Lying/Perjury vs Fraud/Deceit

[dudeness]

By David Mills
The URL for this article is: http://britons4peace.org.uk/articles/mills4.html
File uploaded 4th August 2003

Now that John Dean has written his second recent article suggesting that the present President of the United States, George Bush, may have perpetrated a fraud upon Congress and the American people, (http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20030718.html), it has occurred to me that the average layman may not have an adequate appreciation of the differences between the concepts of lying/perjury and fraud/deceit. Since these concepts are fundamentally different to lawyers, and given the present political climate, it might be worth examining the differences. The complaints concerning the actions of our past President, Bill Clinton, are of actions more in line with the concepts of lying/perjury; while the complaints concerning the actions of our present President, George Bush, are of actions more consistent with those of fraud/deceit.

snip..

[proud patriot]

1. I think this discussion needs to happen

:hi:

[salmonhorse]

2. "concepts of lying/perjury"

Do not not exist within a Kangaroo Kourt. Which is to recognize that there is no basis in fact, no relation to them from 'the bench' on down to the inquisitor's chair so why bother showing up as the only one promising to tell, "the truth; the whole truth and nothing but the truth"?

However...

Stealing an election so that your otherwise un-electable, twisted neo-con notions of 'compassionate conservatism', crony/hand picked Texas contracts, inside trading, off-shore, out sourcing, 401K Robber Barron buddies & Israeli Lobby can spill American Blood & Treasure all over the landscape is another matter altogether and clearly subject to no-less than recall.

[TorchTheWitch]

3. actually, you got it a bit mixed up there

fraud and perjery are legal concepts whereas lying and deceit go by standard definition:

Fraud -
Deceitful conduct designed to manipulate another person to give something of value by (1) lying, (2) by repeating something that is or ought to have been known by the fraudulent party as false or suspect or (3) by concealing a fact from the other party which may have saved that party from being cheated. The existence of fraud will cause a court to void a contract and can give rise to criminal liability.

Perjury -
An intentional lie given while under oath or in a sworn affidavit.

Lie -
1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.

Deceit -
1. The act or practice of deceiving; deception.
2. A stratagem; a trick.
3. The quality of being deceitful; falseness.

* lying and being deceitful are essentially the same thing.

[unblock]

4. add relevance and materiality to the legal requirements

in both cases or fraud/perjury, the offending action(s) must be both relevant and material to the negotiations/testimony.

for instance, if bush were to knowingly, falsely testify that he was 49 when in fact he was 50, that would not be perjury (unless it was a very odd case in which that age distinction actually was meaningful). the lie in this case was irrelevant.

if bush were to knowingly, falsely testify, in a drug trial, that he only did 2 lines of cocaine when in fact he did 3, that would certainly be relevant, but it would be immaterial since it doesn't matter whether it was 2 or 3 (assuming that the difference doesn't actually put the crime into a different category based on quantity; then it would be material).

similarly for fraud, both relevance and materiality matter.

one of my major objections about the clinton 'perjury' nonsense was that his lie (though the never could identify a single false statement), was not relevant to the proceeding. whether or not he had 'sexual relations' with a consensual adult who in fact eagerly sought sexual conduct, long after the time frame of the case at hand (paula jones was about conduct during his tenure as governor of arkansas, lewinsky was during his presidency), was not relevant.

imagine being on trial for a rape 5 years ago and then being grilled about a consensual affair you had 1 year ago. ohmygod, this man is a known sexual partner! he must be guilty of rape!


not relevant.

[salmonhorse]

5. You agree that Clinton should have been impeached...

...due to a cum stained blue dress as a result of eight(8) straight years and counting of a right; and here read: wrong-wing effort to gain both a scapegoat = Clinton and vendetta payment for the expulsion of Nixon on a heliocopter in the 70's? You've missed the point altogether,

Again...

"Perjury -
An intentional lie given while under oath or in a sworn affidavit.

Lie -
1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.

Deceit -
1. The act or practice of deceiving; deception.
2. A stratagem; a trick.
3. The quality of being deceitful; falseness."

Bare little relevance to a greater picture what "lying/pergury" are conceptually meant to address (American Indians have a similar view of justice inside 'the white man's law') while within a $70,000,000 taxpayer funded Kangaroo Ken Starr Kourt after having been triangulated vis-a-via a former Bush I employee: Linda Tripp; Nixon agent-provocateur: Luciann Goldberg, and the dumb ass knee pad seeker: Monica Lewinsky if that will help you to get your head around the matter. Address further if you will the current white house resident and the frauds actively perpetrated upon the whole of the world. Where is your outrage there?

Your fine spilting of hairs ~

Will you dicker on Judgement Day? Or will you dither as to what the meaning of "is, is"? On that day there will be no turning round in your box. On that day we will all be fresh out of notions. The laws of man are just that = the laws of man. And as such subject to revision, redress, tort & retort.

[ProfessorGAC]

6. Mr. Mills Has A Basic Fact Wrong

While i agree in principle over his discussion on "materiality" of the Clinton lies, he referred to the case being adjudicated as a sexual harrassment case. It was not.

Because the time limit had expired over filing such a claim, the suit brought forward was claiming a violation of civil rights.

Therefore, there can be no question that the matter of Ms. Lewinsky was not a material issue and obviated any charge of perjury.

He has the right legal arguments, but weakened them by failing to recognize the nature of the suit itself.
The Professor