Fifth amendment's protection applies in any type of proceeding

'The fifth amendment's protection applies in any type of proceeding whether civet, criminal, administrative, investigatory, or adjudicatory.' Maness v. Mceym, 419 U.S. 449 (19750

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v WILLIAM J. MERCER
Cincinnati, Ohio
Thursday, May 30, 1996 10:09 a.m.
Civil No. C-1-95-461

MR. COOMBE: (James M. Coombe, Esq., Assistant United StatesAttorney) Essentially, your Honor, what we're asking for is for the Court to enforce its order because Mr. Mercer was previously ordered by this Court on February 21st, 1996 to appear on March 8th before the IRS and give testimony and bring any books and records in his possession that would allow the Internal Revenue Service to prepare a 1040, for the tax year 1992.

THE COURT: Now that isn't exactly what the order said, is it? ... It's my understanding that from the transcript that's been supplied me. that when asked, Mr. Mercer said he had no records.

MR. COOMBE: Your Honor, I think the problem we're dealing with here is not whether or not he had records, but that he was also asked questions; so he could testify; so they could get relevant information...

THE COURT: Now stop right there. Now, he did appear, and he gave testimony.

MR. COOMBE: I would dispute that, your honor.

THE COURT: Well, he did give testimony-you gave me the transcript.

MR. COOMBE: He didn't provide any testimony.

THE COURT: I hold that he did give testimony.

MR. COOMBE: Okay

THE COURT: Now proceed.

MR. COOMBE: I really can't proceed, then, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Now are you here because he didn't give the testimony you wanted?

MR. COOMBE: Well, Your Honor, my understanding is that the whole purpose of this procedure is for the IRS to be able to enforce the summons where it could get the testimony it needed to prepare a tax return.

THE COURT: The whole purpose of this proceeding is to determine whether Mr. Mercer deliberately and intentionally violated the order of this Court -- and I say that he did appear and he did testify...

MR. COOMBE: I don't think he answered the questions ... For example, they asked him about his personal expenses and he said, 'ditto'.

THE COURT: That's right, 'ditto.' means he is referring back to his claiming of the Fifth Amendment. He said that he would perjure himself if he answered the question. and then he said, 'Ditto, Ditto, Ditto, Ditto, Ditto.'

MR. COOMBE: That's correct.

THE COURT: To me, he claimed, the Fifth Amendment.

MR. COOMBE: Your honor, under the Powell decision, all the United States has to do to have a Summons enforced is to provide four' pieces of information, which we have done countless times before...

THE COURT: In other words, you say he has no right to claim the Fifth Amendment?

MR. COOMBE: Well, Your Honor, I don't think that's been accepted by anybody concerning a civil summons enforcement. I am not aware of a case that allows him to do that.

THE COURT: You mean to tell me that you believe a witness cannot claim the Fifth Amendment in a Civil Case?

MR. COOMBE: ... Let's ask a rhetorical question. If every single person decides to take the Fifth Amendment on a Tax Return, the tax is never going to be collected.

THE COURT: THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THEY CAN DO AS I UNDERSTAND IT!

THE COURT: ... [ To William Mercer] In the brief you filed with me, you did claim your Fifth Amendment Right, is that correct?

MR. MERCER: Yes.

THE COURT: [To Mr. Coombe] Any witness or evidence you wish to present, Mr. Coombe?

MR. COOMBE: In light of your holding, your Honor, I don't think there's anything I could put on that would change that.

THE COURT: Let the record show that Mr. Mercer stated that he wanted to cooperate. Is that correct, Mr. Mercer?

MR. MERCER: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: That he did appear as ordered by the Court on March the 8th, 1996 at 10 a.m. That he did give testimony; that he stated at the time of the hearing before the Internal Revenue officer and that he reiterated in this court, that he has no records ... Going further he has invoked the Fifth Amendment
as to certain questions that were asked at the Internal
Revenue Hearing.

It's the opinion of this Court that, the fact that we have a tax code does not take away our rights as citizens to claim the fifth when we feel we will be incriminated by the statements we give. In view of the situation. I dismiss the show cause or contempt order against Mr. Mercer and find that he has answered the questions under oath and according to his testimony, he has no records. Mr. Coombe, I've tried to make the record as clear and concise as I can on this particular issue ... This case is dismissed.

[rentiap]

Originally Posted by free_martha

'The fifth amendment's protection applies in any type of proceeding whether civet, criminal, administrative, investigatory, or adjudicatory.' Maness v. Mceym, 419 U.S. 449 (19750

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v WILLIAM J. MERCER
Cincinnati, Ohio
Thursday, May 30, 1996 10:09 a.m.
Civil No. C-1-95-461



MR. COOMBE: ... Let's ask a rhetorical question. If every single person decides to take the Fifth Amendment on a Tax Return, the tax is never going to be collected.

THE COURT: THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THEY CAN DO AS I UNDERSTAND IT!

THE COURT: ... [ To William Mercer] In the brief you filed with me, you did claim your Fifth Amendment Right, is that correct?

MR. MERCER: Yes.

THE COURT: [To Mr. Coombe] Any witness or evidence you wish to present, Mr. Coombe?

MR. COOMBE: In light of your holding, your Honor, I don't think there's anything I could put on that would change that.

THE COURT: Let the record show that Mr. Mercer stated that he wanted to cooperate. Is that correct, Mr. Mercer?

MR. MERCER: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: That he did appear as ordered by the Court on March the 8th, 1996 at 10 a.m. That he did give testimony; that he stated at the time of the hearing before the Internal Revenue officer and that he reiterated in this court, that he has no records ... Going further he has invoked the Fifth Amendment
as to certain questions that were asked at the Internal
Revenue Hearing.

It's the opinion of this Court that, the fact that we have a tax code does not take away our rights as citizens to claim the fifth when we feel we will be incriminated by the statements we give. In view of the situation. I dismiss the show cause or contempt order against Mr. Mercer and find that he has answered the questions under oath and according to his testimony, he has no records. Mr. Coombe, I've tried to make the record as clear and concise as I can on this particular issue ... This case is dismissed.

WoW!!
And I thought that it wasn't possible for there to be an honest black queen *Judge* (IE It is my opinion that anyone wearing a black dress to be a queen)My faith is renewed.
At least in this case

Cheers,
Craig.

Seriously.
Thank you Free-martha.
This is great info.
copied and saved in my archive.

[BOBT12]

Originally Posted by rentiap

WoW!!
And I thought that it wasn't possible for there to be an honest black queen *Judge* (IE It is my opinion that anyone wearing a black dress to be a queen)My faith is renewed.
At least in this case

Cheers,
Craig.

Seriously.
Thank you Free-martha.
This is great info.
copied and saved in my archive.

I agree. Thank you free_martha!

U.S. Supreme Court
MANESS v. MEYERS, 419 U.S. 449 (1975)
419 U.S. 449
MANESS v. MEYERS, JUDGE.
CERTIORARI TO THE 169TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF TEXAS, BELL COUNTY.

No. 73-689.

Argued October 22, 1974.
Decided January 15, 1975.



A lawyer is not subject to the penalty of contempt for advising his client, during the trial of a civil case, to refuse on Fifth Amendment grounds to produce material demanded by a subpoena duces tecum when the lawyer believes in good faith that the material may tend to incriminate his client. To hold otherwise would deny the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination the means of its own implementation, since when a witness is so advised the advice becomes an integral part of the protection accorded the witness by the Fifth Amendment. Pp. 458-470.


(a) That the client in any ensuing criminal action could move to suppress the subpoenaed material after it had been produced does not afford adequate protection, because without something more "he would be compelled to surrender the very protection which the privilege is designed to guarantee," Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486 . United States v. Blue, 384 U.S. 251 , distinguished. Pp. 461-463.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...=419+&page=449

[AndyK]

The key issue in MANESS v. MEYERS is higlighted below (from the Supreme Court's Opinion

This Court has always broadly construed its protection to assure that an individual is not compelled to produce evidence which later may be used against him as an accused in a criminal action.

Thus the issue is whether in a civil proceeding a lawyer may be held in contempt for counselling a witness in good faith to refuse to produce court-ordered materials on the ground that the materials may tend to incriminate the witness in another proceeding.

On this record, with no state statute or rule guaranteeing a privilege or assuring that at a later criminal prosecution the compelled magazines would be inadmissible, it appears that there was no avenue other than assertion of the privilege, with the risk of contempt, that would have provided assurance of appellate review in advance of surrendering the magazines. We are satisfied that petitioner properly performed his duties as an advocate here, and he cannot suffer any penalty for performing such duties in good faith.

It is important to note that the 5th amendment was not being asserted with respect to the civil case, but in fear that the magazines could be used as evidence in a potential, future criminal case.

Upholding that use of the 5th is not new law. Any time a person believes that testimony or documents could be evidence in a future criminal case, he can assert the 5th amendment.

HOWEVER, the impact of doing so in a civil case is different from doing so in a criminal case.

In the latter, in the eyes of the Judge and jury, the protected information does not exist, and has no impact on the case either positively or negatively. The prosecution is not permitted to state implications as to a defendant's guilt because the defendant invoked the 5th.

In a civil case, the refusal by a party to produce information except in the narrow framework described in MANESS, based on the 5th, CAN be used by the opposition to create an assumption that the material would damage the invoker's case.

These subtleties are, significant. As the court also stated in the case at hand

The assertion of a testimonial privilege, as of many other rights, often depends upon legal advice from someone who is trained and skilled in the subject matter, and who may offer a more objective opinion. A layman may not be aware of the precise scope, the nuances, and boundaries of his Fifth Amendment privilege.

[BOBT12]

Originally Posted by AndyK

The key issue in MANESS v. MEYERS is higlighted below (from the Supreme Court's Opinion

It is important to note that the 5th amendment was not being asserted with respect to the civil case, but in fear that the magazines could be used as evidence in a potential, future criminal case.

However, the below case suggest that when it comes to taxes there is always a reasonable fear that a criminal case may result.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v WILLIAM J. MERCER
Cincinnati, Ohio
Thursday, May 30, 1996 10:09 a.m.
Civil No. C-1-95-461

It's the opinion of this Court that, the fact that we have a tax code does not take away our rights as citizens to claim the fifth when we feel we will be incriminated by the statements we give. In view of the situation. I dismiss the show cause or contempt order against Mr. Mercer and find that he has answered the questions under oath and according to his testimony, he has no records. Mr. Coombe, I've tried to make the record as clear and concise as I can on this particular issue ... This case is dismissed.

Emphasis added.

Please show why this is not the issue in all tax issues, where the people must sign under penalty of perjury?

Perhaps what AndyK is not saying that all administrative law is quasi-criminal from the get-go and as such the fifth applies to any commercial dealings, tax public policy [law] included.

[Dillon Hunt]

The constitution does not ban the 5th in civil cases, so all rights are reserved by the people.

I have not argument with that - all unalienable birthrights are reserved by the people but ignorance of the law [public policy of whatever it is perceived to be] is no excuse especially for officers of the court.

Officers of the Court have no immunity, when violating a constitutional right, from liability, for they are DEEMED TO KNOW THE LAW. Owens v. City of Independence, 445 US 621, 100 S. Ct. 1398Maine v. Thiboutot, 448 US 1, 100 S. Ct. 2502 Hafer v. Melo, 502 US 21:

[squirrel]

Pleading the fifth only works on t.v.

Try pleading the fifth and see what happens.

Rights come from God, not the constitution.

[squirrel]

Brain fart

Administrative Law = paperwork Law

What do all these treasonous traitors push ?

Paperwork.