A legal opinion needed from our learned lawyers....

N

NOVA

U. S. NAVY Veteran
If you believe there is no laws broken, and that you did nothing illegal, is there any reason to hide behind the 5th amendment while under oath and giving testimony......
please keep it short and to the point....no speeches....and just answer the question I ask.....and thanks.
 
NOVA said:
Thank you Professor.
So you must have a fear that you did or might have done something illegal ? OR, you know you did something illegal.....
Click to expand...

Nope. The fifth is there to protect us against torture and fishing expeditions.

Our founders were a lot wiser than you.

You should be deported to a non common law country.
 
Professor Baxter said:
Nope. The fifth is there to protect us against torture and fishing expeditions.

Our founders were a lot wiser than you.

You should be deported to a non common law country.
Click to expand...

The torture bs I don't understand....taking the 5th saves you from torture, how ?

AND, you say testifying under oath constitutes a 'fishing expedition'.....so no one ever HAS to testify under oath....ever...is that what your claiming ?

Something tells me desh is a lot wiser than you.....how about a real lawyer respond here....
 
NOVA said:
The torture bs I don't understand....taking the 5th saves you from torture, how ?

AND, you say testifying under oath constitutes a 'fishing expedition'.....so no one ever HAS to testify under oath....ever...is that what your claiming ?
Click to expand...

I am not a lawyer, but the fifth amendment is your right as a citizen not to be tortured by your government to to extract a testimony.

It protects you against self incrimination.
 
Every time a defendant does not take the stand in his own defense, he is asserting his fifth amendment right. Doesn't have anything to do with guilt or innocence. It has to do with making a prosecutor prove the case. Statements have been twisted over and over to infer guilt. I very rarely have a defendant testify even when I an certain of innocence.
 
NOVA said:
The torture bs I don't understand....taking the 5th saves you from torture, how ?

AND, you say testifying under oath constitutes a 'fishing expedition'.....so no one ever HAS to testify under oath....ever...is that what your claiming ?

Something tells me desh is a lot wiser than you.....how about a real lawyer respond here....
Click to expand...

Jesus Christ, have you ever read a book moron? Just because you are too stupid to imagine a need does not mean there is none.

They use to torture people to extract information from them which they could then use to punish them for a crime. It's not necessary that their victim actually committed a crime. They just needed enough to come up with some trumped up charge.

You should shut the fuck up or get the hell out of our country if you are so hostile to the principles upon which it was founded.
 
Socrtease said:
Every time a defendant does not take the stand in his own defense, he is asserting his fifth amendment right. Doesn't have anything to do with guilt or innocence. It has to do with making a prosecutor prove the case. Statements have been twisted over and over to infer guilt. I very rarely have a defendant testify even when I an certain of innocence.
Click to expand...

I appreciate the civil response.....

Now that makes a lot of sense....your forcing the questioner (prosecutor) to prove and accusation against you........great, fair enough....

OK...lets change it a little....how about a deposition in which you or rather your client is a witness to events....does the same thing apply when no one is accusing
you (the witness) of a crime ? Isn't your refusal to testify the equivalent to an admission of guilt in the eyes of the rank and file observers ?

I see your point in a courtroom setting, but what about a non-trial setting....
 
Last edited:
Funny when Rove didn't testify it was assumed by the left that he was guilty. Guess times change when the guy in the White House is a brutha with mucho fathas
 
NOVA said:
I appreciate the civil response.....

Now that makes a lot of sense....your forcing the questioner (prosecutor) to prove and accusation against you........great, fair enough....

OK...lets change it a little....how about a deposition in which you or rather your client is a witness to events....does the same thing apply when no one is accusing
you (the witness) of a crime ? Isn't your refusal to testify the equivalent to an admission of guilt in the eyes of the rank and file observers ?

I see your point in a courtroom setting, but what about a non-trial setting....
Click to expand...

I gave you a civil response and you responded with ad hom.

It does not matter if there is a formal accusation or not.
 
Let me put it this way......
A bank is robbed on Main St....a cop comes up the sidewalk an ask you, "Did you see who robbed the bank"....OR... "Did you rob the bank" and you refuse to answer...

don't you see how that refusal to answer would look to the casual observer ? People do believe that if you have nothing to hide, why refuse to co-operate.....
 
NOVA said:
Let me put it this way......
A bank is robbed on Main St....a cop comes up the sidewalk an ask you, "Did you see who robbed the bank"....OR... "Did you rob the bank" and you refuse to answer...

don't you see how that refusal to answer would look to the casual observer ? People do believe that if you have nothing to hide, why refuse to co-operate.....
Click to expand...

You never stopped writing in crayons, did you?
 
Professor Baxter said:
Your testimony could lead to accusations of a crime, civil infraction or civil wrong.
Click to expand...


Obviously, if you think your testimony could lead to accusations of a crime, you must have a fear that you did or might have done something illegal, just like I
responded........there was no ad hom at all.....

you must have a fear that you did or might have done something illegal, to think your testimony could lead to accusations of a crime....common sense.

use you fuckin' head for a change instead of flying off the handle....
 
NOVA said:
Wrong, I concluded you're an asshole and a fool....
Click to expand...

Yeah, except that's not what happened. You asked a question to which any high school student should already know the answer. I answered politely. You responded like an asshole.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top