Whatever, you're obviously arguing to hear (or read) yourself. You're not reading what I wrote, and you appear to contine this back and forth for the sake of stroking your own ego. Stop putting words in my mouth and stop bothering me.

__________________
"The only crime in America is not having any money."
-Berthold Brecht

"This interview...is not about me..."
-

Putting words in your mouth? Which of the following did you NOT post?:

You said, flat out, in unequivocable English that as far as you are concerned "utting the words 'not guilty'" is simply a way for a person charged with a crime to say they are "innocent". That is exactly what I have consistently criticized you for doing. The ONLY way a pleading of "not guilty" is a "lie", but it is not a lie, because in a court of law, the term "not guilty" is NOT--as you yourself keep doing--the semantic equivalent of "innocent".

Let's start from the beginning.

The basic question at hand was whether or not someone could be charged with "perjury" for pleading "not guilty" to a crime if they are subsequently convicted of that crime.

You said:
The part about it not being sworn testimony is absolutely correct. Where you are wrong is your contorted and baseless conclusion that you have an iron clad "right" to lie at arraignment. The right against self incrimination is a right to silence, it doesn't give anyone the right to lie at anytime during a judicial proceeding.

The other flaw in your premise is that you clearly equate a pleading of "not guilty" with a factual claim of innocence. That is simply not the case. As you can readily see from both of the links I provided to the Mass. Bar Association AND the American Bar Association, as a legal term "not guilty" is NOT a factual claim of innocence:

Quote:

Not Guilty Does Not Mean Innocent All too often when I listen to the radio or read the newspapers, I hear or see "at arraignment, the defendant pled innocent" or "the defendant was found innocent by the jury." The word "innocent" is being misused. "Innocent" cannot and should not be substituted for "not guilty."

Now, I did get one thing wrong, I omitted a third possible plea of nolo contendre, but that doesn't impact that substance of the fact that "not guilty" as a legal term is not an assertion of factual innocence and as such is not a "lie" even if the person actually did commit the crime.

If the term "not guilty" in a legal proceeding is not a declaration of factual "innocent", then what exactly is a person lying about in a legal proceeding where they use that term in a pleading?

Now, I suspect what you might have meant to be saying all along, but didn't because of your insistance that the pleading is a "lie", albeit a constitutionally protected one if your view is this:

And there you have it, the characterization of a "not guilty" plea as "lie" (which you did, but insisted that it was a constitutionally protected lie) was flat our wrong as a matter of law.

__________________
"It's a good feeling to shoot a bad guy. Something you democrats would never understand. Americans are homesteaders, we want a safe home, keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys!"

----Denny Crane

NO. I said it's a lie that the Constitution is silent on, not that it's Constitutionally protected. Therefore my statement that the Constitution says it's OK is correct. 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," when the declarant has, in fact, committed the crime.

You took this way past what I said, and you are incapable of removing yourself from the notion that I was using a legal term of art, which I was not. I am using the word "lie" colloquially to state that when you have, in fact, committed the crime for which you have been charged, and you say "not guilty" at the arraignment, you are telling an untruth, or as it's more commonly known a lie.

You read into my previous posts waaay too much, and continue to get off on putting words in my mouth with your ongoing self-righteous conniption. If you cannot understand plain english, I cannot help you.

__________________
"The only crime in America is not having any money."
-Berthold Brecht

"This interview...is not about me..."
-

No, what you said was:

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.

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.

The case law citation I provided above could not have been any more emphatic or clear that you are WRONG on this point:

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"

YOU ARE WRONG! 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.

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.

Now, if someone who committed a crime were running around on television saying they are "not guilty", then you could argue somewhat reasonably that they were "lying"; but IN a court room, that term DOES have a very specific meaning, and that meaning does not represent a "lie" even if someone pleading it actually committed the crime.

If I am in a deposition, and the person asking me questions (under oath) has stipulated that for the purposes of the deposition, a "kiss" shall mean a mutual contact of the lips, open, with tongue contact, and when asked if I "kissed" a particular person who I had merely kissed on the forhead, I would not be lying as a matter of law, because that term has a very specific meaning in that setting.

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.

__________________
"It's a good feeling to shoot a bad guy. Something you democrats would never understand. Americans are homesteaders, we want a safe home, keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys!"

----Denny Crane

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.



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.

The citations you gave are all in the context of legal proceedings, not conversations between laypersons.



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...



tsk, tsk.... Don't get your panties all in a bunch now.

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...

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...


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.

__________________
"The only crime in America is not having any money."
-Berthold Brecht

"This interview...is not about me..."
-

But you didn't say the Constitution is "silent", you said:

You indicated in plain English that the Constitution provides an affirmative declaration protecting lying at an arraignment.

But WHATEVER meaning you give the words you used, you are still wrong in your basic premise. The reason you cannot be charged with perjury for pleading "not guilty" is because IT IS NOT A LIE AS A MATTER OF LAW. You flat out said, no matter how you slice it or obfuscate it after the fact, in responding to a point of LAW that it WAS a lie, but a constitutioanlly protected one. It is NOT a lie, PERIOD.

Again, we are DISCUSSING a legal point, not whether there is a MORAL question of pleading "not guilty", but whether or not it can be considered perjury as a matter of LAW. DUH!

And yet you presented it in a way which was completely contrary to the legal reality that was being asked about.

Furthermore, you specifically referred to the Constitution, that is a LEGAL document, and you said that this LEGAL document affirmatively says it is ok to lie in an arraignment. Even in "plain" or "lay" English, this was WRONG, since a "not guilty" plea IS A LEGAL TERM which we were discussing in the context of a COURT PROCEEDING which you announced was afforded "iron clad" protection under a LEGAL DOCUMENT.

No, that is your latest argument in defense of your original statement which is increasingly shown to be wrong.


You were responding to a question of LAW. Why would you even waste anyone's time giving a completely irrelevant (if not wrong) response to such a question.

The CAPS are for emphasis because putting it in bold is a bit of a hassle (and something I rather consistently reserve for use in highlighting withing quoted passages), nothing inappropriate about it.

As for personal attacks, I was not attacking you personally, I was attacking the substance of your ever changing defense of your original post. You demonstrated a complete lack of ability to read "plain English" when you posted:

Not only did I never say that, I said EXACTLY the opposite, in "plain English". I defy you to show a single thing I posted which suggested that the words "not guilty" in an arraignment implied, was synonymous with, alluded to, or was a "the way" a person charged with a crime asserts actual innocence?

You made a pissing little suggestion that I have a problem with "plain English", yet you are the one who has a proven track record of not only not understanding that which was clearly posted, but in taking it as meaning the exact opposite of what it clearly says in "plain English".

What kind of lawyer answers a question of LAW about the meaning of a LEGAL TERM used in a LEGAL PROCEEDING in any way other than that which answers the LEGAL QUESTION being asked. The answer to the question in the thread you decided to inject yourself into (long after the correct answer was given btw) you give a response which is wrong as a matter of law. You are either pointless, or wrong. Take your pick.

__________________
"It's a good feeling to shoot a bad guy. Something you democrats would never understand. Americans are homesteaders, we want a safe home, keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys!"

----Denny Crane

You can plead "not guilty", since the state has to prove your guilt, it's not a lie, it's a request for a trial.
And if a defendant is found guilty, they usually receive a stiffer sentence than if they plead guilty, so there is some punishment for the not guilty plea, from a practical standpoint.

__________________
“The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine.”

Senator Thad Cochran, Mississippi (R)
on McCain

“I decided I didn’t want this guy anywhere near a trigger.”
Senator Pete Domenici, New Mexico (R)
on McCain

“My anger did not help my campaign ... People don’t like angry candidates very much.”

McCain on McCain

PRECISELY, it is not that "not guilty" is a lie, but one that is protected by the Constitution, it is that "not guilty" in the context of a legal proceeding (which is the context in which it has been being discussed since the beginning of this thread) is not, in fact, a lie to begin with.

__________________
"It's a good feeling to shoot a bad guy. Something you democrats would never understand. Americans are homesteaders, we want a safe home, keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys!"

----Denny Crane