Here's the other morf:
Posted on 12/20/2008 6:31:35 PM PST by rocco55
“The protection extends equally to civil proceedings because the nature of the protection goes to the questions asked, not the proceeding itself”
http://www.sualaw.com/papers/Fifth_Amendment_Right_Against_Self_Incrimination_in_Civil_Cases.pdf
In fact you might end up in the judges chamber, and he might tear you a new one. Or hold you in contempt.
But no finding of fact or law can be based solely, or even in part, on the fact that a person chose to not testify against himself.
Here's the other morf:
I sense this is sarcasm. I suppose it is easier for you to deny than to consider the alternatives. Ignorance can be bliss.
You have the privilege to refuse to say anything that will incriminate you, and it extends to both civil and criminal proceedings.
However, barring any privilege, such as the Fifth Amendment, attorney client privilege, work product, etc., you can not refuse to answer questions that are not covered by the privilege.
So, if you are in accident and are sued, you do not have to answer questions about what was in your car trunk at the time if the answer would tend to incriminate you.
However, you would be compelled to answer questions about what color the light was or how fast you were going before the accident.
You can not claim the privilege if it doesnt apply to the substance of your answer. And the Fifth Amendment applies to matters that would incriminate you.
You both seem to be confusing a criminal proceeding with a criminal matter.
While a matter can include a proceeding, when i said “matters” i meant activities.
Substitute “activity” for matter if that makes it clearer. The Fifth amendment applies to criminal activities, and yes, that extends to civil proceedings if it touches upon criminal activity.
But if the statement does not fall within one of the privileges i mentioned above, you can not claim such a privilege- it is inapplicable.
No.
You cannot be forced to answer in any way, shape, or form, any question or inquiry or discovery, even if it only has a possibility of linking you to criminal prosecution.
Imagine this:
You are getting divorced so you and a friend John take your couch to your new apartment.
Your wife sues you for the couch and says something in court about you and John.
(A week earlier, you and John did a bank heist, so you know it’s probably a good thing to not admitting you ever heard of John)
It would be perfectly appropriate in the civil suit to not answer any questions at all that might even HINT you had ever known John.
The assertion of the right against self incrimination
CANNOT BE DENIED and CANNOT BE USED AGAINST YOU, ie CANNOT EVEN TEND TO LEAN A JUDGMENT AGAINST YOU.
If an appeals court found that this was violated, and the judgment had gone against you, it would be tossed immediately.
Then you would lose the civil case. There would be a consequence of failing to testify at all in that case.
If you refused to answer questions at all, and the plaintiff testified that you wrongfully took the couch, the trier of fact would be able to find the evidence was in her favor and find for the plaintiff. You would lose; although you would preserve the right to not testify, you might have to pay the civil judgment for the value of the couch.
If he hired you to be his lawyer in the civil case, you wouldnt be doing a very good job representing him.
I believe P.E. B. Hussein Obamah is a drug using, ex drug-dealing bi-sexual who was born in Kenya, whose mother married another muslim after Obamah's drunken father killed himself in Kenya. And then this muslim man named Soetoro adopted little Barack, making his an Indonesian muslim.
“Then you would lose the civil case”
Huh??
If you walked into court with a receipt showing that you had been the one that made the down payment on the couch, and that you had been the one making the time payments on the couch, you very well might win.
What I am saying is that THE ASSERTION OF THE RIGHT AGAINST SELF INCRIMINATION CANNOT BE A DETERMINING FACTOR IF HE JUDGMENT GOES AGAINST YOU.
The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a privilege.
“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491
Whatever makes you happy.
You are mistaken.
And you keep using criminal acts in your examples. There is no doubt the 5th A applies to criminal activities.
Now you are saying you will have your client take the stand to testify regarding the receipt, so he IS going to testify at some point in order for the receipt to be admissible.
It isnt all of nothing. If he chooses to take the Fifth as to some questions and not to others he is participating in the proceeding and the evidence that is presented will be weighed by the trier of fact.
You are making this much more difficult than it really is.
If he testifies about buying the couch, he can not disavow the judgment against him when he loses because he took ther 5th on some questions.
At the risk of stating the obvious, none of the lame lawsuits have never made it far enough into the legal process for the Supreme Court or any other court to order Obama to produce his documentation. If anyone is wasting the court's time it's those bringing the suits that do not come close to meeting the legal definition of standing.
1.) I will not consider acknowledging his election until he proves his qualification for the office. He is illegitimate until then.
As a lawyer then I'm sure you can point us all to the law that designates how presidential candidates prove their eligibility and what agency they prove it to?
2.) Those who think this is a waste of time can move on to another thread, we will fight for the Constitution and carry your weight, but stay out of our path.
Excellent suggestion. The way you are all stumbling we might accidentally get crushed in the collapse.
He's going to get 365. And the entire House and Senate would have to vote to uphold any challenge. If memory serves it took Congress a matter of a few hours to vote down the challenges to Bush in 2004.
And are you one of that number? Just curious.
I am using criminal acts in my examples because the 5th amendment is ABOUT criminal proceeding.
You said it did not apply in a civil case.
I said it sure as he** did.
If there is any possibility that an answer you give might lead to you revealing or even suggesting your involvement or knowledge of a crime, you CANNOT be forced to answer, and the exercise of that right cannot be used against you.
And if you do lose the couch, you must lose it based on the merits of the claims of the suitor.
NOT on your exercise of the fifth amendment.
Read my post #144 and stop putting words in my mouth.
Here is what I said:
“You have the privilege to refuse to say anything that will incriminate you, and it extends to both civil and criminal proceedings.”
Have a nice day.
From your #127
“There is no such protection in civil, or non-criminal matters.”
Have a nice day also!
You seem to have a reading comprehension problem.
Read #145
“You both seem to be confusing a criminal proceeding with a criminal matter.
While a matter can include a proceeding, when i said “matters” i meant activities.
Substitute “activity” for matter if that makes it clearer. The Fifth amendment applies to criminal activities, and yes, that extends to civil proceedings if it touches upon criminal activity.
But if the statement does not fall within one of the privileges i mentioned above, you can not claim such a privilege- it is inapplicable.”
I’m done arguing.
YOU were the one that said it did not apply in your #127
Take it up with the Supremes!
“One need not be a criminal to claim Fifth Amendment privilege, it applies to civil suits as well.”
Isaacs v. United States, 297 U.S. 1.
Have a good day!
I have better things to do than listen to you revamp and fine tune what you said.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.