Constitutional Toilet Paper

Its a violation of the spirit of the constitution rather than the literal interpretation. The courts insisting a man can be forced to testify against himself is a literal violation of the constitution and a court finding him in contempt of court because he forgot his password is a violation of the spirit of the constitution. Socrates set the precedent when he was accused of heresy and corrupting children and, for three days while they tortured him, all he would say is "The only thing I know is that I know nothing". The precedent he set is that people are presumed innocent until proven guilty and cannot be compelled to testify against themselves anymore than you can torture a confession out of someone like the Spanish Inquisition. Likewise, banning immigrants from a country you are not officially at war with violates the same principle of innocent until proven guilty and promotes the idea of "guilty by association". Again, its the mob mentality of kill them all and let God sort them out.

 

Trust me, I am not a fan of Obama who merely contributed to this mess in my opinion, but that certainly doesn't make me a fan of Trump either. They are merely two different sides of the same coin as far as I'm concerned. Without strong taboos against violations of basic constitutional and human rights (like a free press, all people being treated as equal before the law, and innocent until proven guilty) a country is reduced to might makes right which is the mob mentality and, at best, has the vestiges of a functional democracy. An estimated 3,900 people have been lynched in the US, yet, the legal system had to introduce laws that allowed the federal government to intervene because nobody was being prosecuted for murder. Similarly, there were some 7,000 people involuntarily sterilized by the state of Virginia and the supreme court upheld the practice with quite a few other states showing intense interest in starting their own sterilization programs. The only reason it was discontinued is because it became a serious embarrassment to the state when the news got out they were blatantly practicing eugenics in violation of constitutional and human rights and merely using pseudo-science as a cover. Without strong taboos against such things democracy is impossible because the courts and legislators will pass any laws they want or justify anything however they prefer.

 

Lois Lerner comes to mind

 

You can not force a defendant to take the stand. Most people accused do not take the stand. The choice is yours. Take it or not. Plead the 5th.

I can not say that Trump is the same as obama, just on the other side of the same coin. Perhaps he is. There was a lot of hope with Obama, the people expect disappointment now after all the broken promises after 8 years of it.

Obama created a huge mess to clean up. I don't know if anyone can clean it up or if recovery is possible, but obama created a country full of people who see no hope, people who are hopeless.

 

The courts can do whatever the hell they feel like doing and frequently do. Like any politician the words coming out of their mouths never have to jive with what they are actually doing and the courts and legislators in America are infamous for violating every treaty ever made with Native American tribes and laughing in their faces, for involuntarily sterilizing and lobotomizing countless people, and for refusing to find any lynch mobs guilty of murder. They have already compelled a man to testify against himself and to deny the fact is play the game of hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil and make a mockery of democracy and our own humanity.

 

If you are subpoenaed you can plead the 5th on the
grounds that you might incriminate yourself.

At any time a witness can refuse to answer a question
By claiming protection under the 5th.

A Priest. Psychiatrist, therapist and attourney can not be forced
To testify as the info they have garnered was priviledge informatiom
And upon telling the truth you are guaranteed to one of the above
You are guaranteed no reprisals.

If you have an illness you can not be forced to testify.
This includes unable to remember the events.

You can not be called to testify against a spouse or partner.

If you turn states evident in order to get yourself off,
Then yes you have to, but that is a choice made by the individual.

If you don't want to be subpoenaed; don't come forward as a witness
or claim from the start to know absolutely nothing.

Can you give me a case whereby someone had
to testify in which one of the above did not apply?

 

Are you from another planet or what? This thread is about a court that just found a man in contempt for refusing to testify against himself by providing his password for his harddrive. Of course, for all I know the guy is a total asshole who traffics in child porn, but they brazenly violated the constitution and the supreme court upheld the decision.

This is the same bullshit happening across the country with, for example, every cop in the country now being able to use warrantless wiretaps and searches. In Arizona, the courts decided the cops can just say they smelled pot and bust down your down at any time. When the pigs got the wrong address, they shot a veteran of two wars 32 times in front of his own mother as he shoved his family in the closet and grabbed his assault rifle. Of course, none of the cops were found guilty because the courts themselves, including the supreme court, had decided the constitution is merely an expensive piece of toilet paper.

 

I apologize, I am new to this forum.
When I pressed on the link it took me to the
last page. No need to insult and suggest I am from
another planet, although I would like to be.
I assumed people were simply complaining, my bad.

Now that I am on board with this event. Thank you.

He is lying, but yes this is wrong, although he did share images on the
External hard drives with his sister who I believe reported him.
The prosecution need to hire a professional specialist who can crack those ex hd.

judicial activism is what is going on, the judge must be
a leftist and following his heart not the law.
Which really become prevalent during Obama's reign
judges started to become lawmakers because Obama
could not get anything past congress.
Bleeding hearts have no place in the law.

 

Calling a judge who ignores 2,400 years of legal precedent and the US constitution a leftist is flat out insane. The constitution and legal precedent are there to prevent the wealthy and the majority from becoming a lynch mob attacking anyone at random. In other words, the constitution is there to prevent the reactionary right wing from stomping all over everybody else. All of the protections are there to prevent both the government, the wealthy, and the majority from doing things such as forming lynch mobs that are never prosecuted for murder. The assumption is that the wealthy and the majority can and will take care of themselves and it is everyone else that requires taboos and laws to prevent them from doing whatever they hell they want and inciting civil wars and revolution.

There are no serious left wing politics left in America which is precisely the problem because there is nobody left to stop the mindless mobs and wealthy from doing whatever the hell they want. In over ten years of my asking not a single person has been able to tell me the simple distinction between a lynch mob and a democracy which is a clear sign that nobody in America today even knows the meaning of democracy anymore and republicans are running around claiming Big Bird is a commie conspiracy.

 

Themnax is the one from another planet.

 

I'm from another karmic universe altogether.

 

I'm not the political watchdog like some on here, so can you tell me what laws you're referring to? I know their rulings based on their interpretation and upholding of the Constitution has led to changes in law, but what laws did they flat out make?