Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TigerPaw who wrote (4711)	10/27/2005 12:09:00 PM
From: Dale Baker	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 541548

Show me a legal scholar or court case that supports your point of view and I will agree. There is no such legal standard in American jurisprudence that I am aware of. Only your adamant declarations that the standard exists. Perhaps it is classified or something.

To: TigerPaw who wrote (4711)	10/27/2005 1:00:48 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541548

You obviously cannot tell, or don't want to know, the difference between being sworn to "tell the truth, the whole truth, etc." at a legal proceeding, whose purposeful violation is a crime, and an oath to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the US or whatever entity is involved which is commonly known as an oath of office. This oath of office is routinely taken by judges, presidents, law enforcement types, dog catchers, etc. An "oath of office" and an oath to tell the truth at a legal proceeding a/k/a being sworn in, are two completely distinct things. Neither you nor Mary seem to be able to grasp this utterly simple concept.