Lois Lerner to take the 5th. Again.

[The Rabbi]

Perhaps you'd like to take a crack at explaining why a rather liberal Harvard Constitutional law scholar like Alan Dershowitz agrees with Trey Gowdy that Lois Lerner waived her 5th Amendment rights on the topic that she covered in her little speech to the Congressional panel?

Or do you think that you know more about Constitutional law than the learned Harvard Professor?

Cause he's wrong. Wild, huh? A lawyer could be wrong.

SCOTUS has held that the 5th Amendment privilege is available in "any proceeding, civil or criminal, administrative or judicial,
investigatory or adjudicatory and it protects against any disclosures that the witness reasonably believes could be used
in a criminal prosecution...."

When the privilege is invoked as part of an investigation, the committee is required to respect it.
Yes, the privilege can be waived. However, for a waiver to be effective, it must be clear and unequivocal, and cannot be "lightly inferred." Further, courts typically indulge every reasonable presumption against finding 'testimonial waiver.'"
Klein v. Harris (1981). See also Quinn v. United States (1955)


Furthermore, voluntarily testifying and and involuntarily testifying play a part in the equation.

In addition, "a waiver typically occurs only when a witness asserts specific facts. Mere proclamations of innocence usually do not suffice.
In United States v. Hoag , the defendant was subpoenaed to appear before the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. When asked,

"If the Communist Party ordered you to sabotage the work you are doing, assuming that we were at war with Communist Russia, would you obey those orders or would you refuse to obey them?" In response, the defendant stated, "I have never engaged in espionage nor sabotage. I am not so engaged. I will not so engage in the future. I am not a spy nor a saboteur." She thereafter invoked her Fifth Amendment right. The court, relying in part on the New York Court of Appeals in People ex rel. Taylor v. Forbes held that the defendant did not waive her Fifth Amendment right by virtue of her general denial." link

Wow you know more than a Constitutional lawyer because you spent 15 minutes searching case law.
Brilliant.

 

[Oldstyle]

Perhaps you'd like to take a crack at explaining why a rather liberal Harvard Constitutional law scholar like Alan Dershowitz agrees with Trey Gowdy that Lois Lerner waived her 5th Amendment rights on the topic that she covered in her little speech to the Congressional panel?

Or do you think that you know more about Constitutional law than the learned Harvard Professor?

Cause he's wrong. Wild, huh? A lawyer could be wrong.

SCOTUS has held that the 5th Amendment privilege is available in "any proceeding, civil or criminal, administrative or judicial,
investigatory or adjudicatory and it protects against any disclosures that the witness reasonably believes could be used
in a criminal prosecution...."

When the privilege is invoked as part of an investigation, the committee is required to respect it.
Yes, the privilege can be waived. However, for a waiver to be effective, it must be clear and unequivocal, and cannot be "lightly inferred." Further, courts typically indulge every reasonable presumption against finding 'testimonial waiver.'"
Klein v. Harris (1981). See also Quinn v. United States (1955)


Furthermore, voluntarily testifying and and involuntarily testifying play a part in the equation.

In addition, "a waiver typically occurs only when a witness asserts specific facts. Mere proclamations of innocence usually do not suffice.
In United States v. Hoag , the defendant was subpoenaed to appear before the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. When asked,

"If the Communist Party ordered you to sabotage the work you are doing, assuming that we were at war with Communist Russia, would you obey those orders or would you refuse to obey them?" In response, the defendant stated, "I have never engaged in espionage nor sabotage. I am not so engaged. I will not so engage in the future. I am not a spy nor a saboteur." She thereafter invoked her Fifth Amendment right. The court, relying in part on the New York Court of Appeals in People ex rel. Taylor v. Forbes held that the defendant did not waive her Fifth Amendment right by virtue of her general denial." link

Alan Dershowitz is hardly just a "lawyer". He's an esteemed Constitutional scholar who graduated first in his class from Yale Law and was the youngest person ever to be given a faculty position at Harvard Law.

 

[The Rabbi]

Perhaps you'd like to take a crack at explaining why a rather liberal Harvard Constitutional law scholar like Alan Dershowitz agrees with Trey Gowdy that Lois Lerner waived her 5th Amendment rights on the topic that she covered in her little speech to the Congressional panel?

Or do you think that you know more about Constitutional law than the learned Harvard Professor?

Cause he's wrong. Wild, huh? A lawyer could be wrong.

SCOTUS has held that the 5th Amendment privilege is available in "any proceeding, civil or criminal, administrative or judicial,
investigatory or adjudicatory and it protects against any disclosures that the witness reasonably believes could be used
in a criminal prosecution...."

When the privilege is invoked as part of an investigation, the committee is required to respect it.
Yes, the privilege can be waived. However, for a waiver to be effective, it must be clear and unequivocal, and cannot be "lightly inferred." Further, courts typically indulge every reasonable presumption against finding 'testimonial waiver.'"
Klein v. Harris (1981). See also Quinn v. United States (1955)


Furthermore, voluntarily testifying and and involuntarily testifying play a part in the equation.

In addition, "a waiver typically occurs only when a witness asserts specific facts. Mere proclamations of innocence usually do not suffice.
In United States v. Hoag , the defendant was subpoenaed to appear before the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. When asked,

"If the Communist Party ordered you to sabotage the work you are doing, assuming that we were at war with Communist Russia, would you obey those orders or would you refuse to obey them?" In response, the defendant stated, "I have never engaged in espionage nor sabotage. I am not so engaged. I will not so engage in the future. I am not a spy nor a saboteur." She thereafter invoked her Fifth Amendment right. The court, relying in part on the New York Court of Appeals in People ex rel. Taylor v. Forbes held that the defendant did not waive her Fifth Amendment right by virtue of her general denial." link

Alan Dershowitz is hardly just a "lawyer". He's an esteemed Constitutional scholar who graduated first in his class from Yale Law and was the youngest person ever to be given a faculty position at Harvard Law.

Yeah but did he spent 15 minutes looking up case law like Paperview? Huh?

 

[deltex1]

With Ukraine pushing everythig else off the news page I thought I'd post this. Seems Issa's committee has subpoena'ed Lois Lerner for a second chat. Conflicting evidence on whether she will testify or take the 5th. Issa says the committee now has information that suggests she ought to testify. I wonder what that is. I wonder why, if there was nothing incriminating going on, she is taking the 5th.
Will Lois Lerner testify before the House Oversight Committee? - CBS News

Trey Gowdy is poised to give her nine....right up her ahole.

 

[Redfish]

the fact remains--------innocent people do not take the 5th. If you are innocent and tell the truth, nothing you say can incriminate you.

Lerner is either covering up crimes that she committed or that she was directed committ by her superiors at the IRS, DOJ, or the Whitehouse.

 

[paperview]

Perhaps you'd like to take a crack at explaining why a rather liberal Harvard Constitutional law scholar like Alan Dershowitz agrees with Trey Gowdy that Lois Lerner waived her 5th Amendment rights on the topic that she covered in her little speech to the Congressional panel?

Or do you think that you know more about Constitutional law than the learned Harvard Professor?

Cause he's wrong. Wild, huh? A lawyer could be wrong.

SCOTUS has held that the 5th Amendment privilege is available in "any proceeding, civil or criminal, administrative or judicial,
investigatory or adjudicatory and it protects against any disclosures that the witness reasonably believes could be used
in a criminal prosecution...."

When the privilege is invoked as part of an investigation, the committee is required to respect it.
Yes, the privilege can be waived. However, for a waiver to be effective, it must be clear and unequivocal, and cannot be "lightly inferred." Further, courts typically indulge every reasonable presumption against finding 'testimonial waiver.'"
Klein v. Harris (1981). See also Quinn v. United States (1955)


Furthermore, voluntarily testifying and and involuntarily testifying play a part in the equation.

In addition, "a waiver typically occurs only when a witness asserts specific facts. Mere proclamations of innocence usually do not suffice.
In United States v. Hoag , the defendant was subpoenaed to appear before the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. When asked,

"If the Communist Party ordered you to sabotage the work you are doing, assuming that we were at war with Communist Russia, would you obey those orders or would you refuse to obey them?" In response, the defendant stated, "I have never engaged in espionage nor sabotage. I am not so engaged. I will not so engage in the future. I am not a spy nor a saboteur." She thereafter invoked her Fifth Amendment right. The court, relying in part on the New York Court of Appeals in People ex rel. Taylor v. Forbes held that the defendant did not waive her Fifth Amendment right by virtue of her general denial." link

Alan Dershowitz is hardly just a "lawyer". He's an esteemed Constitutional scholar who graduated first in his class from Yale Law and was the youngest person ever to be given a faculty position at Harvard Law.

Fluff him up all you like buddy, he's still just a lawyer with an opinion.

His words are not golden bricks of divine infallibility.

 

[Redfish]

Cause he's wrong. Wild, huh? A lawyer could be wrong.

SCOTUS has held that the 5th Amendment privilege is available in "any proceeding, civil or criminal, administrative or judicial,
investigatory or adjudicatory and it protects against any disclosures that the witness reasonably believes could be used
in a criminal prosecution...."

When the privilege is invoked as part of an investigation, the committee is required to respect it.
Yes, the privilege can be waived. However, for a waiver to be effective, it must be clear and unequivocal, and cannot be "lightly inferred." Further, courts typically indulge every reasonable presumption against finding 'testimonial waiver.'"
Klein v. Harris (1981). See also Quinn v. United States (1955)


Furthermore, voluntarily testifying and and involuntarily testifying play a part in the equation.

In addition, "a waiver typically occurs only when a witness asserts specific facts. Mere proclamations of innocence usually do not suffice.
In United States v. Hoag , the defendant was subpoenaed to appear before the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. When asked,

"If the Communist Party ordered you to sabotage the work you are doing, assuming that we were at war with Communist Russia, would you obey those orders or would you refuse to obey them?" In response, the defendant stated, "I have never engaged in espionage nor sabotage. I am not so engaged. I will not so engage in the future. I am not a spy nor a saboteur." She thereafter invoked her Fifth Amendment right. The court, relying in part on the New York Court of Appeals in People ex rel. Taylor v. Forbes held that the defendant did not waive her Fifth Amendment right by virtue of her general denial." link

Alan Dershowitz is hardly just a "lawyer". He's an esteemed Constitutional scholar who graduated first in his class from Yale Law and was the youngest person ever to be given a faculty position at Harvard Law.

Fluff him up all you like buddy, he's still just a lawyer with an opinion.

His words are not golden bricks of divine infallibility.

you denigrate him because he is a liberal who has the guts to tell the truth. To you lefties he is worse than an attractive, intelligent, female conservative. He is a traitor in your mind because he dares to be truthful while still remaining a liberal.

 

[The Rabbi]

Alan Dershowitz is hardly just a "lawyer". He's an esteemed Constitutional scholar who graduated first in his class from Yale Law and was the youngest person ever to be given a faculty position at Harvard Law.

Fluff him up all you like buddy, he's still just a lawyer with an opinion.

His words are not golden bricks of divine infallibility.

you denigrate him because he is a liberal who has the guts to tell the truth. To you lefties he is worse than an attractive, intelligent, female conservative. He is a traitor in your mind because he dares to be truthful while still remaining a liberal.

It is simply a lack of respect for opinions other than theirs, that PPV is exhibiting. An unfortunate trait found in all libs who believe they have an atheistic god on their side.

 

[Little-Acorn]

If you knew anything about the study of Constitutional law you'd know that the interpretation of the passage you keep quoting has kept different Supreme Courts busy since the way back in the 60's. The 5th Amendment was judged to have a different meaning before Miranda v Arizona than it did after. The wording in the Constitution remained the same but the INTERPRETATION of it changed.

Meaning, after getting it right for a while, the courts started getting it wrong. But since they used a deliberate and methodical method for going off course, that made it OK.

Curious behavior for an institution whose members swear to uphold the Constitution, not court precedents.

It shows, of course, the destructive effects of those who try to pretend (as most courts do nowadays, and rabbi has been screaming is "the way it is" for days now) that court precedents should supersede what the Constitution actually says.

Way back when courts did their jobs and ruled according to what the Constitution actually says, court verdicts matched its text.

But then the idea of "stare decisis", plus a misguided tendency on the part of judges to compromise, started eroding away at their fealty to the Constitution.

("Stare decisis" is a Latin phrase meaning "to stand by things decided". Courts tend to use it a lot more often than they should. One law-student wit once told me it really means "We stand by our mistakes". He was more right than he may have realized.)

A lawyer with a client who wanted to break the law, brought a case before the courts and argued that their "different interpretation" was the correct one. Lawyers backing the Constitution argued that it was not. And the fence-sitting judge issued a ruling that was a compromise between the two, instead of ruling that the Constitution-supporting lawyer was correct as he should have. And the first step away from true Constitutional adherence was made.

Then the next lawyer with a client who wanted to break the law, brought another case, and once again argued that their "different interpretation" was the correct one. And this time, lawyers steeped in the "stare decisis" religion, did not argue for what the Constitution said. Rather, they argued for what the last decision said. And when the fence-sitting judge issued another compromise between the two as a ruling, a further step away from Constitutional fealty was made.

Case after case was brought, and the courts' "interpretation" moved further and further away from what the Constitution actually said, with each one.

And eventually we had blinders-on zealots such as rabbi, insisting that "No person ... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself..." doesn't mean that at all, but means some crazy schedule of when the person can and can't invoke the very right the 5th was designed to protect, depending on what he last said and when he said it - a schedule that appears nowhere in the 5th amendment. And in a crowning absurdity, they insist that they are telling you what the Constitution "really means"!

If only the officers of the courts had remembered that they had sworn to uphold the Constitution, and not the last court decision, we wouldn't have gotten so badly off track. But here we are, with the blinders-on zealots twisting themselves into strange pretzel shapes trying to pretend that their increasingly odd "interpretations" are no different from what the Constitution actually says.

Notice that rabbi is still avoiding like the plague, answering the question of WHY he believes the 5th amendment doesn't mean what its text says. All he can do is snarl at the person asking the question, call names, and generally insult the messenger. The reason he descends into such barbarity is, of course, that he is wrong, and cannot stand to admit he is wrong, or even consider the possiblity. His entire world of "court interpretation" constructions would come crashing down around his ears, and he would have to re-do most of his legal education to get back on the track of actual Constitutional adherence.

In a way, it's not really his fault... or at least, not much. Entire college curricula are devoted to teaching "Constitutional interpretation", and even make it a required series of courses for a law or pre-law degree. But all they are teaching, is how the courts have MOVED AWAY from the Constitution... and forcing the students to memorize each step in that tortured path, and accept it as an established fact, never to be questions or resisted. Hence their hysterical reactions years later, in forums such as this one.

I don't expect it to end any time soon, any more than I expect savages to give up their beliefs in hideous masks and shaking rattles as medical cures. They have too much belief and dogma tied up in it, to even consider deviating from it now... and a fear of the terrifying unknown that awaits them if they do get away from it.

 

[paperview]

Fluff him up all you like buddy, he's still just a lawyer with an opinion.

His words are not golden bricks of divine infallibility.

you denigrate him because he is a liberal who has the guts to tell the truth. To you lefties he is worse than an attractive, intelligent, female conservative. He is a traitor in your mind because he dares to be truthful while still remaining a liberal.

It is simply a lack of respect for opinions other than theirs, that PPV is exhibiting. An unfortunate trait found in all libs who believe they have an atheistic god on their side.

The irony is enough to make the eyes bleed.

 

[Oldstyle]

Cause he's wrong. Wild, huh? A lawyer could be wrong.

SCOTUS has held that the 5th Amendment privilege is available in "any proceeding, civil or criminal, administrative or judicial,
investigatory or adjudicatory and it protects against any disclosures that the witness reasonably believes could be used
in a criminal prosecution...."

When the privilege is invoked as part of an investigation, the committee is required to respect it.
Yes, the privilege can be waived. However, for a waiver to be effective, it must be clear and unequivocal, and cannot be "lightly inferred." Further, courts typically indulge every reasonable presumption against finding 'testimonial waiver.'"
Klein v. Harris (1981). See also Quinn v. United States (1955)


Furthermore, voluntarily testifying and and involuntarily testifying play a part in the equation.

In addition, "a waiver typically occurs only when a witness asserts specific facts. Mere proclamations of innocence usually do not suffice.
In United States v. Hoag , the defendant was subpoenaed to appear before the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. When asked,

"If the Communist Party ordered you to sabotage the work you are doing, assuming that we were at war with Communist Russia, would you obey those orders or would you refuse to obey them?" In response, the defendant stated, "I have never engaged in espionage nor sabotage. I am not so engaged. I will not so engage in the future. I am not a spy nor a saboteur." She thereafter invoked her Fifth Amendment right. The court, relying in part on the New York Court of Appeals in People ex rel. Taylor v. Forbes held that the defendant did not waive her Fifth Amendment right by virtue of her general denial." link

Alan Dershowitz is hardly just a "lawyer". He's an esteemed Constitutional scholar who graduated first in his class from Yale Law and was the youngest person ever to be given a faculty position at Harvard Law.

Fluff him up all you like buddy, he's still just a lawyer with an opinion.

His words are not golden bricks of divine infallibility.

Giving Dershowitz's credentials isn't "fluffing", Paperview. You don't graduate at the top of your class at Yale Law or become part of Harvard Law's faculty at a young age if you don't know the law. Alan Dershowitz is obviously NOT just a lawyer so yes...I do value his opinion.

 

[paperview]

This may shock the hell out of you, but brilliant legal minds disagree on their opinion

all. the. time.

 

[Oldstyle]

If you knew anything about the study of Constitutional law you'd know that the interpretation of the passage you keep quoting has kept different Supreme Courts busy since the way back in the 60's. The 5th Amendment was judged to have a different meaning before Miranda v Arizona than it did after. The wording in the Constitution remained the same but the INTERPRETATION of it changed.

Meaning, after getting it right for a while, the courts started getting it wrong. But since they used a deliberate and methodical method for going off course, that made it OK.

Curious behavior for an institution whose members swear to uphold the Constitution, not court precedents.

It shows, of course, the destructive effects of those who try to pretend (as most courts do nowadays, and rabbi has been screaming is "the way it is" for days now) that court precedents should supersede what the Constitution actually says.

Way back when courts did their jobs and ruled according to what the Constitution actually says, court verdicts matched its text.

But then the idea of "stare decisis", plus a misguided tendency on the part of judges to compromise, started eroding away at their fealty to the Constitution.

("Stare decisis" is a Latin phrase meaning "to stand by things decided". Courts tend to use it a lot more often than they should. One law-student wit once told me it really means "We stand by our mistakes". He was more right than he may have realized.)

A lawyer with a client who wanted to break the law, brought a case before the courts and argued that their "different interpretation" was the correct one. Lawyers backing the Constitution argued that it was not. And the fence-sitting judge issued a ruling that was a compromise between the two, instead of ruling that the Constitution-supporting lawyer was correct as he should have. And the first step away from true Constitutional adherence was made.

Then the next lawyer with a client who wanted to break the law, brought another case, and once again argued that their "different interpretation" was the correct one. And this time, lawyers steeped in the "stare decisis" religion, did not argue for what the Constitution said. Rather, they argued for what the last decision said. And when the fence-sitting judge issued another compromise between the two as a ruling, a further step away from Constitutional fealty was made.

Case after case was brought, and the courts' "interpretation" moved further and further away from what the Constitution actually said, with each one.

And eventually we had blinders-on zealots such as rabbi, insisting that "No person ... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself..." doesn't mean that at all, but means some crazy schedule of when the person can and can't invoke the very right the 5th was designed to protect, depending on what he last said and when he said it - a schedule that appears nowhere in the 5th amendment. And in a crowning absurdity, they insist that they are telling you what the Constitution "really means"!

If only the officers of the courts had remembered that they had sworn to uphold the Constitution, and not the last court decision, we wouldn't have gotten so badly off track. But here we are, with the blinders-on zealots twisting themselves into strange pretzel shapes trying to pretend that their increasingly odd "interpretations" are no different from what the Constitution actually says.

Notice that rabbi is still avoiding like the plague, answering the question of WHY he believes the 5th amendment doesn't mean what its text says. All he can do is snarl at the person asking the question, call names, and generally insult the messenger. The reason he descends into such barbarity is, of course, that he is wrong, and cannot stand to admit he is wrong, or even consider the possiblity. His entire world of "court interpretation" constructions would come crashing down around his ears, and he would have to re-do most of his legal education to get back on the track of actual Constitutional adherence.

In a way, it's not really his fault... or at least, not much. Entire college curricula are devoted to teaching "Constitutional interpretation", and even make it a required series of courses for a law or pre-law degree. But all they are teaching, is how the courts have MOVED AWAY from the Constitution... and forcing the students to memorize each step in that tortured path, and accept it as an established fact, never to be questions or resisted. Hence their hysterical reactions years later, in forums such as this one.

I don't expect it to end any time soon, any more than I expect savages to give up their beliefs in hideous masks and shaking rattles as medical cures. They have too much belief and dogma tied up in it, to even consider deviating from it now... and a fear of the terrifying unknown that awaits them if they do get away from it.

What part of it being the job of the Judicial Branch to interpret the Constitution don't you understand, Acorn? They are constantly being called upon to render decisions as to how Constitutional law interacts with everyday enforcement of the law. Some of those decisions you obviously don't like but surely you understand that it's a necessary part of our system?

I notice that you've avoided addressing the point I've stressed...that someone who testifies to a specific subject (in this case it was Lois Lerner declaring the she had not violated any of the IRS's rules or regulations) has in the words of the Supreme Court "turned on a spigot that cannot then be turned off". What Dershowitz noted was that in making that statement, Lerner had left herself open to questions related to that statement and the refusal to answer questions about how she enforced the IRS's rules and regulations would have her in contempt of Congress. In simple terms you cannot testify about something and then take the 5th on what your own testimony related to.

 

[Listening]

Perhaps you'd like to take a crack at explaining why a rather liberal Harvard Constitutional law scholar like Alan Dershowitz agrees with Trey Gowdy that Lois Lerner waived her 5th Amendment rights on the topic that she covered in her little speech to the Congressional panel?

Or do you think that you know more about Constitutional law than the learned Harvard Professor?

Cause he's wrong. Wild, huh? A lawyer could be wrong.

SCOTUS has held that the 5th Amendment privilege is available in "any proceeding, civil or criminal, administrative or judicial,
investigatory or adjudicatory and it protects against any disclosures that the witness reasonably believes could be used
in a criminal prosecution...."

When the privilege is invoked as part of an investigation, the committee is required to respect it.
Yes, the privilege can be waived. However, for a waiver to be effective, it must be clear and unequivocal, and cannot be "lightly inferred." Further, courts typically indulge every reasonable presumption against finding 'testimonial waiver.'"
Klein v. Harris (1981). See also Quinn v. United States (1955)


Furthermore, voluntarily testifying and and involuntarily testifying play a part in the equation.

In addition, "a waiver typically occurs only when a witness asserts specific facts. Mere proclamations of innocence usually do not suffice.
In United States v. Hoag , the defendant was subpoenaed to appear before the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. When asked,

"If the Communist Party ordered you to sabotage the work you are doing, assuming that we were at war with Communist Russia, would you obey those orders or would you refuse to obey them?" In response, the defendant stated, "I have never engaged in espionage nor sabotage. I am not so engaged. I will not so engage in the future. I am not a spy nor a saboteur." She thereafter invoked her Fifth Amendment right. The court, relying in part on the New York Court of Appeals in People ex rel. Taylor v. Forbes held that the defendant did not waive her Fifth Amendment right by virtue of her general denial." link

Alan Dershowitz is hardly just a "lawyer". He's an esteemed Constitutional scholar who graduated first in his class from Yale Law and was the youngest person ever to be given a faculty position at Harvard Law.

Means nothing......

Dershowitz is a sleezebag.

 

[Oldstyle]

This may shock the hell out of you, but brilliant legal minds disagree on their opinion

all. the. time.

Alan Dershowitz IS a brilliant legal mind...what brilliant legal mind have you offered in rebuttal to what Dershowitz has put forth?

 

[Oldstyle]

Cause he's wrong. Wild, huh? A lawyer could be wrong.

SCOTUS has held that the 5th Amendment privilege is available in "any proceeding, civil or criminal, administrative or judicial,
investigatory or adjudicatory and it protects against any disclosures that the witness reasonably believes could be used
in a criminal prosecution...."

When the privilege is invoked as part of an investigation, the committee is required to respect it.
Yes, the privilege can be waived. However, for a waiver to be effective, it must be clear and unequivocal, and cannot be "lightly inferred." Further, courts typically indulge every reasonable presumption against finding 'testimonial waiver.'"
Klein v. Harris (1981). See also Quinn v. United States (1955)


Furthermore, voluntarily testifying and and involuntarily testifying play a part in the equation.

In addition, "a waiver typically occurs only when a witness asserts specific facts. Mere proclamations of innocence usually do not suffice.
In United States v. Hoag , the defendant was subpoenaed to appear before the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. When asked,

"If the Communist Party ordered you to sabotage the work you are doing, assuming that we were at war with Communist Russia, would you obey those orders or would you refuse to obey them?" In response, the defendant stated, "I have never engaged in espionage nor sabotage. I am not so engaged. I will not so engage in the future. I am not a spy nor a saboteur." She thereafter invoked her Fifth Amendment right. The court, relying in part on the New York Court of Appeals in People ex rel. Taylor v. Forbes held that the defendant did not waive her Fifth Amendment right by virtue of her general denial." link

Alan Dershowitz is hardly just a "lawyer". He's an esteemed Constitutional scholar who graduated first in his class from Yale Law and was the youngest person ever to be given a faculty position at Harvard Law.

Means nothing......

Dershowitz is a sleezebag.

Alan Dershowitz and I are miles apart on our political views yet I would never call him a "sleezebag" (sic) simply because I don't agree with some of his stances.

 

[paperview]

If you knew anything about the study of Constitutional law you'd know that the interpretation of the passage you keep quoting has kept different Supreme Courts busy since the way back in the 60's. The 5th Amendment was judged to have a different meaning before Miranda v Arizona than it did after. The wording in the Constitution remained the same but the INTERPRETATION of it changed.

Meaning, after getting it right for a while, the courts started getting it wrong. But since they used a deliberate and methodical method for going off course, that made it OK.

Curious behavior for an institution whose members swear to uphold the Constitution, not court precedents.

It shows, of course, the destructive effects of those who try to pretend (as most courts do nowadays, and rabbi has been screaming is "the way it is" for days now) that court precedents should supersede what the Constitution actually says.

Way back when courts did their jobs and ruled according to what the Constitution actually says, court verdicts matched its text.

But then the idea of "stare decisis", plus a misguided tendency on the part of judges to compromise, started eroding away at their fealty to the Constitution.

("Stare decisis" is a Latin phrase meaning "to stand by things decided". Courts tend to use it a lot more often than they should. One law-student wit once told me it really means "We stand by our mistakes". He was more right than he may have realized.)

A lawyer with a client who wanted to break the law, brought a case before the courts and argued that their "different interpretation" was the correct one. Lawyers backing the Constitution argued that it was not. And the fence-sitting judge issued a ruling that was a compromise between the two, instead of ruling that the Constitution-supporting lawyer was correct as he should have. And the first step away from true Constitutional adherence was made.

Then the next lawyer with a client who wanted to break the law, brought another case, and once again argued that their "different interpretation" was the correct one. And this time, lawyers steeped in the "stare decisis" religion, did not argue for what the Constitution said. Rather, they argued for what the last decision said. And when the fence-sitting judge issued another compromise between the two as a ruling, a further step away from Constitutional fealty was made.

Case after case was brought, and the courts' "interpretation" moved further and further away from what the Constitution actually said, with each one.

And eventually we had blinders-on zealots such as rabbi, insisting that "No person ... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself..." doesn't mean that at all, but means some crazy schedule of when the person can and can't invoke the very right the 5th was designed to protect, depending on what he last said and when he said it - a schedule that appears nowhere in the 5th amendment. And in a crowning absurdity, they insist that they are telling you what the Constitution "really means"!

If only the officers of the courts had remembered that they had sworn to uphold the Constitution, and not the last court decision, we wouldn't have gotten so badly off track. But here we are, with the blinders-on zealots twisting themselves into strange pretzel shapes trying to pretend that their increasingly odd "interpretations" are no different from what the Constitution actually says.

Notice that rabbi is still avoiding like the plague, answering the question of WHY he believes the 5th amendment doesn't mean what its text says. All he can do is snarl at the person asking the question, call names, and generally insult the messenger. The reason he descends into such barbarity is, of course, that he is wrong, and cannot stand to admit he is wrong, or even consider the possiblity. His entire world of "court interpretation" constructions would come crashing down around his ears, and he would have to re-do most of his legal education to get back on the track of actual Constitutional adherence.

In a way, it's not really his fault... or at least, not much. Entire college curricula are devoted to teaching "Constitutional interpretation", and even make it a required series of courses for a law or pre-law degree. But all they are teaching, is how the courts have MOVED AWAY from the Constitution... and forcing the students to memorize each step in that tortured path, and accept it as an established fact, never to be questions or resisted. Hence their hysterical reactions years later, in forums such as this one.

I don't expect it to end any time soon, any more than I expect savages to give up their beliefs in hideous masks and shaking rattles as medical cures. They have too much belief and dogma tied up in it, to even consider deviating from it now... and a fear of the terrifying unknown that awaits them if they do get away from it.

What part of it being the job of the Judicial Branch to interpret the Constitution don't you understand, Acorn? They are constantly being called upon to render decisions as to how Constitutional law interacts with everyday enforcement of the law. Some of those decisions you obviously don't like but surely you understand that it's a necessary part of our system?

I notice that you've avoided addressing the point I've stressed...that someone who testifies to a specific subject (in this case it was Lois Lerner declaring the she had not violated any of the IRS's rules or regulations) has in the words of the Supreme Court "turned on a spigot that cannot then be turned off". What Dershowitz noted was that in making that statement, Lerner had left herself open to questions related to that statement and the refusal to answer questions about how she enforced the IRS's rules and regulations would have her in contempt of Congress. In simple terms you cannot testify about something and then take the 5th on what your own testimony related to.

Courts have disagreed:

To repeat:

SCOTUS has held that the 5th Amendment privilege is available in "any proceeding, civil or criminal, administrative or judicial,
investigatory or adjudicatory and it protects against any disclosures that the witness reasonably believes could be used
in a criminal prosecution...."

When the privilege is invoked as part of an investigation, the committee is required to respect it.
Yes, the privilege can be waived. However, for a waiver to be effective, it must be clear and unequivocal, and cannot be "lightly inferred." Further, courts typically indulge every reasonable presumption against finding 'testimonial waiver.'"
Klein v. Harris (1981). See also Quinn v. United States (1955)


Furthermore, voluntarily testifying and and involuntarily testifying play a part in the equation.

In addition, "a waiver typically occurs only when a witness asserts specific facts. Mere proclamations of innocence usually do not suffice.
In United States v. Hoag , the defendant was subpoenaed to appear before the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. When asked,

"If the Communist Party ordered you to sabotage the work you are doing, assuming that we were at war with Communist Russia, would you obey those orders or would you refuse to obey them?" In response, the defendant stated, "I have never engaged in espionage nor sabotage. I am not so engaged. I will not so engage in the future. I am not a spy nor a saboteur." She thereafter invoked her Fifth Amendment right. The court, relying in part on the New York Court of Appeals in People ex rel. Taylor v. Forbes held that the defendant did not waive her Fifth Amendment right by virtue of her general denial." link

In addition, she was asked to make an opening statement.

 

[paperview]

This may shock the hell out of you, but brilliant legal minds disagree on their opinion

all. the. time.

Alan Dershowitz IS a brilliant legal mind...what brilliant legal mind have you offered in rebuttal to what Dershowitz has put forth?

I just reposted it -- and it looks like you found that two minutes before I reposted.,...

 

[Oldstyle]

Meaning, after getting it right for a while, the courts started getting it wrong. But since they used a deliberate and methodical method for going off course, that made it OK.

Curious behavior for an institution whose members swear to uphold the Constitution, not court precedents.

It shows, of course, the destructive effects of those who try to pretend (as most courts do nowadays, and rabbi has been screaming is "the way it is" for days now) that court precedents should supersede what the Constitution actually says.

Way back when courts did their jobs and ruled according to what the Constitution actually says, court verdicts matched its text.

But then the idea of "stare decisis", plus a misguided tendency on the part of judges to compromise, started eroding away at their fealty to the Constitution.

("Stare decisis" is a Latin phrase meaning "to stand by things decided". Courts tend to use it a lot more often than they should. One law-student wit once told me it really means "We stand by our mistakes". He was more right than he may have realized.)

A lawyer with a client who wanted to break the law, brought a case before the courts and argued that their "different interpretation" was the correct one. Lawyers backing the Constitution argued that it was not. And the fence-sitting judge issued a ruling that was a compromise between the two, instead of ruling that the Constitution-supporting lawyer was correct as he should have. And the first step away from true Constitutional adherence was made.

Then the next lawyer with a client who wanted to break the law, brought another case, and once again argued that their "different interpretation" was the correct one. And this time, lawyers steeped in the "stare decisis" religion, did not argue for what the Constitution said. Rather, they argued for what the last decision said. And when the fence-sitting judge issued another compromise between the two as a ruling, a further step away from Constitutional fealty was made.

Case after case was brought, and the courts' "interpretation" moved further and further away from what the Constitution actually said, with each one.

And eventually we had blinders-on zealots such as rabbi, insisting that "No person ... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself..." doesn't mean that at all, but means some crazy schedule of when the person can and can't invoke the very right the 5th was designed to protect, depending on what he last said and when he said it - a schedule that appears nowhere in the 5th amendment. And in a crowning absurdity, they insist that they are telling you what the Constitution "really means"!

If only the officers of the courts had remembered that they had sworn to uphold the Constitution, and not the last court decision, we wouldn't have gotten so badly off track. But here we are, with the blinders-on zealots twisting themselves into strange pretzel shapes trying to pretend that their increasingly odd "interpretations" are no different from what the Constitution actually says.

Notice that rabbi is still avoiding like the plague, answering the question of WHY he believes the 5th amendment doesn't mean what its text says. All he can do is snarl at the person asking the question, call names, and generally insult the messenger. The reason he descends into such barbarity is, of course, that he is wrong, and cannot stand to admit he is wrong, or even consider the possiblity. His entire world of "court interpretation" constructions would come crashing down around his ears, and he would have to re-do most of his legal education to get back on the track of actual Constitutional adherence.

In a way, it's not really his fault... or at least, not much. Entire college curricula are devoted to teaching "Constitutional interpretation", and even make it a required series of courses for a law or pre-law degree. But all they are teaching, is how the courts have MOVED AWAY from the Constitution... and forcing the students to memorize each step in that tortured path, and accept it as an established fact, never to be questions or resisted. Hence their hysterical reactions years later, in forums such as this one.

I don't expect it to end any time soon, any more than I expect savages to give up their beliefs in hideous masks and shaking rattles as medical cures. They have too much belief and dogma tied up in it, to even consider deviating from it now... and a fear of the terrifying unknown that awaits them if they do get away from it.

What part of it being the job of the Judicial Branch to interpret the Constitution don't you understand, Acorn? They are constantly being called upon to render decisions as to how Constitutional law interacts with everyday enforcement of the law. Some of those decisions you obviously don't like but surely you understand that it's a necessary part of our system?

I notice that you've avoided addressing the point I've stressed...that someone who testifies to a specific subject (in this case it was Lois Lerner declaring the she had not violated any of the IRS's rules or regulations) has in the words of the Supreme Court "turned on a spigot that cannot then be turned off". What Dershowitz noted was that in making that statement, Lerner had left herself open to questions related to that statement and the refusal to answer questions about how she enforced the IRS's rules and regulations would have her in contempt of Congress. In simple terms you cannot testify about something and then take the 5th on what your own testimony related to.

Courts have disagreed:

To repeat:

SCOTUS has held that the 5th Amendment privilege is available in "any proceeding, civil or criminal, administrative or judicial,
investigatory or adjudicatory and it protects against any disclosures that the witness reasonably believes could be used
in a criminal prosecution...."

When the privilege is invoked as part of an investigation, the committee is required to respect it.
Yes, the privilege can be waived. However, for a waiver to be effective, it must be clear and unequivocal, and cannot be "lightly inferred." Further, courts typically indulge every reasonable presumption against finding 'testimonial waiver.'"
Klein v. Harris (1981). See also Quinn v. United States (1955)


Furthermore, voluntarily testifying and and involuntarily testifying play a part in the equation.

In addition, "a waiver typically occurs only when a witness asserts specific facts. Mere proclamations of innocence usually do not suffice.
In United States v. Hoag , the defendant was subpoenaed to appear before the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. When asked,

"If the Communist Party ordered you to sabotage the work you are doing, assuming that we were at war with Communist Russia, would you obey those orders or would you refuse to obey them?" In response, the defendant stated, "I have never engaged in espionage nor sabotage. I am not so engaged. I will not so engage in the future. I am not a spy nor a saboteur." She thereafter invoked her Fifth Amendment right. The court, relying in part on the New York Court of Appeals in People ex rel. Taylor v. Forbes held that the defendant did not waive her Fifth Amendment right by virtue of her general denial." link

In addition, she was asked to make an opening statement.

With all due respect, Paper...you're quoting case law from 1956.

Yes, Lois Lerner was asked to make an opening statement. She was not told what to include in that statement. What she DID that day was make the case that she in no way broke the rules and regulations of the IRS in the investigations of groups with names including things like Tea Party and Liberty. Once she did so she's opened the spigot on that topic and cannot then turn around and refuse to answer questions about a topic that SHE introduced!

 

[Jarhead]

What part of it being the job of the Judicial Branch to interpret the Constitution don't you understand, Acorn? They are constantly being called upon to render decisions as to how Constitutional law interacts with everyday enforcement of the law. Some of those decisions you obviously don't like but surely you understand that it's a necessary part of our system?

I notice that you've avoided addressing the point I've stressed...that someone who testifies to a specific subject (in this case it was Lois Lerner declaring the she had not violated any of the IRS's rules or regulations) has in the words of the Supreme Court "turned on a spigot that cannot then be turned off". What Dershowitz noted was that in making that statement, Lerner had left herself open to questions related to that statement and the refusal to answer questions about how she enforced the IRS's rules and regulations would have her in contempt of Congress. In simple terms you cannot testify about something and then take the 5th on what your own testimony related to.

Courts have disagreed:

To repeat:

SCOTUS has held that the 5th Amendment privilege is available in "any proceeding, civil or criminal, administrative or judicial,
investigatory or adjudicatory and it protects against any disclosures that the witness reasonably believes could be used
in a criminal prosecution...."

When the privilege is invoked as part of an investigation, the committee is required to respect it.
Yes, the privilege can be waived. However, for a waiver to be effective, it must be clear and unequivocal, and cannot be "lightly inferred." Further, courts typically indulge every reasonable presumption against finding 'testimonial waiver.'"
Klein v. Harris (1981). See also Quinn v. United States (1955)


Furthermore, voluntarily testifying and and involuntarily testifying play a part in the equation.

In addition, "a waiver typically occurs only when a witness asserts specific facts. Mere proclamations of innocence usually do not suffice.
In United States v. Hoag , the defendant was subpoenaed to appear before the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. When asked,

"If the Communist Party ordered you to sabotage the work you are doing, assuming that we were at war with Communist Russia, would you obey those orders or would you refuse to obey them?" In response, the defendant stated, "I have never engaged in espionage nor sabotage. I am not so engaged. I will not so engage in the future. I am not a spy nor a saboteur." She thereafter invoked her Fifth Amendment right. The court, relying in part on the New York Court of Appeals in People ex rel. Taylor v. Forbes held that the defendant did not waive her Fifth Amendment right by virtue of her general denial." link

In addition, she was asked to make an opening statement.

With all due respect, Paper...you're quoting case law from 1956.

Yes, Lois Lerner was asked to make an opening statement. She was not told what to include in that statement. What she DID that day was make the case that she in no way broke the rules and regulations of the IRS in the investigations of groups with names including things like Tea Party and Liberty. Once she did so she's opened the spigot on that topic and cannot then turn around and refuse to answer questions about a topic that SHE introduced!

in one sentence....

You cannot say "I did nothing wrong" and then refuse to answer the question of what it is that you did.

That is CLASSIC contempt.