It's not just enough anymore to STFU. SCOTUS says your silence may be used against you in a court of law.

[CuteOldGuy]

What's to wait for? I didn't know about this case. I've read it now, and doubt it would have helped me in the ones I've argued, but I admit I didn't know about. Timmy was right, and I was wrong. I still think it is a stupid opinion, and totally disagree with the Court's opinion, but, wrong as it is, it is still the Court's opinion until it's overturned, which is unlikely.

So if you're waiting for me to admit I'm wrong. Too late. I already did. It happens.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Call bullshit all you want, but it's true.

What is "true"? That you don't know "the law" in Kansas?

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

SCOTUS blew this one. Big time. It's another sad day for American jurisprudence. That ruling is ridiculous and destructive, and sets us one step closer to a police state. A person can't possibly assert his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent until he has been informed by the officers of his right. My advice to clients was to go ahead and talk if they wanted to go to jail, otherwise keep your mouth shut, and maybe avoid the whole thing.

It's not the suspect's job to provide incriminating evidence to LE. It is LE's job to prove the suspect is guilty of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, to a moral certainty. The suspect is under no obligation to provide self incriminating information at any point.

This is wrong. Wrong on the law, wrong on policy, and wrong about the Court's decision.

As you later admit, you are shooting off your mouth before you read "the law," which might explain, if you even argued two cases before the Kansas Supreme Court, why you lost.

[LexusLover]

COG,
This is not a rhetorical question .. recently a female witness from the IRS testified before Congress concerning the revelations about the IRS targeting conservative groups ... she was supposed to the supervisor of the "auditing" staff targeting conservative groups for challenges to their status to file as nonprofit organizations .. remember?

Do you also remember that during the questioning, after she had given a prepared statement about "her side of the story" ,... she refused to answer questions ... claiming the 5th amendment.

How did you come down on that issue ... ? Can she be compelled to answer the questions?

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Call bullshit all you want, but it's true.

Originally Posted by bigtex

I anxiously await LL's response!

Originally Posted by LexusLover

What is "true"? That you don't know "the law" in Kansas?

I knew I would not be disappointed.

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

COG,
This is not a rhetorical question .. recently a female witness from the IRS testified before Congress concerning the revelations about the IRS targeting conservative groups ... she was supposed to the supervisor of the "auditing" staff targeting conservative groups for challenges to their status to file as nonprofit organizations .. remember?

Do you also remember that during the questioning, after she had given a prepared statement about "her side of the story" ,... she refused to answer questions ... claiming the 5th amendment.

How did you come down on that issue ... ? Can she be compelled to answer the questions?

I think she waived her right to 5th Amendment protection by making her statement. I think she can be compelled to answer questions. She won't, but I think she could be compelled.

Oh, and I didn't clarify. I didn't argue before the Kansas Supreme Court, it was in another state. I've argued in front of the Kansas Supreme Court, but not on issues related to this.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Oh, and I didn't clarify. I didn't argue before the Kansas Supreme Court, it was in another state. I've argued in front of the Kansas Supreme Court, but not on issues related to this.

Thanks for the .... ugh ..... "clarification" ......

... so that's two states ....

.... in which you don't know anything about the law discussed in this thread.

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Thanks for the .... ugh ..... "clarification" ......

... so that's two states ....

.... in which you don't know anything about the law discussed in this thread.

I just knew this was going to end with Hanoi COG wiping the egg off of his face!