You no longer have a right to remain silent without being guilty…..

Posted on August 16, 2014

54


Please do not read this article without acknowledging our first amendment right under the U.S. Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

There’s a reason we started today’s article with the first amendment to the constitution. The reason we started today’s article off with the first amendment to the constitution is because it would appear that we must now assert our constitutional rights before we’re entitled to them – according to the California Supreme Court. 

In a bizarre and preposterous ruling, the first of its kind that we know of in the nation, you don’t have the right to remain silent before being informed of those rights. If you are silent before being informed of your Miranda rights the state has a right to assume and argue that your silence proves your guilt, so said the California Supreme Court in a controversial 4-3 ruling. 

You as a citizen are expected to know all of the 29 codes that consist of California law. Ignorance is no excuse. You are also now required to get intimate with your constitutional protections and in a slippery slope, your constitutional rights appear to have no validity unless you assert them.You as a citizen are only entitled to your right to remain silent when you assert them by informing law enforcement that you have the right to remain silent before they read you your Miranda rights.

So follow the bouncing ball.

Corporations are people.

Money is free speech.

Silence is not a form of free speech nor is it a right against self-incrimination, it just proves your guilt. 

The slippery slope as you can imagine is that it is conceivable that much like your right to remain silent, you probably shouldn’t be entitled to protections against unreasonable or warrantless search either unless you assert those rights before the search commences. You probably shouldn’t enjoy freedom of speech protections and the media shouldn’t enjoy freedom of the press either unless they start out every article by citing the first amendment much like we started this article with asserting our rights under the first amendment. 

It would appear Justice Liu got it right. “The court today holds, against common sense expectations, that remaining silent after being placed under arrest is not enough to exercise one’s right to remain silent,” Liu wrote.

http://www.sacbee.com/2014/08/15/6631249/court-silence-may-sometimes-show.html

http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2014/08/15/court-silence-may-sometimes-show-guilt/