The 5th Amendment is intended as a limit on government. So, when a government employee asserts not testifying on the grounds of this as a privilege or right, it is as though the Constitution “granted” a right to the People by the Constitution, which, by their assertion is actually an immediate statement of the entire public spectacle of the Congressional hearings on the IRS misconduct as a dog and pony show by all who fail to appreciate the directive, and informative, language of the 5th Amendment.
First, why I say without any reservation that the 5th Amendment is a limit on government and not a grant of rights from We the People, is that it is pure comedy to think we'd be granting ourselves limited rights by our ratification of the Constitution, which, in fact, is what instituted the government with its limited rights and powers to specific objects in the National sphere. This is what “We the Posterity” are required to know -- American People who appreciate the Founders intent and purpose of the Constitution, “Constituents” today, and anyone not appreciating Our Founders purposes for the Constitution has no capacity to be a Constituent (i.e. Those not naturalized and having learned the Constitution as a matter of their civic duty to uphold as a Constituent).
Using the actual statement of the Preamble to the Bill of Rights I submit this original intent and purpose, and the irrefutable evidence the Bill of Rights repeat and further elucidate the limits of the rights of government and their limitations in relation to the American People, the terms and conditions of the consent of the governed to institute a national government. (Note all emphasis is mine, though it may not display on some sites where this is posted):
“THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.” -- http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html.
And now the 5th Amendment itself:
“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
Note that the limitation of government compulsion of a witness to testify against themselves is specifically reserved for “any criminal case” which means the government isn't limited in scope of compulsion of a citizen to testify in a hearing of one of the houses of Congress, or in any other civil investigative matter (as even administrative hearings are civil matters, and not criminal matters).
So, to help appreciate the perversion that's been done to this limit on government we must first recognize this fact, that there is no statement to suggest in any way that this limit on government is a privilege or grant of some right to the people, (It is most notable how there is no “declaratory statement” of something like, “the following right not to be compelled to be a witness against himself is hereby granted by this Fifth Amendment to the Constitution” or anything similar in the preamble to the Bill of Rights.) especially one that would require a Citizen to voice/assert such right for such limit to be imposed on the government. It appears a theater is created by a person making the assertion of their right, versus asserting that the government has no right to ask, that it is limited by the 5th Amendment from pursuing them any further. But see, then the lawyers haven't anything to argue about, and the government no ambiguity it must overcome, to then use the very Supreme Court created by the Constitution to expand government. No, instead the citizen disavows the Constitution's imposed limit on government in exchange for testifying to the legal fiction of some “Constitutional Right” or as a privilege asserted according to the Government's interpretation of the document executed by the People to form the government on the Peoples' terms to assure the legitimacy of American government (see “consent of the governed” in Declaration of Independence, http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration.html).
The Constitution (as the 5th Amendment is part of the Constitution itself as a ratified Amendment), the only Law of the Land in fact, specifically dictates to government “No person shall.... nor shall,...” etc. Shall is a commandment, that when preceded by “no person,” “nor,” or some other object, the shall is to apply as a mandatory prohibitive, it is a Constitutional commandment upon the institution being constituted to express without any uncertainty those things that are absolutely forbidden to be done, with particulars/criteria for imposition of this limit, such as “in any criminal case,” stated thereafter, which naturally also explains this to the institution being constituted when these acts of government, such as compelling testimony, are not prohibited.
With the prevailing belief, the perversion of our Constitution as though granting rights to the people explained, I now take you to Lois Lerner's “I invoke my 5th Amendment right” on advice of her counsel. I hope you all send a copy of this to Darrell Issa for the first thing he must do is declare “these hearings are an exercise in American civics and the civil process of government, that, though the testimony presented can be used by the Justice Department if they were to pursue a prosecution of Lois Lerner or to subpoena her to testify in prosecution of someone else, this hearing is not a criminal case, and, that she has one more chance to testify before the committee in the interest of the public good and general Welfare” or, Mr. Issa should continue, “I will hold her in contempt of court by using the judicial civil process of the Federal District Court personally to gain her testimony.”
This would mean Eric Holder isn't going after her for criminal contempt of Congress, and that she could be subject to being held in jail until she is willing to testify in a courtroom. Mr. Issa should move for a Lis Pendens against all of Lois Lerner's assets and forms of income as they are all subject to lien and being frozen, justified thus: “Miss Lerner's funds appear to have been commingled with activities she herself has decided she cannot speak about without fear of criminal prosecution, and, according to the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, as well as the well established doctrine of Fraud Vitiates from U.S. v. Throckmorton, her income derived as a government employee of the IRS, a department of the United States Treasury, may have all been derived from these corrupt and illegal activities during her tenure at the IRS, including, but not limited to, those funds in her retirement and pension accounts, as well as any personal investments she has made. This would also include her residence and/or any premises for which she has used these funds to pay to occupy. I am compelled to seek that this court freeze her assets as she hasn't indicated there was no other information sharing during the course of her employment that did not lead to illicit gains from insider trading, or using her knowledge of the tax code and pending IRS investigations and cases to determine what investments she would pursue and what investments she would avoid including in her investment portfolio. Any of these is possible until Miss Lerner has cleared up the specifics of her activities relating to targeting specific groups and their individual members who, so far, proved to all be American Citizens and did nothing in violation of the law but were penalized in asserting their elective and political franchise rights. Thus, Miss Lerner’s entirety of wealth falls under suspicion of corruption and I have no choice but to assume a general application of the law until such time as Lois Lerner testifies to the specifics necessary to make specific application of the law, which, by her testimony, she may demonstrate she is not a party to, but that, without reasonable testimony or evidence that has been thoroughly investigated and reviewed by myself and the House Oversight Committee I have no choice as a Congressman, who has sworn to uphold the Constitution and, as a public officer who cannot let a crime be committed in my presence, but to pursue Lois Lerner's Assets and sources of income in a civil court case in hopes of attaining her testimony, testimony that I hope includes evidence that will clear her of any wrongdoing or shows she had little choice in the matter. In fact, I would be glad to find that Lois Lerner is a victim of the situation that she's already admitted occurring as part of an apology for wrongdoing she later claims she didn't do as this whole investigation was initiated by Lois Lerner carrying on a public 3rd party discloser that waives all of her 5th Amendment protections in regard to the issue she was apologizing for, and in fact shows Lois Lerner went to great lengths to expose apparently for the positive public relations purposes of such an apology from the IRS, that however remains a direct admission by Lois Lerner through that 3rd party disclosure of questionable and suspicious activities that actually occurred when she was employed by the IRS and representing the United States Treasury.”
Long and probably a bit verbose? Perhaps, but to the point, and not letting another Obama agitator get away with using their government badge, their “shield,” as a means of avoidance for being held accountable for corruption that's transpired and that this government employee is, at minimum, a witness to.
You see the perversion? A government employee asserting the 5th Amendment to limit, to even obstruct, the government's ability to intrude into their life, while, when they were an IRS employee they authorized and appear to have been part of a scheme to ignore the 5th Amendment limit on government in relation to 501 (c) (4) applicants who, as directed by law, were voluntarily applying for recognition to assure they could legally participate in America's political process. Lerner's plea of the 5th Amendment is a perfect Alinsky mockery of America's system of government.
To emphasize, just imagine if you asserted the 5th Amendment to not file a tax return, as the 1040 says right over where you sign, as a form of agreement and considered your declaration by signature:
“Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have examined this return and accompanying schedules and statements, and to the best of my knowledge and belief, they are true, correct, and complete. Declaration of preparer (other than taxpayer) is based on all information of which preparer has any knowledge.” -- http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1040.pdf
Continuing the emphasis, that last part is a legal disclaimer inserted by the IRS to hold tax filing preparers harmless from audit for doing another person's return, setting up the IRS presumption that the preparer only used the taxpayer's information that they had knowledge of (i.e. provided by the taxpayer), “ Declaration of preparer (other than taxpayer) is based on all information of which preparer has any knowledge.” Whatever you tell them is all they are responsible for, and any omissions, the common prosecution is for failing to state amounts of income subject to tax, by your signature you're liable but the preparer is not unless you can prove you told them and can prove they failed to include the amount (Of course such disclosure to the preparer is a 3rd party disclosure and deemed a waiver to your assertion any 5th Amendment “right” protection, in government's interpretation of it).
Lois Lerner's 5th Amendment Right, the one the rest of us don't have when it comes to filing our taxes or applying for a 501 (c) (4) recognition, would also not result in our receiving paid leave from our job – we're treated worse than an IRS officer who violated the most well established boundaries of IRS limits and we're not even a part of a scandal to use the IRS to deny some Americans, Constituents, their unalienable Right of political franchise!
Am I the only one that can see this abuse of the People's desire to do what's right being doubly exploited by the very means of government excusing government actors who have a desire to do what's wrong, and that it appears the rest of those in government want them to get away with it to set a precedent against the people that only leaves us with less gumption to assert our rightful power as the Sovereign Authority (see Founder & Supreme Court Justice James Wilson, http://govote.avoiceofthepeople.com/)?
God Bless you and thank you for reading and sharing this,
Toddy Littman
