Imagine for a moment that your accused of a crime and you did not do it, but suddenly someone suggests that if you really have nothing to hide you take a lie detector test.
There are a lot of good reasons why you should not take one and yes that means even if your innocent of the accusation of a crime. The number one reason why is that it lies, the lie detector lies. Sounds a little crazy right, how can a lie detector that is allegedly designed to tell is someone is lying be the base of the lie.
There are a lot of good reasons why you should not take one and yes that means even if your innocent of the accusation of a crime.
The number one reason why is that it lies, the lie detector lies.
Sounds a little crazy right, how can a lie detector that is allegedly designed to tell is someone is lying be the base of the lie.
The reason why is simple it is not accurate, because it depends on a subjective analysis by a human operator.
Humans make mistakes, they sometimes even lie about what they are doing.
But even if a lie detector test were a valid and effective method of detecting a lie it is not admissible in court.
So if you ever find yourself in a situation where someone asks you to take a lie detector test, ask them one question, will the results of this testing eliminate me as a suspect and or arrest warrant? If they lie, then you know that you need a lawyer right away. If they tell the truth they will have to say that no, no matter what the test reveals it will not change anything about what we think we know about you.
So if you ever find yourself in a situation where someone asks you to take a lie detector test, ask them one question, will the results of this testing eliminate me as a suspect and or arrest warrant?
If they lie, then you know that you need a lawyer right away.
If they tell the truth they will have to say that no, no matter what the test reveals it will not change anything about what we think we know about you.
What that says is that it does not matter, if they think your guilty of a crime, they can have anyone come in and say that you failed or that you were not consistently honest.
But if they are honest and they say that your also honest the police will just say that a lie detector test is not conclusive and they will continue to waste your time and violate your rights, (allegedly)
The funny thing about a Lie Detector test is that its totally subjective, there are no scientific facts to support a lie detector, sorry but it just dont work.
It never has and it never will because it is subjective, the operator obtains his fee or his or her payment from law enforcement sources, which means they are not objective.
Until technology improves or we see some kind of real evidence that technology is capable of proving and sustaining honesty or dishonesty then sadly its just a waste of time and money.
The way that the Justice system is today it really leaves with just one choice, Never Ever Talk to them, because they will lie to you while they are telling you that when you lie to them they will get mad and angry. But they have no problem lying to you, what kind of Good guy does that?
Just remember that most of the time, they have more experience in putting you in jail than you have of getting out of jail.
Today more than ever the average citizen is in peril of being prosecuted and it is not as difficult as you may think to find yourself in legal hot water. Imagine what might happen if you were to find your self on a snow mobile, in a white out blizzard, you get lost and your just trying to survive, you see blue lights ahead and you head for those lights because the police are there to help right?
You would be wrong…
Guess what you just accidentally broke a federal statute, violation of the Wilderness Act.
Now you have a criminal record…
Most people think criminal law is for bad people,” says Timothy Lynch of the Cato Institute. “They’re one misstep away from the nightmare of a federal indictment.” new federal laws have lower standards for conviction than in the past: Prosecutors do not always need to show criminal intent (mens rea), according the Wall Street Journal. And, federal regulations (also numbering in the thousands) often carry the force of federal criminal law as penalty.
Most people think criminal law is for bad people,” says Timothy Lynch of the Cato Institute.
“They’re one misstep away from the nightmare of a federal indictment.”
new federal laws have lower standards for conviction than in the past: Prosecutors do not always need to show criminal intent (mens rea), according the Wall Street Journal. And, federal regulations (also numbering in the thousands) often carry the force of federal criminal law as penalty.
So, if your still reading this you may be wondering what is going on and is this really the America I grew up pledging allegiance to the flag?
Yes, it is, but things have changed, it has been said over and over again that we are a nation of laws, but the truth is that is a lie…
The truth is that we the people are the only people that matter in this Nation, yet our congress treats us like criminals.
While they eat the fat and drink the sweet, this is a real issue that every American should be well aware of yet for the most part many of us are far too busy working and living our lives to be concerned with legal issues, this is why it is imperative that you know what your doing and that when you choose to go on vacation or to go even on something as simple as a cruise that you know the laws that could effect your very liberty and freedom.
It may be difficult to understand when your not in the world as often as perhaps some of your neighbors, however its important to realize that just because your neighbors may not share information about being on vacation and accidentally breaking a federal law while in a federal park, getting a $3500.00 fine, having a felony record, (no more voting) all because what, your son who is interested in cowboys and Indians went looking for arrow heads, in a federal park…
You see, there are so many laws that some have said they do not know how many laws there actually are.
Some estimate the figure at more than 4500 federal laws.
If you are reading this because you were looking for legal advice or you perhaps found this website searching for a solution to a problem you have please locate an attorney, you can often get some sound legal advice for as little as $50 and that can go a long way towards helping you get a better nights sleep…
When you think about SOPA you first think hey lets stop all these pirates online right but in reality it will not stop anything at all what it will do is allow corporations to shift the burden of proof from the plaintiff to a defendant, and it will create more problems for an already over burdened, legal system.
The truth is that we cannot afford this kind of stupidity in congress and this is the number one reason why you should vote these crooks in congress out of office.
learn more about what you should avoid in legal bills in congress.
Sign the petition to stop this attempt at massive corporations to ruin the internet for everyone.
Sopa is a lie from the pits of hell…
It is Evil and must be removed in all its forms.
We cannot allow congress to pretend to pass laws that are in the interest of corporations but pretend to be in the interest of the people.
We know its a lie, they know its a lie, they are sorry, but not for the right reasons, they are sorry that they got caught not giving a damn.
unreal but is it true? Can it be that we are looking at criminal actions.
This just in there is quite a lot of news happening on the computer front, while some are saying that this is unconstitutional use and abuse of power others are saying it is hacking? Who is right, and who is wrong, this was received via email and may or may not represent the opinions of this news company. (alleged news company)
What can we do to keep those that are ignorant of technology from creating laws that threaten our freedom?
It’s been a crazy 24 hours. Former Demand Progress executive director Aaron Swartz was arrested yesterday for allegedly downloading academic research articles from JSTOR.
More than 35,000 people have already signed a letter of support for Aaron. Will you join them by clicking here?
The mainstream coverage of the arrest has turned in Aaron’s favor — and the outpouring of support for him is a key part of the story. Here’s a sampling of the coverage:
BOSTON GLOBE: By yesterday afternoon, however, Swartz had received an outpouring of support from colleagues and friends who took to blogs and websites to defend his work and maintain that the charges against him are heavy-handed. More than 15,000 people had signed a letter of support for Swartz on the website Demand Progress.org
HUFFINGTON POST: JSTOR’s the one that should be in prison, man, for locking up knowledge.
NEW YORK TIMES: A respected Harvard researcher who also is an Internet folk hero has been arrested in Boston on charges related to computer hacking, which are based on allegations that he downloaded articles that he was entitled to get free.
AMERICAN PROSPECT: It’s easy to forget that there’s something at all controversial or oppositional about accessing information, or that some people really, really want data to be free — and others don’t. Open data has been mainstreamed. Whatever hacker-culture roots the free information movement might have are subsumed by the idea that simply everyone agrees that data is meant to be free, and the struggle is over the mechanics of freeing it. That’s never really been true, as Swartz’s case makes plain.
BOSTON GLOBE: [Attorney Jerry] Cohen said the use of criminal charges here is the latest in what has been a government trend to prosecute such cases, which he described as taking “a sledgehammer to drive a thumb tack.’ ‘It might be taking too big a weapon,’’ he said. “It’s intended to terrorize the person who’s indicted and others who might be thinking of the same thing.’
As the case proceeds, we remain hopeful that Aaron will be cleared of any wrongdoing — and as has been proved over the last 24 hours, the more people learn about the case, the more sympathetic they become to Aaron’s cause.
Please show your support for Aaron by clicking here to sign our petition — it will only take a second.
Thanks so much for your support as we navigate these choppy waters.
— The Demand Progress team
P.S. Please make sure your friends are aware of Aaron’s predicament by forwarding them this email or using these links:
There have been some uneasy cases recently and some news stories concerning the government and the internet, these stories which may be little more than rumors at this point however we have seen an ongoing effort over the last few years by the government going after the internet as a means of tax revenue.
Indeed there are many states that are now charging tax for online purchases.
This is very disturbing and if steps are not taken to stop this behavior the internet as we know it today will cease to exist, the internet is still in its infancy and will continue to be in a state of growth as long as the government stays out of its development.
The moment that we allow the government to begin to stifle growth online by trying to censor and regulate all the content online, we will have a problem that will deepen the already weakened economy.
Will the situation with occupy wall street turn violent?
Will the people find that they can no longer get to work because of all the troubles?
Is the Mayor letting the people down?
So here we go again right, you have to pass the bill before you can know what is in the bill?
Is that what they are saying we have seen how this works and so far, it does not look good.
When a trial is presented in the media such as many of the recent most popular cases these days, including the OJ case, can the victims, get a fair trial?
What if the media were in charge of all court cases?
would we have firing squads enough to put the people to death?
Sounds crazy yes, but when you watch the news, you often see this idea that opinion is being presented as fact or something like a fact.
When you see the media only telling part of the story and they dont tell the entire story, then can anyone get a fair trial at all?
Remember a few years ago when the media was sure that this one particular accused suspect was guilty, well they went ape and they said all kinds of stuff about this guy and his family they made up stuff, (allegedly) and they talked about his mother, they said all kinds of bad things about this guy and how evil he was and how horrible his family was and how evil he was for having done all these evil things that the legal system had accused him of doing however, the thing was, years later, after the guy had been in jail for many years, he was proven innocent because the real killer was caught, and the DNA proved it that the guy that the media thought was guilty was actually innocent, yet, the guy went to jail and he spend many years of his life in jail, all because of what?
The media was so sure that he had done this thing, but what proof did they have?
When the prosecuting, attorneys, allegations that the guy was just guilty and that he would be proven to be guilty which they did and they put him in jail, but he was not guilty.
This makes you wonder about the issues that effect our legal system…
When you look at this kind of thing, you have to wonder, what is the deal and why is this news at all?
The case that has become a circus of people trying to get a seat and has every low life Ex judge
When you look at this womans face it is often allegedly that spittle flies out of her mouth allegedly hate, is spewed, venom, is protracted, why is that?
What has this woman against this family, other than an objective reporters opinion in dealing with reporting the news fair and balanced.
This is like watching Dallas back in the day, but really are we not talking about the life of a girl here, guilty or not, liar or not, she is hardly the evil person that the media is depicting her to be.
giving bobble headed opinions as allegedly the ignorant judge on Fox news that continues to
flame her way through the case, it is an interesting process one that you just have to wonder about.
Has the State of Florida wasted Tax payer money by pushing for the death penalty when the case is obviously circumstantial in every way allegedly, when you can go online and read leaked documents by the Orange Country Sheriffs office, When you can see video that Casey thought was private, when you see all these circumstances, you just have to shake your head and wonder about the state of Florida, is this the best use of the tax payers money?
The girl is obviously guilty of something, no doubt about that, but intentionally Murdering, the child, that is a stretch of the imagination, they have really not proven how the child died, nor have they proved that the child was really in the car or the back yard.
They have strong circumstantial evidence, but little of that, so really what do they have besides the media and the leaked documents, and all the strange behavior by the parents, lets not forget, that, remember when the parents were calling for help searching for the missing child?
Certainty they knew the circumstances of this case then…
No, the state has allegedly failed to prove that Casey did this intentionally, the jury may in fact you have to wonder just what the intention of the state is in this matter, I suppose it is clear they want to put her to death but they cant prove that she did it on purpose, and they need to be able to do that if they really want to put her to death, so why all this waste?
All the evidence points to neglect, and accidental means.
Is the state of Florida really this stupid? The prevailing opinion was that the state filed these overall arrogant charges in an attempt to force a confession, but wait is that no like coercion?
If a state on behalf of the people take a shop lifting case and charge the case as bank robbery is that not wrong?
This practice of over booking and charging cases far in excess of the crime they can prove seems to be something that Florida seems to allegedly enjoy doing, this is allegedly not only morally wrong but ethically wrong.
The United States Attorney should investigate this case and its boundaries against the constitution because this is becoming far too dangerous.
The state of Florida may be guilty of a number of crimes in its careless prosecution of this case.
More so when you consider that there is no real evidence linking the girl to any real crime.
Did the girl have a duty to protect and case for the child, of course but that is not what is happening here what is happening here is a death penalty case that does not rise to the level of a capitol case.
When that happens you have what amounts to legal malpractice.
It sort of makes you wonder just what those people living in Florida think about the people running their state.
Most people believe the girl is guilty and should be punished, and also it is alleged that many people feel that what ever happened it was an accident, and not done or planned out in advance, (one of the criteria for a capitol case) so you have to ask yourself this question, is Florida really the best place to retire after all?
When misconduct by the prosecution is allegedly so profound but never questioned, when circumstances prove that this was not planned, when everything points to accidental means yet the state pushes for execution, you have to wonder about the motives of the state.
One thing remains clear the girl is allegedly mentally ill, probably that is what cause this entire problem to begin with, so again if your thinking about moving to Florida or retiring to Florida you may want to think again, some day you might J walk and end up being charged with Grand theft Auto, sounds crazy but it is no less likely than what we have seen in this case.
Some one better investigate soon…
How much is enough and how much is too much…
The FTC would like to impose additional guides for online advertisers, which could lead to an equal protection challenge, is this the real direction that Washington wants to go?
I would hope to see equal protection for all consumers, both online and offline deceptive, advertisements on TV can be seen that promote subliminal methods of advertising, however it appears that enforcement may be an issue if disclosure is not required for all advertisers, not just internet advertisers, clear and conspicuous disclosure must apply to all advertisers, equally, including enforcement of the same standards.
I would hope that before such measures are taken to protect consumers online that there could be some measure of protection afforded the millions and millions of television viewers every day on cable TV, including loud and offensive commercials, that make use of excessive loudness and depict impossibly large food items, graphics and pictures, of pizza that are over 24 inches in diameter, yet, when the consumer goes to purchase the product, the actual product is often less than 12 inches with substantially less product and toppings.
Is this not deceptive advertising?
Another example is the 24 inch hamburger, that is shown in many fast food television commercials. Consumers may understand at some level that they are not going to actually get what they are seeing on that large screen, however, is it not deceptive to show such large depictions of food?
What about the psychological considerations of showing overly large food items on video commercials, in broadcast television?
The human Subconscious, is highly susceptible to conditioning, in video advertising, will the FTC begin to require clear and conspicuous disclosure for all forms of advertising,with such a large percentage of Americans now falling into the obese category, do we not have the duty to protect all consumers from messages that these types of commercials send to the consuming public?
I would like to understand the concern that is being directed at online advertisers and yet have no such precautions for protecting consumers that are exposed to deceptive video advertising, that use highly technical and sophisticated subliminal advertising methods, frame rates in excess of 120 frames per second often with highly suggestive use of graphics in video content, these things should be the concern of a highly motivated organization such as the FTC.
I would be in favor for such additional measures to protect consumers, if all broadcast media were also subject to the same disclosure requirements as what is currently being proposed for online advertising content, does it not make more sense to provide a safe experience for all consumers?
Clear and conspicuous, disclosures for Television Advertising must also apply to broadcast and be enforced not just applied to online advertisers.
It appears that what is proposed for online users is not being proposed for traditional media advertising, this is a real concern and should be examined as to why such provisions are not being equally examined.
These questions should be carefully considered and answered before we even consider the idea of proposing such disclosure and legal requirements for online advertisers.
Should we not apply the same protection for all consumers? Can we apply one set of guides for the internet yet ignore clearly deceptive advertising for broadcast advertisers, the same level of enforcement must be applied to both online
My question and concern, is will such disclosures be required of all commercial producers, Radio, Television, Cable, Internet.
If no such disclosure notices are proposed for broadcast advertisers, then this is something that is a serious issue and concern.
How can we not protect all consumers with the same passion and the same level of protection as the FTC guides propose for online consumers?
Should we not extend equal protection of all consumers? To apply, an unequal burden for online advertisers without providing equal enforcement for all advertisers. This is a question that we must answer before we consider these additional disclosure guides.
