Bracelets for me?

[whitecobra]

Ed
You have had some AWESOME advice here about not meeting with this guy
I guess you are one of those guys who feels that mistakes never happen in law enforcement and that only bad guys get hammered

After a few thousand arrests I can tell you that you really need to listen to these guys about NOT meeting this investigator without counsel

I need to add one more VERY important thing to you

DO NOT POST ANY MORE TO THIS OR ANY OTHER FORUM ON THIS SITUATION!!!!!

Everything you are writing is open for subpoena and can and will be spun to support the case against you.

This is NOT some traffic issue and you are taking this WAY too lightly

Forget the cameras tape recorders and the rest of the BS that has been tossed around. Don't call him to try to get "one up on him" and stop trying to second guess the deal. He has already built ALLOT of the case on you. There is NO way he would interview YOU until he has already determined the need. The first thing that is taught to law enforcement and lawyers is that you NEVER ask a question until you know what the answer will be

ALL he wants to do with you as a suspect is to ice his cake and maybe get you to make it easier for him.

Contact an advocate (call it a lawyer or similar) and let them do their job. If funds are an issue there are free advisers out there that will work with you.

Your liberty is on the line here and this is no laughing matter nor should you be handling it on this or any other forum

Sell some tools if you need to but don't take this as cavalierly as it appears you have been. Also don't take much of the advice you have been given here unless it is to let professionals support you. This is not like doing a DIY project on your bathroom it could wipe you out financially or worse alter your freedom. You are not an expert on this stuff and I highly suggest you don't try to do a DIY on your own legal case

Dr D

[scorrpio]

To post above: now that is panic mongering. An interview about 'allegedly threatening someone' - not about something that's been done, but about something that's been allegedly said - and given the distance, looks like a mistaken identity case anyway. In the worst case, Ed will get slapped with a restraining order against someone he does not even know and who lives 100s of miles away.
Posting here? Oh puh-lease. Posts in this thread are 'law is coming to see me for something I got no idea about'. Hardly a hook.
Let's hope we still have a few shreds of that freedom left to us. This is still USA, and not Stalin's Russia or Hussein's Iraq. You might have experience with law enforcement trying to build a case on a slippery drug dealer - this here is a model citizen elderly gentleman with a clean record.

I allegedly threatened someone. I'll find out more about it tomorrow. ..... If I need financial assistance, I'll just rob my kid's piggy banks. There are enough of them.

Ahha! Now we are onto something.
(Assumes official tone)
We received a complaint from your kid's piggy banks. Have you threatened to rob them before, and for what reason?

[crokett]

To post above: now that is panic mongering.

Tell that to a family member of mine who was investigated for abuse several years ago based on a complaint by an extremely disgruntled foster child and despite a spotless record. The charge is still on the family member's record. Among other things, the lawyer she got (too late) was able to get records unsealed from another state that showed the child in question had a history of false accusations. At the time she was planning to adopt. Now she can't.

The law is one of those things that can seriously screw up your life, and permanently, if you let it.

[scorrpio]

But the foster child in question HAS been in care of said family member, correct? Which means potential for abuse existed. Now suppose said foster child lived in a different state and your family member never had anything to do with him. That would be some investigation, eh?

A merry country we live in if I can look up a random name on white pages, call police, claim so and so threatened me, and now so and so has to sell of his tools so he can afford a lawyer in order to not end up in the slammer. I think even 14th century Spanish Inquisition required SOME proof of heresy.

[crokett]

A merry country we live in if I can look up a random name on white pages, call police, claim so and so threatened me, and now so and so has to sell of his tools so he can afford a lawyer in order to not end up in the slammer. I think even 14th century Spanish Inquisition required SOME proof of heresy.

Who said it is a random person? Ed doesn't know who the accuser is. It might be a random person or mistaken identity or it might not. And there is apparently enough evidence that an investigator is taking the time to drive to another state to question him. Here's the question Ed needs to answer: which will I regret more: paying a lawyer I didn't need to (even if it means selling some tools) or not having a lawyer when I needed one?

[scorrpio]

What I am saying is the case does not appear severe enough to go start spending money on lawyers before even finding out what the heck is going on. If it were severe enough, said inspector would have showed up with backup.
I say, let him come, find out the details - who, when, where, why - and then determine if a lawyer is in order.

[cgallery]

To post above: now that is panic mongering.

No, I don't think so. I've seen a business acquaintance "cooperate" into 90-day sentences for charges COMPLETELY UNRELATED to the original investigation. He lost his house, is declaring bankruptcy, and is trying to rebuild his career. He has high-hopes for his appeal.

After witnessing this, I begged another business acquaintance to lawyer-up when the police called him one day. On the advice of the attorney, he told the cops he had nothing to say. And he never heard from them again.

I'll roll the dice with my Amazon rebates. Not which bed I wake up in.

[Russianwolf]

I sat in on an "interview" one time. An attorney, an Agent (military), me, suspect/target. After the interview the Agent wrote up his account of the interview. I pointed out no less than half a dozen places in his account that were inaccurate (ie saying the suspect said things that the suspect never said). I was told to mind my own business and ignore the discrepancies.

I wound up being called as a witness for the defense to rebutt the agents testimony.

Always have an attorney present when dealing with these guys. From what I saw in the military, they decide if you are guilty or not then fit the peg into the hole. If they have to trim the corners to make it fit, so be it.

[crokett]

What I am saying is the case does not appear severe enough to go start spending money on lawyers before even finding out what the heck is going on.

He knows what is going on - he is being accused of threatening some one. The LEO coming to interview him is under no obligation to tell him anything at all. The lawyer can find out the details for Ed and then decide if he needs to be interviewed at all.

My point is, the risk on this is pretty high. This is Ed's future and that of his family. If he gets a lawyer and is wrong, he is out some money. If he gets one too late, he is out a lot of time, potentially his good name and a whole lot more money.

If it helps at all, a guy I work with was a paralegal for his wife for a few years. I asked him about this and he said the guy should be running, not walking to his lawyer's office.

[TheRic]

A bunch of people are reading / hanging out in this thread. Not sure if they are here for the ongoing commentary on what he should do/ have done or waiting to find out what happened.

[cabinetman]

A bunch of people are reading / hanging out in this thread. Not sure if they are here for the ongoing commentary on what he should do/ have done or waiting to find out what happened.

Well you're hangin' out here too! I saw your name down there.

[TheRic]

Well you're hangin' out here too! I saw your name down there.

Didn't say I wasn't. How do you think I knew there where a lot of people hanging out here.


On the serious side starting to wonder about Ed, thought he would have posted by now.

[cabinetman]

Maybe this was just a scam to stir us up? Whaddya think?

[TheRic]

Maybe this was just a scam to stir us up? Whaddya think?

If it is, it worked!

I hope Ed has been too busy celebrating the dropping of the case, to let us know what happened.

[crokett]

A bunch of people are reading / hanging out in this thread. Not sure if they are here for the ongoing commentary on what he should do/ have done or waiting to find out what happened.

For the record, I'm here for both.