Can/should Thurlow face criminal perjury rap?

[buycitgo]

Remember the novelist and member of the House of Lords, Jeffrey Archer?

well, he was sentence to PRISON for lying on an affadavit.

Note the obvious similarities between the cases.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1424501.stm

''Millionaire novelist Lord Archer has been jailed for four years after being found guilty of perjury and perverting the course of justice.

Before sentencing him the judge Mr Justice Potts told Lord Archer: "These charges represent as serious an offence of perjury as I have had experience of and have been able to find in the books."

The jury found him guilty of lying and cheating in his 1987 libel case against the Daily Star. The verdicts were unanimous on each count.

Lord Archer, who was ordered to pay £175,000 costs within 12 months, was told by the judge he would have to serve at least half of his sentence.''

For those of you who say that this is English law, you can check for yourselves how it applies here, but my sister is a judge, and she told me, relative to this case, in particular, that signed an affadavit, legally witnessed by a notary, or other person with court authority, is the SAME thing as appearing in court, and lying under oath.

You do the math.

Whatever jurisdiction this so-called affadavit was signed in has the DUTY to convene a grand jury and investigate.

Wonder where it was signed.....how can one find out?

legal definition of perjury:

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 ; 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.

also, I wonder, under what condition would federal perjury statutes apply? would that only be in pursuit of a federal investo?

[FreakinDJ]

1. if not criminal then at least civil proceedings

the Kerry campaign should at least file motions to suppress any more baseless attacks out of these liars

[DemNoir]

2. Have you read those affidavits?

They are worded very carefully and vaguely, obviously to protect themselves against any possible legal action.

[buycitgo]

4. doesn't matter

legal action can ALWAYS be taken

Paula Jones ring a bell?

Ken Starr?

I see your point, that it might be difficult to win the case, but I'd love to see what he signed, cause it sure would seem to HAVE to contradict his bronze star citation, which he conveniently "lost"

isn't it amazing how often this happens with pugs?

[A_Possum]

3. I hope he and Elliot are sweating bullets

(The bullets they claim weren't there.)

You know that's why Elliot freaked and signed another affidavit after the Globe story of him recanting the first one. Someone called him and said, "You'd better think twice, buddy."

[DeadHead67]

5. OFF WITH HIS HEAD ! ! !

It's time that these ASSHOLES, LIARS, and THIEVES (of elections) enjoy the fruits of their misdeeds. Iam still waiting for the central commitee of the Democratic Party to go after some of this demonstrably EVIL shit, before I cough up any more money for the campaign. I gave generously to the Dean campaign, within my means. HOWEVER, after seeing ALL of the Democratic Senators cave in at the presidential election confirmation session of Congress(F9/11), I insist that the Party DO SOMETHING!!!!:spank: :kick:

[DeadHead67]

6. OK , If it's so hard to prove perjury . . . . .

. . .Then why bother to swear to the truth of an affidavit, or for that matter PAY ANY ATTENTION to the content of one? AND, for that matter, why is it that the repukes are the only ones that are successful in dragging this shit into court and into the public spotlight. LOOK WHAT THIS SLIME DID TO CLINTON!!!!:grr: :nuke:

[beaconess]

63. Because they maneuvered Clinton into court and got him to testify

under oath in a legal proceeding.

[leftynyc]

7. I have a question

This may have already been covered but if Thurlow got a Bronze star with a V for valor, how can he claim there was no enemy fire? Doesn't the V indicate valor under fire?

[buycitgo]

8. V is for viciousliar

yeah, it's been covered, and he's claiming they're being unfair to him.

his statements make no sense, being so utterly contradictory

that's why he so conveniently lost his own copy of his medal citation

Is he so STUPID that he thinks that he had the only copy?

check the several threads on the Washington Post story for the full exlanation

[Cuban_Liberal]

9. No.

Perjury has a very specific legal meaning, and what Thurlow has done doesn't meet it.

[buycitgo]

10. care to expand on that?

[Cuban_Liberal]

11. Sure.

Perjury requires that the statement made be material to a fact at issue, and the 'utterance' must have been made during a trial, legislative hearing, or other governmental proceeding.

The 'Lectric Law Library's Lexicon On
* Perjury *

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 ; 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.

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/p032.htm

[buycitgo]

16. wrong!

if that was the case, what's the point of signing an affadavit in this case? if said affadavit doesn't have the force of law behind it, it has no credibility, and any reference to it is a joke.

I could sign any old napkin, call it an affadavit, and claim it's something people should take as I sign of my truthfulness

what are you talking about?

you also cite the exact definition I did

did you bother to read the header?

[Cuban_Liberal]

18. Yes, I did, and you're wrong.

What he did was file a false affidavit, at most. That is NOT perjury, and I'll thank you to refrain from calling me out on my reading and comprehension ability!

:grr:

[buycitgo]

21. thank YOU, pal

I know my sister better than I do you,thankfully

she's a fricking JUDGE

she says it's perjury in her jurisdiction

and, if your reading comp skills are so swell, why didn't you just refer to the definition in the header?

you didn't need to provide it again

lighten up, dude

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Cuban_Liberal]

29. Please stop posting personal attacks.

Thank you.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[buycitgo]

45. what are you talking about?

[Cuban_Liberal]

54. See above. n/t

[buycitgo]

40. please stop accusing me of posting personal attacks

that's a personal attack isn't it?

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Cuban_Liberal]

46. The record speaks for itself: see above. n/t

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Moderator]

48. Issues with board administration

should be brought directly to the Admins, or the Admin Forum. It is against the rules to post them on the board.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

22. The Penalties For Perjury Are Greater Than The Penalties For

Filing A False Affidavit but filing a false affidavit is a prosecutable crime...


That's being lost....

[buycitgo]

26. OK, I'll call my sister tonight, and check specifically

if it can be prosecuted under a PERJURY statute where she lives.

how's that?

unless somebody cares to start pulling up actual statutes, this is getting squirrelly

the POINT is, using the rubric of past prosecutions under the likes of Starr, it should be EASY to at least begin an investigation into this

that could be fun

as I've already said, Rule of Law, pugthugs

[DemocratSinceBirth]

31. I Agree With You....

I'm not an attorney but I have seen affidavits. You are attesting to the facts under the penalty of perjury by an officer of the court...


It would make no sense at all for an affidavit to have no force of law...


WTF have them then....

[buycitgo]

37. ahhhh! a reasonable person?

doesnt that have something to do with law, too?

the letter of the law is important, isn't it?

isn't that why we IMPEACHED a president?

because he LIED?

most reputable legal scholars agree that his "perjury" was non-existent, for only the reason that it was immaterial to the case at hand, or for Starr's investigation to mutate from that of a financial scandal to one of a lie told over sleazy sexual escapades

[beaconess]

51. The affidavits you've seen may say that, but all affidavits don't

and the fact that an affidavit might say that does not mean that it is enough to invoke criminal sanctions if there is no violation of the law.

[buycitgo]

59. may, might,could be

isn't that the whole point of the law?

subject to interpretation, and all that?

look at all the specious prosections brought by the likes of Starr, Ashcroft, etal

I just want to see the tables turned for once

I can't believe you think there's no possibility for prosecution

again, what about false tax returns, driver's license applications, property tax forms?

they STATE it's perjury to sign them falsely

[Cuban_Liberal]

66. No, they state it's perjury to *submit* them signed, if they are false.

Crucial distinction. Thurlow's affidavit was never filed or submitted in any legal proceeding, or to any legal authority with both personal and subject-matter jurisdiction.

[buycitgo]

70. how do you know?

[Cuban_Liberal]

72. I *know* because it's what I've been taught in class, by LAWYERS.

Good enough?

[buycitgo]

80. no...hahahahha

you didn't answer the question I asked

if you'd read your own post more carefully, the one which I questioned, you'd see that I was referring to your assertion regarding its provenance

how do YOU know the circumstances under which it was signed?

were you there?

as far as being taught in class, by LAWYERS, so are all the lousy, crooked lawyers in the world

using appeals to authority is a basic propaganda technique, and carries zero weight

nice try, though

[Cuban_Liberal]

82. No, the nice try is...

...your own, in trying to assume facts not in evidence. There is no evidence whatsoever that the affidavit in question was signed in connection with any legal proceeding--- zero, zip, nada, none.

[beaconess]

87. I assume your sister, the judge, is a lawyer?

[beaconess]

69. You STILL don't get it!

So, let me try to explain it more clearly . . .

Every instance you cited - tax returns, driver's license applications, property tax forms - have one thing in common: they are filed or otherwise submitted to government agencies. It IS a crime to file false affidavits to government agencies. You can sign all the fake tax returns or tax forms you wish - that is NOT a crime. But when you submit it to the government or file it in court, you are violating the law.

Thurlow's affidavit was neither filed in court nor submitted to any government agency. It has no legal import and does not expose him to criminal liability.

[buycitgo]

73. I already said it was IMPLICIT

stop being so literal, so imperious

rubbing people the wrong way, here

[beaconess]

77. Apparently, YOU'RE the only one being rubbed the wrong way

[buycitgo]

92. whatever you say, "counselor"

I'm certain, given the examples of temperate demeanor you've displayed here, nobody's ever advised you of that obvious aspect of your personality before

enjoy yourself

[beaconess]

34. He did not FILE a false affidavit!

Signing an affidavit and presenting it to the public is not the same as filing it. Filing means someone takes it down to the courthouse and inserts it into the record of an existing court proceeding. That did not happen here.

Affidavits serve numerous purposes, not all of which involve court proceedings.

In this instance, the affidavit is simply a tactic used to boost the credibility of the person making the claim ("he's not just saying it, he SWORE to it!") - it has no legal import whatsoever, at least no more than an unsworn statement would in this circumstance.

[buycitgo]

41. so, you're a lawyer?

what's the POINT of signing such a piece of toilet paper then?

that's EXACTLY the question I asked my sister.

if there's no legal penalty for signing something like that, isn't it completely meaningless?

Like I said, she said perjury, and I'll check with her tonight


thanks for your input, but, as in lots of legal things, this doesn't make logical sense, and would make it seem that such an affadavit is a waste of time; useful only for PR pruposes

am I right?

[beaconess]

50. Yes -

and a former Criminal Procedure Law Professor.

And no - you are not right. Affidavits are not wastes of time. But they have varying degrees of value depending upon how and where they are used. Using a false affidavit to obtain a loan or to present testimony in court IS criminal. Using a false affidavit for PR purposes doesn't rise to that level, particularly since there are civil remedies (e.g., slander, libel, defamation, etc.) for such behavior.

It actually makes quite a bit of sense. Our criminal justice system is simply not equipped to chase down every liar who signs a false statement.

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[buycitgo]

64. please stop posting personal attacks

you started this ridiculous deal with your "calling me out" on your Reading/comp skills

accusing me of being ill-informed is just as much a personal attack, is it not?

boring boring boring WOT

[DemocratSinceBirth]

42. I Don't Think You Have Seen An Affidavit...

It's a legal document having the force of law....


You go to a notary or judge and SWEAR to a set of facts under penalty of perjury....



How can you swear to a set of facts under the penalty of perjury and not be committing a crime?

[buycitgo]

47. yes.........sorta like signing your TAX return?

no legal process involved there, but everybody knows what happens if you lie there

same as when you apply for a driver's license

a loan

many jobs

how long do you want the list

[beaconess]

58. Signing a fake tax return or false loan application is not illegal

Signing a fake tax return and then FILING it with the IRS, a government agency, is a crime. If I sign a fraudulent loan form and then submit it to a bank, THAT is a crime.

I can sign a fake tax return or false loan documents, do interviews about it, post it on the internet or blow it up into a billboard. That is not a crime. But if I turn them in to the IRS or submit them to a bank, I'm in trouble.

Get the difference?

[buycitgo]

62. of course, that was implied

and I see NO reason for anyone EVER signing an affadavit, in the case you mention, or at least for anyone to take it seriously

as I said, purely PR

[beaconess]

71. Yes - it has no legal meaning - it is pure PR

Of course, it WAS signed under oath, which means that this guy took an oath and then lied. Blows his credibility all to hell.

[buycitgo]

74. mmmmK

please explain why such an affadavit has any reason to exist, then

I think I've asked this before, but I can't follow all the posts anymore

thanks

[beaconess]

84. There are several good reasons for such an affidavit:

First, people tend to place more weight on things that are sworn to under oath for a couple of reasons. Like you, many people don't understand that there are no criminal consequences for signing a false affidavit outside of a court proceeding or government purpose. Second, swearing under oath is a moral violation, if not a legal one, thus people tend not to swear false oaths, even if there are no legal consequences.

Also, there are other legal consequences to signing a false affidavit. If Kerry were to sue Thurlow for libel, the fact that Thurlow signed and publicized a false affidavit gives Kerry a stronger case.

But, most important, the affidavit was prepared for and given to O'Neill and Corsi in connection with their book. Likely their lawyers insisted that they get sworn statements from Thurlow and the others in order to innoculate themselves from libel charges.

An essential element a public figure must prove in a libel case is that the author published false information with knowledge that it is false. O'Neill and Corsi can claim that they had no reason to think this information was false since they relied upon Thurlow for it and he swore an oath to them that it was true. That affidavit is all they need to have to prove that they engaged in due diligence and that they did not knowingly or recklessly print a lie.

While it's unlikely that Kerry will file a libel suit, these affidavits cover their asses nicely.

[Cuban_Liberal]

86. Bingo!

Thank you for that most erudite explanation.

:hi:

[beaconess]

55. I'm quite familiar with affidavits - I've drafted hundreds of them myself

Affidavits say whatever the drafter wants them to say. And they do not have any force of law unless they are filed with a court or used in any manner proscribed by law. The mere signing of a false affidavit is not a criminal act.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[buycitgo]

49. why?

I just pointed out that you seem to have not noticed my original header.

is there something wrong with that, with all due respect, sir/madam?

so, is filing a false tax return perjury?

a false driver's license application perjury?

do you have a law degree?

[Cuban_Liberal]

52. The first two questions depend on what the jurisdiction provides...

... in the law regulating tax returns and drivers licenses. I'm a first-year law student, in answer to your last question.

[buycitgo]

53. did you see this,from your own link?

''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''

what does that mean to you?

sure sounds like an affadavit falls under that category, doesn't it?

sure sounds like you could be


WRONG?

again, with all due respect, sir/madam, considering your presentation so far, I'll stick with what my sister told me

[Cuban_Liberal]

57. Feel free to stick with what you like. n/t

[buycitgo]

81. so...IOW, you having trouble defending your own assertion?

thought so

[Cuban_Liberal]

83. Not at all.

It's clearly you who is on the losing end of this whole discussion. Thank God for beaconess' presence.

[buycitgo]

91. so, you can't even defend your own position?

quel surpris

[Feanorcurufinwe]

12. Filing a false affidavit. Depends on the statutes of the state

in which he filed it. Perjury is different crime.

[beaconess]

13. It wasn't filed in any legal proceeding

It was just used to "support" the SBV claims.

Thurlow lied and he lied under oath, but he didn't meet the standards of perjury because this was not done in any legal proceeding.

The only legal action available would be a libel or slander suit. But that wouldn't be a good idea. It's just as well for this guy and his cohorts to be publicly outed as the liars they are. No need to take legal action.

[buycitgo]

17. "under penalty of perjury"

that's what many statutes day, WRT affidavits

in Iowa, where my sister presides, signing a false affadavit IS perjury

[beaconess]

44. If your sister is a judge in Iowa, she certainly knows that,under Iowa law

it is a crime to sign a false affidavit if the affidavit is "required by law or given in support of a claim for compensation, indemnification, restitution, or other payment." Iowa Code § 714.8

It is also a crime to FILE a false affidavit in various types of legal proceedings.

It is NOT a crime to sign a false affidavit and then give it to someone in support of charges contained in a book or to wave it around a press conference or to give it to a reporter or any other use that does not fall within the prohibitions under Iowa - and most other state's - laws.

So, please stop insisting otherwise. You are wrong.

[buycitgo]

68. whatever you say

you could be right

you might be wrong

I love all this superior attitude being tossed around like confetti

[beaconess]

75. Not superior attitude - just superior knowledge about this topic . . .

I have considerable expertise in this area and simply tried to clear up your misapprehensions. Sorry if that upsets you. But it was you who insisted that therefor, your incorrect assertions about this topic MUST be relied upon because your sister is "a friggin judge."

[DemocratSinceBirth]

25. It's A Different Crime But Still A Crime

I remember during the Lewisnky brouhaha the max penalty for filing a false affidavit was a year in the hooskow....


Starr scared Lewinsky by threatening to prosecute her for obstruction of justice and subornation of perjury....

[beaconess]

35. That's because the affidavit was FILED in a legal proceeding!

That's not the case here.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

36. As Long As It's Not Attached To A Criminal Proceeding I Can File As Many

False Affidavits As I Want?

[beaconess]

61. Filing a document ATTACHES it to a legal proceeding!

Filing a document, by definition, means that you are inserting it into the record of a legal proceeding (criminal or civil). Just signing it and publicizing it or printing it in the paper or the internet or telling everyone you know about it is NOT FILING!

If you file a false affidavit in court or submit it to various entities (bank, government agency, etc.), you are then subject to perjury. Otherwise, you have not committed a crime.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

67. Then Dickens Was Right (nt)

[buycitgo]

76. what....the law is A ass?

or was that Shakespeare?

help a dumbo out here

I feel so unclean, so unwashed in my ignorance!

so many great minds here, spreading their beneficence

not talking about you, btw

[buycitgo]

78. here

http://www.shazbot.com/lawass/

[DemocratSinceBirth]

79. It Was Dickens...

It sounds like they are right....


The Swift Boat Veterans for Bush signed these false affidavits to bolster their case knowing there were no ramifications for lying...


The "law is an ass, an idiot."

[NervousRex]

14. Turdlow and the rest of the SwiftBoat Bilge-Rats

should be sued for libel, slander and defamation of character. I suspect that the Kerry campaign would love to, but it only shines more light on these pig-fuc*ers. These affadavits would sink them in a civil suit.

[Cuban_Liberal]

15. Kerry would most likely lose such a suit.

Kerry is a public person and, as such, it would be next to impossible for him to prove any sort of defamation claim.

[buycitgo]

19. as I said in header, the location is key

if a criminal investigation is possible, it SHOULD be pursued

I'll bet it was signed somewhere it's not a criminal matter, but I hope they were as stupid as they've shown so far

who CARES if it can be won or not?

look what they did to Clinton


can you say RULE of LAW?

[librechik]

20. Thurlow says Kerry wrote the report in question

so it is a Kerry lie, not a Thurlow lie. According to the liar.

[buycitgo]

23. careful..........thurlow "speculated"

how's that for a weasel word

Kerry could speculate that thurlow had sex with a termite, and they could print that, couldn't they?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

28. the termite might have too much space for him (nt)

[librechik]

90. he straight out said it, several times today.

however, on close questioning (thank you Chris Matthews) he admitted that it was just his opinion.

[VirginiaDem]

65. to play devil's advocate here...

isn't Thurlow's argument against perjury that he believes there was never any gunfire? He signed an affidavit claiming so and he continues to claim so. How could one prove in a court of law that he's lying here? Seems to me you can show the preponderance of evidence shows that Kerry's not lying, which is the point of the case.The fact that Thurlow received a medal in part for being fired at doesn't prove that Thurlow knew he was being fired at. This is not perjury until we dig up the hypothetical Internet posting where he admits there was fire.

[beaconess]

85. Good point

[librechik]

89. his statement at the timeagreed w Kerry about hostile fire

he's just changing his story now, and not very gracefully.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

94. Because there are multiple witnesses and all contemperanous reports

as well as all documentation that show unequivocally that he is lying. The simple fact that he stubbornly insists on repeating his lie does not make it more credible. In fact he admitted tonight on tv that he had no tangible evidence for anything he was saying and that his motive was political.

[buycitgo]

95. but, surely you're aware of this acro:

IOKIYAR?

[moondust]

93. Olbermann said the senior officer present would have written it

which he said was Thurlow.

[buycitgo]

96. did you read his MSNBC column?

very very nasty toward Malkin:


Michelle Malkin, the unfortunate and overmatched author of a self-loathing book that attempts to justify our World War II internment and robbery of Americans of Japanese heritage, became the harbinger of the next mucky smell of low tide. She raised the story— heretofore consigned largely to Robert Novak and everybody to his right— in that delightful, Teflon way of modern politics: ‘I’m not saying that John Kerry shot himself. But in the Swift Boat Veterans’ book, they ask whether or not his wounds were self-inflicted.’

If Ms. Malkin isn’t seen on television, or moving on her own power, in the next few days, it’s understandable. My colleague Mr. Matthews forced her to hang herself out to dry ten or eleven times (never prouder of you, Chris). He may have directed the momentum, but her wounds were ultimately, uh, self-inflicted.

As Chris rightly pointed out, nobody has produced an iota of evidence that John Kerry’s wounds were anything other than the result of combat. Even in the book, the references to it are speculative and without provenance. Ms. Malkin wouldn’t even go so far as to attribute the suspicion to herself. It was in the book.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5445086

[DU GrovelBot]

38. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v3.0
==================



This week is our third quarter 2004 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend almost entirely
on donations from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for
your support.

[oasis]

88. He gets a pass, ala Linda Tripp. I would not like to see him get rich

with a "defense fund".