Article Image

AK Couple Pleads Guilty to Lying about Hit List

• Associated Press

1 Comments in Response to

Comment by Ross Wolf
Entered on:

It is amazing how many Americans including attorneys aren’t aware of United States Code Section 1001; this section has made it relatively easy for trained FBI Agents after interviewing someone, to charge them with making a misleading or false statement (lying) to federal agents. It has been alleged that some federal agents can ask someone a question in such a way, that no matter how the person answers, they might be charged with a crime under U.S.C. § 1001. For that reason, many Citizens refuse to talk to the FBI without the benefit of an attorney.

Some government agents have been allegedly trained in hybrid forms Neuro linguistic programming/interrogation techniques. Hybrid forms of Neuro-Lingustics could potentally  include covert conversational hypnosis. Agents trained in hybrid forms of Neuro-Lingustics may have the ability, to transform an interrogated person’s mental state through conditioning, by repeatedly conveying to the subject subtle communications via an agent's (verbal and body language—during a conversation or interrogation, without making it obvious. In some cases an agent may be able to use Neruo-lingustic interrogation techniques to get a subject to make admissions they would never have made otherwise. However, if agents use Neruo-lingustic interrogation techniques that change a suspect’s perception of realty, a suspect might erroneously answer yes or no to a question. Government agents trained in Neruo-Lingustic interrogation are taught to use selected phrases, convey specific body language and to design gestures to develop a rapport with the subject; even copying the interrogated person's mannerisms; this is referred to as matching so the agent may covertly communicate with the suspect's subconscious mind. The ultimate goal of the agent using these covert techniques is to make the subject believe it is their own decision to talk to the agent. Neruo-lingustic programming is used for good purposes; but there is concern, hybrid forms might be developed by police and government to cause innocent Citizens to falsely incriminate themselves.

If you found Neruo-lingustic interrogation interesting, you may enter those words in a search engine and also Neruo-lingustic programming. No matter how smart you are, unless you read about it, you may not recognize it being played out.

If you are questioned by the FBI and truthfully answer “No” to a question, you might be charged for making a false statement under 18 U.S.C. § 1001.

For example, if someone (unbeknownst to you) proposed committing an act of violence or other crime at an activist meeting you attended—then later the FBI questions you about having knowledge of that proposal, by answering “No” the FBI might charge you for providing a misleading answer or lying to a federal agent under 18U.S.C. § 1001.
This law is a trap for the innocent, because how can you prove you didn’t know something? Even answering, “yes” under this law can be hazardous. Consider the U.S. Supreme Case BROGAN v. UNITED STATES No. 96—1579. Argued December 2, 1997 Decided January 26, 1998: James Brogan was indicted on federal bribery charges and for making a “false statement” within the jurisdiction of a (federal agency) in violation of 18U.S.C. § 1001.

Note under 18U.S.C. § 1001, that any person questioned by the FBI or other Federal Agency can be imprisoned up to 5-years and fined $10,000 for every “misleading or false answer”; that includes a false or misleading statements made to the FBI when questioned about a crime the Government can’t prove you committed.

Under BROGAN v. UNITED STATES, Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg noted that when the FBI questions someone about an "old crime" after the Statute of Limitations past for criminal prosecution, and the questioned person denies having committed the crime, that their fresh denial may involuntarily waive their right to assert in their defense—the statute of limitations has past for criminal prosecution e.g., for a 20-year old crime.

Consequently if you are ever questioned by the FBI or other federal agency about a passed crime or about having knowledge of anything illegal happening in the future, the smart thing to do might be to remain silent, and if necessary state to the FBI “Before I answer any of your questions I first need the benefit of an attorney.” Keep in mind there is no such thing as talking to an FBI Agent or any federal agency off the record. Consider the case of James Brogan, the FBI came by Brogan’s office and gave the appearance their visit was informal, then after asking a few questions indicted Brogan for lying to the FBI. Below is a summary of the U.S. Supreme Court decision: BROGAN v. UNITED STATES No. 96—1579 and Website access to learn more about the Brogan Case and 18 U.S.C. § 1001. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES BROGAN v. UNITED STATES CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT No. 96—1579.

Argued December 2, 1997–Decided January 26, 1998 Petitioner falsely answered “no” when federal agents asked him whether he had received any cash or gifts from a company whose employees were represented by the union in which he was an officer. He was indicted on federal bribery charges and for making a false statement within the jurisdiction of a federal agency in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001.

A jury in the District Court found him guilty. The Second Circuit affirmed, categorically rejecting his request to adopt the so-called “exculpatory no” doctrine, which excludes from §1001’s scope false statements that consist of the mere denial of wrongdoing. Held: There is no exception to §1001 criminal liability for a false statement consisting merely of an “Exculpatory No.”

Although many Court of Appeals decisions have embraced the “Exculpatory No” doctrine, it is not supported by §1001’s plain language. By its terms, §1001 covers “any” false statement–that is, a false statement “of whatever kind,” United States v. Gonzales, 520 U.S. ___, including the use of the word “no” in response to a question. Petitioner’s argument that §1001 does not criminalize simple denials of guilt proceeds from two mistaken premises: that the statute criminalizes only those statements that “pervert governmental functions,” and that simple denials of guilt do not do so.

United States v. Gilliland, 312 U.S. 86, 93, distinguished. His argument that a literal reading of §1001 violates the “spirit” of the Fifth Amendment is rejected because the Fifth Amendment does not confer a privilege to lie. E.g., United States v. Apfelbaum, 445 U.S. 115, 117.
His final argument that the “exculpatory no” doctrine is necessary to eliminate the grave risk that §1001 will be abused by overzealous prosecutors seeking to “pile on” offenses is not supported by the evidence and should, in any event, be addressed to Congress.                                      

Pp. 2—8. 96 F.3d 35, affirmed. Scalia, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and O’Connor, Kennedy, and Thomas, JJ., joined, and in which Souter, J., joined in part. Souter, J., filed a statement concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Ginsburg, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Souter, J., joined. Stevens, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Breyer, J., joined.

Join us on our Social Networks:


Share this page with your friends on your favorite social network:

Purse.IO Save on All Amazon Purchases