X
From: Bob Moneymaker 
Subject: [M-E] Point of Order
Cc: money-ethics@mast.right-net.com
Sender: owner-money-ethics@uwsa.com

One of the fundamental points of law in our American System of Jurisprudence
is:

A person cannot be compelled to give testimony against himself.

This gave cause for the Constitutionalists to include the provision in the
fifth amendment to that Constitution, thusly:


   " 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 the
actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be
subject for the same offense 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 examine recent legal proceedings you will see that the courts are
trampling all over this amendment.

The Courts rule that if they give immunity to a person, they can force him
to testify against himself.  They split hairs by saying it only applies in a
criminal offense.  That is not true.  Common law has always protected a
person from self-incrimnation.  That means guilt of any kind, being forced
from a person by torture, or any compulsion...NOT just criminal guilt.

That is in no way legal, as the immunity does COMPEL a person to testify.

This is a violation of the Constitution's protections against being
compelled to give testimony against oneself.  A fundamental rule in common
law is that one cannot be compelled to give testimony against himself, no
matter the case.

The Drug Laws are unconstitutional as they allow confiscation of property
without compensation or DUE PROCESS.

Now we have a Chief Executive of the Nation being forced to give testimony
against himself, about personal sex acts--not criminal offenses--before a
grand jury, and no one questions the constitutionality of such violations of
civil rights in court.

We are in big trouble, as Americans, if they can violate the Fifth Amendment
provisions of the Constitution in legal action against ANY CITIZEN.  

Comments?

***********************************************

From: dhayes@impulse.net (Dave Hayes)
To: Bob Moneymaker 
Cc: money-ethics@mast.right-net.com
Subject: Re: [M-E] Point of Order
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1998 22:18:02 GMT
References: <199812211938.LAA15956@heather.greatbasin.com>

On Mon, 21 Dec 1998 11:38:05 -0800 (PST), Bob Moneymaker
 wrote:

>One of the fundamental points of law in our American System of Jurisprudence
>is:
>
>A person cannot be compelled to give testimony against himself.
>
>This gave cause for the Constitutionalists to include the provision in the
>fifth amendment to that Constitution thusly:
>
>   " 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 the
>actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be
>subject for the same offense 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."
>

Small law factoid concerning Presentments:

A Grand Jury Presentment is a little used legal action permissible under
the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. It basically allows for criminal
charges to be brought against persons by a Grand Jury even when the normal
law enforcement channels refuse to do so.

Presentments were intended to be as frequent as indictments by the Framers
at the Founding which is why they are expressly permitted and expected by
the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The legal system has largely
tried to hide this fact.

(Quoted material follows)

By this language, the Founding Fathers incorporated the historic 
operation and understanding of grand jury, designed to protect 
citizens against arbitrary power of a corrupt, unrestricted 
executive and judicial power. 

Who mentions these days that any citizen has the absolute right 
to locate the foreman of the grand jury, and offer directly to the 
grand jury, details of apparent crimes and documents thereof, and 
the names of possible witnesses and perpetrators?

 Of course, no one can knock on their unmarked 
grand jury room door, and ask what else is going on inside.

Despite the 5th Amendment adopting this historic apparatus as the 
fundamental law, grand jurors are seldom, if ever, told of the 
historic intention that they be independent. Usually ending up as 
a panel of 23, the grand jurors are to be selected from a cross- 
section of the population of the district. However, in some 
districts, they are selected from a list of illustrious citizens, 
hence the term, "Blue Ribbon Grand Jury".

Since the public is seldom, if ever, told about this, there has 
grown up a custom and practice, whereby the prosecutors control 
the grand jury as if the grand jurors have no fundamental duty to 
be independent, and a built-in power of their own. 

Prosecutors have come to play on the grand jury like a captive organ.
Grand jurors are cowed and led around by the nose. The prosecutors have 
their own, non-statutory, sort of rule book, as to how to conduct 
grand juries. But the prosecutors' rule books are not the law, 
just arbitrary instruction manuals.

This, in violation of the historic background of the grand jury.

>If you examine recent legal proceedings you will see that the courts are
>trampling all over this amendment.
>
>The Courts rule that if they give immunity to a person, they can force him
>to testify against himself.  They split hairs by saying it only applies in
>criminal offense.  That is not true.  Common law has always protected a
>person from self incrimnation.  That means guilt of any kind, being forced
>from a person by torture, or any compulsion...NOT just criminal guilt.
>
>That is in no way legal, as the immunity does COMPEL a person to testify.
>This is a violation of the Constitution's protections against being
>compelled to give testimony against oneself.  A fundamental rule in common
>law is that one cannot be compelled to give testimony against himself, no
>matter the case.
>
>The Drug Laws are unconstitutional as they allow confiscation of property
>without compensation or DUE PROCESS.
>
>Now we have a Chief Executive of the Nation being forced to give testimony
>against himself, about personal sex acts--not criminal offenses--before a
>grand jury, and no one questions the constitutionality of such violations of
>civil rights in court.
>
>We are in big trouble, as Americans, if they can violate the Fifth Amendment
>provisions of the Constitution in legal action against ANY CITIZEN.  
>
>Comments?


You have some good points here Bob. Too bad moral outrage has collapsed to
the point that the law is stretched to achieve goals. Bad Precedent for the
future.