Reply #161: again, i'm sorry you like to blow smoke, but it's getting rather boring.

[Hannah Bell]

THE OP'S FAILURE TO UNDERSTAND THE INAPPLICABILITY OF THE 5TH AMENDMENT IN A CIVIL CASE NOTWITHSTANDING



"even though Ms. Toad explained it to you, is that in a civil case, it will not be upheld....you will be compelled to testify, as in the case of Ms. Cafiero"

1) ms toad "explained" nothing of the sort to me that i saw; please link to the post.
2)ms. cafiero was not compelled to testify at the deposition. she was compelled to *appear,* & advised by the judge that despite being compelled to *appear,* she could nevertheless invoke the protection of the 5th amendment right not to testify once she appeared:


“In this case Cafiero has neither been indicted nor is she the recipient of a ‘target letter.’ As it is uncertain whether Cafiero will be the subject of criminal action in the future, the court concludes that there is no reason to stay Cafiero’s deposition on this ground.

“However, this ruling is without prejudice to Cafiero’s right to assert the Fifth Amendment at her deposition,” DuBois wrote in the order."

http://www.mainlinemedianews.com/articles/2010/04/09/main_line_times/news/lmspygate/doc4bbb66f3878f3186611818.txt

"The judge said Cafiero could assert her Fifth Amendment right not to testify at a deposition in the case. He said she has not been indicted or named in a target letter."

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/local/89974282.html


and that's precisely what she did: invoked the 5th and was NOT "compelled to testify".

you're so full of it, & you're not a lawyer, you just play one at DU.