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.

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 rule making 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.

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 rule making 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 knows those rights. Otherwise, it can be asserted by a suspect that he did not, 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.

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 -- and the important part of the ruling -- 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 knows those rights. Otherwise, it can be asserted by a suspect that he did not, 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.

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 statement were used against them for conviction, and they claimed they did not know they did not have to say anything.

The SCOTUS ruling -- and the important part of the ruling -- 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 knows those rights. Otherwise, it can be asserted by a suspect that he did not, 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.

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, they 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 and it is 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 statement were used against them for conviction, and they claimed they did not know they did not have to say anything.

The SCOTUS ruling -- and the important part of the ruling -- 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 knows those rights. Otherwise, it can be asserted by a suspect that he did not, 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.

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 convictec.

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, they 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 and it is 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 statement were used against them for conviction, and they claimed they did not know they did not have to say anything.

The SCOTUS ruling -- and the important part of the ruling -- 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 knows those rights. Otherwise, it can be asserted by a suspect that he did not, 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.

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 convictec.

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, they 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 and it is 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 statement were used against them for conviction, and they claimed they did not know they did not have to say anything.

The SCOTUS ruling -- and the important part of the ruling -- 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 knows those rights. Otherwise, it can be asserted by a suspect that he did not, 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 ...

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).

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 convictec.

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, they 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 and it is 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 statement were used against them for conviction, and they claimed they did not know they did not have to say anything.

The SCOTUS ruling -- and the important part of the ruling -- 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 knows those rights. Otherwise, it can be asserted by a suspect that he did not, 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 ...

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 or 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).

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 convictec.

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, they 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 and it is 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 statement were used against them for conviction, and they claimed they did not know they did not have to say anything.

The SCOTUS ruling -- and the important part of the ruling -- 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 knows those rights. Otherwise, it can be asserted by a suspect that he did not, 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 ...