Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 61

Thread: I.R.S. Scrutiny Went Beyond the Political

  1. #31
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Last Seen
    08-29-17 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    16,575

    Re: I.R.S. Scrutiny Went Beyond the Political

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    Of course it is. A jury can't see it that way and yse it as evidence to convict, but it is admitting to breaking the law.
    Sorry but no, invoking the 5th is not admission of guilt. Good thing you don't have anything to do with our justice system. Innocent until proven guilty, unless apdst is in charge, then its guilty until proven innocent.

  2. #32
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:46 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,317

    Re: I.R.S. Scrutiny Went Beyond the Political

    Quote Originally Posted by TheNextEra View Post
    Sorry but no, invoking the 5th is not admission of guilt. Good thing you don't have anything to do with our justice system. Innocent until proven guilty, unless apdst is in charge, then its guilty until proven innocent.
    Me, John Q, can see it as an admission of guilt if I choose. I am still free to use that to form an opion.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  3. #33
    Sage
    pbrauer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    11-27-15 @ 03:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,394

    Re: I.R.S. Scrutiny Went Beyond the Political

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    Me, John Q, can see it as an admission of guilt if I choose. I am still free to use that to form an opion.
    Absolutely, you can see it anyway you want. Do you think the framers of the Constitution saw it that way?

  4. #34
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:46 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,317

    Re: I.R.S. Scrutiny Went Beyond the Political

    Quote Originally Posted by pbrauer View Post
    Absolutely, you can see it anyway you want. Do you think the framers of the Constitution saw it that way?
    Of course, hence the 1st Amendment.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  5. #35
    Sage
    pbrauer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    11-27-15 @ 03:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,394

    Re: I.R.S. Scrutiny Went Beyond the Political

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    Of course, hence the 1st Amendment.
    watch_weasel.jpg

  6. #36
    User
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    2

    Re: I.R.S. Scrutiny Went Beyond the Political

    Quote Originally Posted by TheNextEra View Post
    Sorry but no, invoking the 5th is not admission of guilt. Good thing you don't have anything to do with our justice system. Innocent until proven guilty, unless apdst is in charge, then its guilty until proven innocent.
    If I plead the 5th, it means that I believe answering a question or line of questions will cause me to incriminate myself in some wrongdoing. It isn't an admission of guilt to any particular wrongdoing but rather a blanket statement that I did do something I could be prosecuted for. It could in fact be completely unrelated to the proceedings under which I am being asked to answer questions about. Presumably she pleaded the 5th on advice from council because it is not straightforward or all encompassing.

    I found an old article which in MHO seems to still be relevant and here is a quote from it:

    Civil cases are different. In civil actions, however, there is no prosecutor on hand. The issue then shifts to whether "the claimant is confronted by substantial and ‘real,’ and not merely trifling or imaginary, hazards of incrimination." Marchetti v. United States , 390 U.S. 39, 453, 88 S. Ct.. 697, 705, 19 L. Ed. 2d 889 (1968). Because the privilege against self-incrimination applies only in "instances where the witness has reasonable cause to apprehend danger" of criminal liability, the deposing lawyer should assess in advance, in light of what counsel knows about the case, whether the witness has a realistic basis for such a fear. Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486, (1951), quoted in U.S. v. Argomaniz, 925 F. 2d 1349 (11th Cir. 1991).

    The article is a bit long but you can find it on the American Bar Association website: Business Law Today: Taking the 5th: How to pierce the testamonial shield

    So, I am putting forth that pleading the 5th is an admission to guilt. It's just that when someone pleads the 5th you don't have any idea of what that guilt pertains to.

  7. #37
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Last Seen
    08-29-17 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    16,575

    Re: I.R.S. Scrutiny Went Beyond the Political

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    Me, John Q, can see it as an admission of guilt if I choose. I am still free to use that to form an opion.
    Sure you are, just like I am free to criticize. Don't like it, go pound sand.

  8. #38
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Last Seen
    08-29-17 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    16,575

    Re: I.R.S. Scrutiny Went Beyond the Political

    Quote Originally Posted by jbak1972 View Post
    If I plead the 5th, it means that I believe answering a question or line of questions will cause me to incriminate myself in some wrongdoing. It isn't an admission of guilt to any particular wrongdoing but rather a blanket statement that I did do something I could be prosecuted for. It could in fact be completely unrelated to the proceedings under which I am being asked to answer questions about. Presumably she pleaded the 5th on advice from council because it is not straightforward or all encompassing.

    I found an old article which in MHO seems to still be relevant and here is a quote from it:

    Civil cases are different. In civil actions, however, there is no prosecutor on hand. The issue then shifts to whether "the claimant is confronted by substantial and ‘real,’ and not merely trifling or imaginary, hazards of incrimination." Marchetti v. United States , 390 U.S. 39, 453, 88 S. Ct.. 697, 705, 19 L. Ed. 2d 889 (1968). Because the privilege against self-incrimination applies only in "instances where the witness has reasonable cause to apprehend danger" of criminal liability, the deposing lawyer should assess in advance, in light of what counsel knows about the case, whether the witness has a realistic basis for such a fear. Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486, (1951), quoted in U.S. v. Argomaniz, 925 F. 2d 1349 (11th Cir. 1991).

    The article is a bit long but you can find it on the American Bar Association website: Business Law Today: Taking the 5th: How to pierce the testamonial shield

    So, I am putting forth that pleading the 5th is an admission to guilt. It's just that when someone pleads the 5th you don't have any idea of what that guilt pertains to.
    LMAO yeah, you take it as an admission of guilt.....unless it's someone on the right that invokes it right? Oh well, good thing neither you nor apdst have any power in our justice system. To that I am thankful for.

  9. #39
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:46 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,317

    Re: I.R.S. Scrutiny Went Beyond the Political

    Quote Originally Posted by TheNextEra View Post
    Sure you are, just like I am free to criticize. Don't like it, go pound sand.
    You're not using a credible criticism because of your ignorance of the law.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  10. #40
    Canadian Conservative
    CanadaJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    27,182

    Re: I.R.S. Scrutiny Went Beyond the Political

    Quote Originally Posted by windowdressing View Post
    tsk, tsk ,,, come on CJ ... I went back and read what Deuce was responding to and you can't have it both ways ... what you claim to be humorous is what you've been saying about the big-eared guy for some time now ... you despise the guy and you've made that clear in post after post after post .... BTW, you're the last poster who should accuse anyone of lacking a sense of humor ... Really?
    Nice try - I don't despise Obama although I do despise him as President - I have no time for incompetent fools in important offices or positions. By the way, that's not humor - as for my original post, yes indeed, that's humor - all good humor has truth as its basis and often twigs the nerves of those who take themselves too seriously, like you. I'm pretty sure those I was speaking to got it even if you didn't. The fact you think I lack humor means you haven't a clue about either me or humor, making you perhaps a prime candidate as an Obama sychophant, if you aren't already.
    "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley Jr.

Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •