US v Peter Navarro

[Volkonski]

[RTH10260]

iirc Navarro could ask for electronic access and learn how the process works if it is that hard to find an attorney. How did he rach the overripe age of 70+ without one?

ETA Interesting another US citizen who prefers a foreign email service over local providers. How much undocumented government work did flow thru it? Please repeat loud and clearly for me: Benghazi!

[Dave from down under]

He was given the opportunity to file on line.. he just choses not to follow some more rules that he doesn't believe should apply to him.

[Gregg]

He's going full on FA before the final FO.

[Kendra]

Peter Navarro (representing self) is mulling motion to suppress his own statements based on theory that FBI agent delivered Miranda warnings to Navarro "in a casual and improvisational manner, perhaps designed to lull the defendant into complaceny."

Perhaps Trump's parking garage lawyer would take his case?

[Slim Cognito]

Maybe the FBI agent was speaking slowly, using small words, so he'd understand.

[raison de arizona]

I thought Navarro was this incredibly bright professor guy. He's going to make the argument that he didn't understand his Miranda rights because they supposedly were expressed to him in an overly casual manner? He needed to be sat down like a little child and have them explained in detail? Did he not agree that he understood his rights? P.S. What did he say to them that he is concerned with? Something he hasn't already said on cable TV eight thousand times? What could it be? He's as bad as tfg with the word vomit.

[Kendra]

Likely he was spewing off and talking over the FBI guys, like he does to the cable news hosts?

[RTH10260]

https:// twitter.com/rparloff/status/1536742364387192837

Peter Navarro (representing self) is mulling motion to suppress his own statements based on theory that FBI agent delivered Miranda warnings to Navarro "in a casual and improvisational manner, perhaps designed to lull the defendant into complaceny."

Perhaps Trump's parking garage lawyer would take his case?

looks to me that he understood that Miranda had been presented too him. Motion denined.

[Kendra]

Anyone who remembers watching Dragnet back in the days knows what the Miranda thing is. Navarro's older than me, so he should too.

[raison de arizona]

Navarro's argument is apparently that they told him his rights without explicitly reading them from a card, which Navarro considers as possibly a violation of the fourth amendment.

IANAL, but I'm pretty sure the requirement is to advise the party of their rights, not to explicitly read them off a card. But what do I know?

Notably, the Miranda rights need not be read in any particular order, and they need not precisely match the language of the Miranda case as long as they are adequately and fully conveyed (California v. Prysock, 453 U.S. 355 (1981)).

[northland10]

Yeah, the form of Miranda is not specific (that's a TV thing), only that the areas are covered in some form. I don't think Navarro is too stupid to understand this but he just does not care. He is tossing whatever he can because he is too arrogant to get a third party who will tell him to shut up.

[Kendra]

By the time this is all finished, I suspect there's going to be a lot of spaghetti tossed on the walls.

[Jim]

Off Topic

The Supreme Court Decided Your Silence Can Be Used Against You

Monday, in a 5-4 ruling on Salinas v. Texas in which the conservative members of the Court and Anthony Kennedy determined that if you remain silent before police read your Miranda rights, that silence can and will be held against you. Here's what that means.

Basically, if you're ever in any trouble with police (no, we don't condone breaking laws) and want to keep your mouth shut, you will need to announce that you're invoking your Fifth Amendment right instead of, you know, just keeping your mouth shut. "Petitioner's Fifth Amendment claim fails because he did not expressly invoke the privilege against self-incrimination in response to the officer's question," reads the opinion from Justice Samuel Alito, which Justice Kennedy and Chief Justice John Roberts backed. Justices Thomas and Scalia had a concurring opinion while the remaining four Supremes dissented.

[raison de arizona]

I doubt Navarro will ever be in the position of having silence used against him!

[Kendra]

I doubt Navarro will ever be in the position of having silence used against him!

[raison de arizona]

I was hearing on the Twitters that Navarro wasn't trying to call a lawyer when agents took his phone, but rather he was trying to contact teh teevee news. Fact check, true.

"The Defendant bases his request for a continuance, in part, on his accusations that the Government is attempting to deprive him of counsel — for example, by allegedly denying him a call to counsel upon his arrest and filing motions in the normal course of proceeding with this case," the court papers say. “The Defendant’s claims are false.”

The Justice Department also released a copy of an FBI agent’s report on Thursday, which detailed Navarro’s arrest at Reagan National Airport and describes how agents accommodated him by giving him chocolates, allowing him time to comfort a travel companion at the airport and repeatedly adjusting his handcuffs by loosening them and giving more space between his wrists after he complained.

It said Navarro was advised of his rights and was told the agents didn’t want to interview him. He asked to make a phone call, the report said, and an agent told him they would contact his attorney if he gave them the name of the lawyer.

The report says Navarro responded, “I’m supposed to be on live television tonight. I’d like to call the producer and tell him I’m not going to be there. Can I have my phone?” The agent then told him that they would quickly make arrangements for a call with his lawyer, if he provided the attorney’s name.

https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/ar ... -to-lawyer

Also, of note, is that Navarro was told that the agents did NOT want to interview him. So anything he said was inflicted upon them as word vomit anyway.

[much ado]

Anyone who remembers watching Dragnet back in the days knows what the Miranda thing is. Navarro's older than me, so he should too.

Here's Joe Friday reading the perp his rights...

[Kendra]

Off Topic

The Blue Boy! I found the series on Prime Video a couple of weeks ago and started watching it until the anti-pot messages started clubbing me over the head.

[bob]

Navarro's argument is apparently that they told him his rights without explicitly reading them from a card, which Navarro considers as possibly a violation of the fourth amendment.

IANAL, but I'm pretty sure the requirement is to advise the party of their rights, not to explicitly read them off a card. But what do I know?

Notably, the Miranda rights need not be read in any particular order, and they need not precisely match the language of the Miranda case as long as they are adequately and fully conveyed (California v. Prysock, 453 U.S. 355 (1981)).

Navarro is onto a glimmer of a possible argument: that the officers' "improvisational" method ("allegedly") failed to fully inform him of his rights. It is the duty of law enforcement to adequately explain all the rights about to be waived; it doesn't matter if Navarro already knew his rights. A talismanic recitation (i.e., reading off the card) isn't necessary, but it is the better practice (to avoid arguments like this).

And, of course, Miranda protects the Fifth Amendment, not the Fourth.

Also, of note, is that Navarro was told that the agents did NOT want to interview him. So anything he said was inflicted upon them as word vomit anyway.

That's always an interesting one: Anyone can freely incrimination themselves; Miranda kicks in only in response to questions (or other actions) by law enforcement (or its agents) ("reasonably") designed to elicit an incriminating response.

[johnpcapitalist]

Navarro is onto a glimmer of a possible argument: that the officers' "improvisational" method ("allegedly") failed to fully inform him of his rights. It is the duty of law enforcement to adequately explain all the rights about to be waived; it doesn't matter if Navarro already knew his rights. A talismanic recitation (i.e., reading off the card) isn't necessary, but it is the better practice (to avoid arguments like this).

And, of course, Miranda protects the Fifth Amendment, not the Fourth.

Also, of note, is that Navarro was told that the agents did NOT want to interview him. So anything he said was inflicted upon them as word vomit anyway.

That's always an interesting one: Anyone can freely incriminate themselves; Miranda kicks in only in response to questions (or other actions) by law enforcement (or its agents) ("reasonably") designed to elicit an incriminating response.

While there may be a genuine dispute here, it sounds like Navarro may be veering into SovCit territory. I wonder if he will remark about the fringe (or lack thereof) on the courtroom flag when he's arraigned. Or he'll demand a "wet ink" signature on the arrest warrant, or something.

[Kendra]

I have a feeling that by the time we get to trial, Navarro will be the poster child for installing cameras in Federal Court

[bob]

While there may be a genuine dispute here, it sounds like Navarro may be veering into SovCit territory.

Not so much sovcit: It is a typical argument from people unfamiliar with the criminal justice system. Countless defendants have argued, "the cops didn't read me my rights!", as if that was a get-out-of-jail-free card.

Despite his education and experience, Navarro may be genuinely ignorant. Or he may be playing on others' ignorance, to pry open their wallets.

[raison de arizona]

While there may be a genuine dispute here, it sounds like Navarro may be veering into SovCit territory.

Not so much sovcit: It is a typical argument from people unfamiliar with the criminal justice system. Countless defendants have argued, "the cops didn't read me my rights!", as if that was a get-out-of-jail-free card.

Despite his education and experience, Navarro may be genuinely ignorant. Or he may be playing on others' ignorance, to pry open their wallets.

It's definitely getting a lot of play in the RWNJ social media circuit, they violated his rights, it's political retribution, etc.

[humblescribe]

Maybe for Petey boy the cops should phrase the Miranda rules like a recitation:

"Repeat after me:"

I have the right to remain silent.

I understand that anything I say can be used against me in a court of law.

I have the right to an attorney.

If I cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided to me at no cost.

Capiche, Pete?