Godlike Productions - Discussion Forum
Users Online Now: 2,160 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 1,360,224
Pageviews Today: 1,951,926Threads Today: 538Posts Today: 10,383
03:53 PM


Back to Forum
Back to Forum
Back to Thread
Back to Thread
REPORT ABUSIVE REPLY
Message Subject \"You're a FUCKING Coward!" - Man Lets Loose On Austin Cop Who Detains Him For Cop Watching
Poster Handle Anonymous Coward
Post Content
BELLIGERENT


ONLY BELLIGERENTS HAVE RIGHTS !


In U.S. vs. JOHNSON (76 Fed, Supp. 538),

(speaking of YOUR 5th amendment protected right against self-incrimination...)

Federal District Court Judge James Alger Fee ruled that:


"The privilege against self-incrimination is

neither accorded to the passive resistant,

not to the person who is ignorant of his rights,

nor to one who is indifferent thereto.

It is a fighting clause.

Its benefits can be retained only by sustained combat.

It cannot be claimed by attorney or solicitor.

It is valid only when insisted upon by a belligerent claimant in person.


The one who is persuaded by honeyed words or moral suasion

to testify or produce documents rather than make a last ditch stand,

simply loses the protection. . . .


He must refuse to answer or produce,

and test the matter in contempt proceedings,

or by habeas corpus."

McAlister vs. Henkle, 201 U. S. 90, 26 S.Ct. 385, 50 L. Ed. 671;
Commonwealth vs. Shaw, 4 Cush . 594, 50 Am. Dec. 813;
Orum vs. State, 38 Ohio App. 171, 175 N.E. 876.


hf
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 24606417


BELLIGERENT


ONLY BELLIGERENTS HAVE RIGHTS !


In U.S. vs. JOHNSON (76 Fed, Supp. 538),

(speaking of YOUR 5th amendment protected right against self-incrimination...)

Federal District Court Judge James Alger Fee ruled that:


"The privilege against self-incrimination is

neither accorded to the passive resistant,

not to the person who is ignorant of his rights,

nor to one who is indifferent thereto.

It is a fighting clause.

Its benefits can be retained only by sustained combat.

It cannot be claimed by attorney or solicitor.

It is valid only when insisted upon by a belligerent claimant in person.


The one who is persuaded by honeyed words or moral suasion

to testify or produce documents rather than make a last ditch stand,

simply loses the protection. . . .


He must refuse to answer or produce,

and test the matter in contempt proceedings,

or by habeas corpus."

McAlister vs. Henkle, 201 U. S. 90, 26 S.Ct. 385, 50 L. Ed. 671;
Commonwealth vs. Shaw, 4 Cush . 594, 50 Am. Dec. 813;
Orum vs. State, 38 Ohio App. 171, 175 N.E. 876.


hf
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 24606417


Inspiring!
 
Please verify you're human:




Reason for reporting:







GLP