Jump to content


Advanced Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Countrydave55

  1. Under Federal law perjury does not require an oath CHAPTER 79 > § 1621 Prev | Next § 1621. Perjury generally Release date: 2005-08-03 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 (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 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 States.
  2. Lying under oath happens in several venues not "only in a court of law". Statements in legislative hearing , sworn statements to law enforcement are 2 examples.
  3. & here from FL statute. 837.05 False reports to law enforcement authorities.-- (1) Except as provided in subsection (2), whoever knowingly gives false information to any law enforcement officer concerning the alleged commission of any crime, commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. (2) Whoever knowingly gives false information to a law enforcement officer concerning the alleged commission of a capital felony, commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. It is my understanding that most states have similar statutes but this is not my area of expertise.
  4. Here you go Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001 makes it a crime to: 1) knowingly and willfully; 2) make any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or representation; 3) in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative or judicial branch of the United States. Your lie does not even have to be made directly to an employee of the national government as long as it is "within the jurisdiction" of the ever expanding federal bureaucracy.
  5. There are plenty of examples. I cannot lookup Federal statute that covers this. I may look it up in FL state statute tomorrow. In the mean time look at these newspaper articles. Note the charge of making false statements to Federal Officials. http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml02/02091.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5091901859.html http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0...44?OpenDocument Here is a Harvard Law Review Article discussing this issue. http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/The_Pe..._of_Perjury.pdf and this "False Statements to Government Officials It is a violation of company policy as well as criminal statutes for employees to make false statements or false claims for payment to the government. A false statement to a government official may be made orally or in writing, and may be made by making an affirmatively misleading statement, or by concealing a material fact from a government official. Moreover, an employee may violate this policy even if he or she does not make the statement directly, but only provides false information to another employee or a third party, knowing that it will later be provided to the government. This policy applies in particular to any and all certifications and forms provided to the government." from http://www.clarcor.com/governance/clc.conduct.pdf My notes cite 18 USC § 1001 but I didn't look it up. Honestly I didn't know this was a controversial topic. Do many people think that it is not against the law to make false statements to govt. officials including police officers before arrest or charges?
  6. Federal law and most state law reads that any statement made to a govt. official is considered to be oathful statement and is subject to prosecution if the statement is factually incorrect.
  7. " He lied under oath, thereby perjuring himself and breaking the law. If it had been anyone else, it would have been five years in the federal pen." Perjury is among the least often prosecuted crimes at the state and federal level. It is very difficult to prove. So "if it had been anyone else" then nothing would have happened instead of prosecution. As for Martha Stewart. She was tried for perjury because the feds thought there was plenty of evidence to support insider trading but they didn't think that they could meet the standard of proof due to weak witnesses. So they went with a lesser charge of perjury. In some ways these are opposite examples. In Clinton's case after years of investigation and millions of dollars spent they could find no evidence of criminal activity so he was asked under oath if he had been sexually involved. They then sought evidence to prove that his statement was a lie. In the absence of a case they created a crime. In Martha Stewart's case they had a case and evidence of a crime but not enough to convict so they found a lesser charge they could convict on.
  8. If I found $100 on the ground I would pay off my debt and put the rest in the bank or maybe buy something I wanted. I guess if the Clinton surplus was like that that would have been OK. I don't think that I would take the $100 and spend it and then get a $100,000 loan but then I don't understand economics as well as Bush I guess.
  9. I am so relieved to know that we are not in debt that 300 million people are simply being mislead into the belief that the US Govt. doesn't owe trillions of dollars. Although I don't take much comfort from the President's failure to correct this misinformation. But perhaps he is on vacation again.
  10. When I go to the football game I walk from the parking lot to the 7/11 and buy an cents bottle of water. Usually by the time I get into the stadium I have finished the water. I sit down in 92 degree heat with no wind and 90% humidity. So after about the first quarter I go get a bottle of water for $4.25 That isn't price gouging? That is just supply & demand? Yes poor countries with a low standard of living have a surplus of physicians relative to the population that can pay for services although well below the AMA guidelines of physicians per capita. Because such poor countries have weak licensing laws many people practice well beyond what would be acceptable in the US and they have pharmaceuticals available without physician prescription. Medical care is much cheaper in such countries. In the US medical schools and osteopathic schools keep enrollment down so that fewer physicians are produced. Supply is low relative to demand. The population has limited access to pharmaceuticals also keeping prices up.
  11. According to http://www.centerforindividualfreedom.org/...9th_circuit.htm the 9th circuit had 30% of the reviewed cases overturned. While the 9th circuit had the highest number of cases granted Cert by the Supreme Court that is likely less than 10% of the cases ruled on by the 9th circuit. So you aren't talking about a lot of cases.
  12. Doesn't count. Thats odd. It is controlling law in Alaska, Arizona, California, Guam, Hawaii , Idaho, Montana, Nevada , Northern Mariana Islands, Oregon, Washington unless or until over ruled by the US Supreme Court.
  13. I can't find any evidence from economists that an increase in minimum wage causes a loss of jobs. Is there a citation. Yes I have read company's and business owners make that assertion but I cannot find empirical support. I don't understand why price gouging which is allowing prices to rise in the presence of market demands is bad for the macro economy but lowering wages which is allowing wages to fall to meet demand is good for the economy? Can someone explain this? Isn't it true that capitalist economic theory holds that in a free market the wage would fall to the somewhere near the lowest wage? Since Southeast Asian Labor is less than a $1 a day shouldn't that become the prevailing wage in the US? Aren't physician's incomes inflated by demand (i.e., sick people) in the presence of short supply (i.e, medications can only be prescribed by physicians unlike some countries where one can buy "prescription" medications without prescriptions). Perhaps people should be allowed to write their own prescriptions and thus address medical inflation.
  14. I suspect doctors aren't yet billing for their services. The military doctors and the FDMAT doctors are getting paid for their services but isn't this apples and oranges. I don't think anyone is suggesting that doctors should get $10 an hour for the next few years to months. They will soon be charging their usual and customary fees. That is not being allowed for other categories of workers.
  15. Whether he is dumb or not (and I agree he probably isn't) is not relevant to impeachability. But to say that "He hasn't done anything impeachable. He hasn't lied as has been stated over and over again" is not knowable at this time. After all the Clinton impeachment came out of an investigation into a land deal. Lets hire an independent prosecutor and spend millions of dollars investigating where Bush's service records went and why he seems to have received an honorable discharge when there are no records that indicate he completed his service. After a few million dollars are spent who knows what impeachment charges will emerge.
  16. Well what I like about him is how he saved the lieutenant with no legs and helped him on the shrimp boat after the war.
  17. "As far as I know many historians and scholars have overlooked the bible and found no evidence for it to control people. How can religion be used to control people? Explain to me why when Christianity was first introduced 80% of the Jews converted? They already had Judaism. Why "create" a new religion when people were fine? Do you really believe 80% of the Jews who became Christians were deceived? Do you think they really didn't witness what the bible says they did? Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were crucified after the death of Jesus. They were told to either destroy the bible and admit it was a lie or hang on the cross. They chose death and it has historical evidence. Would you give your life for a hoax? " I think that there may be an error in the figures here. First how can you know when Christianity was first introduced in order to determine that 80% of Jews converted. Was it introduced at the birth of "Christ" at which point the birth mother and her husband weren't convinced that it was a new religion and they were only 2 people. Or was at the time of the crucification? Maybe it was at the time of the alleged resurrection? Was it at the time that the disciples fled out of fear of their life immediately after the crucification. There really would not seem to be much evidence anywhere that 80% of Jews converted 'at the introduction of Christianity' As for why create a new religion when Judaism was fine. I think that this is a good argument. I guess it explains why the prophet Mohamed came after Christ and founded a new religion which is growing faster than Christianity. But wait haven't there been lots of "new religions" founded since Christ? Didn't people join David Karesh? Hasn't the Mormon church been founded since Christ? Isn't it the fastest growing Christian faith (even though many Christians do not accept it as a Christian faith)? Isn't the Church of Scientology one of the wealthiest Churches in the world and rapidly expanding? As for the disciples being told to destroy the Bible before they died. That was a neat trick since the Bible includes the new testament and that was not written until all or perhaps all but 1 of the disciples were deceased.
  18. "There is no doubt that Intelligent Design should not be taught in science classes. There is little to no scientific evidence that support intelligent design. It should be taught in religion class. " I agree completely. How many people would support a law requiring that evolution be taught in Sunday School, Bible School, or the equivalent for other religions?
  19. The rules outside of our universe may be different? So that means Gods may come and go and create themselves(?) at their whim? So out side of the rules of our universe (a bit of a problem since by definition it includes all existing things) these gods, who created them?
  20. I don't see a big difference in saying that God exists and always existed and saying the universe exists and always existed. If you say that it requires a God to create a Universe don't you then have to ask the question of where did God come from and who created him? After all the logic of the argument is that something cannot come from nothing. So where did the something "God" come from. If you believe that God exists and always existed you might as well believe the universe exists and always existed.
  21. OK I am a little confused. "There has to be intelligent design because humans can see "visible" light." Doesn't that mean we should be able to hear radio waves, see in X-Ray, UV, Infra-Red ? Those bands exist. As far as we know other animals can use some of this spectra but X-Rays are not used by any animals or plants to sense their environment. Wouldn't X-Ray sensors be an intelligent design feature? Wouldn't it keep people from living in Uranium mines? Not to mention how helpful it would be to hunt pray by seeing through trees. Reckon why an intelligent designer would blind some animals (moles come to mind) and put eye balls on them. Now as I understood the bible neither Adam nor Eve had pencils and paper nor clay tablets to write down their early history. Maybe they didn't get everything recorded. Maybe the original version (just like Moses' tablets) went missing and this bible is just a collection of old guesses and approximations. Does that mean we should rely upon it as God's revealed word? Why were there more than one creation story in the old testament until they decided upon a single version? Was God confused about how the world was created? If our world is a product of intelligent design what happened to the dinosaurs? Was that a mistake? Or were there no dinosaurs and the fossils are some big joke to keep us guessing? I am afraid intelligent design (a hypothesis with little support) is not a scientific theory and therefor shouldn't be taught in science class. A theory requires testability. Which part of intelligent design can be tested?
  22. There is no inherent contradiction between man and ape existing contemporaneously. Evolutionary theory does not postulate that the process results in a single life form that is so perfectly adapted that it exists in all environments and is so superior that other life forms are extinguished due to inability to compete. To suggest that that because man and ape are closely linked in the evolutionary tree demonstrates that evolution is wrong is the equivalent of arguing that no other plant or animal form can exist because man has adapted better than all other life forms. It may well be that man is evolving to a point where through his ability to modify the environment he can compete successfully in all environments and could destroy other species. In fact weren't the gorillas in danger of extinction due to loss of habitat (from mans encroachment). Perhaps we should go back to hunting gorillas and destroying their habitat so that we can demonstrate the fallacy of the argument that because man and ape coexist man could not have evolved from ape.
  23. I think that the constitution writers' issue was about govt. establishing religion. "Under God" would seem to establish that there is a monotheistic religion. Second, Polytheism is a religion. So if the argument prevails that atheists do not enjoy freedom from religion then there is still a problem with "Under God". I suppose there are other options than removing "Under God". It could be changed to "Under God and/or Gods". I think that many monotheists might object to the suggestion that suggests that there maybe more than 1 God. I don't think that flows very well either.
  24. I have switched to ZA pro (from ZA free firewall and PCTrend A/V). I have no complaints. It now has antispyware protection and Adaware, Spybot, PestPatrol and the MS antispyware come up clean except for tracking cookies since I went with ZAPro.
  25. Is sending 1.2% of your military a significant contribution?
  • Create New...