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
The “Right” to remain silent is not a right, it is a privilege granted only to a belligerent claimant
- US v. Johnson 76 FSupp 538: “The privilege against self-incrimination is neither accorded to the passive resistant, nor the person who is ignorant of his rights, nor to one indifferent therein. It is a fighting clause. Its benefits can be retained only by sustained combat. It cannot be claimed by attorney or solicitor. It is valid only when insisted upon by a belligerent claimant in person.”
- 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.
According to an online Notarial Protest Manual: remaining silent is dishonor, and courts will rule against you.
… The defendant is “charged”, arraigned, enters a plea and posts a bond. The “charge” is an “offer” to pay or perform. The arraignment is simply informing him of the offer. The court cannot rule on criminal activities, so the “defendant” is often enticed into dishonor by being
tricked into making a plea or entering into a plea “bargain”. A plea is an “argument” and puts the defendant in dishonor. A bail bond is insurance, a contract to perform – to appear or forfeit the insurance. Entering into the bond contract is giving up the “energy”. Remember the 72-hour
right of rescission? Well, if the “government” doesn’t post the bond in 72 hours, guess what? The defendant goes home. The government is bankrupt and cannot post a bond. Only the defendant can post the bond. Even signing a contract to be released on one’s own recognizance
is a bond and the defendant gives up his “energy”.
The Conditional Acceptance/Acceptance process is designed to help you respond honorably when you receive a “draft”. Remember that a “draft” is an offer, a presentment, whether it is a bill or a statement, an allegation, or an inquiry. You remain in honor when you timely respond with an acceptance (payment) or a Conditional Acceptance saying you will accept their draft if they “do” or “have” such-and-such. The components of writing a good CA are to break the offer down into its most minute components and address each individually, and NOT address issues not contained in their draft. Make no assumptions. The CA must contain very specific language and specifically address the issues – better yet, if it contains legal citations.
Some accused is detained without arraignment and incommunicado, without even the opportunity to request an appearance bond posted by the accuser. We are not suggesting this legal strategy will always work because they have the biggest guns, so be sure to learn more about the process before attempting to implement this type of strategy.
Everything you do in life – whether a draft or a bill for services rendered, a request to do
chores, or a letter asking why you did not file your taxes, is a draft (offer). Every time you are
addressed by some person, company or agency, realize you may be lured into responding
inappropriately. By law, you have 72 hours (three days) to change your mind on entering into
any contract. When you do respond, you must analyze what you are really being asked to do or
perform, or whether you are making assumptions about what is being requested. Every response
you make falls into one of four categories. The first two leave you in honor and in control. The
last two leave you in dishonor and you will lose:
• Conditionally Accept (CA) the offer
• Accept the offer;
• Argue; or,
• Ignore, be silent, acquiesce.
Consider the examples below and how you might respond in each circumstance using the
four options above. Which have you utilized? Were you in honor or dishonor? Will you prevail
or will you lose? Would you answer differently with your new-found knowledge if it happened
1. Your 17 year-old child says he wants to stay out until midnight. You respond, “You
can stay out ‘til midnight if you complete all your homework and you don’t have
2. Your significant other says, “After you take out the trash, we can have some quiet
time,’” so you take out the trash.
3. You get double billing for the carpet you just had installed. You call the business and
tell them you’re not going to pay it.
4. You receive a bill for a new roof, which was on your neighbor’s house. You throw
the bill away and laugh since it wasn’t your roof.
5. You receive an IRS CP515 inquiring why you didn’t file for last tax year. You send a
letter telling them that income tax is unconstitutional and you don’t have to file.
Frequently, creditors will intentionally take advantage of your commercial ignorance in order
to set you up or entice you into dishonor and cause you to lose. This is accomplished in many
ways, such as
• They make an offer, demand or draft so outrageous that it entices you to argue.
• They lure you to respond in a manner which technically is argument.
• They give you a far-off “respond by date” so that you do not respond within 72
• They don’t tell you how to cure a prior dishonor.
• They don’t respond at all to you so you don’t know what’s happened.
On the other hand, you likely have responded many times “dishonorably”. Consider these
responses and categorize them.
a. You complain about a service and refuse to pay for it.
b. You write a letter disputing a charge on your credit card statement.
c. You call a vendor and chew them out for billing you for someone else’s
d. You don’t respond at all to someone who angers you.
e. You reply with an “untruthful” or “outrageous” response.
f. You file a lawsuit or a complaint.
Remember, all facts are irrelevant and fly out the window when there is dishonor. A judge
can only intercede if there is controversy. If there is stipulation, he has nothing to do and that’s
the end of it. You have “energy” and control if you stay in honor.
There are two components to offers: public and private. Each issue is covered either
procedurally or in substance. You must be able to determine whether it is an issue you want to
address publicly or privately. The CA/A process is in the private sector. Litigation is the public
sector. Substance can be handled in private by stipulation or agreement. Procedure is handled
by the courts. Substance is establishing the facts. Courts do not deal with facts, they deal with
rules. You can always go back and correct an error, but you should strive to not make any errors.
As an example, in court, attorneys present their “argument”, which is a presumption. Neither
side can prove anything, so the judge has discretion as to who “wins”. As long as there is
controversy, the judge has immunity. When there is stipulation and agreement, the judge is no
longer immune if he intercedes. There are elements to a stipulation:
1. No party can argue or refute it.
2. No party can offer supporting evidence.
3. No judge can consider it or change it or it is reversible error.
Proverbs 10:19 the prudent hold their tongues .
Proverbs 21:23 Those who guard their mouths and their tongues keep themselves from calamity.
Second Timothy 2:23 “But avoid foolish and ignorant disputes, knowing that they generate strife.”
Second Timothy 2 Verses 24 and 25 continue. We are not to quarrel but to correct those who oppose themselves, in the chance that God will grant them repentance so that they may know the truth.
Notice that it is God that must grant their repentance. It was God that gave them over to a reprobate mind — Romans 1:28.
Colossians 4:6 “Let your speech be alway with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man.”
Proverbs 16:22 “Understanding is a wellspring of life unto him that hath it: but the instruction of fools is folly.”
Matthew 7:6 Do not … cast your pearls before swine
First Peter 3:15 (KJV) But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear.