Troubling, to say the least. On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 11:54 AM, MJ <[email protected]> wrote:
> > *Bye-bye 5th Amendment! Supreme Court Decides: Anything You Don’t Say Can > and Will Be Used Against You > *by: Daisy Luther > June 18, 2013 > > Everyone knows that when building a police state, it’s vital to strike a > few Constitutional rights off the books. Now, we can add the right to > remain silent to the graveyard of the American justice system. How can you > expect the people to be properly subjugated with all those pesky freedoms > that the Bill of Rights blathers on about? > > The would-be totalitarians can chalk up another victory, because the > Supreme Court has made the decision that if you opt to remain silent, that > silence can (and will) be used against you in a court of law. > > The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution guarantees our right against > self-incrimination. > > No person shall be held to answer for a capital, 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. > > The Supreme Court said that unless a person specifically asks for their > Fifth Amendment right to remain silence, that your silence can be used as > an indication of guilt. The case was brought to court on the basis of an > unconstitutional prosecution against Genovevo Salinas. Justice Alito, who > has a history of excusing the most disturbing abuses in favor of the > governmen<http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-01-09-troubling-times_x.htm>t, > said,“[Salinas'] Fifth Amendment claim fails because he did not expressly > invoke the privilege against self-incrimination in response to the > officer’s question. It has long been settled that the privilege `generally > is not self-executing’ and that a witness who desires its protection `must > claim it.’” > > So, the advice to sit there and keep your mouth shut, should you be > unfortunate enough to have been accused of committing a crime, is no longer > the best option. If the police fail to read you your Miranda warning, you > must explicitly say that you are claiming your Fifth Amendment right not to > incriminate yourself. In stating that, aren’t you, in fact, letting the > police know that a crime, has indeed been committed by you? The right to > remain silent is supposed to mean just that – you can refuse to answer > questions and your silence will not be used against you. > > Justice Breyer said, in his dissent: > > “The need to categorize Salinas’ silence as based on the Fifth Amendment > is supported here by the presence, in full force, of the predicament I > discussed earlier, namely that of not forcing Salinas to choose between > incrimination through speech and incrimination through silence. That need > is also supported by the absence of any special reason that the police had > to know, with certainty, whether Salinas was, in fact, relying on the Fifth > Amendmentsuch as whether to doubt that there really was a risk of > self-incrimination, see Hoffman v. United States, 341 U. S. 479, 486 > (1951), or whether to grant immunity, see Kastigar, 406 U. S., at 448. > Given these circumstances, Salinas’ silence was “sufficient to put the > [government] on notice of an apparent claim of the privilege.” Quinn, > supra, at 164. That being so, for reasons similar to those given in > Griffin, the Fifth Amendment bars the evidence of silence admitted against > Salinas and mentioned by the prosecutor.” > > In 2001, Ohio vs. Reiner, the Supreme Court ruled that “a witness may have > a reasonable fear of prosecution and yet be innocent of any wrongdoing. The > privilege serves to protect the innocent who otherwise might be ensnared by > ambiguous circumstances.” > > Apparently they have changed their minds. > > As Justice Breyer said, you must now choose whether to incriminate > yourself through speech and incriminate yourself through silence. I > wasn’t there when they wrote it, but I really don’t think that “devil and > the deep blue sea” decision is what the authors of the Fifth Amendment had > in mind. > > The “Supreme Court” is a joke. > > Yesterday it was announced that they struck down the need to prove your > citizenship in order to > vote<http://www.thedailysheeple.com/papers-please-unless-youre-voting_062013>in > the United States – all you have to do is say you’re an American, and > then “poof – here’s a ballot!” They have decided again and again in favor > of huge, evil corporations like Monsanto. They have decided in favor of > Obamacare. The conflicts of interest within the Supreme Court, large > corporations, the banking industry, and the government are so blatant that > they don’t even bother to defend themselves against accusations of such. > > The checks and balances designed to be in place with the three branches of > power are all leaning to one side – there is no balance. We are collapsing > into a police state, and the Judicial branch has just tipped us even > further into that deep hole. It would be difficult to argue that this > destruction of our freedom is not deliberate. > > The Justices of the highest court in the land don their robes, they hear > these cases, and they destroy the Constitution, amendment by amendment. > > http://www.theorganicprepper.ca/supreme-court-decides-anything-you-dont-say-can-and-will-be-used-against-you-06182013 > > -- > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "PoliticalForum" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > -- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
