You asked for it, now your gonna get it (Supreme Court Miranda Ruling)

So now you have to ask to remain silent, is that an oxymoron or what????






"Today's decision turns Miranda upside down," wrote Sotomayor, who accused the majority of casting aside judicial restraint. "Criminal suspects must now unambiguously invoke their right to remain silent -- which, counter-intuitively, requires them to speak. At the same time, suspects will be legally presumed to have waived their rights even if they have given no clear expression of their intent to do so."



www.washingtonpost.com...


www.usatoday.com...




[edit on 1-6-2010 by freetree64]

Some people just don't know how to keep silent.

I made a thread offering A Million Dollars legal advice, but really got nowhere.

I hope people start reading up on what rights they really do have.

Million Dollar Legal Advice

by Mark Bennett, Texas Criminal Defense Attorney

The following advice is worth millions of dollars, countless years in prison, and many saved lives.

If everyone followed this advice:

Many fewer people would be charged with crimes. They would, collectively, be saved millions of dollars in attorneys fees (not to mention lower taxes from needing fewer prosecutors and judges). Of those charged with crimes, many fewer would be convicted. They would, collectively, be saved countless years in prison. Of those who avoided prosecution or conviction, many would also avoid the death penalty. Their lives would be saved.

I give you this advice for free:

Don't talk to the police.

Almost everyone in prison is there because they talked to the police. They thought they could explain; they thought they could help themselves.

www.attorneyforfreedom.com...

This is the case that this crazy ruling came from..... wild!!



online.wsj.com...



"At no point during the interrogation did Thompkins say that he wanted to remain silent, that he did not want to talk with the police, or that he wanted an attorney. Thompkins was “[l]argely” silent during the interrogation, which lasted about three hours. He did give a few limited verbal responses, however, such as “yeah,” “no,” or “I don’t know.” And on occasion he communicated by nodding his head. Thompkins also said that he “didn’t want a peppermint” that was offered to him by the police and that the chair he was “sitting in was hard.”

About 2 hours and 45 minutes into the interrogation, Helgert asked Thompkins, “Do you believe in God?” Thompkins made eye contact with Helgert and said “Yes,” as his eyes “well[ed] up with tears.” Helgert asked, “Do you pray to God?” Thompkins said “Yes.” Helgert asked, “Do you pray to God to forgive you for shooting that boy down?” Thompkins answered “Yes” and looked away. Thompkins refused to make a written confession, and the interrogation ended about 15 minutes later"


[edit on 1-6-2010 by freetree64]

What? No fair... like serious.

So now there is no right to be silent unless you SAY there is? Stupid!!

Originally posted by TheBloodRed
What? No fair... like serious.

So now there is no right to be silent unless you SAY there is? Stupid!!

This has always been the case with your rights. You must always at all times vociferously and zealously assert your rights, or any government will construe your failure to do so as a tacit agreement that you are waiving your rights. Further, the so called "Miranda rights", is actually more correctly known as the Miranda warning. This warning was written by judges who then offered up to LEO's as a guideline they should follow. It is not any governments job, and never has been any government officials ambition to protect your rights. The complete nature of government is to reign rights and freedom in. People can imprudently place their faith in government to protect their rights, or they can jealously guard them and zealously assert them at all times. The choice is, as it always has been, entirely up to each person.

I'm glad I live in America where we have inalienable and constitutional rights.

Wait, this is in some other country right?!

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


So is it possible to make a broad sweeping rights statement, and have it recorded, to be used in the event I am unable to assert my right to the Miranda Warning?????

Originally posted by freetree64
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

So is it possible to make a broad sweeping rights statement, and have it recorded, to be used in the event I am unable to assert my right to the Miranda Warning?????

Good point. Should your jaw get broken in the "struggle" during your arrest you really cant say you want to invoke your right to remain silent.

Originally posted by freetree64
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

So is it possible to make a broad sweeping rights statement, and have it recorded, to be used in the event I am unable to assert my right to the Miranda Warning?????

It should first be noted that I am in no way qualified to give legal advice. It should secondly be noted that ignorance of the law excuses no one. That said, you ask a great question! Whenever confronted by an LEO, it is impossible to both remain silent, and assert your rights. It is imperative to understand that anything you do say, can and will be used against you in a court of law, so prudence is always the better part of valor in such matters.

If you are confronted by an LEO, pay close attention to what they are saying before responding to anything at all. If an LEO is asking for your permission to talk to you, this is strong evidence, indeed prima facie evidence they have no jurisdiction to question you without your permission. They have no legal jurisdiction by Constitution or otherwise, but you my friend are one of the people, and at all times hold the inherent political power. Thus, when granting permission to an LEO to talk to you, you have just given them the jurisdiction they need to act as a government does.

If you are confronted by an LEO and that government official has not asked permission to talk to you and has clearly assumed such jurisdiction exists to make demands of you, this does not necessarily make it true. This is why it is imperative you not only know your rights, but understand fully the jurisdictional bounds of any LEO. Often times a person is confronted by an LEO who has not asked permission to detain that person based upon some legislation or ordinance that serves as evidence of law.

It is important to understand that legislation is not law, but merely evidence of law. It may give an LEO a pretext by which to detain a person, but if that legislation abrogates and derogates a persons right, then the legislation is not valid, nor is any jurisdiction by the police officer. Take for example the regulation of "jay walking". The ordinance says you have no right to cross the street where ever you decide and must abide by the rules of traffic regulations. If you have a driver license, or state issued I.D. from the DMV, and you offer this form of identification to the officer detaining you for this so called "crime" of "jay walking", this becomes further evidence that the regulation is valid because you have signed a contract stating it is so.

The primary evidence that "jay walking" has no legal weight lies in the fact that if you challenge the regulation, you will be doing so in a "traffic court" where no stenographer exists and all too often the judge acts as prosecutor as well. This is what is known as your typical kangaroo court. It is not due process of law, and if you enter into this court and make a plea, you have further accepted the validity of this kangaroo court, by establishing jurisdiction where none exists.

Are you beginning to understand the problem here, and why it is so important you know the law? If an LEO has no jurisdiction to detain you, then it is important to challenge this jurisdiction. Of course, jurisdiction can be challenged at any time, but the sooner one challenges it, the better off they are. One can not both challenge jurisdiction and remain silent. However, the key to challenging jurisdiction lies in turning the tables on the LEO who is confronting you. Once jurisdiction is challenged, it must be proven that it exists, and that burden of prove lies with the person asserting jurisdiction. Thus, challenging jurisdiction means not answering any questions, and insisting no questions can be answered until jurisdiction has been answered, and proven.

When confronting LEO's in return to their confrontation, it is always best to have some sort of recording device available to keep the record clear. Never agree to any form of questioning, or enter a court that does not have a proper method of recording what is asked and stated as a matter of public record. Challenging jurisdiction also, and often times, encourages LEO's to construe such challenges as "violence" and no one should be surprised at all if by challenging jurisdiction brute force is used to subdue those challenges. However, if brute force is used as a tactic of intimidation, and there never was any jurisdiction, the action construed as "violence" was misinterpreted, and a mistake of fact.

If an LEO acts beyond the scope of their jurisdiction, they have no immunity to protect them from the law, and their actions are criminal, including "acting under color of law", "impersonating a government official", "simulation of legal process", and "obstruction of justice" to name a few crimes. Each state varies on what crimes committed are codified into legislation, but that an officer acting beyond the scope of jurisdiction committed a crime should not be in doubt. The open challenges of jurisdiction incriminate that LEO further, and if there is a verifiable record of these challenges of jurisdiction, that case is cemented against the LEO.

It is not necessary to know the more than 600,000 acts, bills, regulations, and ordinances on the book, but it is imperative one knows the law.

Short answer to your question: No, there are no blanket magical words that will protect you from tyranny. I wish there were, but there isn't, and the battle for freedom continues each and every day.

Probably the most relevant video anyone could put in this thread:



These "rights" we're talking about are only rights if we decide to give the people who are taking them away some kind of consequence that's been absent from them for 200 years, for slowly taking them away.

It's YOUR fault, and YOUR fault, and YOUR fault, and MINE!