Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 13 of 29

Thread: 5th Ammendement

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    SW MO.
    Posts
    5,212

    5th Ammendement

    So this woman from the IRS is going to be called back because she supposedly didn't invoke her 5th Amendment rights properly. All because she gave an opening statement.

    I completely disagree with the Congressman on this. The Constitution protects us from the Govt.
    And the presumed guilty parties have the same rights. Any person can invoke they're 5th Amendment right at any given time. We have the right to not answer ANY question.

    If we start allowing the Govt to decide when and at what point we can invoke our constitutional rights, we have lost our rights.
    Despite who is being questioned and how guilty we may think they are.
    There is a due process of law. If Congress wants answers then they need to convene a Grand Jury and indict this woman. Until then, she has the right to plead the 5th.
    Discipline your child so that other parents don't have to.

    We're awl pawthetic and kweepy and can't get giwrls. That's why we fight wobots.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    California/Nevada
    Posts
    3,636
    If we start allowing the Govt to decide when and at what point we can invoke our constitutional rights, we have lost our rights.
    i got bad news for you.

    there's already been well documented cases where judges have ruled Constitutional rights don't apply

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Rochester, NY, USA
    Posts
    14,307
    I think the problem is, she refused to answer any questions. She DID NOT plead the 5th. She simply refused to answer. thats where you're going to get in trouble.
    The Last four letters


    American = I Can, Republican = I Can, Democrats = Rats


    any questions

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    3,974
    Thats what lawyers do. They try and figure out a way around everything.

    If this lady did wrong and she probably did, then I think its cool that the government does everything possible to make her life miserable and catch her or anyone else who did wrong to the American people. The big picture here and what she may have perpetrated on the American people is what really matters, at least to me.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    SE Michigan
    Posts
    17,951
    The liar mouth was stupid and Im glad they are bringing her fugly arss back in for questioning...hangin too good for her!
    Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people.

    Theodore Roosevelt

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Griffin, Georgia
    Posts
    557
    Her employer is asking her questions. I fully support the Constitution and constitutional rights but she is an employee of the federal government and they are asking her questions regarding what she was/is doing while she is still on the payroll. I don't see where this involves any 5th amendment rights.

    Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    S.E. Pa
    Posts
    6,192
    Refusal to testify in a civil case

    While defendants are entitled to assert that right, there are consequences to the assertion of the Fifth Amendment in a civil action.

    The Supreme Court has held that "the Fifth Amendment does not forbid adverse inferences against parties to civil actions when they refuse to testify in response to probative evidence offered against them." Baxter v. Palmigiano,[50] "[A]s Mr. Justice Brandeis declared, speaking for a unanimous court in the Tod case, 'Silence is often evidence of the most persuasive character.'"[51] "'Failure to contest an assertion ... is considered evidence of acquiescence ... if it would have been natural under the circumstances to object to the assertion in question.'"[52]

    In Baxter, the state was entitled to an adverse inference against Palmigiano because of the evidence against him and his assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege.

    Some civil cases are considered "criminal cases" for the purposes of the Fifth Amendment. In Boyd v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that "A proceeding to forfeit a person's goods for an offence against the laws, though civil in form, and whether in rem or in personam, is a "criminal case" within the meaning of that part of the Fifth Amendment which declares that no person "shall be compelled, in any criminal case, to be a witness against himself."[53]--from Wiki

    Lerner: “I have not done anything wrong. I have not broken any laws. I have not violated any IRS rules or regulations and have not provided false information to this or any other congressional committee. While I would very much like to answer the committee’s questions today, I’ve been advised by my counsel to assert my constitutional right not to testify or answer questions related to the subject matter of this hearing. After very careful consideration, I’ve decided to follow my counsel’s advice and not testify or answer any of the questions today. Because I’m asserting my right not to testify, I know some people will assume I’ve done something wrong. I have not. One of the basic functions of the Fifth Amendment is to protect innocent individuals and that is the protection I’m invoking today. Thank you.”

    By invoking the 5th in a hearing that is not overtly a criminal case, she is stating it is a criminal case.

    However, what the media is NOT covering is her militant attitude AGAINST Christianity: http://beforeitsnews.com/politics/20...y-2520860.html

    Note in spite of all the years and 5 tries, she was defeated after spending huge amounts of the taxpayer's money on her witch hunt and religious persecution. This is the person Obama wants to run Obamacare? You ought to be shaking in your socks.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Florida Panhandle
    Posts
    4,383
    "No person shall be held to answer for a capital crime , or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation"

    Its simple, unless the she is before a Grand Jury, she has the right not to testify against herself.

    I have a distaste for those who claim that the i's haven't been doted and the t's haven't been crossed, it's judicial quackery.

    Remember that that if it can be done to her, it can be done to you, it's a slippery slope to us loosing more and more of our constitution.

    Roy
    "The perfect Totalitarian State is one where the political bosses, and their army of managers, control a population of slaves, who do not have to be coerced, because they love their servitude"

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    S.E. Pa
    Posts
    6,192
    Quote Originally Posted by royc View Post
    "No person shall be held to answer for a capital crime , or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation"

    Its simple, unless the she is before a Grand Jury, she has the right not to testify against herself.

    I have a distaste for those who claim that the i's haven't been doted and the t's haven't been crossed, it's judicial quackery.

    Remember that that if it can be done to her, it can be done to you, it's a slippery slope to us loosing more and more of our constitution.

    Roy
    Sorry Roy but you mis-read it. It states the 5th provides relief from testifying against themselves only in criminal cases or otherwise "infamous" crimes. The term "infamous crime" has been argued in court and essentially means a felony. So, unless there is outward evidence of impending criminal investigation for a felony, then there is no basis to claim the 5th. To take your stance, let's let EVERYONE plead the 5th on anything and everything because you just never know how it is going to be twisted against you into a felony indictment. If her legal counsel thinks she actually could be indicted by a Grand Jury on her activities as confessed to her counsel, then what he is saying is, yes, there are grounds for a criminal investigation for felonious activities by her or others.

    If her counsel felt her activities did not cross the burden of proof for a felony or near to it, then there would be no need for pleading the 5th.

    She was sworn in to testify but was not named in the hearing because it is not a "case" but a "hearing". The spirit of the 5th is to provide protection from self incrimination only in criminal matters. It was not intended to protect incompetent or corrupt public officials from investigation.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Florida Panhandle
    Posts
    4,383
    Is she by law compelled to testify ???

    Roy
    "The perfect Totalitarian State is one where the political bosses, and their army of managers, control a population of slaves, who do not have to be coerced, because they love their servitude"

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    S.E. Pa
    Posts
    6,192
    Well, let's see Roy: if your boss called you in to explain what the heck you've been up to, can you plead the 5th?

    If a person is under subpoena, then failure to testify can be ruled contempt of court or in this case, of Congress.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Losantiville
    Posts
    1,772
    Where was all the outrage when Monica Goodling plead the fifth? She just lost her job, was granted immunity and is now working for a Virginia PR firm with connections to Ashcroft - Oh yeah she also married the founder of Red State. I guess the degree from Regent the so called college makes it OK.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Helena, Montana
    Posts
    2,155
    Quote Originally Posted by netsalt View Post
    Where was all the outrage when Monica Goodling plead the fifth? She just lost her job, was granted immunity and is now working for a Virginia PR firm with connections to Ashcroft - Oh yeah she also married the founder of Red State. I guess the degree from Regent the so called college makes it OK.
    Perhaps the same thing could happen. I don't think it has been offered currently.
    Don't worry zombies are looking for brains, you're safe...

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Comfortech Show Promo Image

Related Forums

Plumbing Talks | Contractor Magazine
Forums | Electrical Construction & Maintenance (EC&M) Magazine
Comfortech365 Virtual Event