Supreme Court Won't Stop Suit (FReeper Notra Trulock) Vs. Freeh

AP ^ | 12.02.02 | AP and others

[Registered]

Go Larry Go!

[Registered]

This might interest you.

[Registered]

I know you send JW lots of money, now you see the results!

[thinktwice]

The case is Freeh v. Trulock, 02-443.

Does this mean that Freeh started the action, and that Trulock is pressing it in the interest of justice?

[Mr. Lucky]

Apparently, when one of Larry's cases is only dismissed in part, he considers it a newsworthy event.

[mondonico]

Does this mean that Freeh started the action, and that Trulock is pressing it in the interest of justice?

No, I think it just means Freeh was the one that tried to get the Supreme Court involved.

[Fred Mertz]

GO Larry GO!!

[thinktwice]

Freeh did start this action. It's recorded as

LOUIS FREEH, et al., Petitioners,

v.

NOTRA TRULOCK, III, et al., Respondents.

Judicial Watch has the case posted at http://www.judicialwatch.org/cases/66/freehsc.htm

[rface]

.....

[2timothy3.16]

bump

[Common Tator]

Trulock's attorney, Larry Klayman, said officials kept Trulock's computer hard drive for two years and that he needed it because it had research about a genetic disorder from which his son suffers, along with personal financial information. Klayman is chairman of the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch

So the case is reduced to the FBI kept the gals hard drive for 2 years and wouldn't give it back.

Since she was never charged with a crime she has no miranda rights. They only have to read you miranda rights if you are going to be charged with a crime. If you are not indicted you have no miranda rights. Klayman depends on the suckers not knowing that.

The supreme court has held that it is legal for an FBI agent or any law officer to lie to suspects and witnesses in order to conduct an investigation. It is perfectly legal for an FBI agent or any cop to tell a witness he has a search warrant when he does not. They do it all the time. They can't search your house, but they can tell you they have one when they don't.

The Supreme court has said that an officer of the law may lie to a witness in the course of an investigation. It would not be legal for the FBI to search the house with out written permission, but it is not illegal for the FBI to say they have a search warrent even if they don't. It is against the law for you to lie to the FBI. It is legal for the FBI to lie to you. You may think that stinks but it is the law.

If they can get the witness to sign the permission to search his home they have it made. Only an idiot would believe they have to sign permission for them to search if they already had a search warrant. If she did not read the papers that is not the FBI agent's fault. The law says she must sign the papers to make the search legal. It does not say she has to read them or the FBI has to read them to her. If she is not charged with a crime it is up to her to request a lawyer. She has no miranda rights.

But only a real idiot would not ask for a lawyer at the first step of this interogation.

Klayman depends on the idiots who send him money not knowing the law. The FBI did nothing illegal. You may not like it .. But it is legal. The FBI just doesn't want publicity about what they can legally do.

They only case it appears Klayman actually has is they legally took her computer drive and wouldn't give it back. The FBI can legally keep evidence until a case is closed. A case is closed when the FBI closes it. They will show papers proving the drive was returned as soon as the case was closed.

It will end like all Klayman cases. Klayman pays himself $600 an hour of his suckers money, and the end result is

Case dismissed.

and

Send more money.

[Registered]

First, Trulock is a guy (and a FReeper you goober).

Second, you haven't addressed the crux of the case:

"Trulock's suit claimed the search violated his First Amendment free-speech rights because it was conducted in retaliation for the magazine article"

[archy]

So the case is reduced to the FBI kept the gals hard drive....

Gosh, she's a cutie! Anna Kournakova, watch out, you'll fade fast behind the beauty of the glamourous- and popular!- Ms. Trulock!

Hmmm, perhaps we're going to have to apply the *Ann Coulter* rule here....

[blackbag]

"First, Trulock is a guy (and a FReeper you goober)."

you have such a way with words..lol you beat me to the draw on this one. Once again JW is referred to as a conservative
watch dog group.

[blackbag]

Fred, thanks for the ping !

Go Notra Go

I hope he wins and gets a decent settlement.
He is a patriot and Freeh crucified him for it.

[marajade]

What part of the case is reinstated?

[Ms. AntiFeminazi]

Stop! You're making me laugh! LOL! You have a meanstreak, don't you? ;)

[Registered]

Listen, I know it's become unpopular to support anything Klayman in this forum, and frankly, knowing how much financial support you give him you might feel uncomfortable being "outted"...but don't feel bad, one of these days your ship will come in (Klayman wins a case) and you will be exhonerated.

[ntrulock]

The case had two parts. First there were the first amendment issues that involved retaliation for critizing the Bureau. The second were the fourth amendment issues that involved the illegal search and seizure of the computer. The appeals court upheld the dismissal of that part on a split decision. Even the majority held that the FBI agents should have known better. But I'll take the 1st amendment part just fine.