Next Trial up to bat... Clemens... Conclusion?... Perjury is no big deal!

[mal]

Seriously... Which is Worse... Lying about sexually Abusing an unpaid intern while discussing troop deployment, or lying about performance enhancers in Baseball?...

And Lying under Oath is Perjury... He was Fined and Disbarred for it.



peace...

 

[Kiki Cannoli]

It is going to be difficult (not impossible, perhaps, but still pretty tough) for Roger's defense team to "get around" the probable trial testimony from Andy Pettitte.

And unless they do "get around" what Andy has to say, Roger the Rocket might just burn up on re-entry.

As soon as AP announced retirement, I thought of this trial. I forecast some tells will be revealed and AP didn't want/or rather the Steinbrenners didn't want the drama in Yankee stadium.

 

[Liability]

Seriously... Which is Worse... Lying about sexually Abusing an unpaid intern while discussing troop deployment, or lying about performance enhancers in Baseball?...

And Lying under Oath is Perjury... He was Fined and Disbarred for it.



peace...

Nope. Lying under oath is not necessarily perjury UNLESS the lie is material.

In the Clinton case, a judge determined that his fucking lie under oath was not "material." Ergo, it was not perjury.

It was, however, still a lie and still undermined the integrity of a judicial proceeding.

Clinton got what he deserved. He was indeed fined for contempt of court and for his behavior in a judicial proceeding, the FORMER "officer of the court" did get disbarred. Good.

 

[mal]

By the legal definition of "sexual relations", Clinton did not lie under oath. But, he certainly made himself look sleazy.

Um... He was found in Contempt of Court for Willfully Lying Under Oath...

He was Fined almost a Million Dollahs...

He was Disbarred in ARE-Kansas...

He was Disbarred by the Supreme Burrito.

Sorry, Perjury is Perjury and Billy was Admittedly Guilty.



peace...

Nope.

Perjury may be perjury but not all lies under oath ARE perjury.

If the Judge was correct, then Bubba's lie under oath was not perjury.

But he still deserved all the shit that flowed down on him after that stunt he pulled.

Well, Perjury doesn't sound half as bad as "Willfully Lying Under Oath" in a Federal Court...

Something Bubba was Fined for, and Disbarred for by his State and by the Supreme Court.

Maybe the Federal Judge didn't say Perjury... But that is Certainly what it was.

If "Willfully Lying Under Oath" in a Federal Court isn't Perjury...

Well, I need Perjury Defined.



peace...

 

[Liability]

Um... He was found in Contempt of Court for Willfully Lying Under Oath...

He was Fined almost a Million Dollahs...

He was Disbarred in ARE-Kansas...

He was Disbarred by the Supreme Burrito.

Sorry, Perjury is Perjury and Billy was Admittedly Guilty.



peace...

Nope.

Perjury may be perjury but not all lies under oath ARE perjury.

If the Judge was correct, then Bubba's lie under oath was not perjury.

But he still deserved all the shit that flowed down on him after that stunt he pulled.

Well, Perjury doesn't sound half as bad as "Willfully Lying Under Oath" in a Federal Court...

Something Bubba was Fined for, and Disbarred for by his State and by the Supreme Court.

Maybe the Federal Judge didn't say Perjury... But that is Certainly what it was.

If "Willfully Lying Under Oath" in a Federal Court isn't Perjury...

Well, I need Perjury Defined.



peace...

An intentional lie under oath is a requirement of perjury, but not sufficient standing alone. Another element -- a necessary element -- is that the lie be MATERIAL to the legal proceeding or official governmental inquiry or proceeding.

Judge Susan Webber Wright said, "Simply put, the president's deposition testimony regarding whether he had ever been alone with Ms. (Monica) Lewinsky was intentionally false, and his statements regarding whether he had ever engaged in sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky likewise were intentionally false...."

But the Judge also said that all the crap about Monica Lewinsky was not material to the Paula Jones law suit. Judge Strips Lewinsky Material From Jones Case - 01-29-98

And if it was not material to that lawsuit, then it was not a material lie. A lie under oath -- and contempt of court -- all the same. Just not perjury.

 

[mal]

Nope.

Perjury may be perjury but not all lies under oath ARE perjury.

If the Judge was correct, then Bubba's lie under oath was not perjury.

But he still deserved all the shit that flowed down on him after that stunt he pulled.

Well, Perjury doesn't sound half as bad as "Willfully Lying Under Oath" in a Federal Court...

Something Bubba was Fined for, and Disbarred for by his State and by the Supreme Court.

Maybe the Federal Judge didn't say Perjury... But that is Certainly what it was.

If "Willfully Lying Under Oath" in a Federal Court isn't Perjury...

Well, I need Perjury Defined.



peace...

An intentional lie under oath is a requirement of perjury, but not sufficient standing alone. Another element -- a necessary element -- is that the lie be MATERIAL to the legal proceeding or official governmental inquiry or proceeding.

Judge Susan Webber Wright said, "Simply put, the president's deposition testimony regarding whether he had ever been alone with Ms. (Monica) Lewinsky was intentionally false, and his statements regarding whether he had ever engaged in sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky likewise were intentionally false...."

But the Judge also said that all the crap about Monica Lewinsky was not material to the Paula Jones law suit. Judge Strips Lewinsky Material From Jones Case - 01-29-98

And if it was not material to that lawsuit, then it was not a material lie. A lie under oath -- and contempt of court -- all the same. Just not perjury.

I don't Disagree with anything you've Posted, but you didn't Link something for Perjury... Not that I don't Trust my own Counselor...



peace...

 

[Liability]

Well, Perjury doesn't sound half as bad as "Willfully Lying Under Oath" in a Federal Court...

Something Bubba was Fined for, and Disbarred for by his State and by the Supreme Court.

Maybe the Federal Judge didn't say Perjury... But that is Certainly what it was.

If "Willfully Lying Under Oath" in a Federal Court isn't Perjury...

Well, I need Perjury Defined.



peace...

An intentional lie under oath is a requirement of perjury, but not sufficient standing alone. Another element -- a necessary element -- is that the lie be MATERIAL to the legal proceeding or official governmental inquiry or proceeding.

Judge Susan Webber Wright said, "Simply put, the president's deposition testimony regarding whether he had ever been alone with Ms. (Monica) Lewinsky was intentionally false, and his statements regarding whether he had ever engaged in sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky likewise were intentionally false...."

But the Judge also said that all the crap about Monica Lewinsky was not material to the Paula Jones law suit. Judge Strips Lewinsky Material From Jones Case - 01-29-98

And if it was not material to that lawsuit, then it was not a material lie. A lie under oath -- and contempt of court -- all the same. Just not perjury.

I don't Disagree with anything you've Posted, but you didn't Link something for Perjury... Not that I don't Trust my own Counselor...



peace...

What is it you need linked? Some legal definition for the proposition that a lie under oath has to be MATERIAL?

PERJURY

When a person, having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the U.S. authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true; or in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury, willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true; 18 USC

In order for a person to be found guilty of perjury the government must prove: the person testified under oath before [e.g., the grand jury]; at least one particular statement was false; and the person knew at the time the testimony was false.

The testimony of one witness is not enough to support a finding that the testimony was false. There must be additional evidence, either the testimony of another person or other evidence, which tends to support the testimony of falsity. The other evidence, standing alone, need not convince that the testimony was false, but all the evidence on the subject must do so.

-- Legal Definition of Perjury

Perjury is the "willful and corrupt taking of a false oath in regard to a material matter in a judicial proceeding." It is sometimes called "lying under oath;" that is, deliberately telling a lie in a courtroom proceeding after having taken an oath to tell the truth. It is important that the false statement be material to the case at hand—that it could affect the outcome of the case. It is not considered perjury, for example, to lie about your age, unless your age is a key factor in proving the case.

Perjury can be used as a threat. Although it is a very serious crime under state and Federal laws, and while prosecutors often threaten prosecution, the number of actual prosecutions for perjury is tiny.

Perjury prosecutions stemming from civil lawsuits are particularly rare. This is because it is difficult to prove that someone is intentionally misstating a material fact, rather than simply testifying honestly from faulty memory.

-- Perjury - what is it?

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 79 > § 1623
§ 1623. False declarations before grand jury or court

Release date: 2005-08-03

(a) Whoever under oath (or in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code) in any proceeding before or ancillary to any court or grand jury of the United States knowingly makes any false material declaration or makes or uses any other information, including any book, paper, document, record, recording, or other material, knowing the same to contain any false material declaration, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

(b) This section is applicable whether the conduct occurred within or without the United States.

(c) An indictment or information for violation of this section alleging that, in any proceedings before or ancillary to any court or grand jury of the United States, the defendant under oath has knowingly made two or more declarations, which are inconsistent to the degree that one of them is necessarily false, need not specify which declaration is false if:

(1) each declaration was material to the point in question, and

(2) each declaration was made within the period of the statute of limitations for the offense charged under this section.

In any prosecution under this section, the falsity of a declaration set forth in the indictment or information shall be established sufficient for conviction by proof that the defendant while under oath made irreconcilably contradictory declarations material to the point in question in any proceeding before or ancillary to any court or grand jury. It shall be a defense to an indictment or information made pursuant to the first sentence of this subsection that the defendant at the time he made each declaration believed the declaration was true.

(d) Where, in the same continuous court or grand jury proceeding in which a declaration is made, the person making the declaration admits such declaration to be false, such admission shall bar prosecution under this section if, at the time the admission is made, the declaration has not substantially affected the proceeding, or it has not become manifest that such falsity has been or will be exposed.

(e) Proof beyond a reasonable doubt under this section is sufficient for conviction. It shall not be necessary that such proof be made by any particular number of witnesses or by documentary or other type of evidence.

-- United States Code: Definition of perjury - MLB - ESPN

There's more. But it is common (legal) knowledge that a lie under oath must be material to constitute "perjury."

 

[Stash]

You have a dispute with your neighbor. You chop down a tree that you say is on your property. Your neighbor says it was on his property and he takes you to court. With you on the witness stand your neighbor asks you questions about your sex life over the past ten years…the answers to which could destroy your marriage. You say the questions are irrelevant, but your neighbor says he will show relevance later and the judge allows him to proceed.

The lawsuit has no merit. This guy is only taking you to court so he can ask these questions which are clearly irrelevant to the case. If you answer truthfully, your marriage is destroyed, if you lie, he will go after you for perjury.

What can you do? You are allowed to lie if the questions are irrelevant to the case. Why? Because your neighbor is abusing the court system for his own personal vendetta. Allowing people to lie when the questions are irrelevant to the case is a way to prevent the system from being abused in this manner, otherwise things could get way out of control.

 

[Liability]

You have a dispute with your neighbor. You chop down a tree that you say is on your property. Your neighbor says it was on his property and he takes you to court. With you on the witness stand your neighbor asks you questions about your sex life over the past ten years…the answers to which could destroy your marriage. You say the questions are irrelevant, but your neighbor says he will show relevance later and the judge allows him to proceed.

The lawsuit has no merit. This guy is only taking you to court so he can ask these questions which are clearly irrelevant to the case. If you answer truthfully, your marriage is destroyed, if you lie, he will go after you for perjury.

What can you do? You are allowed to lie if the questions are irrelevant to the case. Why? Because your neighbor is abusing the court system for his own personal vendetta. Allowing people to lie when the questions are irrelevant to the case is a way to prevent the system from being abused in this manner, otherwise things could get way out of control.

Nope.

You are not "allowed" to lie under oath.

If one were allowed to lie when the questions are irrelevant or immaterial to the proceeding, then President Clinton would have gotten in no trouble.

But he did get in trouble. He got cited for civil contempt, paid a fine, got disbarred and got impeached.

 

[Stash]

You have a dispute with your neighbor. You chop down a tree that you say is on your property. Your neighbor says it was on his property and he takes you to court. With you on the witness stand your neighbor asks you questions about your sex life over the past ten years…the answers to which could destroy your marriage. You say the questions are irrelevant, but your neighbor says he will show relevance later and the judge allows him to proceed.

The lawsuit has no merit. This guy is only taking you to court so he can ask these questions which are clearly irrelevant to the case. If you answer truthfully, your marriage is destroyed, if you lie, he will go after you for perjury.

What can you do? You are allowed to lie if the questions are irrelevant to the case. Why? Because your neighbor is abusing the court system for his own personal vendetta. Allowing people to lie when the questions are irrelevant to the case is a way to prevent the system from being abused in this manner, otherwise things could get way out of control.

Nope.

You are not "allowed" to lie under oath.

If one were allowed to lie when the questions are irrelevant or immaterial to the proceeding, then President Clinton would have gotten in no trouble.

But he did get in trouble. He got cited for civil contempt, paid a fine, got disbarred and got impeached.

If I lie under such conditions, I'm not going to be disbarred since I'm not a lawyer. I'm not going to be impeached since I'm not the president. I seriously doubt that I will be fined or cited since the lawsuit itself was clearly a fraud. What happen to Clinton was political. The lawsuit against Clinton was political. I say this as someone who thinks that Sarah Palin was also victimized by legal warfare, and it is wrong no matter which side is doing it.

 

[mal]

An intentional lie under oath is a requirement of perjury, but not sufficient standing alone. Another element -- a necessary element -- is that the lie be MATERIAL to the legal proceeding or official governmental inquiry or proceeding.

Judge Susan Webber Wright said, "Simply put, the president's deposition testimony regarding whether he had ever been alone with Ms. (Monica) Lewinsky was intentionally false, and his statements regarding whether he had ever engaged in sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky likewise were intentionally false...."

But the Judge also said that all the crap about Monica Lewinsky was not material to the Paula Jones law suit. Judge Strips Lewinsky Material From Jones Case - 01-29-98

And if it was not material to that lawsuit, then it was not a material lie. A lie under oath -- and contempt of court -- all the same. Just not perjury.

I don't Disagree with anything you've Posted, but you didn't Link something for Perjury... Not that I don't Trust my own Counselor...



peace...

What is it you need linked? Some legal definition for the proposition that a lie under oath has to be MATERIAL?

-- Legal Definition of Perjury

Perjury is the "willful and corrupt taking of a false oath in regard to a material matter in a judicial proceeding." It is sometimes called "lying under oath;" that is, deliberately telling a lie in a courtroom proceeding after having taken an oath to tell the truth. It is important that the false statement be material to the case at hand—that it could affect the outcome of the case. It is not considered perjury, for example, to lie about your age, unless your age is a key factor in proving the case.

Perjury can be used as a threat. Although it is a very serious crime under state and Federal laws, and while prosecutors often threaten prosecution, the number of actual prosecutions for perjury is tiny.

Perjury prosecutions stemming from civil lawsuits are particularly rare. This is because it is difficult to prove that someone is intentionally misstating a material fact, rather than simply testifying honestly from faulty memory.

-- Perjury - what is it?

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 79 > § 1623
§ 1623. False declarations before grand jury or court

Release date: 2005-08-03

(a) Whoever under oath (or in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code) in any proceeding before or ancillary to any court or grand jury of the United States knowingly makes any false material declaration or makes or uses any other information, including any book, paper, document, record, recording, or other material, knowing the same to contain any false material declaration, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

(b) This section is applicable whether the conduct occurred within or without the United States.

(c) An indictment or information for violation of this section alleging that, in any proceedings before or ancillary to any court or grand jury of the United States, the defendant under oath has knowingly made two or more declarations, which are inconsistent to the degree that one of them is necessarily false, need not specify which declaration is false if:

(1) each declaration was material to the point in question, and

(2) each declaration was made within the period of the statute of limitations for the offense charged under this section.

In any prosecution under this section, the falsity of a declaration set forth in the indictment or information shall be established sufficient for conviction by proof that the defendant while under oath made irreconcilably contradictory declarations material to the point in question in any proceeding before or ancillary to any court or grand jury. It shall be a defense to an indictment or information made pursuant to the first sentence of this subsection that the defendant at the time he made each declaration believed the declaration was true.

(d) Where, in the same continuous court or grand jury proceeding in which a declaration is made, the person making the declaration admits such declaration to be false, such admission shall bar prosecution under this section if, at the time the admission is made, the declaration has not substantially affected the proceeding, or it has not become manifest that such falsity has been or will be exposed.

(e) Proof beyond a reasonable doubt under this section is sufficient for conviction. It shall not be necessary that such proof be made by any particular number of witnesses or by documentary or other type of evidence.

-- United States Code: Definition of perjury - MLB - ESPN

There's more. But it is common (legal) knowledge that a lie under oath must be material to constitute "perjury."

Thank you Counselor... As for the Technicalities of Law...

Had the Judge not Decided to toss the Monica stuff, it would have been Perjury...

My Point is this... One Judge's doesn't Negate what Clinton did.

His Lie didn't Change, the Circumstances in another Case did.

In that, it was Perjury, save one Judge's Choice to Negate the Lie as Material.

Was he Convicted of Perjury?... No.

But Thank you for your Source... It was good reading, Brother.



peace...

 

[mal]

And Counselor, it's Precisely these kinds of things that Caused me to Choose to go to School to be a Designer and not a Lawyer...

Much of the Technicalities, Judge Created Rules and "Admissable or not" crap that you deal with...

I can't.



peace...

 

[Liability]

I don't Disagree with anything you've Posted, but you didn't Link something for Perjury... Not that I don't Trust my own Counselor...



peace...

What is it you need linked? Some legal definition for the proposition that a lie under oath has to be MATERIAL?

-- Legal Definition of Perjury

-- Perjury - what is it?

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 79 > § 1623
§ 1623. False declarations before grand jury or court

Release date: 2005-08-03

(a) Whoever under oath (or in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code) in any proceeding before or ancillary to any court or grand jury of the United States knowingly makes any false material declaration or makes or uses any other information, including any book, paper, document, record, recording, or other material, knowing the same to contain any false material declaration, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

(b) This section is applicable whether the conduct occurred within or without the United States.

(c) An indictment or information for violation of this section alleging that, in any proceedings before or ancillary to any court or grand jury of the United States, the defendant under oath has knowingly made two or more declarations, which are inconsistent to the degree that one of them is necessarily false, need not specify which declaration is false if:

(1) each declaration was material to the point in question, and

(2) each declaration was made within the period of the statute of limitations for the offense charged under this section.

In any prosecution under this section, the falsity of a declaration set forth in the indictment or information shall be established sufficient for conviction by proof that the defendant while under oath made irreconcilably contradictory declarations material to the point in question in any proceeding before or ancillary to any court or grand jury. It shall be a defense to an indictment or information made pursuant to the first sentence of this subsection that the defendant at the time he made each declaration believed the declaration was true.

(d) Where, in the same continuous court or grand jury proceeding in which a declaration is made, the person making the declaration admits such declaration to be false, such admission shall bar prosecution under this section if, at the time the admission is made, the declaration has not substantially affected the proceeding, or it has not become manifest that such falsity has been or will be exposed.

(e) Proof beyond a reasonable doubt under this section is sufficient for conviction. It shall not be necessary that such proof be made by any particular number of witnesses or by documentary or other type of evidence.

-- United States Code: Definition of perjury - MLB - ESPN

There's more. But it is common (legal) knowledge that a lie under oath must be material to constitute "perjury."

Thank you Counselor... As for the Technicalities of Law...

Had the Judge not Decided to toss the Monica stuff, it would have been Perjury...

My Point is this... One Judge's doesn't Negate what Clinton did.

His Lie didn't Change, the Circumstances in another Case did.

In that, it was Perjury, save one Judge's Choice to Negate the Lie as Material.

Was he Convicted of Perjury?... No.

But Thank you for your Source... It was good reading, Brother.



peace...

Yeah. If Judge Susan Weber Wright had concluded that the allegations (and statements under oath) about Monica had been material to the Jones deposition, than Bubba's deliberate lies under oath would very likely have been considered perjury.

The question of what is or isn't "material" is often kind of thorny, though and appellate courts might have found it differently than any decision along those lines.

Technically, I think she may have been correct. I'm not sure Bubba's inappropriate behavior with one chubby intern is all that material to the Jones' case.