I saw someone post about Miranda rights, and I thought I would disuss that, specifically.
[Note: For the TLDR crowd, you don't have to read this, but then you will be ignorant about it, like you are now. Some things have to be explained with more than 4 words.]
Miranda v. Arizona was a US Supreme Court case, which is much more important and relevant to what is going on today than most people realize. It could and should be used against the tyranny (only applies to the USA, but the principle behind it is universal).
Yet, not 1 in 10,000 attorneys would even think to use it properly. They are trained to be obedient to the system, just like medical doctors and cops are. They are not trained to think for themselves, and most don't. However, due to the nature of the personality types that are attracted to law, there are more of them than doctors or cops who actually do think for themselves.
Most people (including cops, attorneys, judges, politicians, and bureacrats -- i.e. government employees of all types, as well as fake news media) think that Miranda was all about the police giving a warning of rights to a suspect upon arrest.
That was not the important decision in the case. That was a suggestion, but not the actual holding of the case (meaning, the law that was determined by the highest court). It was more like a sidenote, not the main point.
Ernesto Miranda was accused of kidnaping and raping a woman in Phoenix, Arizona in 1963. During police interrogation, he signed a confession. This confession was used in court against him, and he was convicted.
On appeal, he (his attorney) claimed that he did not know he did not have to talk to police at all, or that he could talk to an attorney, or that he did not have to sign a confession. If so, then he did not know his rights that are supposed to be protected by the US Constitution. The government claimed that everyone is supposed to know their rights, and it was not the police's duty to educate them.
Of course, such a position can lead to abuse by police (meaning, abuse by the government). The case went up to the SCOTUS.
There were actually several cases combined into one, which were all related to a suspect not knowing his rights. The others were accused of robbery, and their confessions and statements were used against them for conviction. They each claimed that they did not know that they did not have to say anything to the police, much less sign a confession.
The SCOTUS ruling (the important part) said:
Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rulemaking or legislation which would abrogate them.
Do you see how this applies to vaxx mandates, mask mandates, and all the rest we are experiencing?
The court went on to state that if a police officer tells a suspect about his rights under the 5th and 6th Amendments to the US Constitution, then it will be presumed that the suspect did know those rights. Otherwise, it could be asserted by a suspect that he did not know them, and that could be a violation of those rights.
The court gave an example of how that might be done by police, such as, "You have a right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have a right to speak to an attorney ..." etc. That is why all police departments have adopted some version of this.
But this "reading of rights" is NOT the most important part of the ruling.
The important part is that NO government agency (including Congress or a state legislature) can issue a policy or make a rule that would violate a person's rights.
Something I have not seen any attorney or non-attorney do is to state that the vaxx injectors did not read them their Miranda rights before they coerced an injection.
I don't know how that would be viewed, but if a person is supposed to KNOW their rights, and if this coercion is a way of violating their bodily autonomy (as secured by the 9th Amendment to the US Constitution), then all those injections should have first come with a Miranda warning, because there can be no policy or rulemaking which would violate the rights of the individual.
This idea is a "legal philosophy" question which has never been tested in court. But it should be.
Something to consider ...
P.S. Ernesto Miranda's conviction was overturned. The prosecutor tried him again, this time without the confession. He was found guilty again. He ended up spending about 5 or 6 years in prison, then was released on parole. Shortly thereafter, he got into a bar fight and was killed. Karma.
All medical procedures require the patient to sign an ‘implied consent’ document. Does the patient take the time to read the document and consider the circumstances surrounding the procedure or just pencil whip it? Define coerce.
To avoid self-incrimination by the suspect, Miranda is only read after the arrest if or when further interrogation may be needed. For opinion arrests such as driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol, Miranda is not necessary because the officer forms the opinion based on the objective symptoms of intoxication (SFSTs) at the scene. BTW…if at any time the suspect makes any unsolicited spontaneous utterance(s) like bragging or snitching on another suspect are admissible. This provides the filing District Attorney a position to plea bargain too.
IMHO, all facets of the Criminal Justice System blanket Miranda indiscriminately as a risk management task (CYA) instead of educating their employees. For over 30 years it has become a check list item during the booking process even if it doesn’t apply.
Is your 9th Amendment reference based on Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)? If so, I totally agree that "privacy" is an unalienable Right not specifically enumerated and an underlying theme of 50% of the Bill of Rights!
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/griswold_v_connecticut_%281965%29
Regarding the signing of the form before needle injection, that is a "unilateral contract of adhesion." It is written by one party, and the other party must sign it without any changes -- take it or leave it.
These contracts are not a "meeting of the minds," because there was no negotiation of any of the terms. They are a form of coercion, by nature.
The needle injection ones, in particular, were also done via fraud, inasmuch as they were based on claims ("safe and effective") that were not true. Therefore, these contracts should be considered unenforceable.
There is nothing in the Constitution about self-incrimination. That is Hollywood and Congress (Hollywood for ugly people).
The Constitution says a right to not be a witness against one's self. That may or may not be something that could be construed as incriminating.
These claims are always subjective, never objective.
Idiots get what they deserve.
No, just the clear language of the amendment. All rights that an individual had at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, still apply for all of posterity. That would include bodily autonomy.
Anytime you get into something that touches on abortion, you have a more murky area, because you have to first determine if the fetus has rights.
But other than abortion, we all have rights that existed in 1787, and still exist today. It is no surprise that the 9th Amendment is the one that the courts do not want to talk about.
It is the results of the SFSTs that are subjective and based on the investigating officer's training and experience as to the degree of intoxication for the purposes of driving safely; thus an opinion arrest. A reasonable person and any police officer can determine that someone is too drunk (0.20+ BAC) and should not be driving; hence the term “Drunk Driving.” But the threshold level of results for DUI is far less. Since alcohol is a central nervous system depressant the impairment is subtle and not noticeable to the untrained eye such as nystagymus induced by alcohol or drugs. The greater the bouncing the greater the level of impairment/intoxication and it coincides with the results of the chemical test with amazing accuracy. The eyes don't lie.
The 9th Amendment is a jewel, an ace in the hole, a trump card when used for the protection of “unenumerated" rights.
I'm currently playing this amendment with the department. The sworn brass took the oath to uphold both the U.S. and State Constitutions; we'll see how they respond. What are the odds there is a primary election in 107 days?
Q-1287 How do you introduce evidence into an investigation (legally)?
Q- 3852 How do you introduce evidence legally?