by Mary W Maxwell, LLB
It was amazing news, discussed in Part One of this series, that a Child Protection social worker has been arrested for perjury. This article looks at the law of perjury in general.
Sir William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England (1769) is a real page-turner, if you like that sort of thing — and I do. Especially Volume 4 – Crimes against Justice.
Volume 4 is not where you’ll find crimes that are unjust “on the ground” – like stealing someone’s lunchbox, but are crimes that occur in the courtroom. If the lunchbox thief got indicted and for his trial he hired a witness to give him an alibi, that witness commits a crime against justice: perjury.
Other Blackstonian crimes against justice are: bribing a judge, destroying evidence, or if a jailer lets a prisoner escape. Some are complicated like two friends arranging a mutual car accident to get the insurance payout. See?
Perjury is rarely punished. I assume that is because people don’t understand Blackstone. It is rather thrilling to me that a social worker in Iowa got caught for perjury. I’m joyful because it was a crime against justice. One that is absolutely flourishing in Australia even as we speak.
Most of the crimes we have encountered at Gumshoe in regard to children being taken are crimes against justice. They have to do with someone fiddling with the paperwork (such as losing the files that incriminate a perpetrator), or fiddling with concepts (such as parents “coaching,” oh please). And the problem is exacerbated by the media that have allowed so much of the child-stealing to go unnoticed.
Mary: “Sir William, the Murdoch press in Oz refuses to print the Protective parent’s stories. Is that OK?”
Blackstone: “Certainly not, if they’re knowingly covering up a crime. That would be a crime against justice. Also, Mary, negligence by sheriffs, constables, and coroners is a crime and it comes under the category “crimes against justice.” Are you with me?”
Mary: “Yeah, that seems logical, though no one thinks of negligence as a crime.”
Blackstone: What a tragedy!
Shopping around for Laws: NSW and LA
Let’s have a snoop around New South Wales’ law. Perjury is listed in the CRIMES ACT 1900 – SECT 327 (1)
“Any person who in or in connection with any judicial proceeding makes any false statement on oath concerning any matter which is material to the proceeding, knowing the statement to be false or not believing it to be true, is guilty of perjury and liable to imprisonment for 10 years.”
It does not say “for up to ten years,” so the judge or jury can’t apportion varying lengths of imprisonment, say giving one-year sentence for perjuring about a stalking and ten years if the case was about a murder. It’s ten years “irregardlesss.”
Let’s see what Louisiana says about perjury. The state of Louisiana is the only one of the 50 US States that uses the Napoleonic code, based on its French background, rather than Common Law. (Did you know Jefferson bought much of the land west of the Mississippi from France for 3 cents an acre? It later became several states.)
In Title 14, of the Louisiana Revised Statutes, section 123, we find:
“Perjury is the intentional making of a false written or oral statement in or for use in a judicial proceeding, any proceeding before a board or official, wherein such board or official is authorized to take testimony, or before any committee or subcommittee of either house … of the legislature. In order to constitute perjury the false statement must be made under sanction of an oath …and must relate to matter material to the issue in controversy.
… The crime of perjury shall be punished as follows:
(1) When committed on a trial in which a sentence of death or life imprisonment may be imposed, the offender shall be fined not more than one hundred thousand dollars or imprisoned at hard labor for not less than five years, nor more than forty years, or both. [Yikes!]
How about Iowa?
As we recently reported, Chelsea Gray, age 30 has been arrested for perjuring in connection with her employment at the Iowa Department of Human Services. She is charged with telling lies, as a social worker, about a family with four children. Her lies persuaded the judge (or maybe he was already “persuaded”?) to remove the kids from the parents.
Interestingly, Iowa’s Criminal Law and Procedure Section 720.2 specifies a law of “perjury, contradictory statements, and retraction.” It says:
“A person who, while under oath or affirmation in any proceeding or other matter in which statements under oath or affirmation are required … by law, knowingly makes a false statement of material facts or who falsely denies knowledge of material facts, commits a class “D” felony.
[Class D felonies get no more than 7 years; a Class D with no violence may get as little as one year.]
Where, while under oath … a person has made contradictory statements, the indictment will be sufficient if it states that one or the other of the contradictory statements was false, to the knowledge of such person, and it shall be sufficient proof of perjury that one of the statements must be false. [Emphasis added]
Isn’t that clever? The legislators laid down the “proof.” If the perjurer said A, and also said B, which was incompatible with A, then Gotcha!
The Music Dean
You may recall that when I attended the Royal Commission hearing in October 2015, I was intrigued by the stubbornness of a dean of music who would not admit that he knew, years ago, that a music teacher had fondled a student in the music room. He “did not remember that girl at all.”
The Commissioner was sure he was not telling the truth. He sprung on the dean: “Don’t you recall that the girl’s family donated a piano to the school?”
The dean’s answer was basically “Duh.”
Personally I’d have referred him to the Prosecutor then and there. A gift of a box of chocolates you could easily forget but not the gift of a piano.
Still if it were Iowa and not Oz, the dean would have been saved by a further clause that says the two contradictory remarks both have to have been within the statute of limitations.
I also don’t know if Oz would punish a person for saying “I don’t remember” when we are only guessing that he did remember “as with the piano family.”
Rumsfeld’s Darn Old Shortcomings of Memory
In the US, the memory thing is invoked by politicians who shamelessly deny blame as they “can’t remember.” The US federal law on perjury is as follows:
18 USC 1621. “(1) having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, … that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly…, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes 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.”
During Congressman Waxman’s Committee hearing as to the death of Pat Tillman, Rumsfeld often said, with that far-away look in his eye “I don’t remember.”
The law provides punishment under the phrase “Willfully …states … any material matter [Rummy being Tillman’s boss, it was very material] which he does not believe to be true.”
I am asking: If Rummy knows that he is lying when he says “I don’t remember,” does that fulfill the definition? I say it does, and therefore a jury has to state that it takes the memory failure to be deceitful, or, to use the correct word, a crock.
At the hearing that day I do not know of the Defense Secretary was sworn in. He should have been. Anyway, “lying to Congress” is itself a crime at 18 USC 1001.
Please read this outrageous clip from the hearing:
Mr. Davis of Illinois: Mr. Secretary, thank you for being with us today. How and when did you learn that Corporal Tillman had been killed?
Mr. Rumsfeld: I don’t recall precisely how I learned that he was killed. It could have been internally, or … through the press.
Mr. Davis of Virginia: Do you remember did you take any action at the time that you learned that he was killed? …This could be highly publicized and of concern to a lot of people.
Mr. Rumsfeld: The only action I can recall taking was to draft a letter to the family.
Mr. Davis of Virginia: OK. Before he did so, were you aware that President Bush was going to reference Corporal Tillman in a correspondents’ dinner speech on May 1st?
Mr. Rumsfeld: No.
Mr. Burton: Mr. Secretary, when you said to Secretary White keep his eye on [Tillman], you meant that he has potential?
Mr. Rumsfeld: I wouldn’t know that. [???] I just think here is man who is serving his country, and gave up a good deal to do that.
Mr. Burton: You didn’t single him out asking for progress reports or anything like that?
Mr. Rumsfeld: No. Of course not.
Have You Ever Subborned in Adelaide? Or Whyalla? Relax, Your Ears Won’t Be Nailed to the Pillory
In some countries the law is harsher if you hire a person to do your perjuring for you. But in South Australia, my State, it is lenient. The law against perjury in South Australia is short and sweet. The Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 has a section 242 on “Perjury and Subornation”:
“(1) A person who makes a false statement under oath is guilty of perjury. Maximum penalty: Imprisonment for 7 years.
(2) A person who counsels, procures, induces, aids or abets another to make a false statement under oath is guilty of subornation of perjury. Maximum penalty: Imprisonment for 7 years.”
Sir William Blackstone would not be pleased. And I am not pleased either. The one who suborns the perjury should be punished more that the mere puppet. In Volume 4 of the Commentaries on the Laws of England Blackstone says:
“Subornation of perjury is the offense of procuring another to take such a false oath…. The punishment has been various. It was anciently death; afterwards banishment, or cutting out the tongue, then forfeiture of goods; and now it is fine and imprisonment…. But the statute 5 Eliz. c. 9. inflicts the penalty of perpetual infamy, and a fine of 40£ on the suborner; and to stand with both ears nailed to the pillory.”
We need that today. It would solve a lot of problems.
Finally, there is one little item in the Iowa law that could have got social worker Chelsea Gray off the hook:
“No person shall be guilty of perjury if the person retracts the false statement in the course of the proceedings where it was made before the false statement has substantially affected the proceeding.”
But, in her case, it’s too late now.
And really who cares, as the four kiddies are safe home with Mom and Dad.
Ah, a fresh start on Easter Monday.
And may the Lord watch over this column and preserve it from flood, pestilence, armed hordes, and other things.
The plagues begin at 1.46 minutes:
.
Just in passing … what was the name of that pharaoh?
So I should know the Pharaoh’s name already? I only deal in matzoh balls, Fish.
Have you read Michael Hoffman’s “Strange Gods of Judaism”? I think you would like it.
Thank you yet again Mary for sharing such crumbs with us lesser read newbies. I see that it has been banned on Amazon – that especially must make it worth reading and yet I do have a source and now have the pdf (along with quite a few other Michael A Hoffman II books).
Julius
Who was the pharaoh that experienced the ten plagues that fell on Egypt?ttps://bibleask.org/pharaoh-experienced-ten-plagues-fell-egypt/
It is believed that Neferhotep 1 of the 13th Dynasty could be the Pharaoh of Exodus for the following reasons:
Thank you Arlyn. I will peruse your link with interest.
Mmm – interesting ! – I had him pegged around 1300-ish BC and certainly in the 18th dynasty (1550 to 1292 BC). See for example, D M Murdock (“Did Moses Exist – The Myth of the Israelite Lawgiver”) and her many cited references.
Wikipedia places Neferhotep I in the 18th century BC.
That is a 500 year discrepancy but a fun place to start.
I cite Wikipedia because if there was any source that would want to provide a definitive answer to this question, that would surely be it. Wikipedia makes no mention of plagues or Moses in the Neferhotep I article.
Nevertheless, my question was really rhetorical because I don’t believe there is an answer, as much as many (‘apologists/revisionists’) need there it be one.
I am not receiving emails, so anyone emailing me will have to be patient until I determine what’s up!
To Fiona, please ring Dee.
I’ve never heard of anyone ever being convicted of perjury in Oz. Perhaps it has happened, but not when I was at the Bar.
I remember sitting with a District Court Judge at Parramatta train station and we were discussing the Police lying under oath. He said something to the effect “if every cop that lied under oath was cited for perjury there would be no one to walk the streets”
The strongest wording I ever heard from a judge would be “I don’t find the witness to be a witness of truth” – Screw that, have his tongue cut out.
Ian Barker of Lindy Chamberlain fame, while president of the Bar Association, said in an article he wrote – “you bring your liars to court and we’ll bring our liars to court, and the judge will find the golden thread of truth that runs through the evidence”
Which is the equivalent of “you bring your black marbles and we’ll bring our black marbles, and the judge will find the white marbles.” – The whole thing is just a farce.
I would prefer to have the witness lashed. – “Officer take the witness out back and give him 10 lashes, we’ll wait” When the witness comes back in bleeding and in shock – “If you lie again the lashes will be doubled to 20, if you lie again they will be again doubled. Please understand that under Admiralty law that a man was limited to 40 lashes as more than that could result in death. Quite frankly, if you do die, we have achieved the desired result – we won’t have to listen to your lying anymore.”
Terry
If they are not going to use perjury in the Criminal Code why is it there? Judges blatantly ignore what has been passed in the legislation.
THE OFFENCE OF PERJURY:
The offence of Perjury is contained in section 327(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 which states: Any person who in or in connection with any judicial proceeding makes any false statement on oath concerning any matter which is material to the proceeding, knowing the statement to be false or not believing it to be true, is guilty of perjury and liable to imprisonment for 10 years.
The judges in their failure to not utilise it then should be taken off the books. My sarcasm. What sort of penalty can the Parliament impose on judges for refusing or not adhering to the legislation?
I have spoken to a number of solicitors and barristers over the years and they say exactly the same thing. I had a good friend now deceased who was an ex police officer in the Drug squad in South Australia and he left because of police corruption. He arrested Roger Rogerson ears ago another corrupt police officer. He was a solicitor and then became a barrister and was part of some high profile case in South Australia. He told me on many occasion he was embarrassed by the judicial system. They say it is difficult to prove. I say nonsense! There is the ‘interrogation process’ of one or more to uncover the truth. It should not be solely up to one judge to uncover the truth. They have surrendered to I don’t know what…
With perjury is giving false statements which can hinder an investigation, conceal evidence and pervert the course of justice if we still have any in this country. As you well know it has a domino effect. It is vital piece of the puzzle to solve until judgement is made. It is common sense that perjury can cost the police and courts an undue amount of time and money if not followed through in he proper manner. Of course the legals love this for their own pockets.
I was involved in the Lindy Chamberlain case as the state representative specifically chosen by Betty Hocking who was a member of the House of Assembly in Canberra. I was chosen as I had the experience as the state president of the Vietnam Veterans Association for two years where I researched, collected, collated and presented evidence to the Royal Commission into Chemical Defoliants Agent Orange in South Australia.
The Lindy Chamberlain case was a abominable display by the police, by the corrupt BAR system in general for a number of reasons. They ruined two decent Christian people and spent millions of dollars to uncover a whole sloth of faulty practices by the police, by the prosecution, by forensics with Joy Kuhl in particular and Ian Barker could not get his head around the forensics. The prostitute media and press was terrible as well with their fictional dramatic stories until they saw the light of day years later. There was so much ‘evidence’ that certainly should not have been admissible as it was faulty.
There are literally hundreds of examples corruption, lies and the destruction of evidence to maintain the Northern Territory position of murder. It must have been extremely difficult for Justice T. R. Morling in the Royal Commission of Enquiry into the Chamberlain Convictions for his report.
The police would not entertain anything except murder with their bias opinions and ignored the ‘drag tracks’ from the dingo
The police wiped off all the paw prints of the dingo on the space blanket in which Reagan the young son felt walk on him on the night. He was not allowed to “testify” because of his young age
Joy Kuhl was allegedly sleeping with a number of coppers in the NT which was a direct “Conflict of Interest”
She tested on her own with no independent witness, no prosecution and no defence of the bituminous sound deadening material in the car and falsely claimed it was blood and then destroyed the evidence of her tests and a number of things she failed to do in her forensics and lacked the experience of a number of tests.
The Northern Territory Government did not have any signs posted to warn the public about the dangers of dines so they were concerned about being sued
The court would not allow the black tracker’s evidence until years later trailing the dingo to the Rangers house
The South Australia Forensic Department told me that quite often the Northern Territory police would send down “forensics” and they would be sent right backs they said they were cowboys and wouldn’t touch a number of forensics sent by the NT police
Did Joy Kuhl go to prison for her false testimony and fabrication of evidence? – NO
Was Joy Kuhl even charged for perjury or attempting to pervert the course of justice? – NO
Was Joy Kuhl fired from her job as a forensic expert? – NO
Was Joy Kuhl given a promotion after the case? – YES
I suspect that the judges do not want to bring up the issue of lying in court, telling half-truths or engaging in sophistry – as they are major offenders. Kinda like the pot calling the kettle black.
JOY KUHL CANNOT REMEMBER!
Canberra Times, 14 October 1986
SYDNEY: A key forensic witness to the Chamberlain inquiry said yesterday that she had given wrong evidence in the Darwin trial of Lindy and Michael Chamberlain.
A forensic biologist, Mrs Joy Kuhl, who examined the Chamberlains’ car in 1981, told the trial of positive reactions for foetal blood which supported the Crown case that Mrs Chamberlain had slit her nine-week old daughter Azaria’s throat in the car.
In a statement made last month and tendered to the Sydney inquiry yesterday, Mrs Kuhl said when she had given evidence at the trial she believed she had used adult controls on each of her tests.
However, from looking at the result book she now saw she did not use an adult control on 28 items, including scrapings from under the glovebox, the scam area of the camera bag and a chamois.
The inquiry, headed by Justice Trevor Morling, is into the convictions of Lindy and Michael Chamberlain over the death of their daughter Azaria, who went missing from a tent at Uluru (Avers Rock) in 1980.
In relation to the chamois, MrsKuhl said in her statement she could not explain how she came to make the entry “human adult” next to controls.”It is clearly an error demonstrated by the result book which is the critical document,” she said.
“I cannot now recall how it was that I came to make the error or the precise circumstances in which I placed this note on the work sheet.”
Cannot remember of cannot recall are two of the favourites to use! It was sloppy work not verified and she was criticised for her failures in a number of areas of her forensic results. Another one is I believe All are get out of jail cards used by the police and others
Yes Terry we know that and between the number of us here we could list a very very long list hence my first post. It is despicable really, criminal and morally wrong but they have no conscience or they are Freemasons or both
Perjury needs to be looked at seriously by judicial review and by the legislatures as to why it is not being enforced or not taken seriously.
Sounds good, Terry. I prefer the lashing method to Good Queen Bess’s ear-nailing idea.
It has more free choice in it. More self-determination.
The Ten Commandments have been replaced by the Seven Noahide Laws .
What are the implications for Christians ?
56
The Ten Commandments have not been replaced by God as we both know. 🙂
Where did you see or hear about this? It is only a man-made edict if so as many of the so-called Protestant churches are following Rome’s Mitharism sun-god pagan sun-day. Many churches and nominal believers have steeped into apostasy or “Fallen away” from the complete works of the Bible
It would think to change times and laws
https://amazingdiscoveries.org/S-deception_end-time_Antichrist_Daniel_law_Sabbath
Former chief justice of the family court needs to answer how it came to be that after a case that she presided in, resulting in the little Darcey Freeman being thrown to her death off a bridge……yet another bad family court decision…..the paperwork went missing from her car? In a similar timeframe it was noted that years of child protection documents were lost after an apparent computer ‘glitch’…….who on earth follows up these deliberate acts of corruption???