www.justiceforchandra.com Forum Index www.justiceforchandra.com
Justice for Chandra Levy and missing women
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Condit Denies Levy Romance
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    www.justiceforchandra.com Forum Index -> Chandra Levy and missing women
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
propria



Joined: 20 Sep 2002
Posts: 630
Location: northern illinois

PostPosted: Sat Jan 15, 2005 2:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

>>> I don't know what the penalty is for perjury in a civil case, but when the perjury is on the part of the plaintiff it seems that the case should be jolly well thrown out, doesn't it? <<<


under american law, perjury is a criminal offense whether it is committed in the context of either a civil or a criminal trial or other legal proceeding. that means the person committing perjury must be charged, indicted, tried and convicted before his testimony in the proceeding even becomes eligible as grounds for dismissing the case he has brought in civil court. it's that sticky business about being considered innocent until proven guilty that makes american law a painstakingly slow and frustrating process, but it is also an integral part of what makes us the greatest nation on earth. although perjury is not prosecuted in this country nearly as diligently as it should be, the laws punishing it are on the books and waiting to be exercised by anyone in law enforcement who is courageous enough to bring charges against a witness who has lied under oath.


instead of having a liar on the witness stand or in a deposition hauled out of court and his case summarily dismissed, we in america depend on the discernment and courage of our juries to recognize lies when they hear them and to hold the liars accountable for their dishonesty by not relying on their lies in reaching a verdict. that's one of many reasons that it is such a tragedy when americans allow their powers of discernment to be suffocated right out of existence by giving social, political and moral manipulators like hollywood and hillary control of their thought processes ... when we allow ourselves to fall victim to politically correct group-think, we lose the individuality that made us american to begin with.


nanci
_________________
the Truth has a name, and there is power in that Name!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
rd



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9273
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Sat Jan 15, 2005 5:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kate, perjury is rarely prosecuted, almost never in civil cases. For example, in every trial there are at least two sets of statemenst, and unless one believes that people honestly believe two different sets of facts, than one is lying, that is, committing perjury.

In that case in almost every trial one or more people would also be prosecuted for perjury, and of course that doesn't happen.

rd
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
blondie



Joined: 10 Oct 2003
Posts: 567

PostPosted: Sat Jan 15, 2005 5:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

They prosecuted Martha Stewart for lying, not perjuy, to federal investigators. I've never understood how they could do that.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jane



Joined: 22 Sep 2002
Posts: 3225

PostPosted: Sat Jan 15, 2005 5:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Blondie - most people, when arguing that Martha Stewart should be in jail, basically say she's not the nice cookie-maker many believe, but is a witch. Hello - since when do people go to jail for being witchy? I agree - she should not be in jail, regardless of how ambitious and nasty she might be.

Here's a definition of perjury from http://criminal-law.freeadvice.com/white_collar_crimes/perjury.htm

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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
blondie



Joined: 10 Oct 2003
Posts: 567

PostPosted: Sat Jan 15, 2005 7:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't think that Martha Stewart was under oath.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
benn



Joined: 19 Sep 2002
Posts: 2136
Location: Sacramento, CA

PostPosted: Sat Jan 15, 2005 7:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

>>>I agree - she should not be in jail, regardless of how ambitious and nasty she might be.<<<

Jane, when an executive of a corporation gets into insider trading that is pretty serious business.

For example, a stockholder with many shares in a company learns from inside sources at the company that the next quarterly earnings report for the company, due to be announced in a week, will show poor earnings for the quarter, or maybre even a loss. That stockholder could then sell off a large portion of his stock, knowing that the price would drop right after the poor earnings report was announced, and then he could buy his shares back at a lower price in a short time if he wanted to.

That is just a rough description of insider trading. Insider trading is not fair to the other stockholders in the company, and therefore should not be allowed. There should be strict penalties for insider trading. If you own stock in a company anywhere, do you want special people in the company to have inside knowledge that allows them to buy or sell the stock with knowledge that you do not have?

That seems to be what Martha did.

benn
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
blondie



Joined: 10 Oct 2003
Posts: 567

PostPosted: Sat Jan 15, 2005 8:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I know what she did, but she was convicted of lying. I don't get it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jane



Joined: 22 Sep 2002
Posts: 3225

PostPosted: Sat Jan 15, 2005 8:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

She wasn't convicted of insider trading - just of lying to investigators.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rd



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9273
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Sat Jan 15, 2005 11:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's all about what you can prove. It's harder to prove collusion in insider trading. As long as they get her for something, they've done their duty to uphold faith for people to feel that they're not being cheated by insider trading. If many felt that way and dropped out of the market, the market would drop. That's really what's trying to be protected here.

Martha just got caught at a particularly bad time, coinciding with the prosecution of some of the most massive insider trading in history. Had she quietly told the truth, she also might have worked out a non felony deal.

If Condit was innocent and cooperated from the beginning in telling the truth and assisting the police in searching for Chandra, I would be commending him despite his affairs. That's for his constituents to judge him on, but like Martha, he couldn't afford to tell the truth, even about his affairs so that the truth was known when Chandra disappeared.

rd
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
propria



Joined: 20 Sep 2002
Posts: 630
Location: northern illinois

PostPosted: Sat Jan 15, 2005 11:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

rita cosby is presently covering the condit v. dunne matter, with mike doyle and wendy murphy among the commentators, for those with access to foxnews and the inclination to watch it. you can tell that rita is mighty steamed over the changes condit has made in his testimony between the original investigation and his representations in the dunne matter ... she keeps referring to it as 'pulling a clinton'.

i can't type fast enough to cover everything said, especially by the two defense attorneys who are furiously arguing that condit has all along been abused by media types like rita, but mike doyle did a good job of responding to them by noting that he had read the 600-page deposition, and so had the judge who ordered condit to answer the questions put to him. rita's show, 'big story weekend', will air again at 11:00 central standard time, and it's probably possible to get a transcript of this segment if you're one of the cybersmart folks who know how to go about getting such things.


nanci
_________________
the Truth has a name, and there is power in that Name!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
rd



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9273
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Sun Jan 16, 2005 12:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks for the heads up, propria. I'll look for the replay and hopefully we can find the transcript!

rd
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
benn



Joined: 19 Sep 2002
Posts: 2136
Location: Sacramento, CA

PostPosted: Sun Jan 16, 2005 12:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks also, nanci. I tried, but Fox News had on mudslides here. I did see part of the first Dunne show on Court TV, rd, last week. For Court TV a 8:00 PM program seems to play at 8:00 PM whatever zone it is in. I would like to see the transcript of the Fox News show, and also that 600 page deposition.

benn
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
propria



Joined: 20 Sep 2002
Posts: 630
Location: northern illinois

PostPosted: Sun Jan 16, 2005 1:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

benn ... you might check back with foxnews at 9:00 your time, a little more than half an hour from now ... that's when it will show again here.


nanci
_________________
the Truth has a name, and there is power in that Name!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
rd



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9273
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Sun Jan 16, 2005 3:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I saw Rita's Weekend Big News. Michael Doyle did great in responding to a couple of lawyers who sound like Rich. He said he read the 600 page deposition, those lawyers obviously hadn't and clearly didn't want to know anything, and he said the judge had ruled that Condit must answer questions to continue his lawsuit against Dunne.

Well said, Rita and Michael.

rd


Last edited by rd on Sun Jan 16, 2005 7:13 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
benn



Joined: 19 Sep 2002
Posts: 2136
Location: Sacramento, CA

PostPosted: Sun Jan 16, 2005 6:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nanci, I would have tried at 9 PM, but unfortunately that is when they lock up the Clubroom where I live where the Cable TV is located. Oh, well it is not possible to see everything. It is good to hear that Mike Doyle was on the program.

benn
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    www.justiceforchandra.com Forum Index -> Chandra Levy and missing women All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group