This is not to become embroiled in any discussion here, but to correct some of the discussion in the comments that is simply wrong.
In the Okatan case, the reason the 2d Circuit held that his invocation of his right to counsel (pre-arrest, pre-custodial detention) could not be used against him was because he invoked it in response to a substantive question. Had he invoked it in response to a question such as "what's your name" or "where are you going," it would have been admissible as evidence against him at trial.
This is not to argue the merit or propriety of the point, but to explain what the decision says. You don't have to agree with it, but if you prefer not going to prison, it's worth knowing.
Well, if a lobbyist says so, then it must be true. Or, perhaps the patents have to do with the invention of secure capture technology that no bank knew how to do, and that banks have since stolen and used to save billions upon billions of dollars without compensating the company that created and patented the means, as was found by the USPO, both initially and after subsequent challenges by banks, by juries and by admission of those banks that have settled with DataTreasury.
Or, you could just take the word of the lobbyist and run with it. After all, it's a lot of work to learn the facts, and lobbyists would never lie.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by shg.
Okatan & Invocation of Right to Counsel
This is not to become embroiled in any discussion here, but to correct some of the discussion in the comments that is simply wrong.
In the Okatan case, the reason the 2d Circuit held that his invocation of his right to counsel (pre-arrest, pre-custodial detention) could not be used against him was because he invoked it in response to a substantive question. Had he invoked it in response to a question such as "what's your name" or "where are you going," it would have been admissible as evidence against him at trial.
This is not to argue the merit or propriety of the point, but to explain what the decision says. You don't have to agree with it, but if you prefer not going to prison, it's worth knowing.
Well, if a lobbyist says so, then it must be true. Or, perhaps the patents have to do with the invention of secure capture technology that no bank knew how to do, and that banks have since stolen and used to save billions upon billions of dollars without compensating the company that created and patented the means, as was found by the USPO, both initially and after subsequent challenges by banks, by juries and by admission of those banks that have settled with DataTreasury.
Or, you could just take the word of the lobbyist and run with it. After all, it's a lot of work to learn the facts, and lobbyists would never lie.