The Historian wrote:
On Feb 8, 5:30 pm, wrote:
J.D. Walker wrote:
wrote:

J.D. Walker wrote:
wrote:
On Feb 7, 12:56 pm, "J.D. Walker" wrote:
What is perjury? As a novice in matters of law, I looked it up at the
Wikipedia site to get a basic understanding.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perjury)

If any of our more knowledgeable readers cares to elaborate, I'd be
appreciative. I am hoping that the USCF Imposter(s) make it to the
witness stand and lie under oath. Then hopefully he/she/they will be
unmasked, convicted of perjury and sent to prison. That would be a
fitting end to all the trouble he/she/they have caused.
--

Cordially,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.
Paul can't testify. He will take the fifth amendment. EVEN if he is
innocent,
the statements he makes can be used against him. Paul Truong has no
business answering questions.

Marcus Roberts
So you can take the fifth in civil cases too? I didn't know that.
--

Cordially,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.

No. There is no privilege against self-incrimination in civil cases.
You can refuse to answer and lose your case. Basically, the theory is
that if you want to come into civil court you shouldn't have done
something you're not willing to be deposed about.

Well, this is a bit confusing... I looked at "self-incrimination" at
the Wikipedia site and encountered these definitions,

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-in...efinitions_of_...)

* Barron's Law Dictionary (USA):

SELF-INCRIMINATION, PRIVILEGE AGAINST the constitutional right of a
person to refuse to answer questions or otherwise give testimony against
himself or herself which will subject him or her to an incrimination.
This right under the Fifth Amendment (often called simply PLEADING THE
FIFTH) is now applicable to the states through the due process clause of
the Fourteenth Amendment, 378 U.S. 1,8, and is applicable in any
situation, civil or criminal where the state attempts to compel
incriminating testimony. (There are many caveats following this section.)

* Black's Law Dictionary (USA):

SELF-INCRIMINATION: Acts or declarations either as testimony at
trial or prior to trial by which one implicates himself in a crime. The
Fifth Amendment, U.S. Const. as well as provisions in many state
constitutions and laws, prohibit the government from requiring a person
to be a witness against himself involuntarily or to furnish evidence
against himself. (There are links to other related subjects: Compulsory
self-incrimination; Link-in-chain; Privilege against self-incrimination.)

===

The first definition states that civil cases are included while the
second omits it. Apparently this is not a straightforward question with
a simple answer!

However, as a layman, I tend to believe that John is correct in the
sense that if a defendant repeatedly used the 5th in a civil case he
would be dooming himself/herself to loss of the case with possibly
significant monetary damages.
--

Cordially,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.

What you're missing is that, in a "civil" case as the term is
generally understood, the _government_ is not trying to compel
testimony. The other party to the case is. The 5th Amendment and other
Constitutional prohibitions apply to the Federal government, and via
the 14th, to the states. Not to private individuals.

John, now that we have that straight, could you explain to Paul
Truong's pet 'journalist' that Constitutional protections against
unlawful search and seizure don't apply to FIDE drug testing? The
Brattleboro Bedlam still doesn't understand that point.


I've never had much success communicating with Phil. You are obviously
correct that constitutional protections do not apply because FIDE is
not a government. If you don't want to be tested, you can walk away.
(And should, in my opinion. F/IW.) There might be some state or local
laws on the subject, however. Question: Has FIDE ever even done any
drug testing in the US? I've never heard of it happening.