[Lerkfish]

http://www.kgw.com/news-local/storie....a701071e.html

OREGON CITY -- A group of Oregon veterans and Clackamas County residents rallied outside the Clackamas County District Attorney's office Monday afternoon calling for the resignation of a prosecutor who appeared in a controversial television ad criticizing Sen. John Kerry's Vietnam War service.

Alfred French, 58, a senior deputy district attorney, appeared in the recent ad by the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth and said: "I served with John Kerry. . . . He is lying about his record." French also signed a legal affadavit attesting to the claim. But French, in an interview with The Oregonian newspaper last week, said he was relying on the accounts of three other veterans when he said Kerry lied. ..

That acknowledgement fueled Monday's protest, where demonstrators contended French is unfit to serve as a prosecutor after swearing to facts that he never personally witnessed. "It is outrageous that Al French and others would try to smear the military record of John Kerry, a man of courage who put his life on the line to save the lives of others," said Don Stewart, a local veteran who organized the protest. "To lie in a sworn affidavit goes beyond political smear, it is cause for this assistant district attorney to resign, and resign now." ..

[Dr.HermanG.]

I wonder if the same people wanted Clinton to resign for lying on an affidavit as well.

Nothing new here.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Dr.HermanG.:
I wonder if the same people wanted Clinton to resign for lying on an affidavit as well.

Nothing new here.

Did you support the move to impeach Clinton?
Do you support this present urge to resign for lying on an affidavit?

If you are inconsistent, why>?

[Millennium]

It's a sworn affidavit. If he knew that what he was saying was false, then he should resign. It's the same as with Clinton.

[Dr.HermanG.]

There's a huge difference between the two.

Bill Clinton knowingly lied. He knew the truth but lied anyways.

The prosecutor signed an affidavit based on the best evidence possible at that time. It's no different than the same prosecutor relying on police evidence or other forms of evidence in the normal course of his job when he has to go before a grand jury to get an indictment.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Dr.HermanG.:
There's a huge difference between the two.

Maybe, maybe not. Both have made sworn statements under oath.

Bill Clinton knowingly lied. He knew the truth but lied anyways.

Indeed; he swore that what he was saying was true, and then proceeded to lie. The same may have been the case here.

The prosecutor signed an affidavit based on the best evidence possible at that time.

Then it was inappropriate to swear an oath, because there was no certainty yet. Now he may have to suffer the consequences for that. Moral of the story: Don't swear that something is true unless you have first hand knowledge of its veracity.

It's no different than the same prosecutor relying on police evidence or other forms of evidence in the normal course of his job when he has to go before a grand jury to get an indictment.

Actually, it's very different. A prosecutor is not under oath while presenting evidence to a jury or grand jury. The point of a prosecutor is to prove something, which implies uncertainty, and you can't swear on something uncertain. Witnesses swear to tell the truth (and, more to the point, to not say anything which isn't true), because they (supposedly) have firsthand knowledge which relates to the matter of the trial, and this can be used to help prove or disprove that matter.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Dr.HermanG.:
The prosecutor signed an affidavit based on the best evidence possible at that time. It's no different than the same prosecutor relying on police evidence or other forms of evidence in the normal course of his job when he has to go before a grand jury to get an indictment.

No. An affidavit is a sworn statement and is supposed to be based on personal knowledge. That's what they're for, for Pete's sake. Any lawyer, including this guy, knows that. He signed an affidavit claiming to have personal knowledge that he didn't have. That's sleazy as hell.

Call Kerry what you like, but this Swift Boat group looks more and more despicable by the day.

[Dr.HermanG.]

Affidavit:

A statement which before being signed, the person signing takes an oath that the contents are, to the best of their knowledge, true.

Perjury:

In order for a person to be found guilty of perjury the government must prove: the person testified under oath before [e.g., the grand jury]; at least one particular statement was false; and the person knew at the time the testimony was false.

So the only way the prosecutor could be liable for perjury is if he knew beforehand that the statements were false and he signed anyways. An affidavit only requires that the statement be true to the best of their knowledge.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Dr.HermanG.:
So the only way the prosecutor could be liable for perjury is if he knew beforehand that the statements were false and he signed anyways. An affidavit only requires that the statement be true to the best of their knowledge.

"Before recording the ad, French signed an affidavit that said: "I am able to swear, as I do hereby swear, that all facts and statements contained in this affidavit are true and correct and within my personal knowledge and belief."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...312EDT0561.DTL

Why are you trying to rationalize what this guy did? He probably can't be prosecuted because he didn't execute the affidavit in connection with a legal proceeding. But what he did is patently dishonest, no less than anything Kerry ever said.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Dr.HermanG.:
So the only way the prosecutor could be liable for perjury is if he knew beforehand that the statements were false and he signed anyways. An affidavit only requires that the statement be true to the best of their knowledge.

To the best of his personal knowledge. He had none. As others have noted, he also swore that he was able to swear, and this turns out to have been a lie.

Can him. Don't bother letting him resign; fire him. Let him face the disgrace he deserves for this crime, and mourn how many who deserve the same manage to escape.

[Dr.HermanG.]

There's a gulf of difference between absolutely knowing the truth and believing something to be the truth to the best of one's knowledge. This is why there's a precise difference between an affidavit and a deposition/perjury.

If he signed it believing that his knowledge of the incident was tru then what exactly is dishonest here?

When Kerry stands up and says "I was in Cambodia" and later it turns out to be false then that's a serious issue to be dealt with. If Kerry stands up and says "I believe McCain was in Cambodia" and it turns out McCain lied then is it right to blame Kerry for telling what he thought to be the truth?

[Dr.HermanG.]

Originally posted by Millennium:
To the best of his personal knowledge.

Give me the legal definition of best.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Dr.HermanG.:
If he signed it believing that his knowledge of the incident was tru then what exactly is dishonest here?

If he was wrong about the weather....ok. but he was slandering another person by claiming THEY lied, and lied to accomplish that. I don't care how you try to be an apologist for this, there is no valid excuse for that

[Dr.HermanG.]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
If he was wrong about the weather....ok. but he was slandering another person by claiming THEY lied, and lied to accomplish that.

Again, where is the proof of intent to lie and deceive?

How about Kerry lying before a Senate committee when he repeatedly said "We found" and "We found" and "We found" and "We rationalized" and "We watched" and:

I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.

It is impossible to describe to you exactly what did happen in Detroit, the emotions in the room, the feelings of the men who were reliving their experiences in Vietnam, but they did. They relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do.

They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.

Yet was Kerry there when any of those incidents took place? So, he lied too, didn't he?

If a prosecutor is going to be sacked for giving an affidavit on the best information he had then let's get out the gallows for Kerry because his crime for lying before Congress under oath is much worse.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Dr.HermanG.:
Again, where is the proof of intent to lie and deceive?

How about Kerry lying before a Senate committee when he repeatedly said "We found" and "We found" and "We found" and "We rationalized" and "We watched" and:



Yet was Kerry there when any of those incidents took place? So, he lied too, didn't he?

If a prosecutor is going to be sacked for giving an affidavit on the best information he had then let's get out the gallows for Kerry because his crime for lying before Congress under oath is much worse.

wow. I think you need to take some time and think about your stand, here.

"intent to lie and deceive"...he did it accidentally? No, he claimed Kerry lied, and claimed he knew Kerry lied because he was there. If he wasn't there, but went on hearsay, He committed perjury. Period. You keep twisting it to make it seem ok, but hey, its not ok, ok?

Then you quoted Kerry's testimony, where he stated he was told something. That is not the same thing, ok? Think about it. He told the truth: someone told him something happened -- what he is testifying to is that they TOLD him, not that he was there to witness it.
What French did was to say HE WAS AN EYE WITNESS to events that he did not witness.He was lying because he claimed his eyewitness account differed from Kerry's and that that made Kerry a liar.

Man, if you can't even understand this basic concept, you have problems.

[Dr.HermanG.]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
He committed perjury. Period.

What perjury? Where did this come from? None of the news stories about this even suggest this extreme fascination you have with insinuating that perjury was committed here.

[Dr.HermanG.]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:

What French did was to say HE WAS AN EYE WITNESS to events that he did not witness.

Did you even read the article?

French later admitted his sworn statements were based on the accounts of others. Kirsch said French has a right to criticize Kerry "as a concerned veteran" but should not have signed a sworn statement based on secondhand information.

Now, how is that not "to the best of one's knowledge" as an affidavit requires? If a person is presented with the best information (affadavits don't require personally knowing the information to be true) then the statement is a true statement at the time of the swearing even if later it turns out that the information wasn't accurate.

It's exactly the same thing Kerry did but you want Kerry's more massive "perjury" and deceit to slide.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Dr.HermanG.:
There's a huge difference between the two.

Bill Clinton knowingly lied. He knew the truth but lied anyways.

The prosecutor signed an affidavit based on the best evidence possible at that time. It's no different than the same prosecutor relying on police evidence or other forms of evidence in the normal course of his job when he has to go before a grand jury to get an indictment.

WHAT?

He didn't even admit that it was indirect knowledge at the time. It was later that he admitted it was 2nd hand knowledge.

So he lied in sentence #1.

And unless he's got a multiple-personality disorder, allowing him to be multiple people... he's a liar.


Now if I tell police I saw you kill someone.... and it ends up, I wasn't even near the scene... am I wrong? What if I had a conversation with someone nearby? Does that make me a good source?

[Dr.HermanG.]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Now if I tell police I saw you kill someone.... and it ends up, I wasn't even near the scene... am I wrong?

If you said "I saw Brian kill John" and it turns out you weren't nearby then that would be lying because you know damn well you weren't there to begin with.

What if I had a conversation with someone nearby? Does that make me a good source?

If someone told you "I saw Brian kill John" and you were asked to swear an affidavit saying "To the best of my knowledge Brian killed John" then it's a true statement, isn't it? It doesn't ask you if the knowledge is accurate but merely that you believe that you know that what was told was the truth. That is until you find out that Brian really didn't kill John. At which case you couldn't be lying initially because you weren't aware of the real truth in the first place, just the truth "to the best of your knowledge."

Lying requires intent to deceive. If the prosecutor knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that what he swore to was 100% wrong, deceitful, and untrue then he should resign.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Dr.HermanG.:
Did you even read the article?

Now, how is that not "to the best of one's knowledge" as an affidavit requires? If a person is presented with the best information (affadavits don't require personally knowing the information to be true) then the statement is a true statement at the time of the swearing even if later it turns out that the information wasn't accurate.

1. The whole point of an affidavit is to attest to one's personal knowledge. There's no other reason to execute one. Any lawyer knows this. He's a lawyer.

2. Even if No. 1 weren't the case, he swore that his statements were based on personal knowledge. They weren't. That's all we need to know.

3. If he had sworn to the fact that other people told him what happened, he'd have no problem. But that's not what he swore to.

4. He won't be prosecuted for perjury because the affidavit has no bearing on anything other than the fact that the Swift Boat group has no more credibility than Kerry. But if this were related to a legal proceeding, he'd be liable for perjury and/or fraud.

5. Read No. 2 again.

6. Stop playing dumb. It is an act, right?

[Dr.HermanG.]

And where do we get knowledge? From our own acts? Or from other people as well?

Did you learn every piece of knowledge from day one solely from acts you personally did and did alone?

[rambo47]

Call me naive, but I do expect a high moral and ethical standard to be upheld by our leaders, be they political or judgicial. If a DA lies on any public question he simply has to go. If you can't trust him to uphold some basic principles of integrity and honesty, how can you trust him with the authority that comes with his position? You can't.

That's my big problem with slick willy's intern bj: the leader of our nation should be able to maintain moral and ethical standards far above what we whitnessed. It's a question of character, and slick willy's is sorely lacking. So is this DA's. He gotta go!

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Dr.HermanG.:
And where do we get knowledge?

In your case, that poses a very interesting, and probably unanswerable, question.

For the rest of the world, personal knowledge in a sworn affidavit means you saw it with your own friggin' eyes. If you didn't see it with your own friggin' eyes, you're expected to say so.

[Dr.HermanG.]

Originally posted by zigzag:
In your case, that poses a very interesting, and probably unanswerable, question.

For the rest of the world, personal knowledge in a sworn affidavit means you saw it with your own friggin' eyes. If you didn't see it with your own friggin' eyes, you're expected to say so.

You do realize, of course, that affidavits are as individual as the billions of people on this planet?

According to the State of Connecticut's Judiciary an affidavit is merely a "written statement made under oath." Another legal resource calls it "A written statement or declaration made under oath before a notary or other person authorized to certify the statement." Yet another one states "Affidavit: A written statement of facts in the name of a person, by whom it is voluntarily signed and sworn to under oath."

Oregon Statues, 45.020: Affidavit described. An affidavit is a written declaration under oath, made without notice to the adverse party.

So where is this "personal knowledge" requirement? I can't find it anywhere defined legally this way. One would think that the Oregon Statutes, of which this prosecutor must work under, would be the ultimate authority on what constitutes an affadavit for purposes of this case.

[Lerkfish]

I"m with zigzag on this one, no one could possibly be THIS stupid.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Dr.HermanG.:
If you said "I saw Brian kill John" and it turns out you weren't nearby then that would be lying because you know damn well you weren't there to begin with.

Ok, that's rational.

If someone told you "I saw Brian kill John" and you were asked to swear an affidavit saying "To the best of my knowledge Brian killed John" then it's a true statement, isn't it?

No it's a false statement. It's not to the best of my knowledge. It's to the best of THEIR knowledge. I WAS TOLD. 'to the best of *my* knowledge' says that it's mine. my = ownership.

It doesn't ask you if the knowledge is accurate but merely that you believe that you know that what was told was the truth. That is until you find out that Brian really didn't kill John. At which case you couldn't be lying initially because you weren't aware of the real truth in the first place, just the truth "to the best of your knowledge."

Wrong, I lied and said I had knowledge. Which I clearly didn't (I wasn't even there, but I made it sound like I was). "I was told", and that would be an honest statement.

If I said 'to the best of my knowledge'. I'd be taking some obstruction of justice charges along with false police report.

Lying requires intent to deceive. If the prosecutor knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that what he swore to was 100% wrong, deceitful, and untrue then he should resign.

Agreed.

But to say you saw something, when in fact, you heard from someone is TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.

In one case, someone has direct knowledge, and it's only their credibility that needs to be validated before the account is a credible source.

In the other case, there is a whole other person whose credibility isn't known. Is the person who actually saw it a racist? Was he/she paid? Was that persons friend the real murderer? Are they legally blind? Do they have a mental condition? Were THEY even there? Or did they just make it up?


There was unquestionably intent to decieve. The statement was given in first person, when in fact, it's second person information.

THAT is clearly wrong. No questions asked. There's no other way to look at it. It's a lie. A false statement. Misleading.


"I saw kennedy get shot. So I know who really killed him."

Well I saw the video, and I think there was a guy on the grassy nole. My reason being the direction his head moved from the blast.

Is my statement honest?

1. I didn't see him get shot, I saw a video. I wasn't even alive there. I didn't have range of motion, or even stereo sound to help see where the blast came from. Only video shot by one person with the a tremmer.

2. I also saw many documentaries discussing the assassination. Didn't mention those were how I knew how his head moved.

3. I don't 'know' who killed him. I have no forensic evidence to show that I do, since I was never even at the scene. The camera only showed so many people (it didn't even show the potential assassin). So I can't even say I saw him do it. I just saw the effect of it. On camera. 20+ years later.

4. No degree in forensics, time at the crime scene, or access to FBI documents related to the case.

No, my statement is clearly not honest. It's a cheap attempt to sound like an authority on the kennedy assassination. I in no way have the cridentials to make such a statement valid.


I could say:

"I saw the video of kennedy [being] shot. [i]I also saw some documentaries about the event. Based on the movement of the presidents head, it look as if a shot may have come from behind, making me feel that there may have been a second shooter."

100% valid statement, since it says what *I* know, as well as where my sources are.


To claim someone elses experience as your own is fraudulent.

"I was the first man on the moon"

Well, Neil Armstrong was, but I saw the video, and felt like I was there.

[Dr.HermanG.]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
I"m with zigzag on this one, no one could possibly be THIS stupid.

I suppose you have nothing left to add since I gave you a SERIOUS SMACKDOWN with current Oregon law regarding this incident?

[Spliffdaddy]

apparently.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Dr.HermanG.:
You do realize, of course, that affidavits are as individual as the billions of people on this planet?

According to the State of Connecticut's Judiciary an affidavit is merely a "written statement made under oath." Another legal resource calls it "A written statement or declaration made under oath before a notary or other person authorized to certify the statement." Yet another one states "Affidavit: A written statement of facts in the name of a person, by whom it is voluntarily signed and sworn to under oath."

Oregon Statues, 45.020: Affidavit described. An affidavit is a written declaration under oath, made without notice to the adverse party.

So where is this "personal knowledge" requirement? I can't find it anywhere defined legally this way. One would think that the Oregon Statutes, of which this prosecutor must work under, would be the ultimate authority on what constitutes an affadavit for purposes of this case.

I'm only doing this for the benefit of those who might want to learn something. You don't want to learn anything - you just want to be obtuse.

Rule 47 of the Oregon Rules of Civil Procedure, which is the same as the equivalent federal rule, provides that "affidavits and declarations shall be made on personal knowledge, shall set forth such facts as would be admissible in evidence, and shall show affirmatively that the affiant or declarant is competent to testify to the matters stated therein." Mr. French's affidavit would be invalid. Any questions?

The rules you cite don't contradict anything I've said; they merely define an affidavit in general terms. But even if there were no rules, Mr. French swore that his statements were based on personal knowledge, which they weren't. You keep ignoring this fact but you can't escape it. So no matter how many definitions you drag up, he lied. End of story.

I've drafted hundreds of affidavits. They all specify that they're based on personal knowledge. If they're based on third-party knowledge, they so state. Mr. French doesn't appear to have done that.

That there a billion different potential affidavits in the world has nothing to do with the fact that Mr. French made a false statement. Anyone here who signs a sworn affidavit pretending to have personal knowledge of something they don't have personal knowledge of would open themselves up to perjury and/or fraud charges.

[Dr.HermanG.]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Ok, that's rational.

Let's look at the two parts of this problem, shall we?

Problem one: French claims that Kerry's records would show that Kery is lying. This part is based on knowledge from other people. This part he stated last week and was part of the affidavit. Under Oregon law there is no specific requirement for a party to have direct firsthand knowledge of something if their knowledge is from reputable sources. Since French is a veteran and his knowledge came from veterans then he can argue that his knowledge about Kerry was based on the best information available.

Problem two: French claimed to have served with Kerry. This is the part that appears to be blatantly false. So, this part would cause him potential trouble.

But the whole point of the thread was "perjury" and that's clearly the wrong concept to apply to this. But, hey, it hasn't stopped Lerk from jerking his knees for the past several years now, has it?

[Dr.HermanG.]

Originally posted by zigzag:
Rule 47 of the Oregon Rules of Civil Procedure, which is the same as the equivalent federal rule, provides that [b]"affidavits and declarations shall be made on personal knowledge, shall set forth such facts as would be admissible in evidence, and shall show affirmatively that the affiant or declarant is competent to testify to the matters stated therein."

But it is based on personal knowledge. If several people tell him the exact same thing then it becomes personal knowledge.

I've never been to the moon but I know it's there because enough evidence exists to suggest that it's there. Do I have to personally walk on the moon to sign an affidavit that says "I believe that the moon exists?"

Rule 47 applies to civil suits. For those willing to learn the Rules of Procedure dictate how the courts and judiciary operate. This isn't part of a civil suit so the ORS apply instead.

I've drafted hundreds of affidavits. They all specify that they're based on personal knowledge. If they aren't based on personal knowledge, they so state. Mr. French doesn't appear to have done that.

Do you have a copy of Mr. French's affidavit you'd like to share with the class?

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Dr.HermanG.:
But it is based on personal knowledge. If several people tell him the exact same thing then it becomes personal knowledge.

No it isn't - it's hearsay. His personal knowledge is limited to the fact that several people told him something. If his affidavit says "Several people told me something," it would be valid. He doesn't appear to have done that.

I've never been to the moon but I know it's there because enough evidence exists to suggest that it's there. Do I have to personally walk on the moon to sign an affidavit that says "I believe that the moon exists?"

No, because you've personally observed the moon in the sky. Courts also take what's called "judicial notice" of such commonly known facts.

But that doesn't really matter. What's at issue is whether you personally saw John Kerry walk on the moon, or were merely told that he walked on the moon. Being told is not personal knowledge of the original event.

Rule 47 applies to civil suits. This isn't part of a civil suit so the ORS apply instead.

Actually, neither applies because this isn't a legal proceeding. That doesn't change the fact that he appears to have lied about having personal knowledge.

Do you have a copy of Mr. French's affidavit you'd like to share with the class?

No - I'm relying on news reports like you and everyone else. Therefore, I do not have personal knowledge of what he did. The difference is that I don't claim to have personal knowledge.

[Dr.HermanG.]

Well then someone produce a copy of his sworn affidavit and let's see what it says verbatim. Anyone?

[lurkalot]

Originally posted by Dr.HermanG.:
Well then someone produce a copy of his sworn affidavit and let's see what it says verbatim. Anyone?

ALFRED FRENCH'S AFFIDAVIT



Saturday, August 21, 2004



The following is the sworn affidavit of Alfred J. French III, signed July 21, 2004:


"My name is Alfred J. French III. I am over the age of 21 years, and I am fully competent and able to make this affidavit. I am able to swear, as I do hereby swear, that all facts and statements contained in this affidavit are true and correct and within my personal knowledge or belief.


"I served in Coastal Division 11 with John Kerry during his brief stay in Vietnam. My picture may be found (against my wishes) on John F. Kerry's ("Kerry") website, www.johnkerry.com, under his Lifetime commercial, where John Kerry includes my picture along with 18 other Patrol Craft Fast ("PCF") (also known as Swift boats) commanders in An Thoi along with him during his service there. I am a retired Captain in the United States Navy Reserve and was an Ensign when serving with Kerry.


"Kerry has wildly exaggerated and lied about his record in Vietnam. By way of example, on two occasions Kerry obtain Purple Hearts under false pretenses from negligently self-inflicted grenade wounds in the absence of hostile fire. His first Purple Heart is the subject of widespread coverage. Thus, for example, his third Purple Heart of March 13, 1969 is attributed in his report of that day to a "hip wound" from an enemy mine while he himself admits on page 313 of Tour of Duty (by Douglas Brinkley; New York: Harper Collins, 2004) that he was wounded supposedly by a grenade placed in a rice bin by friendly troops. Kerry's commercials, for example, portraying him as a soldier with bandolier going through the jungle totally mischaracterizes his actual role in Vietnam.


"Most important to me, Kerry has lied about our record in Vietnam, claiming on a 1971 Meet The Press show that our unit was engaged in "atrocities." This is not true. On the Dick Cavett Show on 1971 (cf. Kranish at 92), he claimed that crews at An Thoi were involved in a mutiny. This was likewise a lie. There are many other lies that Kerry has told about his record and our mutual record in Vietnam.


"Further affiant saith not.


"Alfred J. French III"

Oops. Edit to add this Link.

[Dr.HermanG.]

Huh, looks like he's in the clear since the first statement ends in "within my personal knowledge or belief."

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Dr.HermanG.:
Give me the legal definition of best.

You're focusing on the wrong word; you should be focusing on personal. He had no personal knowledge, yet he swore on it. That would technically be perjury even if everything else that he said turned out to be true.

[Dr.HermanG.]

But the affadivit also states that it can be his personal belief. So if he beleives the information to be true then he's OK.

Notice the word "or" in the clause.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Dr.HermanG.:
Let's look at the two parts of this problem, shall we?

Problem one: French claims that Kerry's records would show that Kery is lying. This part is based on knowledge from other people. This part he stated last week and was part of the affidavit. Under Oregon law there is no specific requirement for a party to have direct firsthand knowledge of something if their knowledge is from reputable sources. Since French is a veteran and his knowledge came from veterans then he can argue that his knowledge about Kerry was based on the best information available.

His statements were that it was *HIS* experience. Not someone else's. So that's blatantly false.

The law allows people to give statements 'my friend told me...', so that it's permissible in court.

It doesn't allow you to say "I saw" instead of 'my friend told me'.

Problem two: French claimed to have served with Kerry. This is the part that appears to be blatantly false. So, this part would cause him potential trouble.

Agreed.

But the whole point of the thread was "perjury" and that's clearly the wrong concept to apply to this. But, hey, it hasn't stopped Lerk from jerking his knees for the past several years now, has it?

Problem 1, and problem 2 back him up.

[zigzag]

The news report that I quoted has him using the words "personal knowledge and belief." This version says "personal knowledge or belief." I'll accept the latter as the more accurate report, in which case French engaged in a clever dodge: some statements pertain to his personal knowledge (e.g. his photo), while others are mere statements of opinion based on hearsay. However, he makes no distinctions between the two, which is misleading, and the document would be invalid in a legal proceeding. But as I've also said, since this isn't a legal proceeding, it's of no effect, and he gets away with it either way.

So if this is the correct version, I was mistaken and Dr.H wins on "Depends what your definition of is is" grounds. Congratulations. But French has engaged in a clever and misleading dodge, giving the public the impression that he has first-hand knowledge of events in the guise of a pseudo-legalistic document. So I stand by my conclusion that French is a dishonest turd and the Swift Boat group has no more credibility than Kerry does.

[Dr.HermanG.]

If that's your conclusion then I would agree. Now that we see the actual affidavit it's clear that he legally wasn't in the wrong due to the wording of it, therefore, no perjury as the thread title suggest. Just shows that news reports can be twisted without showing the facts in the same way that the affidavit was twisted to obscure what was true. It doesn't make him wrong legally in terms of his affidavit but someone who works in that fashion shouldn't be prosecuting cases. This is one reason why I don't have a strong opinion of lawyers to begin with (I've always handled all of my legal matters myself because of this reason).

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Dr.HermanG.:
If that's your conclusion then I would agree. Now that we see the actual affidavit it's clear that he legally wasn't in the wrong due to the wording of it, therefore, no perjury as the thread title suggest. Just shows that news reports can be twisted without showing the facts in the same way that the affidavit was twisted to obscure what was true. It doesn't make him wrong legally in terms of his affidavit but someone who works in that fashion shouldn't be prosecuting cases. This is one reason why I don't have a strong opinion of lawyers to begin with (I've always handled all of my legal matters myself because of this reason).

And I apologize for assuming too much and taking it out on you. I stand by my points about the legal effects of affidavits and the meaning of "personal knowledge," but I wasn't aware of the dodgey language that French used. Goes to show that you have to be careful about relying on news reports.

As for not trusting lawyers, I don't necessarily blame you, but whenever I've drafted an affidavit, I've made the deponent confirm that they have personal knowledge of everything it contains, and I've often had to delete things when they say "Well, I didn't actually see that - I just assumed it/heard about it." Similarly, in depositions, a good deal of time is spent asking witnesses whether they actually saw something, or just assumed/heard about it. They're very different things.

Sadly, it's starting to look like both Kerry and the Swift Boat group are guilty of overstatement.

[Dr.HermanG.]

Originally posted by zigzag:
And I apologize for assuming too much and taking it out on you. I stand by my points about the legal effects of affidavits and the meaning of "personal knowledge," but I wasn't aware of the dodgey language that French used. Goes to show that you have to be careful about relying on news reports.

No offense taken whatsoever. I understand the meaning of "personal knowledge" but as I suspected there was more to the story then we were being told. Sadly this is too often the case nowadays and it would have been a much more reliable story had the reporter(s) and editor(s) been more accurate in telling what really happened.

As for not trusting lawyers, I don't necessarily blame you, but whenever I've drafted an affidavit, I've made the deponent confirm that they have personal knowledge of everything it contains, and I've often had to delete things when they say "Well, I didn't actually see that - I just assumed it/heard about it." Similarly, in depositions, a good deal of time is spent asking witnesses whether they actually saw something, or just assumed/heard about it. They're very different things.

Sure because heresay should never be admitted into legal preceedings in place of real concrete evidence.

Sadly, it's starting to look like both Kerry and the Swift Boat group are guilty of overstatement.

Somewhere in the mess is the truth and I'm not sure we'll ever know what that is.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Dr.HermanG.:
Somewhere in the mess is the truth and I'm not sure we'll ever know what that is.

Isn't that in our constitution or something?