Proper use of the Fifth

[David Merrill]

I spoke with a fellow yesterday who has used the Fifth Amendment twice successfully. Albeit it was not up to the attorney in the black robe whether or not he got to use it.

Before the hearings he would tender a paper to the clerk saying he was going to say nothing to incriminate himself in agreement with the Fifth Amendment. It had the case number on it but said nothing further - not his name even. The first time he did this the clerk asked, "You are not going to say anything, even to me?"

The first time he utilized the Fifth was a traffic matter. He simply left the courthouse. The second matter was much more significant, involving Social Services and a false accusation that his child was shooting out windows at the school with a BB gun - [Columbine related felony]. This family is completely out of the system and has been so for over ten years. The deputy sheriff making the accusation has no witnesses or evidence so the presumption is that those "home-schoolers" have got to be under Big Brother's thumb like everybody else. The man went into the courtroom gallery. He stepped out to the restroom for the "all-rise" ceremony just by coincidence. When they began calling the legal name on the papers he simply did not respond. That was not his name. The clerk who accepted the paper into the case identified him to be the man who gave her the paper but she could not give the court his name. The scene became quite theatrical with people all pointing at him, even uninvolved people in the gallery (defendants).

He opened his Bible to Isaiah and soon found himself so absorbed the courtroom disappeared. Next thing was a deputy next to him shouting, "Sir! You have to respond to the judge - Sir!!" - all paramilitary-like. He went back to reading.

Later a deputy was shouting he had to leave the room. The courtroom was closing. Two more deputies were by the courtroom door and that clerk was waving a pink notice like a grasshopper on a fishhook, all of them telling him he had to take the notice from her. He walked past with a look on his face like they were crazy if they thought he would fall for that.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[masterduke]

So are we going to see this guys house on T.V. ala Wako or something? Thats pretty ballsy snubing the whole court. Altho it is my understanding that if you take the 5th you are to say nothing at all. So what has been the outcome of all of this?

[Shoonra]

Your friend is very lucky he wasn't cited for contempt of court and possibly arrested for it.

Refusal to identify oneself is not protected by the Fifth Amendment. Gallden v. Roach (5th Cir 1089) 864 F2d 1196 cert.denied 491 US 907.

An instruction, in a traffic ticket, summons, or other legal document, to "appear" in court, means showing up in the appropriate courtroom on the designated day (and time) AND responding when called up. There have been instances of people who refused to respond when their names were called, and although they were recognized and indentified by others (maybe even the judge), the judge thereupon ordered a bench warrant for their arrest for non-appearance as if they hadn't come to the court at all.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by masterduke

So are we going to see this guys house on T.V. ala Wako or something? Thats pretty ballsy snubing the whole court. Altho it is my understanding that if you take the 5th you are to say nothing at all. So what has been the outcome of all of this?

The key maxim is that no man can be compelled to incriminate himself. That is much older than the Fifth Amendment.

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Your friend is very lucky he wasn't cited for contempt of court and possibly arrested for it.

Refusal to identify oneself is not protected by the Fifth Amendment. Gallden v. Roach (5th Cir 1089) 864 F2d 1196 cert.denied 491 US 907.

An instruction, in a traffic ticket, summons, or other legal document, to "appear" in court, means showing up in the appropriate courtroom on the designated day (and time) AND responding when called up. There have been instances of people who refused to respond when their names were called, and although they were recognized and indentified by others (maybe even the judge), the judge thereupon ordered a bench warrant for their arrest for non-appearance as if they hadn't come to the court at all.

Your friend in the black robe is very fortunate he tried nothing more than sounds in the air (shouting) to compel the man into misidentifying himself. [Compelled Criminal Impersonation.] Administrative collections upon men and women upon the suggested legal name on "our" birth certificate/bank notes is simply voluntary. Compelling somebody to be subject to the corporate policy and suggested bonding is subject to judicial review. In other words the citation you give us is from an attorney/collection agent in a black robe and from a copyrighted (private law) law book.

In fact, it sounds as though this fellow was the only one in the courtroom not in contempt. He was sitting quietly and reading. Without the clerk identifying the man to be the same man who filed the unnamed and unsigned paper about the Fifth Amendment, it would have probably gone the way of the bench warrant like Shoonra says.



Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S. I remind the Readers:

I spoke with a fellow yesterday who has used the Fifth Amendment twice successfully. Albeit it was not up to the attorney in the black robe whether or not he got to use it.

The point is that by not subjecting himself to the national debt through the corporate US and subject States in the legal name, the man used the Fifth Amendment as it is properly to be used - outside the scope of the inferior court systems.

So what has been the outcome of all of this?

People doing instead of hearing... "Waking Up" being more than a metaphorical spoof on a Hollywood MATRIX movie about misnomer.

[weishaupt1776]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

An instruction, in a traffic ticket, summons, or other legal document, to "appear" in court, means showing up in the appropriate courtroom on the designated day (and time) AND responding when called up.

Shoonra, show me in your state's rules/codes that a physical appearance is mandatory and that an appearance by motion does not constitute a sufficient appearance.

Where is the prohibition of appearing by motion in your state's rules/codes?

[mrg]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Your friend is very lucky he wasn't cited for contempt of court and possibly arrested for it.

Refusal to identify oneself is not protected by the Fifth Amendment. Gallden v. Roach (5th Cir 1089) 864 F2d 1196 cert.denied 491 US 907.

I question the accuracy and validity of mere opinion.

An instruction, in a traffic ticket, summons, or other legal document, to "appear" in court, means showing up in the appropriate courtroom on the designated day (and time)

I question the accuracy and validity of mere opinion.


AND responding when called up.

I question the accuracy and validity of mere opinion.


There have been instances of people who refused to respond when their names were called, and although they were recognized and indentified by others (maybe even the judge), the judge thereupon ordered a bench warrant for their arrest for non-appearance as if they hadn't come to the court at all.

Does this judge's behavior involve either violence or the threat of violence in order to compel obeissance?

Was the "judge" a "lawyer?"

Does the judge/lawyer represent a person?

I question the accuracy and validity of mere opinion.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by weishaupt1776

Shoonra, show me in your state's rules/codes that a physical appearance is mandatory and that an appearance by motion does not constitute a sufficient appearance.

Where is the prohibition of appearing by motion in your state's rules/codes?

See attachment.

AND responding when called up.

I question the accuracy and validity of mere opinion.

Eloquently put mrg... let's not wear it out though, okay?

[mrg]

Originally Posted by David Merrill

See attachment.

Eloquently put mrg... let's not wear it out though, okay?

I do not see how, in the context in which it was presented, the statement, or more especially, its potential for realization as a pro-active process, could become worn out.

In fact the process resulting from application of the concept is apparently very much under-employed, possibly because the concept is not stated often enough.

If you are concerned that it might become a mantra......

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by mrg

I do not see how, in the context in which it was presented, the statement, or more especially, its potential for realization as a pro-active process, could become worn out.

In fact the process resulting from application of the concept is apparently very much under-employed, possibly because the concept is not stated often enough.

If you are concerned that it might become a mantra......

Heavily spun against his intent Weishaupt said that posters could no longer state abnormal or non-mainstream opinions without being able to back them up. If one did so - suspension from suijuris. I too decided to grab that spin and run with it.

I certainly encourage one to locate their federal repository a/k/a Government Documents and not rely solely on the Internet for source materials. [For instance one needs a subscription to Lexis Nexus or the sort to read the full version of Delovio v. Boit.] However in allowing that everybody cannot do that, I suggest we allow Weishaupt to state opinions and soforth again.

I really think the intent is that if you are going to argue an opinion as though it is fact, and you cannot respond well to logical, reasonable or factually based arguments to the contrary, then you will have to admit you lost rather than to just keep babbling on with junk. The case in point was Skeptic just egging Satori on with that kind of stuff; based originally in a no-win rhetorical question anyway - which was further based in a presumption Satori had threatened to kill Skeptic with UCC/billing logic.

The fellow who walked out of the courthouse after properly using the Fifth Amendment is a rather interesting encounter. I think suijuris Readers can benefit if they understand the overall paradigm shift this guy has undergone in order to even think like that. I just hope that playing around with Weishaupt's stipulation does not divert from the subject here.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[Admin]

David I am in agreement with you here. I think what Weis was trying to do was make sure people engage in a civilized debate/discussion without insults and cheap shots that lead to nothing but emotional arguments. His guidelines were basically just a restatement of our terms of use. Let's not forget that our main objective here is to keep the dialogue going and in no way should anyone feel that they cannot post anythig unless it violates the key principles of the terms or if you are posting just to be a punk ass. I will say here that it honestly takes alot for us to ban or warn anyone about their posts. You really have to be up to no good or looking for trouble for SJ police to interfere.

Originally Posted by David Merrill

I really think the intent is that if you are going to argue an opinion as though it is fact, and you cannot respond well to logical, reasonable or factually based arguments to the contrary, then you will have to admit you lost rather than to just keep babbling on with junk. The case in point was Skeptic just egging Satori on with that kind of stuff; based originally in a no-win rhetorical question anyway - which was further based in a presumption Satori had threatened to kill Skeptic with UCC/billing logic.
Regards,

David Merrill.