Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus1124
Nowhere does the constitution say it is "ok" to lie at ANY time. Even the right against self incrimination is a right to SILENCE and not a right to lie.
|
No shit... I never said it affirmatively says you can lie, however the Constitution is totally silent on this point, and thus if the law is silent on a point, it's OK to do it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus1124
Jesus, where did you get your legal education? We are talking about a LEGAL PROCEEDING, you have been presented with citation and reference after citation and refernce which lays out that as a matter of law, "not guilty" does NOT mean, or infer, or suggest, or equal factual innocence or For those who choose to roll the dice and see if they can "get off" (i.e. those who actually did commit the crime with which they are charged), pleading "not guilty" is a lie. Not a lie in the eyes of the law as in the case you cited, but merely a statement that impliedly states, "I am innocent of the crime with which I have been charged". It is more apptly paraphrased to state "I am invoking my right to have the state meet its burden of proof", that is the legal meaning of a "not guilty" plea. When stated in a court of law as part of a pleading it is not a lie because it is NOT a declaration, suggestion, implication, or whatever synonym you care to use for being factually innocent.
|
Cornell Law School. It is you who took my plain language explanation into the legal world, assuming it was the same language I would use in a legal proceeding when it was an explanation for a layperson. You are the one who took my explanation out of context, and YOU are incapable of realizing that you are wrong. But, as I said before, I don't give a flying fu#k what you think, so take your white noise elsewhere.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus1124
The case law citation I provided above could not have been any more emphatic or clear that you are WRONG on this point:
|
The citations you gave are all in the context of legal proceedings, not conversations between laypersons.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus1124
The prosecutor, like you, characterized the plea as a "lie", the court has said that was a mischaracterization of the plea and furthermore flat out states "not a lie"
|
The prosecutor was arguing to a Court, I was explaining to a layperson. Once again you can't get that through your thick skull...figures...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus1124
YOU ARE WRONG!
|
tsk, tsk.... Don't get your panties all in a bunch now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus1124
And I want to see proof of your legal education, because no lawyer I have ever met would make such an astoundingly irrelevant observation. This entire thread is about legal terms of art. The question is why can't someone be charged for perjury for pleading "not guilty" You gave a partially correct and partially ass-backwards wrong response to that question.
|
I have absolutely nothing to prove to you, and I couldn't care less about what you think. No person with any education would be as incapable as you of stepping back and removing oneself from the same frame of mind, even after I REPEATEDLY EXPLAINED that I wouldn't make such an argument in Court...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus1124
You said, without any ambiguity that as a matter of LAW (meaning all the relevant terms are used in their legal connotation) the constitution says it is "ok" to "lie". No one trained in the law would would denote a pleading of "not guilty" in anything other than its LEGAL MEANING in discussing the LEGAL CONSEQUENCES of that pleading.
|
Really? Where? Where did I say that was the case as a matter of law? I remember distinctly saying that I was using the term colloquially, and that I was not using a legal term of art. How the fu$k do you know what someone trained in the law would do? I know plenty of people trained in the law, and for one they are much more capable of changing their perspective than you. Obviously you operate with blinders on given this thread, and the other threads where you launch into a tirade after just one or two posts... nice job...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus1124
I didn't "read into" your previous posts at all, I read EXACTLY what you said. Now, you may have MEANT to say something other than what you ACTUALLY said, but I would submit it is your grasp of "plain English" (and basic logical construction which also calls into question the quality of any legal training you may have had) that is lacking, not mine.
|
Now Marcus my boy. You're the one who turned this into personal attacks, which shows me you've been exposed as someone who hasn't got a prayer of winning this argument. Not that I give a flying fu#k whether I win or not. You were the one to use all caps first, and you were the one who overstepped the boundary. I could really care less about you. I simply explained a concept to someone who had a question, and you promptly launched into a tirade, because you responded without understanding what I said. Way to act like a 3 year old..
Have a nice life...and piss off.