You Have A RIGHT To Remain Silent ... But

[palani]

if you do then you are consenting.

http://i62.tinypic.com/14m56v6.jpg

[Hitch]

This is BS. Don't believe this nonsense.

Remaining silent by no means implies intent, nor consent.

[Hatha Sunahara]

Silence is consent. Isn't that a 'legal maxim'? Silence is a good idea when being questioned by the cops. "Anything you say can and will be used against you."


Hatha

[Hitch]

Silence is consent.


Hatha

No, it is not. Consent must be explicit. Silence is not. This is why we have the 4th amendment.

[midnight rambler]

Silence is consent.


Hatha

Right. Silence is acceptance.

"Qui tacet consentit": the maxim of the law is "Silence gives consent".

qui tacet consentire videtur (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qui_tacet_consentire_videtur#qui_tacet_consentire_ videtur), "he who is silent is taken to agree", "silence implies/means consent" he who is silent is taken to agree Thus, silence gives consent. Sometimes accompanied by the proviso "ubi loqui debuit ac potuit", that is, "when he ought to have spoken and was able to".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silence_procedure

Hitch, you don't know what you don't know. Surely you're thinking of not being compelled to be a witness against your self, which is what the cops are TRAINED to compel everyone to do now - be a witness against themselves by providing INFORMATION (most often trickery is involved where folks are TRICKED into 'confessing' they are a 'person' and therefore under the jurisdiction of some imaginary entity, a phantasm).

[Hitch]

Right. Silence is acceptance.

"Qui tacet consentit": the maxim of the law is "Silence gives consent".

qui tacet consentire videtur (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qui_tacet_consentire_videtur#qui_tacet_consentire_ videtur), "he who is silent is taken to agree", "silence implies/means consent"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silence_procedure

Hitch, you don't know what you don't know.

I'm thinking like LE, my bad, I'll shut up. In constitutional law, silence is not acceptance, nor consent, nor intent.

In fact, when dealing with LE, the less you say the better. Don't say shit.

[Glass]

yes non response is aquenscence.

Keeping your mouth shut when it's not strictly your business is often wise but if the business is being directed at you it is not wise to just shut up.

Even the right to remain silent must be specifically claimed. I believe this has been already been determined in US courts with the miranda's. You don't have to implicate yourself but you should notice the other party that you intend to remain silent. If a new matter or adjacent matter is raised I think it's better to notify your position on that matter as well. Do not assume one claim of right will cover other/all matters being discussed.

[Hitch]

Please give some practical situations where this applies.

Non civil law of course.

[Glass]

Please give some practical situations where this applies.

Non civil law of course.
if you get arrested and you simply become silent from the minute the cuffs are on and do not respond at all to any police questions or comments it would not be considered exercising the right to remain silent.

You need to state that you are exercising your right. Then you shut up. But if a second matter arises "when they check your rap sheet, you would need to make a similar statement about remaining silent on that one as well. If the cop gives you a miranda, you need to state your intent to remain silent. You could state your right in writing if you wanted to.

[Ponce]

Is the "new" law.........you have to say that you don't want to say anything.

V

[Hitch]

if you get arrested and you simply become silent from the minute the cuffs are on and do not respond at all to any police questions or comments it would not be considered exercising the right to remain silent.

You need to state that you are exercising your right. Then you shut up. But if a second matter arises "when they check your rap sheet, you would need to make a similar statement about remaining silent on that one as well. If the cop gives you a miranda, you need to state your intent to remain silent. You could state your right in writing if you wanted to.

Seems intent and consent are getting confused. Perhaps stating intent to remain silent may be a good thing to do, but by no means, does that give any sort of consent, to anything. I think this is where constitutional law is very consistent and strong actually. Consent must be explicit, as I stated in an earlier post. Nothing remain silent gives that away.

You are talking about extreme examples of intent, furthermore. All that is articulated and argued based upon how good of a lawyer the person has. For 99% of the population, this is a non issue. Silence will not, nor could be argued, as intent in anything but the most unique extreme situations.

[Glass]

In Law you must always notice your intent. no confusion there and as I said US code has been adjudicated on with regard to miranda. I'm fairly sure but open to being corrected that the miranda rights are not simply assumed rights. I think that position arose because there is or was a push to do away with the miranda under US law. You could write it down if you didn't want to utter it.

[Hypertiger]

You have a right to remain invisible...anything you expose can and will be used against you...

LAW LAW LAW.

People have absolutely zero power to make or break LAW.

All that people have the power to make or break are rules and to claim rules are LAW.

But if a rule attempts to break LAW.

LAW will break the rule.

GOD is LAW and LAW is GOD.

Rules are lies promoted as Truth or LAW.

Not LAW.

Satan loves to play games.

GOD does not.

GOD supplies what you need...always.

Satan supplies what you want as long as you supply what Satan wants so that Satan has something to supply to you.

Because Satan has no power...Except what you all supply to Satan.

You supply Satan with silver wholesale or for the minimum and Satan then turns the silver into coins, marks it up and sells it back to you all retail for the maximum.

The difference between the wholesale cost and the retail price is the yield of power Satan lives off of...to power Satan...To become more and more powerful...In order to attempt to defeat GOD...To become GOD and gain absolute power over all and everything.

Satan always fails...Because it is impossible for a lie believed to be Truth to defeat Truth.

But Satan is ignorance incarnate, the eternal optimist, and the Lord of the just think positive ignore negative religion.

Satan or his ignorance is bliss worshiping followers keep telling me...

There is not anything impossible if you put your mind to it and if at first you do not succeed defeating Truth with a lie...Try try again.

[palani]

In constitutional law, silence is not acceptance, nor consent, nor intent.
Laws dissolve in the face of arms. This is true especially of constitutional laws.


In fact, when dealing with LE, the less you say the better. Don't say shit.
Then you are registering your agreement with everything he does.

And the OP does not suggest that argument is preferred. Argument is synonymous with both babble and dishonor. Once you have received NOTICE (partial notice is all that is needed) then your legal system guard should be up and from your mouth should come nothing but questions and not a single statement. Then insist upon answers to your questions else your due process rights will go BYE-BYE.

[palani]

So ... you cannot remain silent. You cannot argue and are a fool if you do. You really don't want to agree so what actions are left?

One option ... give your 'adversary' notice. You put the shoe on the other foot. Now he has been given the right to inquire and you are assuring him that he will be given due rights (aka the right to hearing when he makes a single statement). You don't want to make a statement (because that is going to be interpreted as a response to his NOTICE). But you might ask him a single question .... "ARE YOU AN AGENT?"

Here is a sanitized business card I like to carry. No need to say anything. Just hand it over and it will 'attach'.


http://i61.tinypic.com/149z8qu.jpg

[willie pete]

I'd never get into a conversation with the police, 99.9999% of the times, IF they've encountered you out in the field, they're NOT there to help. I think it's law in most states you have to identify yourself if asked by police, if you have no "papers" on your person, I think they could detain you for the purpose of identification, otherwise for me, I'll only answer the questions I'm compelled to answer, like handing over my DL in a traffic stop, if the police start asking questions like "where are you going?" "where do you work?" "do you know how fast you were going?" "where are you coming from?" "have you ever been arrested?", I wouldn't say anything. If it's very probable you're going to be arrested? I have 5 magic words; "I have nothing to say" ......and for field sobriety tests? I'd NEVER submit, because if you're asked to do a field sobriety test, the chances/risks are that you ARE going to be arrested, they video FS tests and it IS used against you.

[Hitch]

In Law you must always notice your intent. no confusion there and as I said US code has been adjudicated on with regard to miranda. I'm fairly sure but open to being corrected that the miranda rights are not simply assumed rights. I think that position arose because there is or was a push to do away with the miranda under US law. You could write it down if you didn't want to utter it.

Miranda is not assumed, but still remaining silent does not show any intent. For example, say a man is on your front porch. You call the police to have him arrested for trespassing. When the cops arrive, the man remains silent. The cops can arrest him for trespassing, because he was, in fact, trespassing... but not for burglary for example. Maybe he was there trying to sell vacuum cleaners. Maybe his intent was to actually burglarize the home. His silence though, does not show his intent. He can not be arrested for burglary. Regardless if miranda rights are read to him or not.

[iOWNme]

You Have A RIGHT To Remain Silent ... Butif you do then you are consenting.


You mean you found a contradiction in 'Law'?


:)

[palani]

You mean you found a contradiction in 'Law'?


:)

I sense that what you call Law I call legal. There is a difference. Law is reason and comes to us as natural law or common law. Legal is what legislatures and judicial actors talk of and write about frequently. Between law and legal is a vast chasm. Practice anything legal without a lawyer and suffer the consequences.

There is no contradiction unless it is between these two systems.

[iOWNme]

I sense that what you call Law I call legal. There is a difference. Law is reason and comes to us as natural law or common law. Legal is what legislatures and judicial actors talk of and write about frequently. Between law and legal is a vast chasm. Practice anything legal without a lawyer and suffer the consequences.

There is no contradiction unless it is between these two systems.

Just so i understand, in this scenario the 4th Amendment is 'Law' and 'Miranda Rights' are the 'Legal' or 'Statutory'?

From an actual principled position, what is the difference between these two?


In other words, what is it that makes something 'Law' and something else 'Legal'?

[palani]

Just so i understand, in this scenario the 4th Amendment is 'Law' and 'Miranda Rights' are the 'Legal' or 'Statutory'?

From an actual principled position, what is the difference between these two?

4th amendment is not law. A little event called the 14th amendment threw out all that went before. That event attaches a new constitution to people who it chose to be defined as 'citizens of the United States'. That is why due process is brought up in the 14th amendment when it would seem the topic was amply covered by the organic constitution. Any 'law' produced by the organic constitution was established between the several States and the federal government and not between the People and the federal government. According to Hobbes the People dissolved as soon as they established the first constitution. Now as to who the People actually are ... wasn't it the several States that agreed to a federal form of government rather than individual men or women?



In other words, what is it that makes something 'Law' and something else 'Legal'?

The relationship between Law and legal is the same as exists between the learned group called mathematici and the unlearned group called dogmatici. From this clue you are expected to do your own research as to my meaning.

[Ponce]

The "law" is only what those with the guns want it to be when they want to.......you have already seen what they have done with the US constitution.......... :(

V

[palani]

The "law" is only what those with the guns want it to be when they want to.

You may get an idea of what law actually is by reading closely the following definition of 'ignorance'.


Ignorance of law, consists in the want of knowledge of those laws which it is our duty to understand, and which every man is presumed to know.

Don't be fooled by the current truncated version IGNORANCE OF THE LAW IS NO EXCUSE because it ignores your established DUTY to understand and typically applies to statute law which NO man is presumed to know. Statute law is so specialized and involved that legislature does not even read these things before they call them law. If the lawmakers can be ignorant of their own law then these same laws don't apply to me unless I would be so ignorant as to proclaim my understanding of them.