Remaining silent has consequences. Speaking up has consequences.
How do you decide what is the right thing to do? If you remain silent, you either keep your rights or waive your rights. If you speak, you either keep your rights or waive your rights.
The Fifth Amendment, and your state constitution’s equivalent, does NOT create a right to remain silent. The Fifth Amendment is a restriction on government to keep them from using compulsion to extract information to be used against you in a criminal case.
Consequences of silence
- Silence implies consent.
- Ab assuetis non fit injuria according to Black’s Law Dictionary
From things in which there has been long acquiescence, no legal injury or wrong arises. If a persons neglects to insist on his right, he is deemed to have abandoned it.”
- “To sin by silence, when we should protest, makes cowards of men.” Ella Wheeler Wilcox, (1914).
- Veritas, quæ minime defeusatur opprimitur; et qui non improbat, approbat. Truth which is not sufficiently defended is overpowered; and he who does not disapprove, approves.
- Veritas nihil veretur nisi abscondi. Truth fears nothing but concealment.
- Silence is proof of false assumption. Quod non apparet non est, That which appears not is not.
- Maxim: “No one is obliged to accept a benefit against his consent. But if he does not dissent, he will be considered as assenting.”
- “The law creates a presumption, where the burden is on a party to prove a material fact peculiarly within his knowledge and he fails without excuse to testify, that his testimony, if introduced, would be adverse to his interests.” (20 Am Jur, Evidence Sec 190, page 193, citing Meier v Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 199 F 2d 392, 396 (8th Cir. 1952)
Duty to speak
- “Silence is equated with fraud if there is a moral duty to speak.” United States v. Prudden, 424 F.2d 1021
- “Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak or when an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading.” — Supreme Court in U.S. V. Tweel, 550 F.2d 297, citing U.S. v. Prudden
- Veritatem qui non libere pronunciat proditor est veritatis. He who does not freely speak the truth is a betrayer of truth.
Duty to remain silent
- Contra principia negantem non est disputandum. There can be no debate with one who denies fundamentals. You must remain silent when confronted with confused nonsense.
- The US Supreme Court’s Miranda decision said that the Fifth Amendment right to not witness against yourself comes from a divine right. Governments are instituted among men to secure rights.
In Matthew 27:12-14 and Mark 15:5 Jesus remained silent at his arraignment before Pilate. In Luke 23:9 Jesus remained silent before Herod. Christians refer to this as the good confession (First Timothy 6:13). Also see Mark 14:61 and Isaiah 53:7
- ACLU advice to remain silent https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/bustcard_eng_20100630.pdf
- Ex-cop advice to remain silent. Police Contact: Silence is Golden by Carl F. Worden
- Law professor advice to remain silent. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
- U.S. Supreme Court Miranda v. Arizona 384 U.S. 462
- The Police Chief Magazine , vol. 74, no. 4, April 2007 article “Suspects Who Refuse to Identify Themselves” by By Jeff Bray, Senior Legal Advisor, Plano, Texas, Police Department. http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=1150&issue_id=42007
US v. Velarde-Gomez, 269 F3d 1023 (2001)
[I]t would be fundamentally unfair and a deprivation of due process to allow the arrested person’s silence to be used to impeach an explanation subsequently offered at trial.”
Miranda, 384 U.S. at 468 n. 37, 86 S.Ct. 1602
[I]t is impermissible to penalize an individual for exercising his Fifth Amendment privilege when he is under police custodial interrogation.”
Whitehead, 200 F.3d at 637
noting that the government may not comment on post-arrest silence because such comments would constitute a penalty on the right to remain silent;
Veloria, 136 F.3d at 652
The right to remain silent carries an implicit assurance that silence will carry no penalty.”;
Douglas, 578 F.2d at 267
The introduction of such testimony [regarding silence] acted as an impermissible penalty on the exercise of the petitioner’s right to remain silent.”.
Estopple is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary as:
“A man’s own act or acceptance stops or closes his mouth to allege or plead the truth”.
That’s right! Actions speak louder than words. YOUR OWN SILENCE SHUTS YOUR MOUTH even to plead the truth. The citizen cannot complain. You got what you wanted. Now shut up and suffer the consequences. You are now prohibited from telling the truth, the whole truth, nor any truth.
- –Arises when one is concluded and forbidden by law to speak against his own act or deed.
- –An inconsistent position, attitude or course of conduct
- –A bar or impediment which precludes allegation or denial of a certain fact or state of facts in consequence of previous allegation or denial or conduct or admission, or in consequence of a final adjudication of the matter in a court of law.
Black’s Law Dictionary: “Estopple is or may be based on acceptance of benefits…. Acknowledgments of matters of fact… acquiescence…”
Back before the year 200 when Christians were fed to the lions. Tertullian recognized the Christian duty to speak out even before we are coerced into “silent acquiescence in heathen formularies … for by remaining silent you become bound to pagan gods”.[Chapter XXI of Anti-Nicene Fathers] For more information on Tertullian’s dilemma, read my book on Oaths. Today is no different. Acquiescence is estopple. Your new world order is exactly the same as the old world order.