Assault on the Fifth Amendment
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 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
deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall
private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. - The
Bill of Rights
Witness against yourself
No person shall be... "shall be compelled, in any criminal
case, to be a witness against himself;"
Citizens are routinely required to sign statements and
declarations under the penalty of perjury.
Dr. Phil Roberts was sentenced to 3.5 years in federal
prison for a misdemeanor violation of the tax code (26 U.S.C. 7203, "Willful
Failure to File a Tax Return"), after refusing to submit tax returns for two
years to preserve his Fifth Amendment rights not to testify against himself. At
his trial held in 8th Circuit court, Arkansas, Dr. Roberts was was not allowed
to present witnesses or evidence or appear at trial and was railroaded into
either confessing or going to jail. The government prosecutor never once spoke
of any law that Dr. Roberts may have violated and only tainted the jury with
how much money he made, where he lived, what he drove and what else he had
purchased. When objections were raised, the judge would say, "you can take that
up on your appeal."
No person shall be... "subject, for the same offense, to be
twice put in jeopardy of life or limb."
The constitutional provision of double jeopardy forbids that a
defendant be tried twice for the same crime on the same set of facts. This
clause is intended to limit abuse by the government in repeated prosecution for
the same offense as a means of harassment or oppression. It is also in harmony
with the common law concept of res judicata which prevents courts from
relitigating issues which have already been the subject of a final judgment.
Though the Fifth Amendment initially applied only to the federal
government the US Supreme Court has ruled, (Benton v. Maryland), that the
double jeopardy clause applies to the states as well through incorporation by
the Fourteenth amendment.
But now we can be punished for the same crime
in several ways, at both federal and state levels, and by having property
seized or by means of other "civil" procedures.
For example, a state
might try a defendant for murder, after which the federal government might try
the same defendant for a federal crime (perhaps a civil rights violation or
kidnapping) related to the same act. An example of this technique was used in
the Los Angeles Police Department officers charged with assaulting Rodney King
in 1991 who were acquitted by a county court, but some were later convicted and
sentenced in federal court for violating his civil rights.
it has been held, does not prevent separate trials by different governments,
and the state and federal governments are considered "separate sovereigns".
Therefore, one may be prosecuted for a crime in a state court, and also
prosecuted for the same crime in another state, a foreign country, or (most
commonly) in a federal court. For example, Timothy McVeigh was executed by the
federal government for murdering eight federal employees with a bomb, but could
also have been tried in state court for murdering numerous other persons in the
Double jeopardy can also be ignored if the later charge
is civil rather than criminal in nature, which involves a different legal
standard. Acquittal in a criminal case does not prevent the defendant from
being the defendant in a civil suit relating to the same incident. For example,
O.J. Simpson was acquitted of a double homicide in a California criminal
prosecution, but lost a civil wrongful death claim brought over the same
No person shall be..."deprived of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law;..."
Senator John McCain introduced
S. 3081: Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention, and
Prosecution Act of 2010 that sets out a comprehensive policy for the
detention, interrogation and trial of suspected enemy belligerents who are
believed to have engaged in hostilities against the United States by requiring
these individuals to be held in military custody, interrogated for their
intelligence value and not provided with a Miranda warning. The bill does not
distinguish between U.S. citizens and non-citizens, and states that suspected
belligerents who are considered a high-value detainee shall not be provided
with a Miranda warning.Now that the Southern Poverty Law Center and the federal
government, via the
MIAC report and innumerable other leaked documents, now
consider virtually anyone with a dissenting opinion against the state as posing
a threat, millions of peaceful American citizens could be swept up by this
frightening dragnet of tyranny.
President Bush issued an executive order that could be
interpreted to outlaw anti-war protest. This new executive order empowering the
federal government to freeze the assets of people who threaten Iraq's stability
and its government is so broad it could be applied to any domestic opponent of
the Iraq war who has assets in the U.S., charged a former Reagan administration
official. Bush's new order authorizes government agencies to freeze the
property of anyone who has committed or might plan acts of violence in
Iraq. It also targets anyone seeking to disrupt reconstruction efforts or harm
humanitarian workers in the country.
But constitutional lawyer Bruce
Fein insists the executive order is "so sweeping and broad that it permits the
president to threaten virtually anybody who opposes our policy in Iraq." "The
frightening thing about this executive order is that there is no opportunity to
respond. There isn't even a requirement that when the president identifies you
as a tainted person whose assets can't be used that you even have to be
notified," said Fein.
With the stroke of a pen, the Supreme Court of the United States
effectively rejected one of the most fundamental constitutional freedoms
guaranteed to all citizens...
The right to own property.
No person shall be..."deprived of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public
In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in
Kelo v. New London that the govenment may seize a home,
small business, or other private property of one citizen and transfer it to
another private citizen - if the transfer would boost the community's economic
development or increase its tax base.
With this ruling, no privately
owned property is safe from govenment seizure. Houses, farms, churches, church
camps, family-owned restaurants, and small businesses are all at risk. In the
dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor argued that this decision would allow the
rich to benefit at the expense of the poor, asserting that "Any property may
now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from
this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those
citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process,
including large corporations and development firms." She argued that the
decision eliminates "any distinction between private and public use of
propertyand thereby effectively delete[s] the words 'for public use' from
the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment". As Justice O'Connor wrote in her
dissent, "Any single family home might be razed to make way for an apartment
building; any church might be replaced with a retail store."
across the country have been using eminent domain to force people off their
land, so private developers can build more expensive homes and offices that
will pay more in property taxes than the buildings they're replacing.
They covet fields and seize them, and houses,
and take them. They defraud a man of his home, a fellowman of his inheritance.
- Micah 2:2
This ruling creates a scenario where churches and religious
organizations which are tax exempt, could be especially vulnerable to make room
for economic development that will enhance the tax base. The socialist arm of
the liberal left will likely see this an an excellent "back door" tactic to
silence Christians and further alienate them in our society.
Berliner and Scott Bullock, attorneys at a libertarian non-profit group called
The Institute for Justice,
says This is a nationwide epidemic, and We have documented
more than 10,000 instances of government taking property from one person to
give it to another in just the last five years. [CBS News: Eminent Domain: Being Abused?,
July 4, 2004]
- In mid-September 2008, the Saint Paul Port Authority announced
its intention to take the property of Advance Shoring Company, a successful
business that has operated for generations in St. Paul, to make way for a
private development project that amounts to questionable real estate
speculation with $10 million in public subsidies.
- Vera Coking, an elderly widow from Atlantic City, fought off
attempts of the condemnation of her home by a State agency that sought to take
her property and transfer itat a bargain-basement priceto another
private individual: Donald Trump. Trump convinced the State agency to use its
eminent domain power to take Veras home so he could construct
a limousine parking lot for his customershardly a public purpose.
- With the blessing of officials from the Village of Port
Chester, a politically connected developer approached Didden and his partner
with an offer they couldnt refuse. Because Didden planned to build a CVS
on his propertyland the developer coveted for a Walgreensthe
developer demanded $800,000 from Didden to make him go away or
ordered Didden to give him an unearned 50 percent stake in the CVS development.
If Didden refused, the developer would have the Village of Port Chester condemn
the land for his private use. Didden rejected the bold-faced extortion. The
very next day the Village of Port Chester condemned Diddens property
through eminent domain so it could hand it over to the developer who made the
2008-2010 Jeremiah Project