Replies

He was not Marandized, according to witnesses.

Witnesses under oath, or just someone saying something to someone? But let's say it's true. This occurred after he had landed himself in court regarding his driver's license, etc. Are we saying that this grand constitutional question for which this anarchist biker-for-Jesus is peforming a hunger strike is the reading of the Miranda warning?

That is pretty hysterical, when one considers that among conservatives, the Miranda decision is considered to be a fine example of liberal judicial activism and legislating from the bench.

Looks like Ray met the Gastons. Gastons advised the Christines who are, incidently, serving hard time.

SUI JURIS; THE TRUTH IN THE RECORD

By Pamela Gaston

.

GET THIS BOOK - LEARN THE MEANING OF SUI JURIS - MAKE SUI JURIS A HOUSEHOLD WORD IN AMERICA - It means your flesh and blood entity, your family body, your human rights and liberties, your posterity - your freedom - and the knowledge to exercise these and protect yourself in a courtroom.

People reading Sui Juris report whole new worlds open for them and that this information has changed their lives. Fear is generated in the courtroom by not understanding what is going on around you, being kept in the dark. Sui Juris outlines the corrupted process being used against you, so that you can "stand" through it and get your facts in to the record, by filing your own affidavits and aggressively pleading your own case in court. You are your own best advocate.

Once enough of us realize the gravity of the danger we face and act wisely regarding the corporate takeover of our lives, we can restore respect for the Spirit of Truth, and Justice and renew the Spirit of America.

You can purchase a single copy of Sui Juris for only $17 and $3 for shipping and handling. Sui Juris contains almost 200 pages of life saving information and legal documents that can be used for a format to write your own legal papers and affidavits in court. Compare this with paying a lawyer up to $150-$300/hour to sacrifice your well-being for his own enrichment and self-interest.

Sui Juris must reach the people now. To make this possible I offer a box of 20 books for the special wholesale price of $200 including shipping. That is $10/book to your door. Let us get the word out and enlighten the people.

To order Sui Juris please contact our distributor Michael Sieradzki, P.O. Box 3, Merlin, Oregon 97532, Tel. 541-474-3890 or E-mail current@valleysoftisp.net

He was not Marandized, according to witnesses.

If true, then his attorney will bring this out at trial, his words will be suppressed, and the prosecutor will try to convict him without the words. Maybe he can still be convicted without the words, maybe he can't. The absence of a Miranda warning does not mean the prosecutor is prohibited from using other evidence.

The absence of a Miranda warning in and of itself is not a Consitutional violation. There is nothing in the Constitution that says you must receive a Miranda warning. Its purpose is to ensure an interviewee has made a knowing and voluntary waiver of the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination before his words can be used as evidence.

In requiring a Miranda warning, the Supreme Court assumes, by legislative fiat, that everyone is bone-dead stupid and uninformed about the Fifth Amendment without inquiring into whether this is actually the case. Arguably a more rational approach would be to inquire into whether the interviewee was at the time of the ihe interview already aware of his right against self-incrimination. If he was, a two-minute mini-course on the Constitution by the police shouldn't be required, should it?

This guy, being a former police officer and "Constitutional expert" and all, clearly understood before he ever opened his mouth that he had a Fifth Amendment right to keep it shut. Whining that he was essentially "mugged" by the police because he wasn't informed of his Fifth Amendment rights is the kind of complaint only someone utterly ignorant of Miranda and the Fifth Amendment could make. But the Supreme Court will allow him to make it. And so it goes.

And then there is the small historical point that the Fifth Amendment was originally designed only as a brake on federal power--not state power, and was made applicable to the states by judicial fiat via the 14th Amendment in the 1960s by a liberal SCOTUS. I can live with the decision. It does more good than harm. I just find it amusing that the "original intent" fanatics here are so quick to claim Miranda as holy writ. They apparently know nothing about Miranda and how it came to be.

It never ceases to amaze me how ignorant so many of our self-proclaimed "Constituional experts" on these threads actually are.

Here is the best thing. I know that in Kentucky, you are not required to be Mirandized at time of arrest for a misdemeanor offense. You must only be Mirandized before you are questioned. This is definitely a misdemeanor, as contempt derives from the original charge, which in this case was a traffic offense, and therefore (at least here) no Miranda warning would be required. There is no requirement in the US Constitution for Miranda Warnings anyway. Just another case of the Supreme Court overstepping its bounds and writing law instead of interpreting it.