Coercion in Federal Code?

[Ice]

And every bit of law that you find that they may have violated is a great bargaining tool... It lets them know that you ain't scared and are not about to "roll over" for them.


&

Great! I am in the process of preparing my FOIA request.

Jim, I like 18 USC 242, 241 does not apply though since at this point only one person was involved with those threats. But if anyone impedes my investigation, then it is a conspiracy! I am going to get the annotated on these, I bet they have some really good cites!

Check out 18 USC 371. I learned the hard way that anytime you voilate any of the US code, you also voilate 18 USC s371, since it makes it an an offence to "commit an offence or defraud the US or US agency". Is that insane or what?

I am still looking at 18 USC s1512, here are some cites from the annotated:

Under former provisions of section 1503 of this title which condemned interference with a witness, it was not necessary that the witness be under subpoena, the test being whether defendant had knowledge or information that the person he endeavored to interfere with was or intended to be a witness, either voluntarily or under subpoena in a pending matter, and that it was because of such status that the defendant corruptly endeavored to influence the witness. U S v. Solow, S.D.N.Y.1956, 138 F.Supp. 812.

Whether or not a victim felt threatened was immaterial to prosecution under former provisions of section 1510 of this title which proscribed obstruction of criminal investigations. U. S. v. Carzoli, C.A.7 (Ill.) 1971, 447 F.2d 774, certiorari denied 92
S.Ct. 673, 404 U.S. 1015, 30 L.Ed.2d 662.

18 U.S.C.A. § 1512, which prohibits any party from intimidating or harassing another party in order to influence testimony at official proceeding, does not require that party harassed or intimidated be witness at proceeding. U.S. v. Risken, C.A.8 (Iowa) 1986, 788 F.2d 1361, certiorari denied 107 S.Ct. 329, 479 U.S. 923, 93 L.Ed.2d 302.

Federal witness tampering statute does not purport to reach all forms of tampering with witness, but only tampering by specific means such as by use or attempted use of "intimidation" or "physical force" or "threat[]" or by engaging in "misleading conduct toward another person." U.S. v. King, C.A.2 (N.Y.) 1985, 762 F.2d 232, certiorari denied 106 S.Ct.
1203, 475 U.S. 1018, 89 L.Ed.2d 316.

"Harass" within statute proscribing intentional harassment of witnesses does not require repeated attacks, and may properly be defined as conduct designed and intended to badger, disturb or pester. U.S. v. Wilson, C.A.4 (W.Va.) 1986, 796 F.2d 55,
on remand 640 F.Supp. 238, certiorari denied 107 S.Ct. 896, 479 U.S. 1039, 93 L.Ed.2d 848.

Evidence that defendants wrote letters to grand jury witnesses urging them not to testify, and misled witnesses regarding their obligation to testify and produce documents was sufficient to support witness tampering conviction. U.S. v. Schmidt, C.A.4
(N.C.) 1991, 935 F.2d 1440.

[Ice]

Do you realize that this "stuff" can be used in everything that we are involved in?& Example: the letter I posted in More State Taxes... that is a clear attempt to threaten, intimidate via threatened use of physical force, a "witness".& Remember, we have first hand knowledge of all actions that we take in any process... therefore, we are "witnesses" that can present "testimony" and or "evidence".


These things should be added to all that we do.& Not to exclude debt validation or ANY process that we involve ourselves in.


Ice

Ice, you are right....

I have been reading the code some more, it appears that they can take away my 5th admendment arguement, check this out:


18 USC Sec. 6002. - Immunity generally

Whenever a witness refuses, on the basis of his privilege against self-incrimination, to testify or provide other information in a proceeding before or ancillary to -

(1) a court or grand jury of the United States,

(2) an agency of the United States, or

(3) either House of Congress, a joint committee of the two Houses, or a committee or a subcommittee of either House,

and the person presiding over the proceeding communicates to the witness an order issued under this title, the witness may not refuse to comply with the order on the basis of his privilege against self-incrimination; but no testimony or other information compelled under the order (or any information directly or indirectly derived from such testimony or other information) may be used against the witness in any criminal case, except a prosecution for perjury, giving a false statement, or otherwise failing to comply with the orde.

Here are some cites I found:

Grant of use immunity eliminated U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 5 as grounds for refusing to testify before grand jury. In re Grand Jury Proceedings, C.A.5 (Fla.) 1981, 643 F.2d 226.

Grant of use immunity protected grand jury witness from prosecution for perjury antedating immunity order and thus was sufficient to supplant witness' privilege under U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 5. U. S. v. Leyva, C.A.5 (Tex.) 1975, 513 F.2d 774.

Grant of immunity to grand jury witnesses was a full and adequate substitute for privilege. U. S. v. Taulbee, C.A.9 (Cal.) 1973, 476 F.2d 804.

Immunity from use and derivative use is coextensive with scope of privilege against self-incrimination and therefore sufficient to compel testimony over a claim of privilege but grant of immunity need not be broader. U.S. v. Society of Independent Gasoline Marketers of America, C.A.4 (Md.) 1979, 624 F.2d 461, certiorari denied 101 S.Ct. 859, 449 U.S. 1078, 66 L.Ed.2d 801.

Where United States attorney obtained court order instructing witness to answer questions which witness had refused to answer before grand jury and also to testify and produce evidence pursuant to provisions of former section 3486 of this title, fact that witness expressly rejected immunity conferred did not relieve witness of compulsion to testify. United States v. Fitzgerald, C.A.2 (N.Y.) 1956, 235 F.2d 453, certiorari denied 77 S.Ct. 66, 352 U.S. 842, 1 L.Ed.2d 58.

Immunity authorized within former section 2514 of this title was not self- executing, and witness may properly invoke his privilege against self- incrimination until there has been application to court, judicial grant of immunity, and accompanying order to testify. U. S. v. Di Mauro, C.A.8 (Neb.) 1971, 441 F.2d 428.

Sections 6001 to 6005 of title are not self-executing laws; it is a requirement that United States attorney request an order based on application of sections 6001 to 6005 of this title in order that immunity may be bestowed upon a witness who refuses to testify on ground of self-incrimination. U. S. v. Seavers, C.A.6 (Ohio) 1973, 472 F.2d 607.

Where statutory scheme requires administrative or judicial grant of immunity before a witness is protected from compelled self-incrimination, in absence of such grant, witness can stand upon his refusal. Securities and Exchange Commission v. Olsen, C.A.2 (N.Y.) 1965, 354 F.2d 166.

Can they really do this to compel my testemony?

Thanks,
T

[Ice]

Well, if you read the 5th Amendment... you would have to say that they could compel testimony... take a look at it: "... nor shall be compelled in any Criminal Case to be a Witness against himself;"


If offered "immunity" then you should have nothing to fear... right?& And, what do we know in regards to "silence"?


It gets a bit complicated putting those 2 things together... doesn't it?


&

T,


Looks like you missed it. In 241 and 241 one of them applies to "perspn" and we all know who that is. The other one and nor your new one applies to "whoever".


Think that is not signaificant?


Jim

Jim, thanks. I had noticed that but did not think much of it.

For the latest update and interesting admission from the US attorney, check this out:

http://www.suijuris.net/main/suijuri...40315232843556

T