So all this talk about nothing having any weight until testified under oath, are prosecutors under oath when they make claims against the defendent or make false statements in the court of law?
So all this talk about nothing having any weight until testified under oath,
It is not just "talk." Those are the Rules of Evidence in EVERY court case.
are prosecutors under oath when they make claims against the defendent
No, they are not. They are under a different set of rules. They are "officers of the court." So, they are THEORETICALLY required to be honest. But if they lie, will anything happen? Depends on the political climate of the court, the State Attorney General, and the Bar Association (which is made up of attorneys who make a living by lying all the time).
Because they are NOT under oath when they make statements (oral or in writing), their statements are NOT evidence.
Evidence can ONLY be presented by (a) a witness who (b) has first-hand knowledge, that (c) is testified to (d) under oath (e) IN A COURT ROOM (f) of a court case.
NOTHING ELSE is testimony.
This is why the DS puppets can lie about this. They are parsing words, which sounds like truth, but in fact are lies.
or make false statements in the court of law?
This one is interesting. If any person who is an "officer of the court" (i.e. judges and attorneys) makes a false statement in a case, AND the judge uses that (in part) to base their judicial decision on, that is called "fraud on the court" and the opinion can be overturned.
Plus, the case can NOT be relitigated because "fraud vitiates everything."
My point about the not having any weight was in terms of if it’s the truth, not what argued In the court of law. Kemp is intentionally conflating the two to deceive the public and its the truck they’ve been using for the 2020 election fraud; prevent court cases from admitting legal evidence then claim no evidence exists, implying it never happened.
Your second point is interesting. Throughout the indictment they use Trump “illegally” did this and “illegally” did that when describing legal actions. Curious if that would constitute that fraud you mentioned. But as weve seen with the courts, they will make their determination then figure out a way to word it to “justify” their conclusion.
Just musings from a citizen with no law background.
So all this talk about nothing having any weight until testified under oath, are prosecutors under oath when they make claims against the defendent or make false statements in the court of law?
It is not just "talk." Those are the Rules of Evidence in EVERY court case.
No, they are not. They are under a different set of rules. They are "officers of the court." So, they are THEORETICALLY required to be honest. But if they lie, will anything happen? Depends on the political climate of the court, the State Attorney General, and the Bar Association (which is made up of attorneys who make a living by lying all the time).
Because they are NOT under oath when they make statements (oral or in writing), their statements are NOT evidence.
Evidence can ONLY be presented by (a) a witness who (b) has first-hand knowledge, that (c) is testified to (d) under oath (e) IN A COURT ROOM (f) of a court case.
NOTHING ELSE is testimony.
This is why the DS puppets can lie about this. They are parsing words, which sounds like truth, but in fact are lies.
This one is interesting. If any person who is an "officer of the court" (i.e. judges and attorneys) makes a false statement in a case, AND the judge uses that (in part) to base their judicial decision on, that is called "fraud on the court" and the opinion can be overturned.
Plus, the case can NOT be relitigated because "fraud vitiates everything."
My point about the not having any weight was in terms of if it’s the truth, not what argued In the court of law. Kemp is intentionally conflating the two to deceive the public and its the truck they’ve been using for the 2020 election fraud; prevent court cases from admitting legal evidence then claim no evidence exists, implying it never happened.
Your second point is interesting. Throughout the indictment they use Trump “illegally” did this and “illegally” did that when describing legal actions. Curious if that would constitute that fraud you mentioned. But as weve seen with the courts, they will make their determination then figure out a way to word it to “justify” their conclusion.
Just musings from a citizen with no law background.
Exactly.