ST Alpha - "I read it pretty clearly as C, and I would rule that a signature equals an oath *if*, but..." (Reading a Post)

SlickerTalk
Search Archives
The Leaderboard
The FAQ

Down to Post

Backboards:

Posts: 157

I read it pretty clearly as C, and I would rule that a signature equals an oath if, but...

Posted by Max Jul 2 '13, 07:47

How did he get the school to sign? Is this a conspiracy or did he lie to them too? In this particular case I wouldn't count "intend" to go to X school as something that you could prove or lie about. He could have changed his mind after signing the application. I'd rule for the Defendant for that reason unless there was contradictory evidence, ie. he signed the application after signing a letter to the school stating that he would not attend.

I don't understand the B option. If there's no need for an oath to obtain a conviction, why are they ruling for the defendant?

I'm guessing they would rule for the Defendant in this case.

Responses:

[deleted] 4
- I'd say no on that B requirement. I think it's pretty clear from the wording of the law that congress wanted to cover two types of cases - Max Jul 2, 07:51 3
  - [deleted] 2
    - Except that I would require evidence in the form of testimony or documents which clearly confirms the lie at the time he signed the document. - Max Jul 2, 07:54 1
      - [deleted]

Post a message top

I read it pretty clearly as C, and I would rule that a signature equals an oath *if*, but...

Replies are disabled on threads older than 7 days.

I read it pretty clearly as C, and I would rule that a signature equals an oath if, but...