From: Vince Brannigan
Subject: Re: [NEWS]: Probe: U.S. Knew of Jet Terror Plots
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 10:47:07 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 06:47:07 EDT
"Fred J. McCall" wrote:
> lparker@NOSPAM.emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
> :In article ,
> : Fred J. McCall wrote:
> :>No, he just cut a deal and lost his license to practice law.
> :It was suspended voluntarily. You're playing fast and loose with the
> :facts, as usual.
> Oh, he just gave it up for the hell of it, then? How, uh,
> :>Well, I can't speak for 'right-wingers', but he was PROVEN to have
> :>lied under oath. How much slack is there left in that?
> :Wrong. The judge cited him for "giving misleading testimony", not lying
> :under oath. Once again, you are not being truthful.
> Lloyd, he swore an affidavit under oath. It contained deliberately
> and demonstrably false statements. What he got 'cited' for is rather
> irrelevant to FACT. Once again, you demonstrate you are not a
> scientist after all.
As in the other thread, Fred does not appear to understand the difference
between the crime of perjury and the ethical violation of misleading a
court. by shifting to the non legal term of "lied" he uses a political term
which is not relevant to a legal case. the legal standard for perjury is
the classical example is
Q: Did you spy for the Communist party
in a later trial the defendant presents testimony that he spied for the
Russian government and simply sent his reports "through" the Communist party
Now that is clearly misleading the court, but just as clearly not perjury.
You can be disbarred but not convicted. The legal system does not use the
term "lying" because it is susceptible to so many interpretations. In
particular is giving a false impression by omission "lying"? That Clinot was
unethical as a lawyer is a given.