Category Archives: Fifth Amendment

In the early days of the Civil War, President Lincoln knew that Washington, D.C., was crawling with traitors to the Republic. Together with Congress, Lincoln required a stronger oath of office that all appointed and elected government officials were required to sign, one version of which was called The Ironclad Test Oath.

As the war ended, some changes were made to the oath to accommodate efforts to bring the Confederates back into the Union. But much of that Civil War oath has survived, and it is still part of the oath that all members of Congress and appointed high officials take today.

I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic are words that were necessary to weed out traitorous Northerners and seditious Southerners. They are still the opening words of the oath, and they have served us well.

American officials do not swear allegiance to any man or woman or office holder. They swear to uphold the Constitution and the rule of law. And those oaths soon will be tested as the bipartisan Jan. 6 congressional committee continues to investigate official involvement in the domestic terrorist attack on the Capitol.

Already, some former Trump administration officials have declared they will not honor the committees subpoenas. President Trump himself has urged four of his former aides to ignore subpoenas to testify or provide documents, and a letter from Trumps lawyers assured them that they are shielded by executive privilege.

All of this will be sorted out by the courts. But any former or current officials who have sworn to defend our Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic will have a very hard time squaring their refusal to testify with their oath of office.

Trump himself has been clear about his judgment of those who have refused to cooperate with official investigations in the past. When commenting on those who have asserted their Fifth Amendment rights and refused to testify, he said, If you are not guilty of a crime, what do you need immunity for?

And the oath of office will be put to the test on the other side, too. For the congressional committee members and the United States attorney general to honor their oaths, they will have to do everything in their power to enforce the subpoenas and compel the testimony of those with inside knowledge of the attack.

That will mean seeking civil and criminal sanctions against those who refuse to testify. Otherwise, they will have failed to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

During the police attacks on protesters outside the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago, the crowd repeatedly chanted, The whole world is watching. This is another one of those times.

Our European allies are questioning our resolve to lead the free world; China continues to challenge us economically and militarily; and Vladimir Putin is biding his time and waiting to see how this turns out.

In the balance, we will see if we are still a nation of laws whose leaders are part of our constitutional order. And all that will turn on whether former and current officials honor the oath they took when assuming office. The stakes are high.

Read more from the original source:
Joseph Sabino Mistick: Jan. 6 investigation will test oath of office - TribLIVE

Summary

Steve Bannon is going to defy the January 6th committee subpoena. A Florida school board member who supports masks has been harassed by anti- mask protesters. Donald Trump`s company is now a criminal defendant in a tax fraud case in Manhattan. According to federal rules, The Trump Organization can now be barred from doing business with the federal government.

LAWRENCE O`DONNELL, MSNBC HOST: Good evening, Rachel.

And I was listening to your reporting on what`s going on in Alaska, and you showed the video of people in these meetings threatening these elected officials who are considering how much mask mandating do we have to do and what situations. We`re going to be joined tonight by Jennifer Jenkins who has gone viral in the last 24 hours on this issue. She`s a school board member in Florida.

And what she has endured by simply by believing that masks are a pretty good idea to try to limit the spread of COVID in public schools, what she and her daughter, her family have endured is just horrific, and she finally spoke about it for the first time yesterday. She`s going to join us tonight.

And I just marvel at the bravery of these people. The astonishing thing in your reporting is at the end of everything that we see here, they then vote 9-1 in favor of masks and against the wishes of the people who were threatening them with violence.

RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC HOST, "TRMS": That`s right, and public service is sort of always a small H form of heroism, always. To be a public servant is to do a good thing by the world. But it should not actually take literal bravery. It should not take physical bravery to do these kinds of jobs, to be a city councilor, to be a school board member, to do these things.

But the way the political right has dealt with COVID is by bringing threat, including physical intimidation and physical harm very, very, very close to the surface almost immediately for the public servants who are dealing with these questions just as part of their job in public service, and it is -- I saw the footage that you`re referring to from your guests tonight. I`m really looking forward to what she has to say about it.

She shouldn`t have to be that brave to do that job. That`s on us as a country.

O`DONNELL: Exactly, exactly. And no one signing up for the school board was ever signing up for this kind of thing, and so --

MADDOW: That`s right.

O`DONNELL: That`s the other part of the marvel of it is the -- people continuing in these jobs in the face of this.

MADDOW: Yeah.

O`DONNELL: I mean, they are in a sense part of that first responder force that the people who must come up with ways of responding to COVID because of their jobs right away, and people involved in the schools have all been part of that, and now, with the school year underway, successfully, there`s this -- instead of celebrating how successfully the school year has gone so far, there is all this rage.

MADDOW: Rage and threat and literal violence and there`s going to have to be both accountability for it but there`s also got to be strategies to deescalate this stuff, that will have to involve responsible figures on the right. That`s what we`re not seeing yet.

O`DONNELL: Yeah, we`ll have to be very patient waiting for them to emerge. That`s the one that`s going to happen.

Thank you, Rachel.

MADDOW: Thanks, Lawrence.

O`DONNELL: Thank you.

Well, Steve Bannon is promising to become a criminal again tomorrow. But he won`t have Donald Trump to pardon him this time. In the last months of the Trump presidency, Steve Bannon was arrested and charged with federal crimes for the way he embezzled money that he raised from pathetically gullible Trump voters who actually gave money to Steve Bannon because Steve Bannon lied to them and told them that he would use that money to privately build the wall on the southern border that the president of the United States Donald Trump was not able to build.

Steve Bannon would build it if you just sent him your money. Steve Bannon defrauded Trump voters, got caught by the feds, was charged with those crimes, but didn`t have to go to trial in federal court because Donald Trump pardoned him, pardoned him for defrauding Donald Trump`s own voters.

Steve Bannon has been subpoenaed by the special House committee investigating the attack on the capitol to testify tomorrow, and he has already become the first person in history who is trying to hide behind presidential executive privilege even though he wasn`t even working in the White House or the government during the period that the committee is investigating.

[22:05:07]

He was a private citizen.

Donald Trump has become the first private citizen and former president in history to try to exert executive privilege in a congressional investigation and felt today once again, President Biden smacked down that false and illegal claim by Donald Trump.

The White House released a letter today that was actually written last week to the archivist of the United States where all of the presidential records are kept. That letter says President Biden does not uphold the former president`s assertion of privilege. President Biden instructed the archivist to provide the House committee with all, all of the information that the committee has requested.

Last week, Steve Bannon`s lawyer sent a letter to the committee saying since these privileges belong to President Trump and not to Mr. Bannon, until these issues are resolved, Mr. Bannon is legally unable to comply with your subpoena requests for documents and testimony.

Like all Trump world lawyers, Steve Bannon`s lawyer is one of those lawyers where you wonder if he really finished law school. He is so wildly wrong.

Executive privilege no longer belongs to Donald Trump. It now belongs to President Joe Biden, and so when Steve Bannon does not show up for his deposition tomorrow, the House committee is going to recommend to the Justice Department that Steve Bannon face criminal charges for contempt of Congress.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA): I think that Steve Bannon has been pretty public about his unwillingness to cooperate in any way and from my point of view, it`s not up to him. He is required to show up. He`s required to testify, and if he doesn`t and doesn`t have a reason, a legal reason to proffer, which he doesn`t, then we will hold him in criminal contempt and we will refer that to the Justice Department for prosecution. That will be true of the other witnesses as well if they do not comply.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

O`DONNELL: That was Adam Schiff on this program last night. He`s a member of that committee. Liz Cheney and other members of the committee have also said that the committee is unanimously supportive of enforcing its subpoenas with criminal contempt charges. The committee made news at the close of business today by revealing that they have subpoenaed former Acting Assistant Attorney General Jeffrey Clark.

In a letter to Clark accompanying the subpoena, the committee said that they have credible evidence that you attempted to involve the Department of Justice in efforts to interrupt the peaceful transfer of power. You proposed that the department send a letter to state legislators in Georgia and other states suggesting that they delay certification of their election results and hold a press conference announcing that the department was investigating allegations of voter fraud. These proposals were rejected by department leadership as both lacking a factual basis and inconsistent with the department`s institutional role.

Lacking a factual basis, so Jeffrey Clark knows that the committee already knows that he was lying about the election in discussions inside the justice department and inside the White House. Jeffrey Clark is ordered to testify in a deposition on October 29th, and that gives him about two weeks to practice invoking the Fifth Amendment.

The committee obtained direct incriminating evidence against Jeffrey Clark today in the testimony of Jeff Rosen, who was Donald Trump`s final acting attorney general. If Jeff Rosen told the House committee the same things that he told the Senate Judiciary Committee about Jeffrey Clark, then Jeffrey Clark is living in fear of criminal charges tonight of attempted election fraud and conspiracy to commit election fraud.

Joining our discussion, Jill Wine-Banks, former assistant Watergate prosecutor, and Matt Miller, former spokesman for Attorney General Eric Holder, both are MSNBC contributors.

And, Jill, I want to begin with you and I want to begin with this key question that I think has left a lot of us confused. Why were you so effective in getting compliance to subpoenas against President Nixon and his administration during the Watergate investigation? And the Democrats in Congress have been so ineffective in relative terms in pursuit of the same kind of subpoenas against team Trump?

[22:10:05]

JILL WINE-BANKS, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: It`s really a very simple answer. Because President Nixon, despite his crimes and despite all the wrong that he did, actually believed in our system of laws and government. And when confronted with a Supreme Court decision, he agreed to comply.

So he never tried to stop people. He did try to claim executive privilege, but the Supreme Court said, no, you have to balance it. And in this case, the needs for the criminal investigation far outweigh the need for executive privilege.

And, of course, it is clear that even in the case cited by Bannon`s lawyer, this is a privilege of the current incumbent. It goes with the office. It does not go with the former office holder, so there is no possible executive privilege for any of the people and maybe most especially for Bannon who never was at the time of these conversations a part of the White House.

But even if he was, there wouldn`t be a legitimate claim of executive privilege. And so I think we have to look at the fact that the Republicans now are willing to evade all laws and to just simply stone wall in a way that is completely contrary to our democracy.

O`DONNELL: Wasn`t there another element in the enforcement of your subpoenas in the 1970s, 1974 in the Watergate investigation, and that was the speed of the courts. I mean, it seemed like you would issue a subpoena, the subpoena for the tapes, for example, the presidential tapes, that case went right up to the Supreme Court of the United States, got a ruling, and the ruling was enforced, and it seemed to take a matter of weeks to go from subpoena to the United States Supreme Court to a final ruling?

WINE-BANKS: It did. We`re clearly living in an alternative universe now. We issued the second subpoena for 64 tapes for the trial on April 16th. It was argued in the Supreme Court July 21st, I believe, and on July 24th, the Supreme Court ruled in our favor.

We got the tapes, and by August 9th, so we`re talking about days later, the Republicans had gone to the White House and said we saw the tapes, we heard them. We cannot support you. If you do not resign, you will be convicted in a Senate trial.

So that`s why it happened from April, August 9th he was out of office, and it could happen again if the Supreme Court would stop all of the political nonsense that they have been engaged in, if they would take this seriously. This is a case that cannot be left to linger for years, as it has recently. There have been other subpoenas and it has taken up to six years for a decision.

That can`t be allowed to happen because justice delayed is justice denied, and this delay would be a killer because we need to get this information to prevent any possibility of this happening again. We need the facts that are being asked. Everything that has been subpoenaed, everything requested in the letters seems very clearly relevant to legislative actions.

O`DONNELL: Matt, it seems Jeff Clark, my guess about him is that it`s very likely that he will show up to testify. It`s also very likely he will take the Fifth Amendment to virtually every question.

MATT MILLER, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: I think that`s likely. I think certainly he`s going to have to show up and testify. He really is on an island by himself. If you look at the way he was behaving in those final weeks.

He was acting completely beyond his authority. He`s supposed to be in charge of environmental crimes and was conducting his own investigations or supposed investigations into voter fraud. He was violating multiple department rules, having contacts with the White House, having contacts with members of Congress, both of which he was not allowed to do on his own, and of course violating his oath to the Constitution by trying to overturn the election.

And he really is, you know, out there by himself because, you know, we`ve seen Jeffrey Rosen and we`ve seen one of Jeffrey Rosen`s subordinates testifying before Congress because the Justice Department has already told Rosen and Clark and other DOJ officials from this time period that the department is waiving all of the relevant privileges. Usually the department blocks its officials from coming up and testifying for matters like this, and they`ve waived all of them. That`s true for Jeffrey Clark.

So, you know, if he wants to avoid a criminal referral and be charged with criminal contempt of Congress, you know, he needs to come up and comply with the subpoena and testify because otherwise he`s in blatant contempt of Congress. Now, to your point, if he wants to take the fifth, of course, that`s his right to -- that`s his right.

[22:15:05]

He can do so, but he doesn`t have the ability to just blow off the subpoena like he seems to want to do.

O`DONNELL: So, Matt, one of the changes in the 21st century compared to the Nixon era is just how breathtakingly slow the courts are, at the district court level, the appeals court level on all of these enforcement issues on congressional subpoenas. What about -- the Justice Department will now be tested when the Congress refers to the Justice Department for criminal prosecution of contempt of Congress. We don`t know how quickly the Merrick Garland Justice Department will be able to move on this, and in, you know -- in the past these kinds of things have been able to be handled very, very quickly.

What is your expectation of a timetable at the Justice Department for this?

MILLER: I would expect they could move pretty quickly. Look, the Justice Department has a rule that they will not prosecute someone for contempt of Congress if they are refusing to testify because there has been a legitimate claim of executive privilege by the president of the United States. It ought to be pretty easy for the attorney general to pick up the phone, call the White House counsel and say, Dana, did the president -- President Biden invoke executive privilege for Jeff Clark or Steve Bannon or any of these other within witnesses? And when the answer is no, as we know the answer is, it`s a pretty straightforward prosecution.

And I actually think the Justice Department could do more, by just making it clear that if you are not the subject of an executive privilege assertion by the sitting president of the United States, not Donald Trump but Joe Biden, and you blow off the congressional subpoena and refuse to testify, you are not immune from prosecution and we will take those referrals very seriously.

These witnesses are acting with impunity because for years they got away with it with no consequences, and if DOJ sent that kind of signal right now, I think you`d see some of these people coming up and testifying even before it got to a subpoena and not kind of playing chicken with Congress and playing chicken with the Justice Department the way they`re doing now.

O`DONNELL: Matt Miller and Jill Wine-Banks, thank you both for starting us off tonight, really appreciate it. Thank you.

And coming up, Zerlina Maxwell and Alex Wagner will be joining our discussion. But, first, we`ll be joined by someone who went viral this the last 24 hours by showing us just how bad the anti-mask protesters can be, just how vicious and how much bravery and strength it takes for one school board member in Florida to stand up to them. Jennifer Jenkins will join us and we`ll tell you what she and her daughter have had to endure, and it is much, much worse than you think. That`s next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[22:22:06]

O`DONNELL: Our next guest, Jennifer Jenkins, has now had the experience of going viral in the last 24 hours. When I saw the video of Jennifer Jenkins speaking at a school board meeting in Florida, I was in awe of her courage and her calm because Jennifer Jenkins thinks that masks are a good way to limit the spread of COVID-19 in public schools. Jennifer Jenkins and her family, her daughter, have been targeted for nothing less than public torture by Florida`s anti-mask fanatics.

In Florida, it is the Department of Children and Families that investigates child abuse, the DCF. No one knew that the DCF was going to come up at a public meeting of the school board in Brevard County, Florida, southeast of Orlando. The school board discussed whether it would be possible to allow home coming dances this year. The home coming dances have been postponed indefinitely because of COVID-19.

When the agenda turned to a resolution about threats against school board members, Jennifer Jenkins found herself talking about something she never wanted to talk about publicly.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JENNIFER JENKINS, BOARD MEMBERS: In spite of what people believe, I am not opposed to people practicing their First Amendment rights, even when it`s outside of my home on a public property. I`m not. I`m not. I think it`s a silly method. I think it`s ineffective. It doesn`t move me or motivate me in any way, but I`m not opposed to it.

What I reject is this effort to create fear and division in the community that leads to credible threats of violence against me and my family, and there`s a lot of things that I haven`t shared with all of you up here.

I`ve tried not to talk about this stuff publicly. I don`t reject people coming here and speaking their voice. They do it all the time. We don`t stop them from doing that. I don`t reject them standing outside my home.

I reject them following me around in a car, following my car around. I reject them saying that they`re coming for me, that I need to beg for mercy. I reject that when they are using their First Amendment rights on public property, they`re also going behind my home and brandishing their weapons to my neighbors.

That they`re making false DCF claims against me to my daughter, that I have to take a DCF investigator to her play date to go underneath her clothing and check for burn marks. That`s what I`m against, which is a credible threat and calculated.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

O`DONNELL: Joining us now is Jennifer Jenkins, a member of the Brevard County, Florida, school board.

Thank you very much for joining us tonight. I am very, very sorry for what you have endured and for what you`re here to tell us about tonight.

[22:25:07]

How long has this kind of harassment and public torture been going on?

JENKINS: Thank you so much for having me, first and foremost.

You know, to be honest with you, this is something that started within Brevard County back in April for me. It started with a minority group of individuals who are part of an organization that was founded by my Republican opponent, who have decided that their voices are going to be used to terrorize me.

And you know, the majority of people support me, and they reach out to me and they tell me that they`re there for me and they support the things that I stand for. But unfortunately, it doesn`t just take -- it just takes one person to terrorize you.

And when there`s no consequences for it, it becomes the norm, and it becomes acceptable and to be perfectly honest with you, I feel like this is the new pandemic here in the state of Florida for us to focus on. It`s going across the nation as well.

Our school board members and our educators are being attacked and threatened for doing what they were elected to do, what I was elected to do, to keep our students and our staff safe and what educators were hired to do to protect our children.

O`DONNELL: You`re in a state where 60 percent support what you`re doing, 60 percent support requiring students, teachers, and staff to wear masks in school, but you`re in a Republican area where that polling might be very different.

You left out a lot of details of what`s happened to you that I know about because of conversations that we`ve had with you today including some of the vandalism that occurs at your home. They`ve attacked your plants and your trees. It`s a very active kind of thing. It took the police an hour and 40 minutes to come to your home one time while one of these things was going on.

What is it like to be in your home with your daughter watching that stuff?

JENKINS: It`s really difficult. The last protest where they came outside of my home, again, I`m not against people using their First Amendment rights. They`re on public property. That`s okay.

But I`m against them terrorizing my family. There was 25 individuals standing outside my home in a small beach town in Florida. They were there for hours.

Police presence didn`t come right away. It started to get dark out. It was time for me to put my daughter to bed, and as I`m sitting trying to read her a story, these individuals are walking right by her bedroom saying vile things.

And as I followed them around the corner to where their cars were parked into a parking lot right behind my home, police presence wasn`t following them until I was there. They got in my face. They coughed in my face telling me they were going to give me COVID. They swung flags in my face, nearly missing me by a couple inches. They said horrible disgusting things to my neighbors.

I eventually went back inside, but they brandished their weapons in the parking lot in front of my neighbors, my daughter to this day at least twice a week, mommy are those mean people going to be outside again. It`s been really difficult.

Yeah, they did, they vandalized my property. They wrote obscenities in my grass with weed killer. They cut down some of my plants. They did the DCF claim which was really difficult for me. I had to take the DCF investigator to a play date of somebody who I am just an acquaintance of, I don`t even know very well.

So, here I am a school board member walking back to a play date I had just dropped her off to with a DCF investigator with no announcement for them to look underneath her clothes to see if she has burns. It`s a really uncomfortable position to be in, and unfortunately even though the police department is doing their best to have subpoenas sent to the state level to figure out who made that unfounded claim, there`s only so far they can go.

And so, currently, I still have a document that says I had an unfounded DCF claim against me. It`s not something that`s going to go away.

O`DONNELL: What did you tell your daughter about that incident with the DCF during that play date?

JENKINS: You know, the DCF investigator was fantastic. And so, she had no idea what was going on. I really appreciated that person understanding this was very unlikely an unfounded claim. The police department came with her and let her know what`s going on.

She handled it really, really well like a pro, and I was really happy that she was there.

[22:29:51]

O`DONNELL: Why did you want to become a member of the school board and do you want to continue as a member of the school board?

JENKINS: I ran to become a member of the school board because I`m an educator. My husband`s an educator, and my daughter just turned five years old. She just entered kindergarten.

See original here:
Transcript: The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell, 10/13/21 - MSNBC

An actress who once appeared on The Cosby Show is accusing Bill Cosby of drugging and raping her in a new civil filing.

Lili Bernard, an actress featured in a single episode of The Cosby Show, is asking the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey to award her $100 million on four counts alleging Cosby assaulted her, battered her, inflicted emotional distress, and falsely imprisoned her in 1990 in Atlantic City, New Jersey, as well as an additional $125 million in punitive damages.

"Ms. Bernard sustained permanent injuries, including, but not limited to, post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, depression, emotional distress, and physical sequelae thereof, nightmares, flashbacks, inability to sleep, severe physical pain and suffering, severe emotional pain and suffering, embarrassment, and multiple other permanent injuries," the filing said.

BILL COSBY RELEASED FROM PRISON AFTER SEXUAL ASSAULT CONVICTION VACATED BY PENNSYLVANIA SUPREME COURT

After offering to mentor Bernard in July 1990, Cosby brought the actress to Atlantic City the following month by telling her he would arrange a meeting with a producer who would advance her career, "knowingly and intentionally" doing so "for the purpose of drugging and then sexually abusing Ms. Bernard," the lawsuit said. The meeting continued past the meal and moved to a dining room of a hotel suite, where Cosby prepared a "supposedly non-alcoholic beverage" for Bernard, who began to "feel symptoms of dizziness, an urge to vomit, and weakness" after consumption, the filing continued.

"Daddy's going to get you something to feel better," Cosby told Bernard, who later vomited and lost consciousness, the filing continued.

Bernard then dipped in and out of consciousness, during which she awoke to find herself being undressed, raped, and unable to move, the lawsuit alleged.

Andrew Wyatt, Cosby's spokesman, said Cosby maintains his innocence and emphasized the statute of limitations had passed.

"This is just another attempt to abuse the legal process, by opening up the flood gates for people, who never presented an ounce of evidence, proof, truth and/or facts, in order to substantiate their alleged allegations," Wyatt said in a statement Thursday, according to multiple outlets. "Mr. Cosby continues to maintain steadfast in his innocence and will vigorously fight ANY alleged allegations waged against him and is willing and able to take this fight to the highest court in these United States of America."

After being accused of sexually assaulting Andrea Constad in 2004, Cosby reached an agreement with then-Montgomery County District Attorney Bruce Castor to waive his right to plead the Fifth Amendment and offer testimony in exchange for only civil proceedings. But when the depositions were unsealed in 2015, the new prosecutor used them to bring criminal claims against Cosby. An initial trial in 2015 was deadlocked, resulting in a second trial, where five other Cosby accusers were brought in to testify against him for unrelated incidents.

Cosby was handed a guilty verdict on criminal charges in 2018, and he had served two years of his three- to 10-year sentence when the Pennsylvania Supreme Court determined the proceedings violated Cosby's agreement with Castor. Cosby was then released from prison on June 30.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

At least one other Cosby Show star celebrated the court's ruling. Phylicia Rashad, who played Cosby's wife, celebrated the ruling on social media, saying, "FINALLY!!!! A terrible wrong is being righted- a miscarriage of justice is corrected!"

Bernard played Mrs. Minifield in one episode of the show and also guest-starred on Seinfeld and Golden Years.

Original Location: Actress accuses Bill Cosby of drugging and raping her in new civil suit

Washington Examiner Videos

Continue reading here:
Actress accuses Bill Cosby of drugging and raping her in new civil suit - Colorado Springs Gazette

By MICHAEL H. SAHN //

The United States Supreme Court has convened for what promises to be a monumental new term, filled with cases touching on the most divisive and controversial issues confronting our nation.

Abortion rights, gun control and the separation of church and state specifically, taxpayer aid for students attending religious schools are all on the agenda for SCOUTSs first full term with its current 6-3 conservative majority, and the courts return to in-person arguments after a year of virtual hearings.

The term commenced against a backdrop of eroding support for SCOTUS as an institution. In a recent Gallup poll, only 40 percent of Americans approve of the courts work, a new low; in July, the court had a 49 percent approval rating, and as recently as 2020, its approval rating was 58 percent.

The latest poll was taken after the court declined to block the controversial Texas abortion law, allowed college vaccine mandates to proceed and denied the extension of a federal moratorium on evictions during the pandemic. Those are obviously conservative red flags, but the courts approval has declined among people of all political affiliations, mirroring a general decline of confidence in the federal judiciary.

Michael Sahn: SCOTUS notice.

In separate writings and interviews, Justices Breyer, Thomas and Alito have publicly defended the court against charges of partisanship; Justice Barrett also refuted that SCOTUS is a bunch of partisan hacks. The justices are sensitive to criticism that their decisions are based on their policy preferences rather than judicial philosophy.

Chief Justice Roberts will need to steer the court through these challenges, since the courts decisions in this term will have broad effects on national laws and deeply influence the publics perception of the court as an institution.

Perhaps the most significant case the court will consider this term involves a Mississippi law banning abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy, except in cases of medical emergencies or fetal abnormalities. The 15-week timeframe directly challenges the standard set by Roe v Wade, which set the Constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy at 24 weeks.

No matter how the court decides the Mississippi case, it will set off a wave of new laws and cases dealing with abortion access.

The court will also hear a case stemming from New Yorks gun licensing law, enacted over a century ago, regulating the right to carry concealed firearms outside the home. This is the first major Second Amendment case SCOTUS has taken since 2008, when it ruled that a person has a right to keep a gun at home for self-defense.

The New York law requires that to carry a concealed weapon in public, the license applicant must prove a good reason, or proper cause, for a permit; this case challenges the proper cause requirement. The question before the court is whether the states denial of the petitioners applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violates the Second Amendment; in its brief filed with the court, the State argues that New Yorks proper cause requirement furthers the states profound interest in promoting public safety and preventing gun violence.

Packing heat: New York concealed-carry laws are just one of the hot topics on the Supreme Courts agenda.

If the court rules that the New York law violates the Second Amendment, the likely result will be a significant increase the number of legally carried guns in New York and other states. Notably, gun license applications have surged in both Nassau and Suffolk counties during the pandemic.

Clearly, as gun control is such a debated topic, the courts ruling here will put it squarely in the middle of a divisive issue.

The court will also consider a case from Maine questioning whether Maine can exclude religious schools that offer sectarian education from a state-backed tuition-aid program. This debate follows a case from Montana last year where SCOTUS overturned a provision of Montanas Constitution banning aid to schools operated by churches; in that case, the court ruled that Montana had to allow religious schools to participate in programs that provide scholarships to students.

Other high-profile cases before the court this term involve capital punishment including the case of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, convicted of the Boston Marathon bombing. Prosecutors want his death sentence, tossed last year due to jury-selection concerns, reinstated.

Meanwhile, SCOTUS continues to issue decisions with wide implications for private property owners and municipalities that impose regulations on the use and development of property a very big deal for Long Island, where land use is heavily regulated.

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev: Terrorist on trial, again.

In a 6-3 decision issued in June, the court likened the protection of property rights to the preservation of freedom by deciding that a California regulation giving union organizers access to privately owned agricultural property where they could attempt to organize workers constituted a taking under the Fifth Amendment, entitling the property owners to compensation.

This case may well portend more expansive decisions from the court that call into question various regulations giving municipalities the right to inspect properties for health and safety violations and other purposes regulations that currently require owners to allow governments access to their property. Although the court sought to distinguish those types of regulations, the door is now open.

These and other politically charged cases place the court in the position of determining the direction of major social and economic issues no less so than the federal governments Executive and Legislative branches while fueling debate on the state and local levels. Given the likely absence of consensus or compromise, SCOTUSs decisions will doubtlessly create more scrutiny, too.

Michael H. Sahn, Esq., is the managing member of Uniondale law firmSahn Ward PLLC, where he concentrates on zoning and land-use planning, real estate law and transactions, and corporate, municipal and environmental law. He also represents the firms clients in civil litigation and appeals.

More here:
SCOTUS: It all hangs in the balance (or lack thereof) - Innovate Long Island

THE HOST of the investigative TV series In Pursuit With John Walsh is a criminal investigator.

Walsh slammed the police investigation of the Gabby Petito case and said he is "settling up to catch" Brian Laundrie.

1

John Walsh, born on December 26, 1945, is an American TV host and criminal investigator.

He is best known for his role on America's Most Wanted, a reality show he created after the murder of his son, Adam Walsh.

According to his website, he has helped authorities "capture more than 1,200 fugitives and brought home more than 50 missing children".

He was later the host of the investigative series,The Hunt With John Walsh, followed by the series,In Pursuit with John Walsh.

Walsh became involved in anti-crime activism after the murder of his six-year-old son Adam in 1981.

In July 1981, the young boy wasabductedfrom aSearsdepartment store in Hollywood, Florida.

Serial killer Ottis Toolewas officially named as Adam's killer in 2008.

In 2021, at the age of 75, Walsh continues to be a victim rightsadvocate and has organized a political campaign to help missing and exploited children.

Exclusive

The TV host criticized the police investigation on the murdered YouTuber's case and vowed to join the hunt for missing Laundrie.

Read our Gabby Petito live blog for the very latest news and updates...

He said: "I dont know how he got out of the house with the FBI and local cops watching him day and night."

Authorities spent days searching the 24,000-acre Florida reserve, something that Walsh brandeda "red herring," adding he doesn't believeLaundrie ever went to the reserve.

He told USA today: "They spent all that revenue, looking for him now, a day late and a dollar short.

"I understand the Fifth Amendment, I understand that Brian doesn't want to talk to the cops and his family doesn't want to talk to cops, as despicable as that is, but the cops could ask for proof of life."

He also suggested that officers should have been stationed outside the Laundrie home as well as an unmarked car to tail anyone leaving the home

Walsh said authorities wasted time and effort looking in all the wrong places.

In a special on Tonight ID, Walsh said, "(Laundrie) could walk across the (Mexico) border naked with his hair on fire and nobody would notice him."

The hunt for Laundrie continuesafter an autopsy confirmed the body ofGabby Petito, 22, was found inWyoming.

Laundrie remains at large four weeks after he vanished from his parents' home in Florida.

The 23-year-old hasnot yet been deemed a suspect in Gabby's death but has been named as a person of interest.

Walsh has been married to Rev Drew since 1971.

After the murder of their son Adam - who was born on November 14, 1974 - the pair had three more children: Meghan, 39, Callahan, 36, and Hayden, 27.

We pay for your stories!

Do you have a story for The US Sun team?

Excerpt from:
Who is John Walsh and how old is he?... - The US Sun

LIVINGSTON -- Sammy Hutchinson made sure to thank everybody.

The sheriffs office and its detectives. The district attorneys office and its prosecutors. All those who reached out to his family after the killing of his baby sister.

Everybodys done a good job, Hutchinson said on the steps of the Livingston Parish Courthouse, minutes after he and his family received the news they had waited two years to hear.

Errol W. Hicks, of Livingston, was convicted on Thursday for the murder of his ex-girlfriend Carol Hutchinson, a local daycare owner who was gunned down in September 2019.

A 12-person jury need just over an hour to deliberate and find Hicks, 70, guilty of second-degree murder following a trial that lasted nearly two days. Second-degree murder carries a sentence of life imprisonment without the benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence.

Hicks attended the trial in street clothes both days before being placed in handcuffs and led away after the verdict was in. His bond was revoked, and Judge Brian Abels said sentencing would come at a later date.

The trials outcome concluded a nightmarish two-year period for the victims family that began when deputies discovered Carol Hutchinson had been shot four times following an incident with Hicks on Sept. 28, 2019.

Though nothing will bring back the beloved owner of Little Peoples Playstation Daycare in Livingston, family members of Carol Hutchinson said they felt relief once the verdict was read aloud Thursday.

Only five of Carols family members were allowed inside the courtroom, and they teared up and embraced after walking out of the building.

A truck belonging to Phillip Pearson has a decal in memory of his mother Carol Hutchinson, who was gunned down in September 2019. On Thursday, Oct. 14, 2021, a 12-person jury found Errol Hicks guilty of second-degree murder in Hutchinsons death.

Once outside, they were greeted by other family members and friends who had waited in their vehicles for hours as the trial went on. Some wore T-shirts that read Justice for Carol, while one of Carols grandchildren wore a Wonder Woman costume, a nod to her nickname among loved ones.

We miss her and cant bring her back, Sammy Hutchinson said. But at least we got justice.

Seventeen witnesses were called to testify during the trial, which started 746 days after the killing. The testimonies came from neighbors, detectives, deputies, a forensic pathologist, and a DNA analyst, among others.

During the trial, prosecutors Serena Birch and Brett Sommer, both of the District Attorneys Office, painted a picture of a relationship that had run its course and culminated in a cold-blooded murder.

According to police reports, Hicks shot Hutchinson four times: once in the chest at his residence, a second time in the back, and twice more in the head and the leg.

Prosecutors said the first shot was fired under Hicks carport, likely while Hutchinson was sitting in a chair that deputies discovered was pierced with a bullet hole. The next shot came moments later when Hutchinson ran to a neighbors house for help. The last two came consecutively under another neighbors carport.

Hicks attorney Susan Hebert, who was seeking the lesser charge of manslaughter, argued that her client shot in self-defense, a claim he has made since the beginning. According to Hebert, Hicks fired at Hutchinson only after she pointed a gun at him first.

However, police said in a previous hearing that they never found evidence suggesting Hutchinson was armed during the encounter.

Hicks was expected to testify during the trial but eventually chose to exercise his Fifth Amendment right.

Ultimately, Birch and Sommer were able to successfully combat the defenses argument, pointing to the way witnesses said Hicks calmly followed Hutchinson across three houses and a distance of more than 470 feet roughly 100 feet more than a football field before shooting her twice more.

I cant think of a better illustration of specific intent than following a woman whos been shot, Sommer said in his closing argument.

In her closing statement, Birch said Hicks hunted Carol like a deer.

This is not heat (of the moment), Birch said. This is as cold-blooded as it can get.

Family members of Carol Hutchinson, who was gunned down in September 2019, stand outside the Livingston Parish Courthouse during a trial for Errol Hicks, who was accused of fatally shooting Hutchinson. On Thursday, Oct. 14, 2021, a 12-person jury found Errol Hicks guilty of second-degree murder in Hutchinsons death.

Following the trial, family members of Carol Hutchinson walked out of the courtroom and gathered on the front steps, where they discussed the challenges of the last two years without the person they called a superhero and a loving woman.

In her obituary, Hutchinson was described as the real life version of Wonder Woman whose greatest passion in life was her family. She was a diehard Disney fan who visited Disney World more than 20 times in the last 10 years of her life. She also bred and sold dachshunds across the country and was an avid photographer.

Carol was survived by three sons, her parents, three siblings, and three grandchildren, though a fourth was born after her passing. She also had numerous nieces, nephews, and special friends.

Hunter Pearson, one of Carols three sons who was the trials first witness, said Hicks should have got the death penalty but acknowledged thats not the way the laws are set up.

So this is the best possible outcome, and were very thankful for everybody that worked towards it, Hunter Pearson said.

Sammy Hutchinson said Hicks got what he needed for the way he ran my baby sister down and executed her.

Weve been waiting for this for over two years, he said before later adding, Now he gets what he has coming.

Wyatt Pearson, Carols youngest, took to social media afterward to thank everyone who worked to make sure justice was served fairly and thank those for all of the prayers and support, though he noted that theres no such thing as victory in this situation.

He ended his post by calling his mother the most selfless amazing person who did everything she could to make her family and friends happy.

Nothing will bring her back or make it better but at least there is a little relief now knowing that it is over, Wyatt Pearson wrote.

Go here to read the rest:
'We got justice' | Family of Carol Hutchinson reacts to killer's second-degree murder conviction - The Livingston Parish News

OPINION:

Three people can keep a secret if two of them are dead. Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790)

Last week, President George W. Bushs torture regime reared its head in an unusual argument before the U.S. Supreme Court.

In 2002, Abu Zubaydah was captured by a militia in Pakistan and handed over to the CIA, which brought him to Poland. Under the supervision of CIA agents and American psychologists, he was brutally tortured until his removal to the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba in 2006.

The Bush administration argued Mr. Zubaydah was a high-ranking member of al-Qaida who possessed information needed to fight the war on terror. After his torture produced no actionable information, the CIA told the Department of Justice and the Senate that Mr. Zubaydah was not a member of al-Qaida. It had no evidence of wrongdoing by him.

His lawyers filed a criminal complaint with the European Court of Human Rights against the CIA, its psychologists, and the Polish intelligence agents who carried out the torture.

That court concluded that the torture occurred, and it referred to Polish prosecutors to proceed criminally against the defendants. During that criminal proceeding, Polish prosecutors asked the DOJ for the names of those who tortured Mr. Zubaydah and documentation of what they did to him.

In the Supreme Court last week, the governments lawyer conceded that the names of the torturers and the nature of their horrible deeds are already known the psychologists wrote a book about it but the government will not confirm any of it because it constitutes state secrets.

So, if these so-called secrets are now publicly known, why does the government refuse to confirm them?

Here is the backstory.

On Oct. 6, 1948, a U.S. government plane was leaving from Robins Air Force Base in Warner Robins, Georgia, for a round-trip flight to Orlando, Florida, when it crashed, killing its crew. When surviving family members sued the government to determine who manufactured the plane and why it crashed, the feds declined to provide any information asserting that what was sought constituted state secrets.

In 1953, when the Supreme Court upheld this novel argument, it effectively changed the rules of evidence by permitting the federal government without disclosing to a judge what the secrets are to withhold evidence merely by making this claim.

Since 1953, the government has successfully asserted the state secrets claim dozens of times, claiming that the revelation of the so-called secrets will adversely affect national security.

In 2001, after the statute of limitations had long expired for any litigation over the 1948 crash, and reporters filed Freedom of Information Act requests for the alleged state secrets, a judge ordered the government to reveal them.

There were none.

The entire state secrets doctrine was based on covering up government embarrassment and wrongdoing, not the retention of legitimate secrets.

Now, back to the Zubaydah case in which he subpoenaed the DOJ for the records of his torture. Everyone involved in the oral argument knew that the state secrets doctrine was based on material misrepresentations the feds made to at least a dozen federal judges. Yet, the government treated it as if it were legitimate and compelling. The government argued that in wartime, its powers to keep its behavior secret are enhanced.

When Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked what war the U.S. is currently fighting that underlies its state secrets claim, the DOJ lawyer answered that the U.S. is still at war in Afghanistan!

The governments argument that the U.S. is still at war in Afghanistan this must be news to President Joseph R. Biden is, of course, absurd. Yet its cavalier assertion raises serious constitutional questions about war, torture, and secrets.

The state secrets doctrine is a fraud and used by the feds to cover up embarrassments and unlawful behavior for 68 years. And its employment by federal judges who have declined to require that the government produce the secrets for a judicial examination in secret so the courts can determine if these secrets exist and if their revelation would harm national security is a craven rejection of a core judicial function.

That function assures that trials are fair and their outcome is based on evidence, not deception.

The claim that somehow the existence of war in this case, a war that the whole world, except one federal prosecutor, knows is over somehow justifies the detention without charges of a person as to whom the government has no evidence of wrongdoing, and that somehow war justifies torture, and that somehow all of this can be kept secret are claims that violate the Constitution and the federal anti-torture statutes that all who work for the government have sworn to uphold.

The Fifth Amendment guarantees Mr. Zubaydah due process, and the First Amendment guarantees transparency.

The government does not want to confront this. That Mr. Zubaydah was tortured for four years before the CIA and its Polish collaborators concluded that he was truthful demonstrates the reality of the governments resort to illegal and medieval means to gather facts and that torture as a means to the truth is useless and ruinous.

For all we know, Mr. Bush pardoned the psychologists and CIA agents who monitored the torture, but he could not pardon the Polish agents whose names and methods may soon be revealed.

At the end of the oral argument, Justice Neil Gorsuch asked the DOJ lawyer why the DOJ doesnt permit Mr. Zubaydah to testify in the Polish proceedings. The same lawyer who had just told Justice Kavanaugh that the U.S. is still fighting in Afghanistan had no answer.

The government undermines the Constitution when it lies and when it tortures. What kind of society enforces criminal laws against harmless drug users but not against harmful government torturers?

Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is an analyst for the Fox News Channel. He has written seven books on the U.S. Constitution.

Link:
Lies and torture cover-up: U.S. state secrets doctrine is a fraud - Washington Times

POLK COUNTY, Fla. (WFLA) A woman is in extremely critical condition after deputies say she was shot while riding on the back of a motorcycle early Friday morning on Interstate 4 in Polk County.

According to Sheriff Grady Judd, just after midnight 38-year-old Ronald Donovan, a member of the Sin City Deciples Motorcycle Club, was driving eastbound on I-4. Donovan, his passenger, a 33-year-old woman, and two other motorcyclists were driving toward the Orlando area.

Judd said thats when two members of the Thug Riders Motorcycle Club passed by them, which didnt sit well with Donovan.

There was some skirmishing and some driving about 100 miles per hour, the sheriff said.

He said Donovan then shot and hit one of the Thug Riders motorcyclists, a 36-year-old man, who fired back toward Donovan.

According to Judd, the bullet struck Donovans passenger in the head just above the ear, causing her to fall off of the motorcycle. Medical experts say she is not expected to survive.

They took an 1888 old western shootout and brought it to 2021 last night, Judd said. You had a rush of testosterone and a rush of idiocy and it ended up with near death.

The sheriff said the injured Thug Riders motorcyclist drove to Champions Gate and stopped at Papa Johns to call 911. At the same time, other 911 calls came into the Polk County Sheriffs Office regarding the shooting on the interstate.

When deputies arrived at the scene, Judd said Donovan had two empty gun holsters, but no guns were found in the area. A motorcyclist was also seen fleeing from the area.

The sheriff also noted that when deputies tried to ask Donovan questions, he responded by saying I know my rights and invoked his Fifth Amendment right.

Donovan was arrested on scene and has been charged with the following:

According to Judd, at this time, the investigation shows that the Thug Riders victim was acting in self-defense when he returned fire.

A portion of I-4 was shut down for several hours as deputies and Florida Highway Patrol troopers searched for firearms and bullet casings over a half-mile area.

Since the shooting involved two separate motorcycle gangs, the sheriff gave the following warning to members of each side:

Let me warn you, retaliation will get you all locked up in prison for a very long time and thats a guarantee in Polk County, he said. Your stupidness has already gotten a 33-year-old beautiful young lady in a near-death situation and another man shot.

Sheriff Judd he expects to provide more details on the case on Monday.

Link:
Shootout between motorcyclists on I-4 leaves woman in critical condition, Sheriff Judd says - WFLA

STATEN ISLAND, N.Y. Jessica Pobega said he was concerned about her best friend Jeanine Cammarata after the schoolteachers boyfriend told her he hadnt been able to reach her.

That was on April 1, 2019, and Pobega hadnt spoken with Jeanine herself in several days.

I was worried, so I tried to call her, Pobega testified Friday at the murder trial of Michael Cammarata, Jeanine Cammaratas estranged husband.

But her friend didnt answer her phone or respond to text messages, the witness testified.

So Pobega reached out on Facebook Messenger, even though she and Jeanine rarely communicated that way.

I asked her to call me to let me know she was OK, said Pobega.

The witness then tried calling her friend again.

Once more, there was no answer, but Pobega said she could see someone was texting her back on Jeanines phone.

That person wasnt Jeanine, prosecutors contend.

By that time, the 37-year-old New Brighton resident was already dead, prosecutors told jurors in their opening argument last week in state Supreme Court, St. George.

She had been killed late on March 30 by her spouse and his girlfriend, Ayisha Egea, near their Queens apartment, allege prosecutors.

Afterward, Michael Cammarata, 45, and Egea, 44, burned the victims corpse, Assistant District Attorneys Adam Silberlight and Timothy Richard said.

Cammarata was livid over divorce papers his spouse had served him a few days earlier, allege prosecutors.

The defense contends Egea was the killer.

BOYFRIENDS TESTIMONY

Following, on April 1, Michael Cammarata and Egea stuffed the victims charred remains in an Arden Heights storage facility, the same day Pobega received the text message from the victims phone, prosecutors maintain.

The content of the message was not explored, although the circumstances eerily echoed the prior testimony of the victims boyfriend.

He testified last week he received an unusual text from Jeanines phone on March 31 and a Facebook Messenger message from her account the next day.

The mans name is being withheld at prosecutors request for fear of reprisal.

The witness said he last saw the victim on the evening of March 30 when Jeanine dropped him off at home around 9 p.m. He said he and Jeanine lived together at his home, although she also maintained her New Brighton apartment.

Shortly thereafter, between 9:30 and 9:40 p.m., Jeanine texted him. She said she was going to pick up her two children from her husband at the 120th Precinct stationhouse in St. George, said the witness.

The boy and girl lived with Michael Cammarata and Egea in Queens.

Under cross-examination by defense lawyer Mario F. Gallucci, the witness testified Jeanine had never previously picked up her children at the 120th Precinct stationhouse.

According to evidence and testimony, Jeanine actually drove out to Queens and met her husband and Egea.

Jeanine did not return home that night, the witness testified, although he received an odd text from her late the next morning, he said.

Typically, theyd exchange brief one-line messages. However, this time the text was a paragraph long, said the witness. He said it referred to her reconciliation with Mike.

The witness said he received no other texts that day from Jeanines phone, and there was no response to his phone calls.

The next day, April 1, the witness said he tried all day to contact Jeanine via phone and texts, but to no avail.

However, sometime that day he said he got a weird message from Jeanines Facebook Messenger account.

It said she was OK, and shed talk to him when she could, said the witness.

I would never get a message from her from Facebook, he said.

When questioned by Gallucci, the man admitted to sending a number of texts to Jeanines phone on March 31, including a nasty one early in the morning.

Hey, where are you? I guess Im a jerk---, the text said. I guess youre playing family with Mike and the kids. Good luck in court and with whatever youre doing.

Several days earlier, Jeanine Cammarata had filed for divorce against her husband, prior witness testimony revealed.

Gallucci also dug into the mans criminal history, seeking to undermine his credibility.

The witness admitted to being convicted of disorderly conduct in three separate cases last year in Brooklyn. In two of those cases, the witness was initially charged with criminal contempt for disobeying an order of protection.

The witness also acknowledged he has a rape case currently pending on Staten Island and a misdemeanor assault and menacing case pending in Brooklyn.

On the advice of his lawyer, he invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination when queried further about those cases.

The man said he did not receive any incentives from prosecutors to testify.

The trial resumes Tuesday before Justice Mario F. Mattei.

Only Michael Cammarata is on trial. Egea will be tried separately.

See the original post:
Strange texts and messages sent from victims phone take center stage at S.I. teacher slay trial - SILive.com

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 the 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 offence 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 deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The Fifth Amendment, or Amendment V of the United States Constitution is the section of the Bill of Rights that protects you from being held for committing a crime unless you have been indicted correctly by the police. The Fifth Amendment is also where the guarantee of due process comes from, meaning that the state and the country have to respect your legal rights. The Fifth Amendment was introduced as a part of the Bill of Rights into the United States Constitution on September 5, 1789 and was voted for by of the states on December 15, 1791.

Once the United States won their independence from the British Parliament and monarchy that had acted like tyrants, the Framers of the United States Constitution did not trust large, centralized governments. Because of this, the Framers wrote the Bill of Rights, which were the first 10 amendments, to help protect individual freedoms from being hurt by the government. They included the Fifth Amendment, which gave five specific freedoms to American citizens.

Understanding the Fifth Amendment Line by Line

If you are confused by what each line means, here are some explanations to make the Fifth Amendment easier to understand:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury: No one can be put on trial for a serious crime, unless a grand jury decides first that there is enough proof or evidence so that the trial is needed. If there is enough evidence, an indictment is then issued, which means that the person who is charged with the crime will be put on trial for the crime.

Except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger: People in the military can go to trial without a grand jury first deciding that it is necessary. This is the case if the military person commits a crime during a national emergency or a war.

Nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb: If someone is put on trial for a certain crime and the trial ends, the person cannot be tried once more for the same crime. If a person is convicted of a crime and then serves his or her time in jail, or if the person is acquitted, he or she cannot be put on trial a second time.

Nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself: The government does not have the power to make someone testify against himself. That is why a trial uses evidence and witnesses instead of the testimony of the accused person.

Nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law: The government cannot take away a persons life, property, or freedom without following certain steps that give the person a fair chance. This is what is known as due process. Due Process helps protect a persons rights.

Nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation: The government cannot take away a persons property for public use without somehow paying them back for it.

The Fifth Amendment was introduced into the Constitution by James Madison.

The ideas in the Fifth Amendment can be traced back to the Magna Carta, which was issued in 1215.

A defendant cannot be punished for using his right to silence during a criminal trial, but there are some consequences to using it in a civil trial.

comments

Original post:
5TH AMENDMENT (Fifth Amendment) - Simplified Summary ...