Can You Be Compelled To Incriminate Yourself?

I’ll never forget the first time I saw a lobster boiled alive. It was at a family gathering when I was very young, perhaps five or six years old. One of my aunts calmly picked up a happily wriggling lobster out of an ice chest and dropped it in a pot of boiling water. The lobster flailed a bit and then stopped moving.

That incident made a strong impression on me. I think of it whenever I read of a law, court decision, or administrative decision that, while not notable by itself, represents the end – the death – of something very important. But just like the lobster, most people don’t realize anything’s wrong. They continue “happily wriggling.”

Such was my thought process when I learned of a court decision last month that US persons have no right to withhold information about their foreign investments from the government, even if that information could be used to criminally prosecute them.The 2013 Salinas Supreme Court decision opened the door for further incursions, by confirming that a jury can draw a negative inference from someone who refuses to answer a question.

With this track record, I wasn’t surprised to learn that last month, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that citizens may not claim Fifth Amendment protection for their bank records. A couple named Chabot lost their argument that their offshore bank records could incriminate them in district court, and they lost again on appeal.

This is how we lose the rights won through blood, sweat, and tears more than 300 years ago. The events and decisions that matter are so seemingly innocuous and occur over such an extended time period that almost no one pays attention. Piece by piece. Year by year. Even century by century.

It’s such a slow process that it’s easy to miss. Not unlike a lobster obliviously on the way to his doom.

Are you like a lobster ready to be thrown into the pot? Or do you have a Plan B?

Reprinted with permission from Nestmann.com.