Time: Tue Apr 01 18:38:27 1997 by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id IAA06358; Tue, 1 Apr 1997 08:38:54 -0700 (MST) by usr05.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id IAA01955; Tue, 1 Apr 1997 08:38:43 -0700 (MST) Date: Tue, 01 Apr 1997 17:37:59 -0800 To: cpetras@stratos.net (Charles Petras) From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: FYI: What fifth amendment right? Status: U "The threat to the federal tax system ...."!!! What have I been saying for 7 years now?? Thanks, Charles. /s/ Paul Mitchell http://www.supremelaw.com copy: Supreme Law School At 03:50 PM 3/31/97 -0500, you wrote: >I ran across an interesting "Note" in a law review the other day, it was >titled > > Constitutional Law--Fifth Amendment--``If and When You Go To Court'' > Language used by Police Officers is an Adequate Rendering of *Miranda* > Warnings--_Duckworth v. Eagan_, 109 S.Ct. 2875 (1989). > 20 Seton Hall L. Rev. 525-546 (1990) > >This note opened with the following maxim: > > "Nemo Tenetur seipsum accusare /1 > >"/1 - _Brown v. Walker_, 161 US 591, 596-97 (1896). No one is bound to >accuse himself. Black's Law Dictionary 937 (5th ed. 1979) > >Further on in Note 7 reference is made to the "custom revenue laws" thus, > >"/7 - See e.g., _Boyd v. United States_, 116 U.S. 616 (1886). In *Boyd*, >custom revenue laws were enacted that forced a defendant to produce certain >documents and materials or have allegations against him taken as true. Id. >at 620. The Court determined that seizing a man's private papers to be >used as evidence of his guilt is equivalent to requiring self-incrimination >and therefore prohibited by the fifth amendment. Id. at 633. The court >noted that the fourth and fifth amendments shared an ``intimate relation'' >because unreasonable searches and seizures are usually made to compel a man >to incriminate himself. Id. > "Analyzing the *Boyd* holding, the Court in _Bram v. United States_, 168 >U.S. 532 (1897), noted: > "[T]he provision of the Fifth Amendment securing one accused > against being compelled to testify against himself, and those > of the Fourth Amendment protecting against unreasonable searches > and seizures...demonstrate that both of these Amendments contemplated > perpetuating, in their full efficacy, by means of a constitutional > provision, principals of humanity and civil liberty, which had been > secured in the mother country only after years of struggle, so as to > implant them in our institutions in the fullness of their integrity, > free from the possibilities of future legislative change. >"*Bram*, 168 U.S. at 544 (citing *Boyd*, 116 U.S. at 616). > >Now, contrast that with what was said in the below cited law review article >that deals with making a fifth amendment claim: > > THE TAX PROTEST CASES: A POLICY APPROACH TO > INDIVIDUAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS > 19 Calif. Western L. Rev. 351-372 (1983) > > "... The tax protester in _United States v. Carlson_ [617 F.2d 518 (9th >Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1010 (1980)] met the substantive standard >[_U.S. v. Sullivan_, 274 U.S. 259 (1927)] but was denied his fifth >amendment privilege wholly on policy grounds. The protestor in _United >States v. Lee_ [102 S.Ct. 1051 (1982)] had a much more meritorious claim >yet the threat to the federal tax system of a decision favoring first >amendment rights required the application of Carlson-type policy >considerations. > >at page 372. > >So the bottom line is that if money is involved (as in they saying that you >owe them) you have no fifth amendment "privilege" because that isn't govt >policy! > > ### > > >* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * > > ``Although we give lip service to the notion of freedom, we know that > government is no longer the servant of the people but, at last, become > the people's master. We have stood by like timid sheep while the wolf > killed -- first the weak, then the strays, then those on the outer > edges of the flock, until at last the entire flock belonged to the > wolf.'' -- Gerry Spence, From Freedom to Slavery > >* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * > > > ======================================================================== Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. : Counselor at Law, federal witness email: [address in tool bar] : Eudora Pro 3.0.1 on Intel 586 CPU web site: http://www.supremelaw.com : library & law school registration ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this ========================================================================
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail