Mar 18, 2011 
By 
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.
(note: DMCA-whatever snip mandated by blogger.com because the author wet himself that someone reposted his article... in his name with a link to his site.)
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.
(note: second DMCA-whatever snip mandated by blogger.com because the author wet himself that someone reposted his article... in his name with a link to his site. God did you actually spend time and money whining about someone who gave props to your advice?)
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.
(I'm not the loser, I didn't cry to a pack of bureaucratic jackals and spend money and time for your precious fucking "copyright". God you're a fucking fool Ken.)
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.
(note: DMCA-whatever snip mandated by blogger.com because the author wet himself that someone reposted his article... in his name with a link to his site.)
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.
(note: second DMCA-whatever snip mandated by blogger.com because the author wet himself that someone reposted his article... in his name with a link to his site. God did you actually spend time and money whining about someone who gave props to your advice?)
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.
(I'm not the loser, I didn't cry to a pack of bureaucratic jackals and spend money and time for your precious fucking "copyright". God you're a fucking fool Ken.)
Pardon me, but copying the entire blog post and reposting it here is not fair use. Feel free to quote, but this is a copyright violation.
ReplyDeleteWhy are you stealing someone else's work to post here?
ReplyDeleteLame as hell.
Ken, you were credited with the post. And your comments and advice were shared for widest distribution. I'd settle down and be happy with the fact that people are taking your advice.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I'd follow Ken's advice. Just sayin'. -Ansley
ReplyDeleteThis is *very* not okay.
ReplyDeleteWow, stealing since 2005 and proud of it. Such a role model you are!
ReplyDeleteRepeated bad behavior does not make it correct behavior over time.
tagn I looked and almost all of the articles until 2010 were this bloggers. He/she only started posting articles then. I think J. Croft is a long winded and angry but sees things as they are.
ReplyDeletetagn=NERD. What's the matter your world of warcraft subscription run out or something?
ReplyDeleteWhat have you done anyway?
Passerby, don't be too harsh on Ken. Dude's just confused as to who the enemy is. Happens now and then. I'm sure he's not a complete backstabbing douche.
ReplyDeleteWe're all in this together.
So -- you're refusing to take down copyrighted material you have taken and republished in full on your site?
ReplyDeleteOK. DMCA notice to the ISP it is.
Just out of curiosity -- are copyright laws somehow tools of oppressive government? Is being a thief somehow patriotic?
Thank you for demonstrating everything that's wrong with self-righteous "patriots".
ReplyDeleteJ. Croft, let me get this straight. You have a blog where you cut and paste what other people write? Perhaps not every post, but you claim you do it "all the time."
ReplyDeleteWho needs enemies when you've got friends like these...
Jcroft- when I said that personally I'd take Ken's advice- I meant TAKE DOWN YOUR BLATANTLY INFRINGING POST.
ReplyDeleteIn no way do I have any idea whatsoever of what you are talking about. Not only are you barking up the wrong tree- you're in the wrong forest entirely.
Please refrain from using my unique name in support of your ideas. Because I AM NOT IN SUPPORT OF THEM.
Just sayin'.
-Ansley
-Ansley
Why is J. Croft such a douchenozzle?
ReplyDeleteHahahaha. Can you say something super mad again? It's fucking hilarious coming from an adult.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure what I enjoyed most: the post or the hilarious and ridiculous flame war going on in the comments.
ReplyDeleteNevertheless, Ken remains right. Not everyone thinks reposting their content is respectful.
You popehat dorks really got nothing better than to comment on year plus old reposts?
ReplyDeleteY'know a couple of you have posted your faces as avatars and using that as a guide I must say you might begin to have success socially if you'd:
shower
shave
lose weight
get a life
Might even get laid but even not that crack whore would appreciate if if you didn't smell like you literally live in front of the computer... obsessing because I reposted your gay lover's article after attributing him and linking... I mean, you nerds make a trucker gag.
JCroft, your defamatory statements shall not stand whilst mine attorney has the will to fight on!
ReplyDeleteCharles Carreon, I chose you!
Yawn
ReplyDeleteYou guys are a BORE.
You keep throwing around the phrase "Fair Use" as if you know what it means, so you might as well actually know what it means. In order to qualify as Fair Use, your use of Ken's work must pass four specific tests:
ReplyDelete1) Purpose and Character: Is your use of the work somehow transformative? Is it critique, parody, news? Does it provide some value that a simple link to the original does not? Verdict: NOT FAIR USE. It's a slavish reproduction, right down to the links and italics.
2) Nature: Facts and ideas can't be copyrighted; only expressions of them. For example, if Ken published his height and weight, there'd be nothing to stop you from publishing the same height and weight. Verdict: NOT FAIR USE. You copied the full expression of the work, every last sardonic and stylistic detail.
3) Amount: Fair Use says that you can, without permission, import excerpts or quotes from a work into your new work for purposes of demonstration and illustration. A book review quoting passages from the book is a good (and common) example. Verdict: NOT FAIR USE. You copied the whole damn thing.
4) Effect on work's value: By reposting this, even with links and attribution, you offer it as a "direct market" substitute for the original, thereby (potentially) driving traffic away from Ken's blog and toward your own, which weakens the work's market value to its owner. Furthermore, the way you posted it kinda makes it look like Ken wrote it for you or your site, thereby making it look like Ken might actually associate professionally with paranoid, establishment-fearing douchebags. Verdict: NOT FAIR USE.
Geez. You'd think such a a self-professed hard-core libertarian would have more respect for individual property rights and ownership of creative output.
Hey, I'm just trying to help. Words mean things, and when you use them, people judge your ideas according to the words you use to express them. You want to make an argument why it's OK to steal someone else's work? That's fine. But use the right tool for the job. You wouldn't use a stock Prius to drive your militia to your Awesome Resistance Compound, would you? No. So don't use Fair Use to make an argument about appropriation of property in the name of the struggle.
ReplyDeleteAnother example: I'm unclear on what "cunt assed whore" means. I guess I'll have to ask grandma.
(If she doesn't know, I'll ask yours in the morning.)