to do. They will keep fishing until they find something that bothers you.

It is not easy as just saying lawyer and warrant.

I would suggest practicing the scenario. Just thinking you can say lawyer and warrant etc is completely different than when you are in the situation.

For example, technically the police cannot search your car or belongings. However, they can search for weapons or they can search if there is some suspicion etc etc. There are many clauses. The police will start working you towards something that will enable them to search you. You have to practice otherwise you will be an amateur trying to battle professionals.

1. Lawyer
2. Warrant

Or maybe three words: Just Shut Up.

Police will continue to bully people and overstep their authority as long as we let them.
http://www.popehat.com/tag/shu...

These are the very reasons that the non-traditional press needs as much or more protection than the mundane, risk-averse mainstream media.

I absolutely agree with you. However, I'm not sure that this particular blogger is the best representative of the "non-traditional press." From TFA:

Cox's blogging activities have attracted their share of controversy. According to the court's opinion, Cox has a history of making allegations of fraud and other illegal activities "and seeking payoffs in exchange for retraction."

Further, if you start doing any basic internet searches, you'll find all sorts of sordid claims about this blogger. If stuff on this link is true, for example -- this blogger is the kind of person who registers the domain names of not only enemies, but the children of her enemies, and then posts horrible stuff about them (apparently sometimes made up), and then sends letters asking for money if they want it taken down.

I have no idea if all of this is true, but it's clear from a number of stories -- both on blogs and in the "institutional press" that you accuse of not asking the hard questions, like the NY Times -- that the blogger at the center of this case is not just a "non-traditional press" representative or journalist. This appears to be someone who deliberately posts offensive material about people in order to extort money.

So, is this really a victory for the "non-traditional press," or an invitation for a new kind of "shake-down" scheme where the mob comes after your business and acts for "protection" money? (I haven't been following this story, so I don't know the answer to this, but this is the kind of stuff I've found with a few quick searches, so it appears more complex than a simple "freedom of the press" victory.)

Was this the guy who was then billed by the hospital for all of these tests?

Yes.

Just too much outrageousness to easily summarize in one (or two) posts.

Popehat does the usual excellent job, plus has links to other sources for anyone that wants a different take on it. Popehat's coverage is rather in-depth from the legal perspective (Ken was a former LA DA and now defence attorney with 1st amendment focus if I recall correctly).

I appreciate the humour in your comment, but just can't help myself from posting this. Because what has been done with a court order is frightening enough:

From the ever entertaining and informative Ken White at Popehat.com

1. Eckert's abdominal area was x-rayed; no narcotics were found.

2. Doctors then performed an exam of Eckert's anus with their fingers; no narcotics were found.

3. Doctors performed a second exam of Eckert's anus with their fingers; no narcotics were found.

4. Doctors penetrated Eckert's anus to insert an enema. Eckert was forced to defecate in front of doctors and police officers. Eckert watched as doctors searched his stool. No narcotics were found.

5. Doctors penetrated Eckert's anus to insert an enema a second time. Eckert was forced to defecate in front of doctors and police officers. Eckert watched as doctors searched his stool. No narcotics were found.

6. Doctors penetrated Eckert's anus to insert an enema a third time. Eckert was forced to defecate in front of doctors and police officers. Eckert watched as doctors searched his stool. No narcotics were found.

7. Doctors then x-rayed Eckert again; no narcotics were found.

8. Doctors prepared Eckert for surgery, sedated him, and then performed a colonoscopy where a scope with a camera was inserted into Eckert's anus, rectum, colon, and large intestines. No narcotics were found.

I didn't have time to read the article. What did he do? Download an MP3?

all without any sort of court order."

Have you recently read of anything done by anyone WITH a court order? I wonder if the courts still remember how to write one.

The template must have been used for the last time with WordPerfect 4.2.

I appreciate the humour in your comment, but just can't help myself from posting this. Because what has been done with a court order is frightening enough:

From the ever entertaining and informative Ken White at Popehat.com

1. Eckert's abdominal area was x-rayed; no narcotics were found.

2. Doctors then performed an exam of Eckert's anus with their fingers; no narcotics were found.

3. Doctors performed a second exam of Eckert's anus with their fingers; no narcotics were found.

4. Doctors penetrated Eckert's anus to insert an enema. Eckert was forced to defecate in front of doctors and police officers. Eckert watched as doctors searched his stool. No narcotics were found.

5. Doctors penetrated Eckert's anus to insert an enema a second time. Eckert was forced to defecate in front of doctors and police officers. Eckert watched as doctors searched his stool. No narcotics were found.

6. Doctors penetrated Eckert's anus to insert an enema a third time. Eckert was forced to defecate in front of doctors and police officers. Eckert watched as doctors searched his stool. No narcotics were found.

7. Doctors then x-rayed Eckert again; no narcotics were found.

8. Doctors prepared Eckert for surgery, sedated him, and then performed a colonoscopy where a scope with a camera was inserted into Eckert's anus, rectum, colon, and large intestines. No narcotics were found.

In the US, when cops draw their guns, they're obliged to fire at least 6 rounds before holstering them. Doesn't really seem to matter who they shoot, either. Only a beating with guns drawn? These are the good guys!

Oops, wrong links. Or... maybe the US isn't the country I was brought up to believe in. Like being taught to believe in Santa Claus but having your dad come into your room on Christmas eve to smash all your shit up. And ground you for being such a pantywaist, based on the assumption that you were going to cry.

Shit has hit the fan.

The link to that language is from a web archive, because KlearGear has now sent it to the memory hole upon public scrutiny. Tim Cushing at Techdirt points out that, according to the Internet Archive, the clause didn't even exist when Jen Palmer clicked "yes" and bought her bauble from KlearGear. That suggests that KlearGear made a demand for money to Jen Palmer based on a contract she never signed. There's a word for that: fraud.

Ken White of Popehat has that angle well covered.....

http://www.popehat.com/2013/11/15/new-from-kleargear-free-speech-only-3500-plus-shipping-and-handling/

But the analogy doesn't work, because the government is limited by a different set of laws than a private company. The government cannot censor the speech of an employee, not because of employer-employee relationship, but because of the limits placed on government in general. Therefore, it is important determine if the government, in general, has over stepped its bounds. Ken White had a good write up last month about the relationship of University Professors and the State: Pophat

http://www.popehat.com/2011/03/18/just-a-friendly-reminder-please-shut-the-hell-up/
says, "When the authorities ask you questions... they are trying to make, or improve, a case against you."

Surely Ken doesn't think this is literally true? Don't the police sometimes ask questions of third-party witnesses that they have no intention of building a case against?

What do you think he probably meant? When they police bring you in and ask you questions, they're trying to build a case against you? Does it still apply if they call you on the phone?

When Ken is saying, "Either tell the 100% complete truth or SHUT UP," one must also keep in mind that almost nobody is capable of telling the 100% complete truth to investigators. As he has shown, even something as small as a detail you misremembered or misspoke about can be turned into an instant felony...and that additional charge, your lawyer will tell you, can make your actual case against any other charges that much more difficult to defend. (See also)

Bear in mind that Ken is now a federal defense attorney, and he has both personally seen this tactic in operation, and had colleagues report it to him.

The lesson — other than that criminal justice often has little to do with actual justice — is this: for God's sake shut up. Law enforcement agents seeking to interview you are not your friends. You cannot count on "just clearing this one thing up." Demand to talk to a lawyer before talking to the cops. Every time.

SHUT UP.

When Ken is saying, "Either tell the 100% complete truth or SHUT UP," one must also keep in mind that almost nobody is capable of telling the 100% complete truth to investigators. As he has shown, even something as small as a detail you misremembered or misspoke about can be turned into an instant felony...and that additional charge, your lawyer will tell you, can make your actual case against any other charges that much more difficult to defend. (See also)

Bear in mind that Ken is now a federal defense attorney, and he has both personally seen this tactic in operation, and had colleagues report it to him.

The lesson — other than that criminal justice often has little to do with actual justice — is this: for God's sake shut up. Law enforcement agents seeking to interview you are not your friends. You cannot count on "just clearing this one thing up." Demand to talk to a lawyer before talking to the cops. Every time.

SHUT UP.

1. The cops do not have your best interests at heart. Really. Even if you are just a witness, they will be happy if you blurt out something that incriminates you, or seems to incriminate you.
2. With all respect, you probably suck at answering questions. You have not been trained yet to recognize the tactics cops use to put you ill at ease during an interview. You are probably nervous. You are probably going to be answering questions off of the top of your heard. If you have decided not to take my advice to SHUT UP, you are probably eager to please and will strain to answer questions, even if it means guessing at things you don't know or don't remember. Especially if the questions are complicated — for instance, about a financial transaction — you need to go over the details and any physical evidence to remember exactly what happened. So even if you are trying to be completely honest, if you go into this interview without careful preparation, there is an excellent chance that you will get a key fact wrong through bad memory or nerves. Later, if you remember the right answer, the cops will say you are "changing your story around."
3. And if you aren't ready to tell the 100% unvarnished truth, God help you. Look: there are only two courses of action to take when the government asks you questions. Either tell the 100% complete truth or SHUT UP. Nothing in between. You may think you are terribly clever and can shade the truth, spin the truth, rely on cute hidden definitions to answer questions, etc. Cut that shit out. They've seen it a thousands time before. Now you've given a misleading statement that's going to be used to show consciousness of guilt, you've locked yourself into a version of events, and you've exposed yourself to prosecution. There was a time when the feds only very rarely prosecuted people for saying "I didn't do it" during an interview. Those days are past. Now, even though it is a chickenshit charge, feds routinely charge people both with the underlying offense and with false statement to the government for when the client lies to them in the interview. SHUT UP SHUT UP.
4. Yes, you might make the government happier by cooperating. Yes, you may reduce the chances of getting charged. You can still do that after a competent lawyer debriefs you, evaluates your risks, trains you on how to act in an interview, and communicates with the government about your status. A lawyer may be able to get you an immunity guarantee for the interview. If the cops you are dealing with are inclined to shaft you for lawyering up, then they are the sort who would have shafted you one way or the other sooner or later anyway. The cops who are trying to convince you that things will go badly for you if you don't talk right now DO NOT HAVE YOUR BEST INTERESTS AT HEART. They are trying to frighten you into talking without caring whether it is in your best interests.

(From this aptly named entry)

1. The cops do not have your best interests at heart. Really. Even if you are just a witness, they will be happy if you blurt out something that incriminates you, or seems to incriminate you.
2. With all respect, you probably suck at answering questions. You have not been trained yet to recognize the tactics cops use to put you ill at ease during an interview. You are probably nervous. You are probably going to be answering questions off of the top of your heard. If you have decided not to take my advice to SHUT UP, you are probably eager to please and will strain to answer questions, even if it means guessing at things you don't know or don't remember. Especially if the questions are complicated — for instance, about a financial transaction — you need to go over the details and any physical evidence to remember exactly what happened. So even if you are trying to be completely honest, if you go into this interview without careful preparation, there is an excellent chance that you will get a key fact wrong through bad memory or nerves. Later, if you remember the right answer, the cops will say you are "changing your story around."
3. And if you aren't ready to tell the 100% unvarnished truth, God help you. Look: there are only two courses of action to take when the government asks you questions. Either tell the 100% complete truth or SHUT UP. Nothing in between. You may think you are terribly clever and can shade the truth, spin the truth, rely on cute hidden definitions to answer questions, etc. Cut that shit out. They've seen it a thousands time before. Now you've given a misleading statement that's going to be used to show consciousness of guilt, you've locked yourself into a version of events, and you've exposed yourself to prosecution. There was a time when the feds only very rarely prosecuted people for saying "I didn't do it" during an interview. Those days are past. Now, even though it is a chickenshit charge, feds routinely charge people both with the underlying offense and with false statement to the government for when the client lies to them in the interview. SHUT UP SHUT UP.
4. Yes, you might make the government happier by cooperating. Yes, you may reduce the chances of getting charged. You can still do that after a competent lawyer debriefs you, evaluates your risks, trains you on how to act in an interview, and communicates with the government about your status. A lawyer may be able to get you an immunity guarantee for the interview. If the cops you are dealing with are inclined to shaft you for lawyering up, then they are the sort who would have shafted you one way or the other sooner or later anyway. The cops who are trying to convince you that things will go badly for you if you don't talk right now DO NOT HAVE YOUR BEST INTERESTS AT HEART. They are trying to frighten you into talking without caring whether it is in your best interests.

(From this aptly named entry)

The lesson â" other than that criminal justice often has little to do with actual justice â" is this: for God's sake shut up. Law enforcement agents seeking to interview you are not your friends. You cannot count on "just clearing this one thing up." Demand to talk to a lawyer before talking to the cops. Every time.

SHUT UP.
http://www.popehat.com/?s=shutup

The charges in the affidavit would probably give him a life sentence, all told, if the government chose to throw the book at him. If he takes a plea bargain, perhaps one that includes snitching on any other associates in the scene, maybe not.

As Ken at Popehat has pointed out, while DPR is looking at a serious sentence, it's not really a+b+c+d... 10 to 20 or 30, maybe.

There's also a discussion of this at Popehat.

The media don't have a concern to call out police overreach because frankly, they rely on police for 90% of their reporting. If you don't have a source to start the story, you're out. If you don't have a source to confirm the story, you're out. And if you question what the police tell you, you don't have a source anymore.

http://www.popehat.com/2013/04/09/misconduct-is-only-news-when-journalists-say-it-is/

http://www.popehat.com/2012/03/21/chelsea-kay-of-krcr-tv-supports-shooting-being-a-lapdog/

http://www.popehat.com/2013/07/12/a-brief-story-illustrating-my-view-of-law-enforcement-and-the-media-that-covers-it/

The media don't have a concern to call out police overreach because frankly, they rely on police for 90% of their reporting. If you don't have a source to start the story, you're out. If you don't have a source to confirm the story, you're out. And if you question what the police tell you, you don't have a source anymore.

http://www.popehat.com/2013/04/09/misconduct-is-only-news-when-journalists-say-it-is/

http://www.popehat.com/2012/03/21/chelsea-kay-of-krcr-tv-supports-shooting-being-a-lapdog/

http://www.popehat.com/2013/07/12/a-brief-story-illustrating-my-view-of-law-enforcement-and-the-media-that-covers-it/