Rick Scott Pleading of the 5th manipulated legal system

Scott's pleading of the 5th manipulated legal system

By Talbot "Sandy" D'Alemberte, special to the Times
In Print: Monday, October 18, 2010


President Ronald Reagan once spoke of the importance of the rule of law in a free society such as ours, a society where the rights of people have been protected for centuries.

"The people," Reagan said, "must participate in … the decisions of government under the rule of law."

But it now is clear that a man who wants to be governor of the state of Florida doesn't believe these words and rules apply to him.

Among the rights bestowed on Americans is the ability to avoid physical and verbal abuse by authorities. More specifically, all Americans have the right to refuse to answer questions during a legal proceeding — if they believe their answers might lead to criminal charges against them.

To invoke the Fifth Amendment, an individual must swear under oath that the reason for doing so is a fear of self-incrimination. There are no other circumstances that permit a person to avoid answering questions during a legal proceeding.

But recent public statements by Rick Scott, the Republican candidate for governor, reveal that the reason he pleaded the Fifth Amendment was not to avoid self-incrimination. Instead it was to obstruct or stop what he now says was a lawyer's "fishing expedition."

Invoking the Fifth Amendment just to avoid a "fishing expedition" can be obstruction of justice, perjury and lead to contempt of court. At issue is a deposition during which Scott was questioned about his role as the CEO of what was then the country's largest health care company. A federal investigation of Scott's company, Columbia/HCA, led to a record $1.7 billion in fines for defrauding Medicare, the health care program for seniors.

During this one deposition, Scott pleaded the Fifth Amendment 75 times.

As a lawyer, officer of the court and candidate for governor, Scott knew he had an obligation to uphold the rule of law and to act in conformance with the legal system's requirements. So when Scott invoked the Fifth Amendment while under oath, he could have only done so for one legitimate reason: to avoid incriminating himself.

That sole allowed reason for invoking the Fifth Amendment — to protect against having your own testimony used against you to prove criminal wrongdoing — is at odds with Scott's recent claim that he refused to testify under oath merely "to stop the fishing expedition."

Such a manipulation of the legal system is an unacceptable and possibly illegal assault on the rule of law and the integrity of our civil justice system. And it promotes disrespect for the neutral and impartial court system.

A person seeking to be Florida's governor must be committed to ensuring that the laws aren't undermined and manipulated, but rather faithfully executed. That obligation is taken on by all lawyers — and this includes Scott — on the day they are sworn into the bar.

The bottom line is this: Anyone who thinks the rule of law doesn't apply to him seriously erodes the rights afforded to each of us. And nothing that undermines the rule of law can be deemed ethical.

Talbot "Sandy" D'Alemberte is past president of the American Bar Association.

He's still better than any Democrat!!!

[mod 167]

The original post was deleted because there was no URL link attached to the post. Per the Terms of Use, you must attach a URL link when posting copies of newspaper articles, magazine articles or any other reference material.

If the OP wants to provide the URL link to the story I will restore the original post.

Mod 167

Obviously you have never been up against a Slick attorney in a deposition (witch hunt) I have and it is not a pleasant position to be in even when you have done nothing wrong and have nothing to hide. you trust in your attorney to give you proper legal advice, and you follow that advice.


The case in which the 75 times occurred had nothing to do with the HCA/ Columbia Fraud allegations. Scott's deposition was not part of the criminal fraud case being pursued by the federal government as the Sleazy Sink ad suggests, it was a civil case involving Columbia/HCA and Nevada Communications Corp. Nevada Communications alleged that Columbia/HCA breached the terms of a communications contract. (Scott was no longer with HCA/ Columbia at the time)

"There can be myriads of reasons other than guilt which prompt a person to claim a Fifth Amendment privilege, and it might be just as reasonable to infer that the witness refused to answer for some other reason." according to George R. Dekle, Sr., a professor of law at the University of Florida.

it's not an admission of guilt, said Oscar Michelen, a New York lawyer who has written articles on the Fifth Amendment. It can also be used as a way to protect the innocent from wrongful prosecution, he says. Investigators try to link people to crimes, he said. Not prove they did it.

http://politifact.com/florida/statem...ent-imply-gui/

that may be so and i hate voting for a democrat but i heard that rick scott is gonna kill us in our retirement. i aint voten for him.

Taking the fifth is so you won't incriminate yourself - period. It don't matter if it's in a criminal or civil case. This Repub is voting for a Dem on this one.

http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/columns ... em/1128351

Scott's pleading of the 5th manipulated legal system
By Talbot "Sandy" D'Alemberte, special to the Times
In Print: Monday, October 18, 2010

President Ronald Reagan once spoke of the importance of the rule of law in a free society such as ours, a society where the rights of people have been protected for centuries.

"The people," Reagan said, "must participate in … the decisions of government under the rule of law."

But it now is clear that a man who wants to be governor of the state of Florida doesn't believe these words and rules apply to him.

Among the rights bestowed on Americans is the ability to avoid physical and verbal abuse by authorities. More specifically, all Americans have the right to refuse to answer questions during a legal proceeding — if they believe their answers might lead to criminal charges against them.

To invoke the Fifth Amendment, an individual must swear under oath that the reason for doing so is a fear of self-incrimination. There are no other circumstances that permit a person to avoid answering questions during a legal proceeding.

But recent public statements by Rick Scott, the Republican candidate for governor, reveal that the reason he pleaded the Fifth Amendment was not to avoid self-incrimination. Instead it was to obstruct or stop what he now says was a lawyer's "fishing expedition."

Invoking the Fifth Amendment just to avoid a "fishing expedition" can be obstruction of justice, perjury and lead to contempt of court. At issue is a deposition during which Scott was questioned about his role as the CEO of what was then the country's largest health care company. A federal investigation of Scott's company, Columbia/HCA, led to a record $1.7 billion in fines for defrauding Medicare, the health care program for seniors.

During this one deposition, Scott pleaded the Fifth Amendment 75 times.

As a lawyer, officer of the court and candidate for governor, Scott knew he had an obligation to uphold the rule of law and to act in conformance with the legal system's requirements. So when Scott invoked the Fifth Amendment while under oath, he could have only done so for one legitimate reason: to avoid incriminating himself.

That sole allowed reason for invoking the Fifth Amendment — to protect against having your own testimony used against you to prove criminal wrongdoing — is at odds with Scott's recent claim that he refused to testify under oath merely "to stop the fishing expedition."

Such a manipulation of the legal system is an unacceptable and possibly illegal assault on the rule of law and the integrity of our civil justice system. And it promotes disrespect for the neutral and impartial court system.

A person seeking to be Florida's governor must be committed to ensuring that the laws aren't undermined and manipulated, but rather faithfully executed. That obligation is taken on by all lawyers — and this includes Scott — on the day they are sworn into the bar.

The bottom line is this: Anyone who thinks the rule of law doesn't apply to him seriously erodes the rights afforded to each of us. And nothing that undermines the rule of law can be deemed ethical.

Talbot "Sandy" D'Alemberte is past president of the American Bar Association.


[Last modified: Oct 15, 2010 06:28 PM]

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2010 St. Petersburg Times

Taking the fifth is so you won't incriminate yourself - period. It don't matter if it's in a criminal or civil case. This Repub is voting for a Dem on this one.

"There can be myriads of reasons other than guilt which prompt a person to claim a Fifth Amendment privilege, and it might be just as reasonable to infer that the witness refused to answer for some other reason." according to George R. Dekle, Sr., a professor of law at the University of Florida.

it's not an admission of guilt, said Oscar Michelen, a New York lawyer who has written articles on the Fifth Amendment. It can also be used as a way to protect the innocent from wrongful prosecution, he says. Investigators try to link people to crimes, he said. Not prove they did it.

He's still better than any Democrat!!!

This Independant is voting Republican !!!!!!!!!!!

This Republican voted early and voted for Sink.