Mediaboss Marketing

WASHINGTON ?? Government employees who testify about public corruption are protected by the First Amendment, several Supreme Court justices suggested Monday.

During oral arguments in a freedom-of-speech case out of Alabama, several justices challenged the notion that public employees who testify truthfully about an issue of significant public concern aren't shielded from retaliation by the First Amendment.

"What kind of message are we giving when we're telling employees, you're subpoenaed in a trial, go and tell a falsehood because otherwise you can be fired?" Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked attorneys in the case.

The Fifth Amendment protects state employees against self-incrimination on the witness stand, but "it doesn't protect the department he works for from being incriminated," Chief Justice John Roberts said.

The case involves an employee at Central Alabama Community College whose testimony helped convict former Alabama state Rep. Sue Schmitz of corruption-related charges. The employee, Edward Lane of Ashville, was fired after he testified at Schmitz's first trial in 2008.

Before Lane gets a chance to prove in court his firing was retaliatory, the Supreme Court must decide if his testimony is protected speech under the First Amendment.

Lane, who attended Monday's arguments, was surprised that's even in doubt.

"I thought for sure that being able to go testify truthfully in court that I should be protected," he said in an interview on the Supreme Court steps after Monday's arguments. "And to find out (the other side) actually thinks that is not the case - that just blows me over."

Steve Franks, former president of the two-year college, says Lane's testimony wasn't protected by the First Amendment. His attorney, Mark Waggoner of Birmingham, argued Monday that Lane's testimony was based on information he gleaned only from his job and that he was testifying as a state employee, not a regular citizen.

"If the testimony is factual, based solely on the job duties, as it was here, inseparable from the job duties, and it is information that a citizen would not know, that only the testifier would know, then that is not protected speech," Waggoner told the justices.

Read the rest here:
Justices suggest public employees' testimony is protected

Text of Amendment: 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. Indictment by a Grand Jury: Nobody can go to trial for a serious crime, except in a military setting, without first being indicted by a grand jury. Double Jeopardy:

The Fifth Amendment also mandates that defendants, once acquitted on a charge, may not be tried again for the same offense at the same jurisdictional level. Defendants may be tried again if the previous trial ended in a mistrial or hung jury, if there is evidence of fraud in the previous trial, or if the charges are not precisely the same--for example, the police officers who beat Rodney King, after being acquitted on state charges, were convicted on federal charges for the same offense.

The best known clause in the Fifth Amendment ("No person ... shall be compelled in a criminal case to be a witness against himself") protects suspects from forced self-incrimination. When a suspect invokes his or her Fifth Amendment right to remain silent, this is referred to in the vernacular as "pleading the Fifth." It should not by any means be taken as a sign of guilt, but it is generally portrayed as such in courtroom television dramas.

Read more:
Fifth Amendment - The Text, Origins, and Meaning of the ...

How many people waive Fifth Amendment rights on arrest Ask USA TODAY

By: Erick Finley

View post:
How many people waive Fifth Amendment rights on arrest Ask USA TODAY - Video

Debating the fifth Amendment
Demo for presentation.

By: Nicholas Finch

See more here:
Debating the fifth Amendment - Video

By RTT News, April 15, 2014, 01:18:00 PM EDT

(RTTNews.com) - Carriage Services, Inc. ( CSV ) announced that it has entered into a fifth amendment to the Credit Agreement and the new credit agreement under the Fifth Amendment, increases, in total, from $235 million to $325 million and continues to be administered by Bank of America, N.A.

The company said the Fifth Amendment will become effective upon consummation of that certain Asset Sale Agreement, by certain subsidiaries of each of the company and Service Corporation International, which was previously announced on March 5, 2014.

Following effectiveness of the Fifth Amendment, obligations under the Credit Agreement will mature on March 31, 2019, the company said.

Carriage Services stated that the Fifth Amendment provides for an increase in the revolving credit facility from $125 million to $200 million. Borrowings under the term loan facility of $125 million are subject to amortization payments of 7.5% of the principal amount in the first two years following the Fifth Amendment effective date, 10.0% for the third and fourth years following the Fifth Amendment effective date and 12.5% per year thereafter.

For comments and feedback: contact editorial@rttnews.com

http://www.rttnews.com

Continued here:
Carriage Services Inc. Announces Amendment To Credit Facility - Quick Facts