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: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 02:21:55 GMT
Organization: MediaCom High Speed Internet
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 02:21:55 GMT
Vince Brannigan wrote:
> Steve wrote:
>>> 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
He would have had to answer the question. With the objection noted. His
attorney could have ask for clarification.
>> 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.
> Sure, not an issue
It was in your earlier post. You said it would unethical for a prosecutor
not to proceed on a case. But now its Ok?
>> 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
> See my other post. Innocence is not a legal concept. guilty and not
> guilty are legal concepts
>>> 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.
> because in a lawsuit about non-consensual sex, consensual sex may not
> be material.
MAY NOT...BE MAY BE and in the context of this lawsuit, not just
non-consensual but the manner of obtaining consent was easily an issue.
Build on top of that, Did you have sexual relations with that woman,
followed by was it with consent. Then you question her to set up the
impeachment or rebuttal of his statement. It was material in this case.
>> 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.
> if Hillary was suing bill the question would be relevant. but a rape
> victim's consensual sex is legally irrelevant to issues of non
> consensual sex
Not when it goes to establish a pattern his past conduct, state of mind are
all relevant issues. The Rape Shield laws of most states only make her(the
vic.s) past conduct off limits.
>> 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.
> Federal tax returns are not responses to questions. the ambiguity of
> language and the requirement of materiality are very important issues
> in perjury cases.
How much did you receive in compensation? What is the nature of your work?
How much SS did you pay? How much etc... those are not questions. You
are not responding to request for information. The entire return is a
question. How much, from where and when.
And you even swear to it.
I have looked at the Cannon of Ethics. Misleading is not grounds for
disbarment. He was not testifying as an officer of the court, he was not
there in any capacity other than a defendant answering a deposition. His
disbarment was not based on the actions of an Attorney engaged in the
practice of law, but on an illegal act. Convicted or not.
Oh...just because you don't receive a ticket, go to court, be found guilty,
and pay a fine does not change the fact that you ran a red light. Running
said red light is a crime. It is a crime whether anyone sees it, whether an
action is every taken or not. The act is a violation of a prohibited act.
That is a crime.
You can play on words all day long, but when I mislead my mother, the
whipping I got was the same as the one for laying too her. She's not a
lawyer, but she understands a lie but any other name is still a lie.
Having said all that, I am no longer sure why this thread is even in this
newsgroup or what the point is. He is no longer President, he had his two
terms he can't come back, we have enough real issues to deal with, so good
Go Back To The Cyber-Spy.Com
Usenet Web Archive Index Of