Mediaboss Marketing

File: May 22, 2013: Ex-IRS official Lois Lerner is sworn in on Capitol Hill, in Washington, D.C.(AP)

The Justice Department has declined to pursue contempt of Congress charges against Lois Lerner for refusing to testify about her role at the IRS in the targeting of conservative groups.

The department announced the decision in a letter Tuesday to House Speaker John Boehner, whose Republican-controlled chamber made the request to prosecute, after holding Lerner in contempt for refusing to testify at committee hearings.

"Once again, the Obama administration has tried to sweep IRS targeting of taxpayers for their political beliefs under the rug, Boehner spokesman Michael Steel told FoxNews.com.

Lerner asserted her Fifth Amendment privilege, which allows people to not testify against themselves, during a May 2013 hearing of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and then again at a March 2014 hearing.

However, House Republicans argued Lerner waived the privilege with an opening statement she made before the committee in the May 2013 appearance. All the chambers Republican members and six Democrats officially voted in May 2014 to hold Lerner in contempt.

Ron Machen Jr., the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, said in the seven-page letter that federal prosecutors concluded Lerner did not waive her privilege because she made only general claims of innocence during the opening statement.

Thus, the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution would provide Ms. Lerner with an absolute defense should be prosecuted for her refusal to testify, wrote Machen, who was appointed to the U.S. attorney post by President Obama and left for private practice Wednesday, one day after sending the letter.

He also said he will not refer the case to a grand jury or take any other action to prosecute.

Lerner ran the IRSs exempt organizations unit when Tea Party and other nonprofit groups with conservative names applying for tax-exempt status were targeted for additional auditing from April 2010 to April 2012.

Excerpt from:
HOME FREE Justice Dept. won't pursue charges against Lerner

Border Patrol - Illegal General Search in El Paso, TX
Border Patrol agents illegally stop and question US Citizens at a border checkpoint in El Paso, TX. The card says: "I do not consent to this stop. -I Invoke and refuse to waive my Fifth Amendment...

By: armedwatchman

See the original post here:
Border Patrol - Illegal General Search in El Paso, TX - Video

A recent case has people wondering if, how, and when police officers can use their property, including their house, to stage law enforcement operations.

A Henderson, NV family claimed officers violated the Third Amendment ("[n]o Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner") by occupying their homes to investigate a domestic dispute at a neighbor's house. A federal court found that, while officers may have committed some other constitutional violations, the amendment didn't apply because the officers were not soldiers.

So is there any limit to when the police can use your property as a base of operations?

No Third Amendment Protection

The District Court in Nevada dismissed the families' Third Amendment claims because it did not consider municipal police officers as soldiers:

I hold that a municipal police officer is not a soldier for purposes of the Third Amendment. This squares with the purpose of the Third Amendment because this was not a military intrusion into a private home, and thus the intrusion is more effectively protected by the Fourth Amendment. Because I hold that municipal officers are not soldiers for the purposes of this question, I need not reach the question of whether the occupation at issue in this case constitutes quartering, though I suspect it would not.

Therefore, it seems likely that the police would have significant leeway in setting up a base of operations on a citizen's private property. It's generally agreed upon that officers may set up speed traps on private property, including driveways, to monitor public highways.

Fourth or Fifth Amendment Protection?

The Fourth Amendment prohibits "unreasonable searches and seizures," a may cover officers occupying private property. Weather officers' presence on private property is unreasonable would likely come down to the property owner's "reasonable expectation of privacy." This determination that could depend on whether officers are inside an owner's home, which carries a higher privacy expectation, or outside where the expectation of privacy is lessened.

The Fifth Amendment's Eminent Domain Clause bars the government from taking personal property for public use without "just compensation." Although courts have expanded the definition of a taking to beyond the forced sale of a home, it remains to be seen whether police officers temporarily occupying private property would apply under the amendment.

More:
Can the Police Occupy My Property?

Aaron Hernandez Murder Trial Dy 31 Pt 6 "Option Of The Fifth Amendment"
March 24, 2015 Tonya refused to speak before the Grand Jury on Aaron #39;s.

By: Look Up Lift Up

See the original post:
Aaron Hernandez Murder Trial Dy 31 Pt 6 "Option Of The Fifth Amendment" - Video

By Eric Levenson @ejleven

Boston.com Staff | 03.27.15 | 9:20 AM

Shayanna Jenkins, Aaron Hernandezs fiance, is expected to be called to testify in Hernandezs murder trial on Friday.

Jenkins has been granted immunity by the prosecution, which means she can testify without fear of incriminating herself and she does not have the right to plead the Fifth Amendment.

Surveillance video previously seen in court showed Jenkins carrying a black trash bag from Hernandezs house and placing it in the trunk of a car she borrowed from her sister. Prosecutors have said the gun used to kill Odin Lloyd was in that bag, which has not been found.

Advertisement - Continue Reading Below

Visit link:
Aaron Hernandezs Fiance Testifies in Murder Trial