“We are advising veterans being visited by the FBI or the Secret Service to take the

[BMT (RIP)]

“We are advising veterans being visited by the FBI or the Secret Service to take the Fifth Amendment rather than answer questions that might end up with a diagnosis of PTSD, post-traumatic stress disorder, which goes into the veteran’s file and can be used in the future to prevent the veteran from purchasing a firearm,” he said.


http://www.wnd.com/2013/06/troops-ta...moddyfvSO4d.99


BMT

[Scimitar]

“The FBI and the Secret Service are showing up to request an interview to question specific Internet posts the (veterans have) placed on websites..."

OK, everyone disperse, we now know they're listening in, so as per agreed upon SOP now is the time to move into plan Omega 5. Disperse and make your way to your designated starting points.


S

[UWOA (RIP)]

That's a typical attorney response. Having worked as an Inspector General for the Army and a Special Federal Officer for the FBI, when approached by ANY federal investigator -- REFUSE the interview. It's better to say nothing than even plead the Fifth. Because the investigator can take note of the plea and it becomes a part of the record. Fifth Amendment pleas should be reserved for appearances before grand juries or Congress (as part of an investigative process because they can require you to answer).

If you say anything (and, again, you shouldn't) to a federal investigator in the course of his investigation, and it's a lie -- that's a separate federal offense.

[Streck-Fu]

Originally Posted by UWOA

If you say anything (and, again, you shouldn't) to a federal investigator in the course of his investigation, and it's a lie -- that's a separate federal offense.

They should just call that The Martha Stewart Offense...

[pcfixer]

Originally Posted by UWOA

That's a typical attorney response. Having worked as an Inspector General for the Army and a Special Federal Officer for the FBI, when approached by ANY federal investigator -- REFUSE the interview. It's better to say nothing than even plead the Fifth. Because the investigator can take note of the plea and it becomes a part of the record. Fifth Amendment pleas should be reserved for appearances before grand juries or Congress (as part of an investigative process because they can require you to answer).

If you say anything (and, again, you shouldn't) to a federal investigator in the course of his investigation, and it's a lie -- that's a separate federal offense.

All very good points to remember. Thank you.

Sorta reminds me of Ron White's saying':

"I had the right to remain silent, but I didn't have the ability."

[MSRlaw]

I agree with the above poster that refusing an interview is better than taking the 5th but you have to examine the context where these questions come up. Presumably they will institute a way to get you into an interview situation such as when you show up at the VA for an appointment or if you're called for jury duty or renewing your driver's license eye exam or some other situation where 1) you are in public and 2) you are in a situation where you are already speaking with the gov't to get some earned/allowable benefit.

Remember, the 5th Amendment CAN NEVER be used against you. In any legal hearing if law enforcement mentions that you invoked the 5th Amendment the statement will be immediately stricken from the record and, if it occurs during trial, is an automatic mistrial the judge must immediately grant. Don't be afraid to exercise your 5th Amendment right. As I tell all my clients, you have it for a reason.

[Remington Raidr]

Originally Posted by UWOA

That's a typical attorney response. Having worked as an Inspector General for the Army and a Special Federal Officer for the FBI, when approached by ANY federal investigator -- REFUSE the interview. It's better to say nothing than even plead the Fifth. Because the investigator can take note of the plea and it becomes a part of the record. Fifth Amendment pleas should be reserved for appearances before grand juries or Congress (as part of an investigative process because they can require you to answer).

If you say anything (and, again, you shouldn't) to a federal investigator in the course of his investigation, and it's a lie -- that's a separate federal offense.

I agree with everything you wrote, but I puzzled that you feeling timing of the invoking of your right to remain silent could somehow be used against you. Refuse the interview, yes, but make your invocation of your right to remain silent so that the investigator makes that part of the record.

This guy explains it better than I can: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik

[UWOA (RIP)]

Originally Posted by MSRlaw

I agree with the above poster that refusing an interview is better than taking the 5th but you have to examine the context where these questions come up. Presumably they will institute a way to get you into an interview situation such as when you show up at the VA for an appointment or if you're called for jury duty or renewing your driver's license eye exam or some other situation where 1) you are in public and 2) you are in a situation where you are already speaking with the gov't to get some earned/allowable benefit.

Remember, the 5th Amendment CAN NEVER be used against you. In any legal hearing if law enforcement mentions that you invoked the 5th Amendment the statement will be immediately stricken from the record and, if it occurs during trial, is an automatic mistrial the judge must immediately grant. Don't be afraid to exercise your 5th Amendment right. As I tell all my clients, you have it for a reason.

Very good informatioj, but even in the situations described above, you don't have to answer their questions. Be selective in what you do ... for example, answer the BMV clerk's specific question concerning renewing your license -- ignore the FBI agent's question (who is standing next to the clerk) asking you if you were driving your car on the night of June 12. You, in fact, are still in control ....

[UWOA (RIP)]

Originally Posted by Remington Raidr

I agree with everything you wrote, but I puzzled that you feeling timing of the invoking of your right to remain silent could somehow be used against you. Refuse the interview, yes, but make your invocation of your right to remain silent so that the investigator makes that part of the record.

This guy explains it better than I can: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik

When yu invoke the Fifth, it's true that the information that you give after the invocation is inadmissible -- but what it does is confirm to the investigator that, if only from your own perspective, there is some culpability. A tenacious investigator will then continue to pursue you by whatever legal means possible. It's a stretch, but think Capone -- law enforcement couldn't get him for murder, racketeering, or the other myriad crimes he committed: they got him for income tax evasion -- they were relentless.

So it's not about court, it's about giving an investigator something to hang his hat on.

.

[badshot]

Originally Posted by DocIllinois

Having grown up around prosecuting attorneys I can attest to UWOA's guidance.

In any investigation, perception is huge.

Also, in case it would ever apply to anyone here, if you are informed that you have the right to remain silent, you are specifically the subject of a criminal investigation. Invoke silence and call your attorney.

If you ever do talk, you will never have the chance to review and correct an investigator's report before he submits it, and information tends to be minimized if it doesn't fit his viewpoint. It is smart to remain silent and call your attorney.

Very sound advice, whether you are innocent or not. Don't fall for the 'if you have nothing to hide just talk with us'

[Team Sergeant]

Originally Posted by BMT

“We are advising veterans being visited by the FBI or the Secret Service to take the Fifth Amendment rather than answer questions that might end up with a diagnosis of PTSD, post-traumatic stress disorder, which goes into the veteran’s file and can be used in the future to prevent the veteran from purchasing a firearm,” he said.


http://www.wnd.com/2013/06/troops-ta...moddyfvSO4d.99


BMT

Without a physician's diagnosis placing someone on a list guessing that they "might have" PTSD would be a very fun court case indeed.

And the WND.com is an online tabloid, not worth the time to read.....

[MSRlaw]

Remember, even if your Miranda rights have not been read to you, you STILL have the right to be silent!! I cannot emphasize this enough. SCOTUS over the years (since Miranda v Arizona in '69) has been very vague and flip-flopping over when "custody" technically occurs and what a suspect must do to get counsel. Generally custody mean "when a reasonable person feels they are not free to leave police presence." However, police can be very silently convincing that you are not in custody yet you are likely scared to walk away. And as far as counsel, you have to tell the police, and to each new cop they bring in the room to question you, "I want a lawyer." Don't ask "may I speak to a lawyer" or "do you think I should get a lawyer;" simply say "I want a lawyer." Those are the magic words to stop the questioning because anything which you say afterwards is garbage. And even if the police find additional unrelated evidence, it's tough to get it admitted into court as a prosecutor because he has to show the evidence would have been determined or found even if the post-Miranda statements never occurred.

Just always remember, never speak to the police. If they refuse to stop asking you questions ask if you're free to leave. If they say yes, then leave. If they say no then say you want to talk with a lawyer.

No matter what the police say they will always try to use your statements against you. If they had all the evidence they needed, they'd be filling out their arrest report and sending the case to the state for prosecution. Don't do their job for them.

Also, never once working as a prosecutor, nor has any prosecutor I have ever met, ever, received a call from any LEO stating "perp Bob was really cooperative and helpful during interviews. I said I would put in a word with the state to go easy on him if he just told the truth. Thanks." LOL.

[badshot]

Originally Posted by Team Sergeant

And the WND.com is an online tabloid, not worth the time to read.....

Thanks TS...next time will check

[UWOA (RIP)]

Originally Posted by MSRlaw

Just always remember, never speak to the police. If they refuse to stop asking you questions ask if you're free to leave. If they say yes, then leave. If they say no then say you want to talk with a lawyer.

The best advice yet that I've seen on this thread. And I say that having spent thirty-four years in law enforcement. (Am I advocating breaking the law --no! But I also believe in working within the framework of the law ... and that sets out the rules we/I/they should play by ....)

.

[MSRlaw]

I didn't address another point brought up originally, but PTSD is a physiological response to trauma. I don't understand its relationship to one's ability to safely handle a firearm. The well-known symptoms of PTSD are panic attacks, nervousness, agoraphobia, fear of loud or large crowds, and random bouts of anxiety often unrelated to the "trigger." None of these symptoms suggest a person who doesn't understand how to properly and safely handle a firearm.

There's lots of reasons certain people shouldn't be allowed to possess weapons; a violent criminal past, a history of suicide attempts or mental disorders such as untreated schizophrenia. To threaten that people who have PTSD cannot properly possess firearms is a very harmful and destructive view. In fact, targeting people with PTSD will probably do nothing more than exacerbate their symptoms because a government that doesn't trust you without any reason on your part is a dangerous and bad thing.