General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: BREAKING - Deposition of Julie Swetnick (Kavanaugh's new accuser) [View all]jberryhill
(62,444 posts)While, again, I don't doubt the veracity of this declaration, your point here is not relevant:
"I've had many opposing parties sanctioned..."
Yes indeed. In proceedings where those statements were of record, and in a court which had the jurisdiction to do so.
If we had an open-ended perjury mechanism, then people would insist on it all of the time. Why not make every politician do it verbally each time they give a speech?
Because absent an actual proceeding in which the statement is relevant, merely going about in public saying "...and I say this under penalty of perjury" is of no consequence whatsoever. If I say to you, right now, "I declare under penalty of perjury that the sky is green and the grass is blue" S/JBERRYHILL/, then, as they say in Ghostbusters, "Who ya gonna call?" There is no free range fraud squad where you ring them up and say, "I'd like to report a perjury!" and they send out the team to make an arrest.
That's the whole point of the "proceeding" qualifier in the statute elsewhere in this thread. It is not a crime for me to lie to you, even if I say I'm doing it under oath. It IS a crime to lie to a tribunal - whether judicial, administrative or legislative - under oath or affirmation under penalty of perjury. I simply cannot, as between private parties (and absent some form of fraud) create a duty under perjury out of thin air.