The Cyber-Spy.Com Usenet Archive Feeds Directly
From The Open And Publicly Available Newsgroup
This Group And Thousands Of Others Are Available
On Most ISP NNTP News Servers On Port 119.
Cyber-Spy.Com Is NOT Responsible For Any Topic,
Opinions Or Content Posted To This Or Any Other
Newsgroup. This Web Archive Of The Newsgroup And
Posts Are For Informational Purposes Only.
Subject: Re: [NEWS]: Probe: U.S. Knew of Jet Terror Plots
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 17:12:26 GMT
Organization: MediaCom High Speed Internet
Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 17:12:26 GMT
Vince Brannigan wrote:
>>> Let me explain it to you. Im a lawyer. When I appear as an expert
>>> witness I still carry the higher ethical responsibility of a
>>> lawyer,. I have an ethical responsibility not to in any way mislead
>>> the court even by an incomplete answer that is not lying or
>>> perjury. If I mislead the court I can be and should be disbarred.
>>> There is no question clinton was evasive in an attempt to mislead
>>> the court. This was clearly unethical and he was disbarred for it.
>>> But the ethical standard for attorneys is a higher standard than the
>>> legal standard for perjury. .
>>> Vincent Brannigan
>>> Admitted to practice law Md 1975, DC 1977
>> Because some prosecutor does not bring formal charges hardly means
>> that someone did not commit a crime.
> I asked if that was the claim being made one option was
> 1) he committed perjury , but got a plea bargain
>> Looking in the legal dictionary it says
>> "PERJURY Criminal offense of making false statements under oath or
>> 18 USC 1621
>> Whoever -
>> (1) having taken an oath before a competent tribunal,
>> officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the United
>> States 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
> Did you see that word "material" ?? that is the critical phrase
>> (2) in any declaration, certificate, verification, or
>> statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section
>> 1746 of title 28, United States Code, willfully subscribes as
>> true any material
> the little word "material" appears again
>> matter which he does not believe to be true;
>> is guilty of perjury and shall, except as otherwise expressly
>> provided by law, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more
>> than five years, or both. This section is applicable whether the
>> statement or subscription is made within or without the United
>> And here in Georgia
>> O.C.G.A. 16-10-70.
>> (a) A person to whom a lawful oath or affirmation has been
>> administered commits the offense of perjury when, in a judicial
>> proceeding, he knowingly and willfully makes a false statement
> see it again?
>> The fact that he was not criminally charged and was instead given
>> "other choices" does not change the fact that he committed a crime.
>> After taking an oath, he gave a statement, A SWORN statement, about a
>> material fact
> Wh says it was material
>> in a lawsuit. A statement he later admitted was not true.
> no, he admitted was misleading
>> First he said he didn't have sexual relations then he did.
>> Call it what you want he lied under oath.
>> I have handled 100's of criminal cases where the charges were not
>> brought, or went away with NO PLEA OF GUILT or ANY ADMISSION, in
>> exchange for actions or agreements on my clients part. That doesn't
>> change the fact that they committed a crime. The prosecutor decided
>> that was the best way to handle it.
> Since you are an attorney, you well understand teh need for
> materiality. you also understand that If the prosecution has the
> evidence to convict a perosn of a crime, they either go forward with
> a case adn get a convision or they don't . it is unethical for a
> prosecutor to make a unilateral declaration that a pweron has
> committed a crime when there has been no plea or conviction.
>> Oh I am sure that there are those in the current administration
>> guilty of some wrong doing. But like I tell my clients, it doesn't
>> matter what anybody else does, the issue is still whether you did
>> something or not.
> No, actually the issue is whehter they can prove you did it. that is
> what makes a perosn gulty of a crime.
>> the answer is Bill Clinton committed perjury, he lied under oath.
> No the answer is the prosecutor ahd an opportunity and all the
> evidence to accuse bill clinton of perjury and declined. It wqas his
> call and ther eis not the slightest evidence that he was corruptly
> influenced. the Difficulty of proving the materiality of the
> statement or that it was known to be false and that the question was
> asked precisely enouhg to bring the case may have inflluenced the the
> prosecutor. Under your analyssi a peosn can be acquitted of the
> crime and you would still be able to claim they were guilty. Since
> the prosecutor unilaterally controls whehter the case is brought your
> approach would be unethical.
>> Its not
>> even about what he did, its about lying about it under oath.
> that he mislead the court is clear and for that he was disbarred.
>> With the
>> ratings he had and his MTV voters wanting to know boxer or briefs,
>> if he had just said, I was weak, I am sorry, I had sexual relations
>> with that woman and I was wrong, it would have run on the news about
>> a week and a half and it would have been over.
> It woudl have been politiclaly more smart. But it is stillnto clear
> that the quesiton was phrased with the precison required, or the
> materiality demanded of a perjury conviction. He would have in fact
> been better off refusing to answer on the groudns of immateriality
> and I believe he would have been upheld.
> Vince Brannigan
The law gives the prosecutor the discretion on how he handles a case. There
are lots of reasons not to take a case to trial, and guilt and innocence are
not always the issue. I can assure you in the criminals courts of this
country deals are made every day where charges are dropped solely based on
the finally agreement, not on guilt or innonace.
There is a legal fiction called "presumed innocent", the reality is everyone
in the system is assumed guilty. Even if a jury finds someone not guilty,
that does not equal innocent. It simply means I convinced the jury that the
State did not prove my client guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. A big
difference in that and being innocent.
> the little word "material" appears again
I understand it completely, ask the DAs. I know how to object to material
and relevant issues. Tell me how in a lawsuit about sex, laying about sex
is not material. The whole point of the question was to show a pattern of
behavior to support the allegations of the lawsuit. That makes it VERY
MATERIAL. Most of the perjury cases I have seen here in Georgia come from
domestic trials. Spouses misleading the Judges about whether or not they
had ex-material affairs.
Tell you what....why don't you just "mislead" the IRS on your tax return
this year and see what happens. If you can use the Federal Penitentiary
computer let us know if they agree that its not perjury.
A lie is lie. And under oath it is a crime, perjury.
Go Back To The Cyber-Spy.Com
Usenet Web Archive Index Of