i looked it up. its in the fifth amendment. this scammin con man isnt required to be a witness against himself. he isnt required to take the stand at all.
The 5th Amendment says "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 land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in 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 derpived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."
He can't be required to be a witness against himself, but he can be required to take the stand and give his testimony as to what happened. He can also be required to answer any questions the lawyers ask as long as he isn't compelled to witness against himself.
"Historically, the legal protection against self-incrimination is directly related to the question of torture for extracting information and confessions.[4][5]"
No there aren't. The amendmends mean exactly what they say, nothing more and nothing less. Reading anything into the amendments is exactly like me rephrasing your sentence and saying that it means something else. It clearly means exactly what it says. Twisting and perverting the meaning of it, just as you're doing with the amendments, is disgusting, pathetic, and a lie.
There are too questionable areas. Like when it says that all men are created equal..at the time women weren't considered equal to men. Blacks weren't considered equal, etc. I'm glad you found that disgusting and pathetic.
Yes it is disgusting and pathetic. And I think it's a double standard to say that all men are equal, then they don't consider others as equal as themselves. But that's not my point, nor does it have any bearing on what anybody is talking about. For example, the 2nd Amendmend protects the right to keep and bear arms. Any law that in any way infringes the right to do so is unconstitutional. Saying that I can't carry a gun without a permit is a disgusting perversion of the 2nd Amendment from ...
Yeah, for the most part people should be allowed to carry firearms, although I'm in favor of them applying for licenses for background checks and such.
meaning exactly what it means, into a twisted version of whatever the courts want it to mean. The same applies to all the other Amendments. If you think that we can take the Bill of Rights and pervert it into meaning whatever we want instead of what it says, you're not patriotic, obviously don't have even a simple understanding of freedom or the Constitution, don't have a grasp of the English language, don't have critical thinking skills, and in general are an idiot.
Chill out. I don't like discussing anything with anyone that has to use insults. I never once said we could twist and pervert it. I was just saying that when it was written, the only MEN that were created equal..in the eyes of the government at that time..were white men. It's gotten a lot better since.
At the time the 5th Amendment came into being, Blacks were considered scum, and didn't qualify to being human. White women were only marginally better.
There was never any such protection. The rule (as established in the 5th Amendment) is protection against self incrimination. It doesn't say that the defendant doesn't have to take the stand because he could possibly incriminate himself. He's required to take the stand and answer any questions asked as long as he isn't required to incriminate himself.
Go read your history and the Constitution before you make uninformed and stupid statements like that.
ok professor. thanks for the history lesson. its obvious that you know some shit, or think you know some shit. i was just saying that if he was called to testify, he could refuse after asserting his fifth amendment rights. he obviously was a conman and any testimony he gave would have been incriminating.
So according to your logic, any person can refuse to take the stand. That's the logical conclusion to your reasoning, and it's also totally wrong. People are considered innocent until proven guilty. As far as the court is concerned, he's innocent and any question is fair game unless it is determined to incriminate himself. Then he wouldn't be required to answer it. He could if the wanted to though.
so the prosecution could have called oj simpson to the stand? in what country do you live, albania? so they could have asked him whatever they wanted and he couldnt have asserted his fifth amendment rights? i really dont want to argue with you but your tone is very confrontational and kinda mean.
Yes they could have. And he would've been required to answer all the questions unless it was determined by the court that they violate the 5th Amendment's protection against self incrimination. The way he would've asserted his 5th Amendment rights would've been to petition the court to rule any questions that could be self incriminating as a violation of the 5th Amendment and not allowed in court. It's really not that hard to understand.
Confrontational? Well, that's just to fucking bad.
it's idiots like you who are responsible for the erosion of our rights. You don't know you're rights, so you think that we have "rights" that we don't have. Go read the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and the Federalist Papers before you make such idiodic comments.
Well, the townspeople should have made the investment through a large bank. That way they could have gotten a government bailout using taxpayer money - especially if there was a Republican president because they just love to give away money.
"especially if there was a Republican president because they just love to give away money. "
Really? Shoot, my taxpayer dollars tend to support more welfare mothers during Democratic Presidencies. When a Republican President comes on, welfare tends to get cut some.
lol why is Adam looking at the paper... XD
SpockLover27 4 months ago
Thanks Kyla! I´m glad I don´t have to miss out on that! :)))
Jules251180 7 months ago
@Jules251180 You're welcome Julia : D
Emotional2000 7 months ago
Hi Emotional2000 thanks so much for sharing!!! Do u have "Sylvia" on your channel too?
Jules251180 7 months ago
@Jules251180 Hi again and yes I certainly do! Just type in LHOP Surprise and enjoy the 2 part epi. Julia... :D
Emotional2000 7 months ago
Who is that idiotic woman who keeps saying "I know I heard that?" She said it three times in the courtroom. What a PITA!
Potsie791 10 months ago
Edna mills is is married to nels.
gottaloveaz 11 months ago
The actor who played Adam is so handsome and genuine, I'd like him to be my husband lol. Him or Percival (Issac) Cohen.
mckfrr 1 year ago 3
@mckfrr yes your right Adam (Linwood Boomer) is a great actor, also he had make malcolm in the middle
A great talent
BoomerProduction96 11 months ago
I bet Edgar Mills can't read. Or is dyslexic.
godsfiddler 2 years ago
i looked it up. its in the fifth amendment. this scammin con man isnt required to be a witness against himself. he isnt required to take the stand at all.
ThePolkadotbikini 2 years ago
The 5th Amendment says "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 land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in 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
continued...
sarasmith125 2 years ago
continued...
nor be derpived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."
He can't be required to be a witness against himself, but he can be required to take the stand and give his testimony as to what happened. He can also be required to answer any questions the lawyers ask as long as he isn't compelled to witness against himself.
sarasmith125 2 years ago
whatever happened to the defendant not having to take the stand and possibly implicate himself? didnt they teach adam that in law school?
ThePolkadotbikini 2 years ago
"Historically, the legal protection against self-incrimination is directly related to the question of torture for extracting information and confessions.[4][5]"
godsfiddler 2 years ago
um, what?
ThePolkadotbikini 2 years ago
That explains what the fifth amendment was used for when it was first implemented.
godsfiddler 2 years ago
The fifth amendment, among others, aren't black and white. There are some shady, questionable areas.
godsfiddler 2 years ago
No there aren't. The amendmends mean exactly what they say, nothing more and nothing less. Reading anything into the amendments is exactly like me rephrasing your sentence and saying that it means something else. It clearly means exactly what it says. Twisting and perverting the meaning of it, just as you're doing with the amendments, is disgusting, pathetic, and a lie.
sarasmith125 2 years ago
There are too questionable areas. Like when it says that all men are created equal..at the time women weren't considered equal to men. Blacks weren't considered equal, etc. I'm glad you found that disgusting and pathetic.
godsfiddler 2 years ago
Yes it is disgusting and pathetic. And I think it's a double standard to say that all men are equal, then they don't consider others as equal as themselves. But that's not my point, nor does it have any bearing on what anybody is talking about. For example, the 2nd Amendmend protects the right to keep and bear arms. Any law that in any way infringes the right to do so is unconstitutional. Saying that I can't carry a gun without a permit is a disgusting perversion of the 2nd Amendment from ...
sarasmith125 2 years ago
Yeah, for the most part people should be allowed to carry firearms, although I'm in favor of them applying for licenses for background checks and such.
godsfiddler 2 years ago
meaning exactly what it means, into a twisted version of whatever the courts want it to mean. The same applies to all the other Amendments. If you think that we can take the Bill of Rights and pervert it into meaning whatever we want instead of what it says, you're not patriotic, obviously don't have even a simple understanding of freedom or the Constitution, don't have a grasp of the English language, don't have critical thinking skills, and in general are an idiot.
sarasmith125 2 years ago
Chill out. I don't like discussing anything with anyone that has to use insults. I never once said we could twist and pervert it. I was just saying that when it was written, the only MEN that were created equal..in the eyes of the government at that time..were white men. It's gotten a lot better since.
godsfiddler 2 years ago
At the time the 5th Amendment came into being, Blacks were considered scum, and didn't qualify to being human. White women were only marginally better.
godsfiddler 2 years ago
There was never any such protection. The rule (as established in the 5th Amendment) is protection against self incrimination. It doesn't say that the defendant doesn't have to take the stand because he could possibly incriminate himself. He's required to take the stand and answer any questions asked as long as he isn't required to incriminate himself.
Go read your history and the Constitution before you make uninformed and stupid statements like that.
sarasmith125 2 years ago
ok professor. thanks for the history lesson. its obvious that you know some shit, or think you know some shit. i was just saying that if he was called to testify, he could refuse after asserting his fifth amendment rights. he obviously was a conman and any testimony he gave would have been incriminating.
ThePolkadotbikini 2 years ago
So according to your logic, any person can refuse to take the stand. That's the logical conclusion to your reasoning, and it's also totally wrong. People are considered innocent until proven guilty. As far as the court is concerned, he's innocent and any question is fair game unless it is determined to incriminate himself. Then he wouldn't be required to answer it. He could if the wanted to though.
sarasmith125 2 years ago
so the prosecution could have called oj simpson to the stand? in what country do you live, albania? so they could have asked him whatever they wanted and he couldnt have asserted his fifth amendment rights? i really dont want to argue with you but your tone is very confrontational and kinda mean.
ThePolkadotbikini 2 years ago
Yes they could have. And he would've been required to answer all the questions unless it was determined by the court that they violate the 5th Amendment's protection against self incrimination. The way he would've asserted his 5th Amendment rights would've been to petition the court to rule any questions that could be self incriminating as a violation of the 5th Amendment and not allowed in court. It's really not that hard to understand.
Confrontational? Well, that's just to fucking bad.
sarasmith125 2 years ago
im done with this. lets just agree to disagree, ok, prof?
ThePolkadotbikini 2 years ago
Yes. Happens all the time where one can refuse to take the stand..well, a defendant anyway.
godsfiddler 2 years ago
Happens all the time in courts across America where the defendant chooses not to take the stand.
godsfiddler 2 years ago
Even when they are innocent, they often times choose not to take the stand.
godsfiddler 2 years ago
it's idiots like you who are responsible for the erosion of our rights. You don't know you're rights, so you think that we have "rights" that we don't have. Go read the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and the Federalist Papers before you make such idiodic comments.
sarasmith125 2 years ago
Well, the townspeople should have made the investment through a large bank. That way they could have gotten a government bailout using taxpayer money - especially if there was a Republican president because they just love to give away money.
SmellsLikeTheBarn 3 years ago
"especially if there was a Republican president because they just love to give away money. "
Really? Shoot, my taxpayer dollars tend to support more welfare mothers during Democratic Presidencies. When a Republican President comes on, welfare tends to get cut some.
godsfiddler 2 years ago
:) Thanks again E
xLaura81x 4 years ago 3
You're welcom xLaura81x! : 0
Emotional2000 3 years ago