HOUSE OVERSIGHT 030935 ::Smith070964^eMailContent.htm You said, ""I am reasonably sure that the traffic light was green". One report takes out the equivocation and quotes you as saying: "The light was green." This brings us to Federal law 18 USC 1001. That statute makes it a felony to lie to the government. And guess who decides whether or not you were lying? The government. So here is your conundrum. Do you testify about your doubts about the light, which is the truth, or do you adopt the "302"" version to avoid the wrath of the FBI? Whether or not the "302" discrepancies are a result of stupidity or cupidity makes no difference. Testify in opposition to the "302" and you are in the crosshairs of the Feds. If they believe your testimony cost them the case, the next thing you likely to hear from the FBI will be: "Please place your hands behind your back." A number of years ago, fed up with the 302 Two Step, I turned the tables on them. In a high profile case, my client was asked to submit to an FBI interview at their offices in North Miami Beach. Feigning naivety, I asked where the court reporter was. I was told there was no court reporter. I then asked where the tape recorder was. I will always be impressed that the agent was able to give us the response he did without laughing. He said the FBI could not tape the interview because they did not have "enough money in their budget." It was time to play the Trump Card. At that point, I removed a cassette recorder from my pocket and explained that my client had been able to scrape together the 59 cents for a cassette tape. Further we would pay for the tape to be transcribed and supply them with a free copy of everything. You could've heard a fart in a vacuum. They now made it clear that no way, no how would any FBI interview be recorded. So we went forward with the interview as the agent took notes. Months later the client was called to testify at trial. I warned him the "302" would be a work