Case of Braswell V United State
Case of Braswell v. United States
Team A
Bridget Sarris, Bonnie Kyle, Erlyn Cruz, Ernest Snyder
LAW / 421
Robert Tisher
May 27, 2013
BRASWELL
v.
UNITED STATES
This case presents the question whether the custodian of corporate records may resist a subpoena for such records on the ground that the act of production would incriminate him in violation of the Fifth Amendment. We conclude that he may not.
From 1965 to 1980, petitioner Randy Braswell operated his business — which comprises the sale and purchase of equipment, and, timber, and oil and gas interests — as a sole proprietorship. In 1980, he incorporated Worldwide Machinery Sales, Inc., a Mississippi corporation, and began conducting the business through that entity. In 1981, he formed a second Mississippi corporation, Worldwide Purchasing, Inc., and funded that corporation with the 100 percent interest he held in Worldwide Machinery. Petitioner was and is the sole shareholder of Worldwide Purchasing, Inc. (Braswell v. United States, 487 US 99 - Supreme Court 1988, 1988)
If a corporation has been recognized as a legal “person” for First Amendment purposes, why doesn't the Fifth Amendment protect it too? Bonnie
In the case of Braswell he is considered a corporation because he has his wife and mother as officers in his business. So because they are not just employees, they are officers of two companies not just employees of one business, this is recognized as a corporation. In this case the Fifth Amendment doesn’t protect the purpose of the First Amendment. The Fifth Amendment is to protect the First Amendment unless the courts allow the government to not allow one person to hold back information for a corporation. If Braswell business was not considered a corporation it could stand on the Fifth Amendment.
What if Braswell’s company was a sole proprietorship rather than a corporation? - Bridget
If Braswell’s company was a sole proprietorship rather than a corporation, he would have
Team A
Bridget Sarris, Bonnie Kyle, Erlyn Cruz, Ernest Snyder
LAW / 421
Robert Tisher
May 27, 2013
BRASWELL
v.
UNITED STATES
This case presents the question whether the custodian of corporate records may resist a subpoena for such records on the ground that the act of production would incriminate him in violation of the Fifth Amendment. We conclude that he may not.
From 1965 to 1980, petitioner Randy Braswell operated his business — which comprises the sale and purchase of equipment, and, timber, and oil and gas interests — as a sole proprietorship. In 1980, he incorporated Worldwide Machinery Sales, Inc., a Mississippi corporation, and began conducting the business through that entity. In 1981, he formed a second Mississippi corporation, Worldwide Purchasing, Inc., and funded that corporation with the 100 percent interest he held in Worldwide Machinery. Petitioner was and is the sole shareholder of Worldwide Purchasing, Inc. (Braswell v. United States, 487 US 99 - Supreme Court 1988, 1988)
If a corporation has been recognized as a legal “person” for First Amendment purposes, why doesn't the Fifth Amendment protect it too? Bonnie
In the case of Braswell he is considered a corporation because he has his wife and mother as officers in his business. So because they are not just employees, they are officers of two companies not just employees of one business, this is recognized as a corporation. In this case the Fifth Amendment doesn’t protect the purpose of the First Amendment. The Fifth Amendment is to protect the First Amendment unless the courts allow the government to not allow one person to hold back information for a corporation. If Braswell business was not considered a corporation it could stand on the Fifth Amendment.
What if Braswell’s company was a sole proprietorship rather than a corporation? - Bridget
If Braswell’s company was a sole proprietorship rather than a corporation, he would have