Just A Friendly Reminder: Please Shut The Hell Up

Law

Imagine this:

It's a dark and gloomy six in the morning. You've just gotten out of bed. You are fuzzy-headed, bleary-eyed, badly in need of coffee. You haven't showered or dressed. You're in your underwear, or pajamas.

Suddenly there's a thunderous pounding on the door, and loud men are shouting something at you. Your heart lurches and the adrenaline jolts you. You open the door, and there is a team of FBI agents, guns prominently displayed in holsters, raid jackets open. They are large and aggressive and unfriendly. They tell you they have a search warrant for your home and push past you. Two of them grab you, bodily turn you around, and handcuff you. They'll say later they had to do that to secure the scene and assure agent safety, and that you totally weren't in custody or anything.

Two agents take you outside to your driveway in your pajamas or underwear. At this point your neighbors are beginning to peek curiously out of their windows. The agents push you into the back seat of a G-ride — a late-model American made sedan that smells of air freshener and despair. The two agents sit on either side of you in the back seat; a third agent climbs into the front seat. You shift uncomfortably, trying to avoid sitting on your handcuffed hands. But there's no way to get comfortable sitting in your underwear in the back of a G-ride with your hands cuffed behind you.

The agents begin to question you about your business dealings. They don't read you your rights first — they'll say later they didn't have to, because you totally weren't in custody, despite being handcuffed in the back of a G-ride in your underwear surrounded by FBI agents in raid jackets. The agents tag-team you, switch topics rapidly, play good-cop-bad-cop, and use every law enforcement rhetorical trick to intimidate you. We have some really serious questions here, they say. But if you just cooperate, maybe we can clear all of this up.

They start to ask questions about a meeting that took place two years ago. Were you at that meeting with Mr. Smith and Mr. Jones? You say no, no I wasn't. Maybe you say it without thinking, agitated and confused and muddle-headed from the circumstances. Maybe you don't have a clear memory of what happened two years ago. Maybe you panic and lie. The agents move on in their questioning.

After a few uncomfortable hours, the agents uncuff you, pull you out of the car, and hand you an incomplete, inaccurate, and illegible receipt purporting to state what they've taken. They haul off boxes of documents, disks, disk drives, and whatever else catches their fancy. They'll see you soon, they say.

And, relatively speaking, they do. Six months later you are indicted. You're indicted not only for whatever matter the FBI was investigating. As a kicker, you're also indicted under 18 U.S.C. section 1001 for lying to the FBI. That's a felony. Your lawyer reviews the discovery, and tells you that when the FBI agents asked you whether you were at that meeting two years ago with Mr. Smith and Mr. Jones, they already knew the answer to the question. Mr. Jones recorded the meeting and is cooperating with the FBI, and they had two other witnesses who placed you there. There was no chance whatsoever that your denial — whether it was a panic-induced brain fart, or a failure of memory, or a lie — could have misled or deterred the FBI in its investigation for even a moment. But that doesn't matter. Though materiality is an element of Section 1001, it's a weak, diluted type of materiality. Statements to the government are deemed material if they are the sort of statements that have the capacity to influence it. Courts have come very close to creating a presumption of materiality by reasoning that if the information were not material the government would not have asked for it and you wouldn't have offered it. There was a time when most prosecutors thought it was chickenshit to charge someone with a felony for an exculpatory denial of wrongdoing that never fooled anyone; that time is in the past.

So. By failing to shut the fuck up, you have just handed the feds a gimme felony charge that will make your case much more difficult to defend.

When the authorities ask you questions, they are not out to "clear this thing up so we can let you go." They are not your friends. They do not want to help. They are very likely not trying to learn anything or discover anything. They are trying to make, or improve, a case against you. They are hoping that you will fall into their trap. They may be trying to make a weak case strong or turn a lesser charge into a greater one.

Is there ever a situation where, by being friendly and cooperative and answering questions, you can deflect government suspicion or satisfy their concerns without charges? Yes. Very rarely, there is. And when the government comes knocking, they count on you grasping at the hope that this is one of those times. Don't be a fool. If there's a chance that cooperation will satisfy the authorities today, there will still be a chance in a day or a week or a month after you've consulted a lawyer who understands the situation. When you answer law enforcements' questions — especially when you do it in a stressful situation like a search — you take grave risks of substantially worsening your situation. You may say, "oh, but I won't lie." Sure. But can you be sure, sitting cuffed in your underwear at six in the morning in that G-ride, that you will remember events from years ago accurately? Are you sure you won't be confused and muddled under the circumstances? Are you sure that the government won't — fueled by claims by cooperators — believe that you've lied? Do you really think that if you misremember or mix up events in your head or if your memory is different than the story of a cooperator, that the government is going to give you the benefit of the doubt?

Don't be a fool. Invoke. For God's sake, just shut up.

Last 5 posts by Ken White

72 Comments

67 Comments

  1. aczarnowski  •  Mar 18, 2011 @10:14 am

    This matches everything I've heard from everybody I trust in the judicial/executive employ.

    Is there a secret pass phrase that could get you out of that g-ride early? I know "I do not consent to any search and I would like to speak with my attorney" and "I invoke my right to remain silent and would like to speak with my attorney" but is there an equally succinct "I don't think you can hold me so you are letting out of this car unless you can show X" secret handshake?

  2. Ken  •  Mar 18, 2011 @10:22 am

    "I wish to exercise my right to remain silent. I wish to speak to an attorney."

    repeat. repeat. repeat.

    Also:

    "I would like to leave. Am I free to leave?"

  3. MikeZ  •  Mar 18, 2011 @11:59 am

    Certainly a lot of people now are aware that you don't answer any of the cops questions and should be exersizing your right to remain silent, but are there any questions that you could/should ask the officers in that situation. I'd be tempted to ask for a copy of the warrant in the above scenario because I know there is no probable cause to search my house and getting the warrant prior to some less than ethical DA 'fixing' the warrant after the fact would seems like it would be a good idea. How about getting all the badge numbers and identifications from all the involved officers,

  4. Ken  •  Mar 18, 2011 @12:09 pm

    Asking for badge numbers is theatre; it rarely does any good.

    Asking to see the warrant is good. But it won't tell you anything — they only have to show you the warrant, not the affidavit supporting it. All it will tell you is what they are allowed to take and what alleged crime forms the basis for it.

  5. Sean L.  •  Mar 18, 2011 @12:31 pm

    "Am I being detained, or am I free to go?"
    "Am I being detained, or am I free to go?"
    "Am I being detained, or am I free to go?"
    "Am I being detained, or am I free to go?"

  6. shg  •  Mar 18, 2011 @1:03 pm

    Sometimes I think we should all repeat your comment (your post is a bit longer) every day on every blawg:

    “I wish to exercise my right to remain silent. I wish to speak to an attorney.”

    repeat. repeat. repeat.

    Also:

    “I would like to leave. Am I free to leave?”

  7. mojo  •  Mar 18, 2011 @1:27 pm

    Am I under arrest? No? Then I'm free to go.

  8. Scott Jacobs  •  Mar 18, 2011 @1:33 pm

    Thankfully, the Supreme Court has stated that even handcuffing a person is taking them into custody, and any questions they ask must be preceded by Miranda.

  9. pistoffnick  •  Mar 18, 2011 @1:36 pm

    As comedian Ron White says, "I had the right to remain silent, but I didn't have the ability."

  10. random_guy  •  Mar 18, 2011 @2:05 pm

    Scott, if only that mattered.

    The supreme court also said license checks were illegal in 1979, that doesn't stop my local sheriffs office from blocking the street and preforming them every other weekend. Not DUI checks, they specifically say license check (as if it makes any more sense for one to be legal but the other not). But they only seem to do it around the predominately poor, Latino apartments so its not like their going to get sued anytime soon.

    Its remarkable when you compare whats legal, with what cops actually do.
    So yeah, STFU, has been my motto since college.

  11. Pinky  •  Mar 18, 2011 @2:37 pm

    Excellent advice. I recently came across some very helpful videos produced by http://flexyourrights.org.

    They have public service videos about a (US) citizen's rights during police encounters. The videos can be viewed on YouTube or purchased from their web sight.

    Disclosure: I have no connection to the Know Your Rights people. I do worry about the seemingly increasing bad behavior of US police.

  12. Dedicated_Dad  •  Mar 18, 2011 @4:55 pm

    (1) Am I being detained? (1a)Am I free to go? (1b)Then I am being (1c)detained. Under suspicion of what crime am I being detained?

    (2) I do not consent to any searches of any kind, Sir.

    (3) I don't wish to answer any questions, and would like to speak to my attorney.

    (4) I'd like to leave now – am I free to go?

    Lather, Rinse, Repeat!

  13. Anonymous in MA (you know who)  •  Mar 18, 2011 @6:11 pm

    My recent experience with cops shows that all of this is true. …and Ken is saving for another post, I imagine, the fact that cops routinely lie. About EVERYTHING.

    Happily when the cops came to visit me for lies and bullshit, I pretty much said nothing but "I'd like to talk to you, but my lawyer would be angry if I said anything without him present; let me call him now."

  14. Ken  •  Mar 18, 2011 @6:13 pm

    Yeah, Anon, I know your lawyer, and he's kind of an asshole.

  15. Scott Jacobs  •  Mar 18, 2011 @6:37 pm

    "and he’s kind of an asshole."

    Way to not narrow it down any, Ken… :)

  16. David  •  Mar 18, 2011 @6:49 pm

    I have no reason to open the door at six in the a.m., there is no reason for Law enforcement types to be at my door for any reason…. Therefore I must assume the people at my door are in fact "impostors" and are attempting to commit a home invasion (Many incidents of this in the news lately) I will defend my family with excessive deadly force PERIOD.

  17. MPH  •  Mar 18, 2011 @8:18 pm

    Watch the following video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

    A lawyer tells anyone who will listen to shut up. He says he will NEVER talk to the police for any reason under any circumstances whatsoever. He then goes on to tell you why, even if you are completely innocent of any wrongdoing whatsoever, you should never answer the questions of the police.

  18. Anonymous in MA (you know who)  •  Mar 18, 2011 @8:23 pm

    > Yeah, Anon, I know your lawyer, and he’s kind of an asshole.

    That was my take too, but he still hasn't billed me, so I'm not raising a stink.

  19. Ansley  •  Mar 18, 2011 @8:53 pm

    Am I being detained? Am I free to go? Also works well in the exit line at Costco on a busy Saturday afternoon.

  20. Astonied  •  Mar 18, 2011 @9:08 pm

    In my case it goes something like this…can I be detained? Please don't make me go! I promise if you just let me stay in a cell overnight so I can get more than 8 hours sleep away from my children; I will admit to anything you want me to if that means I get solitary confinement!

  21. Will  •  Mar 18, 2011 @9:19 pm
  22. Noumenon  •  Mar 19, 2011 @3:16 am

    Is there ever a situation where, by being friendly and cooperative and answering questions, you can deflect government suspicion or satisfy their concerns without charges? Yes. Very rarely, there is.

    Happened to me; one time, I wandered through the offices and basement of my small-town Reedsburg bank the same way I had explored campus buildings at college. The police surprised me by showing up at my apartment, I told them I'd just been looking around and showed them that the pile of compact discs I had been carrying was from my safe-deposit box, not anything of theirs. I'm sure I said enough to get myself busted for trespassing (breaking the plane of some open door), but they just asked me not to bank there any more and left me alone.

  23. Stbernardnot  •  Mar 19, 2011 @6:38 am

    I live in Wi. where the "union cops" (gag, retch) won't enforce the laws against the union bums. So what is our solution?

  24. Base of the Pillar  •  Mar 19, 2011 @7:34 am

    Is it safe to say this equally applies at a DUI stop? I'm thinking my most likely "bad situation" would be a DUI roadblock that I stop at after having two drinks at dinner. They ask "Have anything to drink tonight?" What's my answer to minimize risk?

  25. Ansley  •  Mar 19, 2011 @10:35 am

    Base of the Pillar- say no. Always. If you say you've had a couple of drinks, we assume you've had six. Deny drinking. Unless your car smells like a margarita. Then you're screwed no matter what you say.

    Besides, the USC Ken refers to does not apply to your local copper. You are unlikely to be charged with a felony if you're caught lying. It also isn't likely the cops followed you to the DUI checkpoint after videotaping you with your steak and Merlot.

  26. J. Croft  •  Mar 19, 2011 @12:25 pm
  27. Ken  •  Mar 19, 2011 @12:31 pm

    Jcroft, copying and reposting the entire post is not fair use. It's a copyright violation. Kindly reduce it to a partial quote and a link.

  28. TPaine  •  Mar 19, 2011 @12:37 pm

    As David said, I have no reason to open my door to anyone at 6 AM. I'm 64, live a very inconsequential life (aside from being a card-carrying right-wing extremist) and there is no reason for the LE boys to threaten me whatsoever. I also have a heavily-fortified home, with bars on all windows and doors, and cameras monitoring (and taping) everything.

    Even with a warrant, anyone forcing themselves into my home will be shot. If I see and read the warrant FIRST, they might come in after I call my lawyer and inform him of what is happening. And like David, home invasion creeps have used the "we're the police" trick to gain entry to other homes in this area. Just because they say they're the police doesn't mean squat.

  29. Combaticus  •  Mar 19, 2011 @1:49 pm

    **Therefore I must assume the people at my door are in fact “impostors” and are attempting to commit a home invasion (Many incidents of this in the news lately) I will defend my family with excessive deadly force PERIOD.**

    Then you will be killed.

  30. Patrick  •  Mar 19, 2011 @4:04 pm

    Comment of the week.

  31. bwm  •  Mar 20, 2011 @8:14 pm

    "Then you will be killed."

    And you can be sure they will face no criminal charges, even though someone back at the office transposed the address.

  32. Mark Matis  •  Mar 21, 2011 @5:42 am

    "Then you will be killed."

    You're probably right. So you need to make it worth YOUR cost.

  33. TPaine  •  Mar 21, 2011 @3:27 pm

    "Then you will be killed."

    Or you will be detained, arrested, more than likely charged with a crime you did not commit (the boys in blue won't admit a mistake), thrown in jail, lose your job (if you have one), lose your reputation…and maybe your home and all of your belongings. All because you decided that standing up for your rights wasn't worth the aggravation.

    Remember this from Patrick Henry: Is life so dear, or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!

    When is enough too much? I will live in peace in my onw home, or I will possibly die defending it. I would rather die a free man than live a slave. How about YOU?

  34. SPQR  •  Mar 21, 2011 @4:34 pm

    You'll still be dead "Paine".

  35. TPaine  •  Mar 21, 2011 @7:29 pm

    "You’ll still be dead “Paine”."

    If that's the way it turns out. But no one is gonna kick in my door and assault my family and I. I don't use or sell drugs. I don't have any kind of arrest record. I don't even have a driving violation record. There is no reason anyone should be forcefully entering my home, officially or otherwise. Notice I said "forcefully."

    I won't fly commercial because of the government abuse from TSA and the PAtriot Act. I stand by my principles. The government, from the feds on down, has become tyrannical and overbearing. Remember Ruby Ridge. Remember Waco. And now BATFE has been smuggling guns into Mexico and several of those weapons have been used to kill Border Patrol and ICE agents.

    So anyone trying to forcibly enter my private residence is not there to sell me tickets to the Policeman's Ball. Try to enter my home without asking politely, and you will be met with extreme force. I'm not afraid to die to protect my home and family.

  36. Paul Albers  •  Mar 22, 2011 @6:02 am

    If anyone knocks at my door in the middle of the night the first thing I would do is call 911.
    Then with shotgun in hand I would rack it standing close to, beside the door and tell them I have called 911 and the cops are on the way.
    If they are legit, and as they kick down the door, I would place my shotgun on the floor and tell them besides the cops my attorney is on the way.
    if they are not legit, then hopefully once they hear the cops are on the way, along with the "Shuck, Shuck", they will hit the road. I have also set off the panic alarm on the house and truck.
    If none of that works then I guess I have died protecting my constitutional rigthts.

  37. Joshua  •  Mar 22, 2011 @12:20 pm

    I Just wanted to keep the thought experiment going.

    *You are sure that you are guilty of no crime so you assume that it is not the police at the door.
    *You are convinced that if you let them in you stand a good chance of putting yourself and your family in mortal danger.
    *You have firearms to defend yourself. If not police than they likely will flee as you are no longer a low-risk victim.

    Damned if you do and damned if you don't? In such a situation I would fire anyway and do what I can to protect my family. If I became aware that they were cops I would surrender. Thoughts?

  38. CTrees  •  Mar 23, 2011 @4:07 am

    @Joshua: Unfortunately, you would likely be killed. No two ways around it.

  39. Patrick  •  Mar 23, 2011 @4:47 am

    Hypothetically, TPaine, you could sue them for employing excessive force, willful and wanton misconduct, or if applicable denial of civil rights under color of law. Then you won't be killed.

    I represent cops in that sort of suit from time to time. I wouldn't say they fear lawsuits as much as they fear being shot at, but they don't enjoy the lawsuits nearly as much as I do.

    The benefit of my plan is that, while not as immediately gratifying as gunning down a pig, it lets you live.

  40. Mark Matis  •  Mar 23, 2011 @6:13 am

    And equally hypothetically, Patrick, you will be attempting to sue them in THEIR court system, where THEY are the darlings and enablers. You FIRST have to get permission to even sue, since they will claim they were acting within their official capacity. And the "Legal System" is rigged in their favor EVEN AT THAT POINT. If you DO get the right to sue, then you will have to fight through a judge that has NO interest in his enablers being shown for what they are. And that judge will not only determine what evidence may even be presented, but will also instruct the jury on the "Law" that must be applied. And of course the jury will NOT get an understanding that Black's Law Dictionary even has a descriptor for "Law Enforcement" testimony acknowledging that MASSIVE amounts of same are flat-out perjury.

    And in the end, if you DO succeed in overcoming ALL of that, then you will be paid by the government using YOUR tax dollars, while the piggies will continue to do their thing, all the while REMEMBERING you and waiting for a chance…

  41. Patrick  •  Mar 23, 2011 @6:17 am

    Oh, well in that case you're right.

    Better to shoot a cop and get shot in return.

  42. Mark Matis  •  Mar 23, 2011 @6:25 am

    And I didn't even mention that you'll be suing on YOUR dime, that is, whatever dime you have left AFTER they get through with you, while THEY will be defended by your tax dollars as well.

    The stench is overwhelming.

  43. Mark Matis  •  Mar 23, 2011 @6:29 am

    Not to mention the "plant" drugs or "plant" guns that "Law Enforcement's Finest" carry to make sure they don't look dumb for smashing their way into the wrong home.

    Did I mention that the stench is overwhelming?

  44. Patrick  •  Mar 23, 2011 @6:41 am

    You've won Mark. You're absolutely right. Why are you still acting as though I disagree?

    The best thing to do, when confronted by abusive authorities, is to shoot them. That's what a true patriot would do.

    I promise you that your name will be inscribed on the Wall of Martyrs when the Revolution is complete.

  45. Joshua  •  Mar 23, 2011 @6:48 am

    Just to be clear I'm not trying to find a way to shoot cops here. I'm thinking about worst case scenarios and how they might play out. I suppose I would most likely die. In the event that I survived and at least one cop did not I would hope that since I had a reasonable belief that my family was in danger I would be off the hook. I don't think that would be the case unfortunately.

  46. CTrees  •  Mar 23, 2011 @7:47 am

    Mark, Mark, Mark…

    Get with the times. Randomly writing WORDS in all caps is sooo passé. The cool new thing to do if you're a raving patriot is to randomly bold words. See? Doesn't that just make everything more emphatic?

  47. TPaine  •  Mar 23, 2011 @7:40 pm

    I have every right to protect myself and my family against any threat I perceive as "life-threatening." If the police want to make the news by murdering an innocent family "by mistake," then they will try to force their way into my home instead of knocking and announcing who they are and the intent of their visit. As previously stated by myself and others, we have home invasion morons posing as cops, so I don't trust anyone without proper ID.

    Then again, I have watched our men in blue crash down a door, toss a flash-bang into a house, barge in and start shooting, wounding a man and killing his dog, in full view of his young child. I think they found some pot in his house.

    I may die in any attempt to forcibly enter my house, but it won't be in vain. Patrick, I hope you're good at getting guilty men off, because if I am gunned down by the police, my survivors will definitely have the case of their lives.

  48. David  •  Mar 24, 2011 @6:06 am

    He wouldn't have to be. If I had a nickel for every time police officers were convicted of a crime after shooting and killing an innocent person during an idiotic raid where the government was obviously at fault, I wouldn't be able to buy a candy borrow without borrowing money.

  49. David  •  Mar 24, 2011 @6:06 am

    A candy BAR. Dammit, morning.

  50. Mark Matis  •  Mar 24, 2011 @8:53 am

    Watch out saying that word "Bar", David. You'll offend the "Legal System" and they may send "Law Enforcement" to get you. The stench is overwhelming.

  51. Cynic  •  Mar 24, 2011 @8:58 am

    Welcome to the American police state, where police are "heroes" even when they are thugs. Where soldiers are "heroes" even when they are thugs. It's the double-speak of the State, as we drift closer to the Orwellian world described in "1984". My only joy in watching a once-great country slide into despotism is knowing that more and more citizens are catching on to the notion that something is terribly, terribly wrong with our country. The Revolution is long overdue.

  52. Maud  •  Mar 24, 2011 @10:14 am

    not simply "lying", there's also conspiracy. huh? Yup! Cop: "who's got acid?" Mark: "Guy in the red shirt" > OK THAT's CONSPIRACY! Doesn't matter that the guy in the red shirt was also a cop and never had any acid, you conspired with the cop who asked you the question. people doin' hard time for just this

  53. m_astera  •  Mar 24, 2011 @12:45 pm

    I've always liked the Sears analogy. Sears sends you a bill. You tell them you didn't buy anything from them and you are not going to pay the bill. So the Sears police come and arrest you, and you have to plead your case in the Sears court, while being prosecuted by the Sears prosecutor and represented by a Sears lawyer.

  54. Harry DuPraw  •  Mar 24, 2011 @12:55 pm

    Friends,

    I read the article and correspondence above, and was very impressed by the words of advice and by the obvious dedication to liberty.

    Yet, all of you seem to be making the same mistake, focusing on the cops, on the FBI agents, the men in blue uniforms. These are mere minor psychopaths, bullies, or desperados in search of a job. They are not the enemies. J.P. Morgan said something like: "Working class? What working class? I'll hire half of them to kill the other half." And that is what the bankers are still doing. You want liberty? Then you must go after the J.P. Morgans of today, not after their meaningless, eminently replaceable, puppets. The enemies of liberty, justice, and the environments are dressed in $10,000 suits, NOT in blue uniforms.

  55. Joshua  •  Mar 24, 2011 @1:19 pm

    @ Harry
    If you want to go down to a more basic level of the issue I would suggest that the biggest problem is with the voters themselves.

    The bankers, politicians, and cops can do what they do because most people are not issue voters. They treat politics in a manner similar to sports and do not pay attention to what is going on. This way the justice system remains broken, the will of the people is subordinate to those who do the most for the re-election campaign, and they are easily distracted by emotional button pushing intended to keep them from noticing anything.

    Every election cycle we have a chance to fix problems like these, and every election cycle the voters as a whole can't focus enough on issues to solve them and quickly get distracted by something else since it is all emotional. When times are bad they switch the leading party to punish the ones in power, when times are good they let the ones in power stay. They have no idea why things are good or bad.

    When candidates are criticized by the culture at large for not being specific on solutions, admitting that they were wrong when their policy effects clearly did not work, or changing positions years after they made promises I will have more faith that these things will change.

  56. Harry DuPraw  •  Mar 24, 2011 @2:03 pm

    Joshua,

    I partly agree. But then you have to ask yourself: What happens to people? Why could they read Tom Paine then, but don't see that the NYT, FOX, or CNN are nothing more than bankers' propaganda? People could act responsibly, if given a chance. Humanity has achieved it greatest peak 2,500 years ago, in Athens, where common peopleBut they have been deliberately dumbed down by the bankers.

    So, I stick to my view: The handful of international bankers are our enemies, and they are the ones that must be removed from power by any means necessary.

  57. Paul x  •  Mar 24, 2011 @2:33 pm

    After they "ask" you to cooperate, how about telling the cops, "I don't cooperate with terrorists."

    Anyway why would one open the door to such scum? Get your battle rifle. Anyone doing what they are doing is by definition a dangerous criminal.

    Some here think this is too risky. Hey, life is risky. Anyway, it depends on your situation. If you are trying to raise a family, there are better alternatives. If you have nothing left to lose, what's the problem? Legal action in the state's courts does not threaten the state. It does not stop the abuse, either. No revolution was ever won by lawyers, but by hard cases who won't take it any more. The question is not whether one should die, since we all die. The question is how many bastards you can take with you.

  58. Harry DuPraw  •  Mar 24, 2011 @2:36 pm

    Thanks for the comment Joshua.

    Sorry for the error above: pushed the submit button by accident. Athenian direct democracy worked better than any other system ever invented. So the question is: Why US democracy is not working? Answer: you can't blame the people. The system has been thoroughly corrupted by a few billionaires. And it is these billionaires that must be targeted, not their lowly agents.

    Sure, right now only a few of us are waking up from the bankers-induced coma. So, it's up to us. What I'm saying is this. Someone above is willing to die, justly killing invaders of his castle. I say this is an error. If you are willing to die, make them pay a much higher price, and go after the few men who indirectly sent these thugs to your home. You can shoot any number of FBI agents, and nothing will change. But, if the Bilderbergers felt that they directly will be held responsible for THEIR actions, then, another, freer world, will be coming.

    We just need to connect the dots, and figure out who our real enemies are! Justified wrath is not enough. We must think before we act, and hit at the system's most vulnerable spot.

    Until they take the internet away from us, we have the weapon we need to fight back, and take our freedom back via strategic, leaderless, revolution: individuals acting alone for the common good, and going after the big psychopaths, not after the little ones.

  59. SPQR  •  Mar 24, 2011 @6:37 pm

    Tell me more about these international bankers Harry, where do they live, how do they dress, do they have any unique facial features …

  60. Joshua  •  Mar 25, 2011 @10:42 am

    @ Harry
    I would be willing to consider the evidence for your argument, but those bankers would be unable to do this to a populace with their priorities straight and a functioning attention span.

    I live in a culture where coaches make four time more than anyone else at a university, where television news of every kind looks more and more like a tabloid/entertainment magazine, and where you almost never see evidence used or demanded in political debates or speeches. The priorities of the public are clear. They are mostly ignorant and responsive to style over substance. The people are due a large share of the the blame at least. To paraphrase: in a democracy we get the leadership we want, and deserve.

  61. Patrick  •  Mar 25, 2011 @11:28 am

    We just need to connect the dots, and figure out who our real enemies are! Justified wrath is not enough. We must think before we act, and hit at the system’s most vulnerable spot.

    You forgot to attribute to William Pierce.

  62. Harry DuPraw  •  Mar 25, 2011 @7:59 pm

    To SPQR: Who are the real villains? Well, they keep themselves as invisible as they can, but one can make an educated guess. I'd imagine there are many concentric circles, like planets around the sun. I'd say the likes of Kissinger and your average billionaire are at about the 3rd circle. The heads of the CIA, MI6, Mossad, the Bush family, the Royal families of the UK and the Netherlands, might be at the first circle. Puppets like Obama and just about the entire new bunch of Republican governors are at the fourth. The SWAT team who broke into John Doe's house are in the 7th circle, mere peons in the service of evil. The sun itself: My best guess: The Rothschild family and/or David Rockefeller.

  63. Harry DuPraw  •  Mar 25, 2011 @8:05 pm

    To Joshua. I largely agree. Therefore, it is up to the few of us who are awake, who are aware and who care, to take actions into our own hands. That was the position that many discussants above took. In that case, my strategic point was: If you are to sacrifice your life, don't throw it away targeting a fellow non-billionaire. Don't go after the ignorant executioner, but after the few men who ordered and planned the unjust execution in cold blood.

  64. Harry DuPraw  •  Mar 25, 2011 @8:07 pm

    To Patrick: I was unaware that I was paraphrasing anyone, sorry. Can you post a link, so that, in future comments, I can make a proper attribution? Thanks!

  65. Patrick  •  Mar 26, 2011 @6:39 am

    Unfortunately Harry, the works of William Pierce are not available online. But you were paraphrasing him.

  66. Base of the Pillar  •  Mar 26, 2011 @7:41 am

    I can't wait until I'm a billionaire and can then further castigate the masses. It'll be juicy.

  67. SPQR  •  Mar 26, 2011 @11:40 am

    Harry, have I seen your work glued to a telephone pole in my neighborhood?

5 Trackbacks