Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

If...then...

Expand Messages
  • Frog Farmer
    I m always advising against the making of waivers of rights for any cause or reason. I think many do not see the harm in waiving rights. Today I received an
    Message 1 of 1 , Dec 3, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      I'm always advising against the making of waivers of rights for any
      cause or reason. I think many do not see the harm in waiving rights.

      Today I received an e-mail from a friend, and thought I'd just paste a
      three-paragraph cut here for consideration:

      The fifth amendment article does not create any rights. Article
      amendments clarify existing rights.

      "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 offence 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."

      If you have agreed to an inquisition by waiving a grand jury proceeding
      then you have already forfeited your right to de jure court.

      ------------end of cut-------

      This is a good example of putting one step in front of another.
      "Infamous crime" has been held to be one where time in jail is possible.

      I still don't think I could use this until after I found a qualified
      officer to do the holding of me and to do the interrogation seeking the
      answer. Passing gang members will not suffice to fill that role.

      Regards,

      FF
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.