I replied to Trolly. I think the forum software is acting up again.
But isn’t he just getting flustered by trying to be a badass and say he’s the one asking the questions?
The lawyer should just have him affirm that his answers should not be misleading or evasive, though that’s unnecessary from a practical standpoint.
No I was inferring that his post was related to a post of mine. (And was joking about you having me on ignore.)
I still think there should be an easy canned response to what “the whole truth” means, or else stop saying it.
1 Like
towelie.gif
The lawyer does this, which is not a good look. Elon doesn’t say he’s the one asking questions.
My contribution to non-sequitur day.
It’s literally a question for a jury what ‘the whole truth’ means based on their understanding of language. I don’t believe the law defines it further.
Probably not, man. Fuck it, human hunters with guns are the absolute fucking worst. Just shooting animals and sometimes endangered species for spot and so often it’s an excuse to blast someone’s daughter. Best case scenario is that you’ve popped some deer that was bothering no one. Man, hunting is a sport for insecure little manlets with trust funds.
That’s fucking stupid. Stop demanding it of people if you have no idea what you’re even demanding. That’s like Florida telling ex-felons they have to pay their court costs, but we don’t know what your court costs are.
My stepdad hunted birds like pheasant and quail - so much less chance of hitting a person. He grew up in a time and place where you didn’t even question the idea of killing animals. He didn’t think it was sporting to shoot anything on the ground.
I walked along with him as a kid but my mom got divorced before I was the age I’d have to start shooting stuff. It wasn’t for me, but it gave me my love of the outdoors. Now I take pictures instead. I think hunting was his way of doing the same thing.
I know what it means, you know what it means, and so did Elon, which he initially indicated. And if we were on a jury we could decide whether someone was telling the truth.
The DOJ manual doesn’t distinguish between ‘the truth’ and ‘the whole truth.’
The second essential element of a perjury offense is that the defendant must have made a false statement. The indictment should set forth the precise falsehoods alleged and the factual basis of their falsity, such that the jury can determine their veracity, and also allow meaningful judicial review. United States v. Reilly , 33 F.3d 1396, 1417 (3d Cir. 1994). In determining the falsity of the defendant’s statement, neither the court nor the trial jury must accept the defendant’s interpretation; instead, the statement should be examined in context. Bronston v. United States , 409 U.S. 352, 355 (1973). Words clear on their face are to be understood in their common sense and usage unless the context makes it clear that a different sense or usage was intended. United States v. Fulbright , 804 F.2d 847, 851 (5th Cir. 1986). See also , United States v. Robbins , 997 F.2d 390, 395 (8th Cir.), cert. denied , 510 U.S. 948 (1993).
1746. Elements of Perjury—Making of a False Statement | JM | Department of Justice
I actually never really thought about what it means until now. I cribbed that Bob/Cheryl stuff off twitter. But it made sense.
In law a “go to” answer is, “that’s a jury question.”
There’s a “legal” answer to many questions, like, eg, “grand theft” involves taking (say) goods or money “over $5k in value”.
But there are many things that are ultimately for a jury to decide based on their understanding of standard language, eg, whether an invetion is “obvious” in light of the prior art identified in a case (which renders a patent invalid).
The first place for a lawyer to go after reading a law is often the 2000 page “model jury instructions” because that reveals witch terms are “basic”, like “truth” for perjury, and which are comprised of more basic elements, like “likelihood of confusion” in trademark law, which requires application of an 8 factor test of more basic elements.
One of the things lawyers fight about right before trial is what the jury instructions should say. There used to be two different sets of ‘model jury instructions’ in CA, and lawyers would select the most favorable. They could also argue that the model jury instructions are incorrect on some point and propose their own (which is time consuming, costly, and rarely a good use of resources).
It’s perjury if the ommission was material to the issue at hand and was made the the intent to deceive.
The lawyer’s line of questioning is BS because it anticipates a defense by Elon if the issue of perjury is raised that Elon didn’t intend to mislead, he just didn’t know what truth is, which is not a plausible defense.
https://twitter.com/NonsenseIsland/status/1312087726154559488
Amazing thread on breaking the 4th wall and meta-jokes in film.
https://twitter.com/NonsenseIsland/status/1312100419728896001
3 Likes
There a philosophical work by Fodor called The Elm and the Expert, which deals with problems Hilary Putnam raises in The Meaning of Meaning and ultimately concludes what the meaning of Elm is (and therefore the truth of ascriptions about Elms) depends on what arborists mean when they say Elm. That’s what Elon’s tree statement made me think of.
Also, what’s the whole truth vs the truth about a tree? It’s a living thing, it burns at over 200° F, it has 2237 leaves, some of which are green and others brown, it weights 1679 lbs, it’s 15 ft high, etc. Obviously, the real issue is relevant truth, not truth, which depends on the purpose one is asking questions about the tree and it’s relevance (or materiality) to the issue at hand. This ultimately turns on “common sense” when interpreting questions and giving answers and whether one is intentionally hiding or misstating information with an intent to deceive.
1 Like
I think Musk is right here. My coffee cup is yellow with black words on it. If I say “my coffee cup is yellow” most people would agree that is truthful, but the whole truth is that its yellow and black.