Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old October 22nd 09, 07:58 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,misc.legal,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 14,870
Default Did Truong Take the Fifth?

I have heard that Paul Truong took the Fifth Amendment numerous times
during his deposition in Lubbock Texas.

Is this true? Can anybody confirm this?

It is my understanding that one cannot take the Fifth selectively,
refusing to answer some questions but not others. If one wants to take
the Fifth, one must refuse to answer any questions other than
identifying your name and address, or one must answer all questions
(unless the law has changed in the last few years).

Does anybody know the answer to this?

Sam Sloan
  #2   Report Post  
Old October 22nd 09, 08:22 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,misc.legal,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Oct 2009
Posts: 3
Default Did Truong Take the Fifth?

I have heard that Paul Truong took the Fifth Amendment numerous times
during his deposition in Lubbock Texas.

Is this true? Can anybody confirm this?

It is my understanding that one cannot take the Fifth selectively,
refusing to answer some questions but not others.


Why? Depending on the situation, the answers to some questions can
incriminate you. The answers to others cannot. It is likely that
only the person answering the questions knows which is which.

If one wants to take
the Fifth, one must refuse to answer any questions other than
identifying your name and address, or one must answer all questions
(unless the law has changed in the last few years).


That doesn't make any sense.

There's a large difference between admitting that you were at the
museum at a specific time (the police saw you among hundreds of
others there and questioned and searched you at the time, so you
might as well admit it), and admitting that YOU were the one who
stole the missing diamond.

  #3   Report Post  
Old October 22nd 09, 09:08 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,misc.legal,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jun 2009
Posts: 319
Default Did Truong Take the Fifth?

On Oct 21, 11:58*pm, samsloan wrote:
I have heard that Paul Truong took the Fifth Amendment numerous times
during his deposition in Lubbock Texas.

Is this true? Can anybody confirm this?

It is my understanding that one cannot take the Fifth selectively,
refusing to answer some questions but not others. If one wants to take
the Fifth, one must refuse to answer any questions other than
identifying your name and address, or one must answer all questions
(unless the law has changed in the last few years).

Does anybody know the answer to this?

Sam Sloan



I believe you're confusing the Miranda-warning "right to remain
silent" with the assertion Fifth-Amendment rights while under oath.
They're not quite the same thing.
  #4   Report Post  
Old October 22nd 09, 10:03 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,misc.legal,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 14,870
Default Did Truong Take the Fifth?

On Oct 22, 3:22*am, (Gordon Burditt) wrote:
I have heard that Paul Truong took the Fifth Amendment numerous times
during his deposition in Lubbock Texas.


Is this true? Can anybody confirm this?


It is my understanding that one cannot take the Fifth selectively,
refusing to answer some questions but not others.


Why? *Depending on the situation, the answers to some questions can
incriminate you. *The answers to others cannot. *It is likely that
only the person answering the questions knows which is which.

If one wants to take
the Fifth, one must refuse to answer any questions other than
identifying your name and address, or one must answer all questions
(unless the law has changed in the last few years).


That doesn't make any sense.

There's a large difference between admitting that you were at the
museum at a specific time (the police saw you among hundreds of
others there and questioned and searched you at the time, so you
might as well admit it), and admitting that YOU were the one who
stole the missing diamond.


Are you a lawyer? If you are not a lawyer you should not attempt to
answer this question because this is a very technical question with a
lot of case law on it.

It is established that one who invokes his Fifth Amendment privilege
cannot testify about part of a criminal transaction and remain silent
about the other events.

The proper Fifth Amendment answer to such a question might be "I must
decline to answer that question because it might establish a chain of
events tending to incriminate me".

In the example you cite, the questions might go as follows:

Q: Were you in the museum on the night of May 16.
A: Yes, I was.
Q: Did you steal the Hope Diamond that disappeared on the night of May
16?
A: I must decline to answer that question on the ground that it might
tend to incriminate me.

Obviously, this line of questioning contains a virtual admission that
he did steal the Hope Diamond. Therefore the witness must take the
Fifth on both the first and the second question.

Sam Sloan
  #5   Report Post  
Old October 22nd 09, 10:10 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,misc.legal,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jun 2009
Posts: 319
Default Did Truong Take the Fifth?

On Oct 21, 11:58*pm, samsloan wrote:
I have heard that Paul Truong took the Fifth Amendment numerous times
during his deposition in Lubbock Texas.

Is this true? Can anybody confirm this?

It is my understanding that one cannot take the Fifth selectively,
refusing to answer some questions but not others. If one wants to take
the Fifth, one must refuse to answer any questions other than
identifying your name and address, or one must answer all questions
(unless the law has changed in the last few years).

Does anybody know the answer to this?

Sam Sloan




"The assertion of the privilege against self incrimination must be
raised in response to each specific inquiry or it is waived. Each
assertion of the privilege rests on its own
circumstances. Blanket assertions of the privilege are not permitted.
See, United States v. White, 589 F.2d 1283, 1286-87 (5th Cir. 1979);
Meyer v. Tunks, 360 S.W.2d 518, 523 (Tex.
1962)." -- "FIFTH AMENDMENT RIGHT AGAINST SELF INCRIMINATION IN CIVIL
CASES," Gary A. Udashen & Barry Sorrels, P.C.



"Refusal to testify in a civil case

"While defendants are entitled to assert that right, there are
consequences to the assertion of the Fifth Amendment in a civil
action.

"The Supreme Court has held that “the Fifth Amendment does not forbid
adverse inferences against parties to civil actions when they refuse
to testify in response to probative evidence offered against them.”
Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 318 (1976). “[A]s Mr. Justice
Brandeis declared, speaking for a unanimous court in the Tod case,
‘Silence is often evidence of the most persuasive character.’” Id. at
319 (quoting United States ex rel. Bilokumsky v. Tod, 263 U.S. 149,
153-154 (1923)). “‘Failure to contest an assertion...is considered
evidence of acquiescence...if it would have been natural under the
circumstances to object to the assertion in question.’” Id. (quoting
United States v. Hale, 422 U.S. 171, 176 (1975)).

"In Baxter, the state was entitled to an adverse inference against
Palmigiano because of the evidence against him and his assertion of
the Fifth Amendment privilege."

(From Wikipedia, so take it for what it's worth.)



  #6   Report Post  
Old October 22nd 09, 11:38 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,misc.legal,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2009
Posts: 1,132
Default Did Truong Take the Fifth?

samsloan wrote:
I have heard that Paul Truong took the Fifth Amendment numerous times
during his deposition in Lubbock Texas.

Is this true? Can anybody confirm this?

It is my understanding that one cannot take the Fifth selectively,
refusing to answer some questions but not others. If one wants to take
the Fifth, one must refuse to answer any questions other than
identifying your name and address, or one must answer all questions
(unless the law has changed in the last few years).

Does anybody know the answer to this?

Sam Sloan

Yes. He did not plead the 5th Amendment privilege.
  #7   Report Post  
Old October 22nd 09, 03:22 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,misc.legal,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,073
Default Did Truong Take the Fifth?

On Oct 22, 2:58*am, samsloan wrote:
I have heard that Paul Truong took the Fifth Amendment numerous times
during his deposition in Lubbock Texas.

Is this true? Can anybody confirm this?

It is my understanding that one cannot take the Fifth selectively,
refusing to answer some questions but not others. If one wants to take
the Fifth, one must refuse to answer any questions other than
identifying your name and address, or one must answer all questions
(unless the law has changed in the last few years).

Does anybody know the answer to this?

Sam Sloan


Classic Sam, throw some **** on the ceiling and see what sticks. Then
dance around as some of it comes back to earth.


  #9   Report Post  
Old October 22nd 09, 04:19 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,misc.legal,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Sep 2008
Posts: 53
Default Did Truong Take the Fifth?

jkh001 wrote in news:27688f16-5507-4990-8a98-3d7972cb0236
@p36g2000vbn.googlegroups.com:

On Oct 21, 11:58*pm, samsloan wrote:
I have heard that Paul Truong took the Fifth Amendment numerous times
during his deposition in Lubbock Texas.

Is this true? Can anybody confirm this?

It is my understanding that one cannot take the Fifth selectively,
refusing to answer some questions but not others. If one wants to take
the Fifth, one must refuse to answer any questions other than
identifying your name and address, or one must answer all questions
(unless the law has changed in the last few years).

Does anybody know the answer to this?

Sam Sloan



I believe you're confusing the Miranda-warning "right to remain
silent" with the assertion Fifth-Amendment rights while under oath.
They're not quite the same thing.


No, you may invoke your right to remain silent at any time during an
interrogation. In fact, once you ask for a lawyer, the police are supposed
to be the ones that stop talking.

  #10   Report Post  
Old October 22nd 09, 04:56 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,misc.legal,rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 3,026
Default Did Truong Take the Fifth?

TAKING THE 5th

Pleading the 5th is not a "privilege" as claimed below. It is a
right. Moreover, this right predates our Constitution. It is a right
because we as men enjoy such by virtue of our status as men. It is
called natural right.

Yours, Larry Parr

"The assertion of the privilege against self incrimination must be
raised in response to each specific inquiry or it is waived. Each
assertion of the privilege rests on its own circumstances. Blanket
assertions of the privilege are not permitted. See, United States v.
White, 589 F.2d 1283, 1286-87 (5th Cir. 1979); Meyer v. Tunks, 360 S.W.
2d 518, 523 (Tex. 1962)." -- "FIFTH AMENDMENT RIGHT AGAINST SELF
INCRIMINATION IN CIVIL CASES," Gary A. Udashen & Barry Sorrels, P.C.

"The Supreme Court has held that “the Fifth Amendment does not forbid
adverse inferences against parties to civil actions when they refuse
to testify in response to probative evidence offered against them.”
Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 318 (1976). “[A]s Mr. Justice
Brandeis declared, speaking for a unanimous court in the Tod case,
‘Silence is often evidence of the most persuasive character.’” Id. at
319 (quoting United States ex rel. Bilokumsky v. Tod, 263 U.S. 149,
153-154 (1923)). “‘Failure to contest an assertion...is considered
evidence of acquiescence...if it would have been natural under the
circumstances to object to the assertion in question.’” Id. (quoting
United States v. Hale, 422 U.S. 171, 176 (1975)).

(From Wikipedia, so take it for what it's worth.) -- JKH




jkh001 wrote:
On Oct 21, 11:58 pm, samsloan wrote:
I have heard that Paul Truong took the Fifth Amendment numerous times
during his deposition in Lubbock Texas.

Is this true? Can anybody confirm this?

It is my understanding that one cannot take the Fifth selectively,
refusing to answer some questions but not others. If one wants to take
the Fifth, one must refuse to answer any questions other than
identifying your name and address, or one must answer all questions
(unless the law has changed in the last few years).

Does anybody know the answer to this?

Sam Sloan




"The assertion of the privilege against self incrimination must be
raised in response to each specific inquiry or it is waived. Each
assertion of the privilege rests on its own
circumstances. Blanket assertions of the privilege are not permitted.
See, United States v. White, 589 F.2d 1283, 1286-87 (5th Cir. 1979);
Meyer v. Tunks, 360 S.W.2d 518, 523 (Tex.
1962)." -- "FIFTH AMENDMENT RIGHT AGAINST SELF INCRIMINATION IN CIVIL
CASES," Gary A. Udashen & Barry Sorrels, P.C.



"Refusal to testify in a civil case

"While defendants are entitled to assert that right, there are
consequences to the assertion of the Fifth Amendment in a civil
action.

"The Supreme Court has held that “the Fifth Amendment does not forbid
adverse inferences against parties to civil actions when they refuse
to testify in response to probative evidence offered against them.”
Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 318 (1976). “[A]s Mr. Justice
Brandeis declared, speaking for a unanimous court in the Tod case,
‘Silence is often evidence of the most persuasive character.’” Id. at
319 (quoting United States ex rel. Bilokumsky v. Tod, 263 U.S. 149,
153-154 (1923)). “‘Failure to contest an assertion...is considered
evidence of acquiescence...if it would have been natural under the
circumstances to object to the assertion in question.’” Id. (quoting
United States v. Hale, 422 U.S. 171, 176 (1975)).

"In Baxter, the state was entitled to an adverse inference against
Palmigiano because of the evidence against him and his assertion of
the Fifth Amendment privilege."

(From Wikipedia, so take it for what it's worth.)

Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Third-Party Complaint Against Truong Mr.Vidmar[_2_] rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 3 March 6th 09 09:41 PM
Third-Party Complaint Against Truong Mr.Vidmar[_2_] rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 3 March 6th 09 09:41 PM
Motion for Summary Judgment has been filed in Polgar vs. USCF samsloan rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 3 October 6th 08 02:49 PM
Motion for Summary Judgment has been filed in Polgar vs. USCF samsloan rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 3 October 6th 08 02:49 PM
Motion for Summary Judgment has been filed in Polgar vs. USCF samsloan alt.chess (Alternative Chess Group) 2 October 6th 08 02:49 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:04 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2019 ChessBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Chess"

 

Copyright © 2017