| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| hunkpapa7 |
Posted - March 21 2005 : 6:46:50 PM
The deaths of Custer,Crazy Horse and Sitting Bull,seem to me to be very timely,and convenient for certain parties.
Custer's death at the LBH,although mourned by many at the announcements of the press,was probarbly a god send to others,ie Grants government and others.
Crazy Horse,mainly because of the promises,that could not be made.The bitter rivalry that had fractured the Sioux nation and between certain chiefs who were jealous of his status.
Sitting Bull for the man that he was,and his apathy to anything white.
The last two deaths allowed the government to put up there own chiefs,one of which was Gall and he proved his worth being a real puppet.
Has anyone any thought on this ? |
| 25 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| joe wiggs |
Posted - September 05 2011 : 5:27:14 PM
Please define how testimony is NOT either truthful or untruthful as I already posted? What else can it possibly be? Short or tall, fat or slim, handsome or ugly,etc. How else can perjury be anything other than what I have stated, a crime when it is discovered to be so (at a hearing) as posted by myself. Remarkably, you have taken my statement, repeated it, thus re-rendering as if it were a novel interpretation by yourself. Fascinating!
You might want to stay away from the "toddy for the body" partner! |
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - August 27 2011 : 12:44:22 AM
No there is two elements to the crime it must be discovered to be untruthful and it must be known to be untruthful when stated. Discovering it to be untruthful is not perjury without the person knowing it was untruthful.
|
| joe wiggs |
Posted - August 23 2011 : 7:24:42 PM
I beg to differ, I'm right this time and wrong the last time! Testimony is either truthful or not, at the moment it is discovered to be untruthful (under oath) does it become perjury.
Unfortunately,semantics can sometimes interrupt communication because personal perspectives may,sometimes,create an undesirable "slant" on what is actually being said. |
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - August 23 2011 : 12:31:00 PM
Wrong again Joe. Testimony that is not true is not always perjury. You must prove that person knew it was false and testified knowing that it was false.
Eye witness accounts are a good example of this. If the person believes that is what they saw whether true or not it is not perjury.
A eye witness that knows that they are giving false information about what they saw commits perjury.
AZ Ranger |
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - August 23 2011 : 12:27:43 PM
quote:
Originally posted by joe wiggs
Not wishing to be drawn down into the well of semantics, I will say the following. There is a distinct,albeit,subtle difference between evidence and perjury. Evidence either substantiates the elements of a crime or disproves those elements. It is neither "false" nor "true." It has no "intent";it is what it is.
Pejuryr is either "true" or "false",the former having good faith and the latter malice aforethought.
Perjury may be utilized to taint evidence by altering the "condition" in which evidence is perceived by rational and reasonable thought. However, it can not be replaced nor substitute by evidence. They are two different and separate entities.
|
| joe wiggs |
Posted - August 23 2011 : 12:19:36 PM
quote:
Originally posted by AZ Ranger
I don't what your laws were back east but perjury requires intent here. I have never heard of true perjury as having good faith. Only you can make up something like that.
quote:
I apologize for my error. If you substitute "testimony" for perjury in my statement which was followed by "is is either true or false the former having good faith and the latter being perjury" you will see my true intent
.
Good work Joe. I see the defense claiming but you honor it was true perjury.
quote:
Good one Az, I can just see the Judge's face on that one.
Seem that false perjury would mean its the truth?
quote:
Absolutely! In the world of Bizzaro, DC comics circa 60's perhaps.
AZ Ranger
|
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - August 23 2011 : 11:59:54 AM
I don't know what your laws were back east but perjury requires intent here. I have never heard of true perjury as having good faith. Only you can make up something like that.
Good work Joe. I see the defense claiming but you honor it was true perjury.
Seem that false perjury would mean its the truth?
One of the elements of the crime (remember those Joe)is that person knows they are making a false statement.
13-2702. Perjury; classification
A. A person commits perjury by making either:
1. A false sworn statement in regard to a material issue, believing it to be false.
2. A false unsworn declaration, certificate, verification or statement in regard to a material issue that the person subscribes as true under penalty of perjury, believing it to be false.
B. Perjury is a class 4 felony.
AZ Ranger |
| joe wiggs |
Posted - August 22 2011 : 1:47:59 PM
Not wishing to be drawn down into the well of semantics, I will say the following. There is a distinct,albeit,subtle difference between evidence and perjury. Evidence either substantiates the elements of a crime or disproves those elements. It is neither "false" nor "true." It has no "intent";it is what it is.
Perjury is either "true" or "false",the former having good faith and the latter malice aforethought.
Perjury may be utilized to taint evidence by altering the "condition" in which evidence is perceived by rational and reasonable thought. However, it can not be replaced nor substitute by evidence. They are two different and separate entities. |
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - August 22 2011 : 08:49:28 AM
quote:
Originally posted by joe wiggs
quote:
Originally posted by AZ Ranger
quote:
Testimony does not cease to be because it is incorrect, it remains evidence based upon observation although it may be an incorrect observation or conclusion. Yes, you are quite right,
Joe that is not correct. A judge will not allow false testimony to be considered.
False testimony is perjury and has nothing to do with evidence. They are separate entities.
False testimony is the evidence used to convict someone of perjury. What is different is that eye witnesses have different observations of what they see all of the time. It is truly what they believe they saw and is not false even if inaccurate.
AZ Ranger |
| joe wiggs |
Posted - August 16 2011 : 1:10:43 PM
quote:
Originally posted by AZ Ranger
quote:
Testimony does not cease to be because it is incorrect, it remains evidence based upon observation although it may be an incorrect observation or conclusion. Yes, you are quite right,
Joe that is not correct. A judge will not allow false testimony to be considered.
False testimony is perjury and has nothing to do with evidence. They are separate entities. |
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - February 08 2007 : 6:46:15 PM
Ironically, for a great many Americans of that era Sheridan's sentiments were politically correct. After years of reprehensible behavior, by both sides, the stronger group won. The final question was, is and, remains this: were the actions of this great Nation justified in their treatment of the Native American. If so, how? |
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - February 08 2007 : 08:41:34 AM
To the military this was there only fight and they never have to consider political correctness of their actions only success and at what costs. |
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - February 03 2007 : 7:51:56 PM
"Our task has just begun. We must conquer those Indians and put them on their reservations We must find out what has happened to Major Elliot."
Sheridan to General Custer after his oral report following the Battle of the Wa****a. |
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - October 08 2006 : 7:02:14 PM
Thanks Joe and apology accepted.
Regards
AZ Ranger |
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - October 08 2006 : 2:22:57 PM
You are right, i was out of line and for that i apologize. |
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - October 08 2006 : 1:27:03 PM
quote:
Are you suggesting the well documented, corroborated testimony by Native Americans should be referred to as something else?
Are you suggesting the well documented, corroborated statements by Native Americans should be referred to as something else?
I would substitute statements or accounts depending on context for the word testimony. Do you really believe that changes the meaning? Of course you could not because of your statement.
quote:
AZ, all three can be used interchangeably.
Native American is your twist on this and not mine and have never stated anything about it. My concern is that we understand the context in which something was recorded in writing.
Translation
First hand statement
Sworn testimony
quote:
How about describing Indian testimony as a childlike dialog that consists of a few "ughs" sprinkled with a dozen or so "Hows" which amount to an undesirable prattle to be disregarded as gibberish?
I believe you are out of line here and should rethink your statement.
AZ Ranger
|
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - October 08 2006 : 1:06:32 PM
quote:
AZ, all three can be used interchangeably. Testimony in Court is a statement (either verbal or written) which is submitted to a Court of Law as evidence. As such, this evidence/testimony is subjected to a rigid set of rules and criterion and, subsequently, blessed by a judicial officiator as testimony.
Joe the quote above you wrote and I addressed it. You were simply incorrect in your court statement within the quote. You can apply any broader definition you want. If it is to confuse readers than I would not support its use but you can if you like. I prefer to know the context in which a statement was made.
When I went fishing in Mexico, Presa Noveo, we hired camp guards and a translator. I noticed sometimes he did not quite understand what I wanted but spoke anyway. I asked him about the horses in a corral near the lake and they went and got a saddle. I did not want to ride just wanted to know if they were their horses. If someone wrote what the translator said that I said you would call that testimony. I choose not too. I would call it his account of what I said.
Translators could make someone appear to be making a false statement when in reality they may not have made a false statement. It is much better to analyze a persons statements or testimony first hand without someone translating.
That is why I prefer separating testimony, statements, and accounts. It gives the reader a better idea of the context.
AZ Ranger
|
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - October 08 2006 : 10:43:18 AM
AZ, this conversation has reached a critical mass of convoluted mishmash hindered by a refusal to see beyond a specific point. The point being there are several definitions to the word testimony; as evident by Webster's dictionary. The proof you proffer is an example. You quote a LEGAL definition of the word testimony and then suggest that I would attempt to change or twist this explicit, confirmed, and acceptable definition for my own purposes. Why would I do that when it is obvious to the most casual reading of my thread that I absolutely agree?
I too accept this legal testimony. This acceptance is exemplified by my first definition posted above. Is it you contention that the legal definition of the word testimony is the ONLY definition available to the free world?
Are you suggesting the well documented, corroborated testimony by Native Americans should be referred to as something else? How about describing Indian testimony as a childlike dialog that consists of a few "ughs" sprinkled with a dozen or so "Hows" which amount to an undesirable prattle to be disregarded as gibberish?
Your strenuous and, obviously, well intended efforts to restrict the meaning of such a potent word to a solitary platform of perspective is appreciated, if not understandable. I simply do not agree with it. |
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - October 07 2006 : 11:41:30 PM
quote:
AZ, all three can be used interchangeably. Testimony in Court is a statement (either verbal or written) which is submitted to a Court of Law as evidence. As such, this evidence/testimony is subjected to a rigid set of rules and criterion and, subsequently, blessed by a judicial officiator as testimony.
So for the sake of discussion in this thread lets focus on your above statement which states testimony is interchangeable with a statement or account. You even state in writing to this board that a written statement submitted to a Court is called testimony and is blessed by the judge. If you are wrong about court can we trust the rest that you say? Joe are you sure you want to stick with a written statement submitted to a court is called testimony by the court?
Please read the following.
DUHAIME'S ONLINE LEGAL DICTIONARY
Testimony-The verbal presentation of a witness in a judicial
proceeding.
I Don't see written statement
Deposition -The official statement by a witness taken in writing (as
opposed to testimony which where a witnesses give their
perception of the facts verbally). Affidavits are the
most common kind of depositions.
I see as opposed to testimony which where a witnesses gives their perception of the facts verbally
Affidavit -A statement which before being signed, the person signing
takes an oath that the contents are, to the best of their
knowledge, true. It is also signed by a notary or some
other judicial officer that can administer oaths, to the
effect that the person signing the affidavit was under
oath when doing so. These documents carry great weight in
Courts to the extent that judges frequently accept an
affidavit instead of the testimony of the witness.
it states instead of testimony of the witness
I just got through signing an affidavit to be used by the Coconino County Attorneys Office for the Court of Appeals in Arizona. It was also notarized as described. It was not testimony.
Is it your attempt to change this discussion from using words that describe conditions of statements that lead to the Court quote above? If you want to discuss why some don't accept other's statements for whatever reason it could be the topic of a different thread. It could be an interesting discussion.
AZ Ranger
|
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - October 07 2006 : 8:33:44 PM
Exactly Tashna Mani. The "Neolithic" mindset of certain individuals is conducive to an arbitrary conclusion that certain people are incapable of a higher level of comprehension. That "savages" have no right to possess such a rich commodity as land because, quite frankly, they don't know what to do with it. As a result, the high technology of the "civilized" mind has left us with a hell on earth saturated with war, pollution, and corruption.
I do not begrudge those who insist that information be substantiated by proof before it is accepted. I wholeheartedly agree. I simply can not understand those (thankfully the minority) who are convinced that individuals with a copper hue to their skin are incapable of a higher level of competence.
Like you, I look for credible information from both the Indian or Anglo. We do so because truth is based upon a wide spectrum of reality. Those who would limit their perception of reality to a suppose ethnic inability to perceive "truth" are permanently embedded in a false error. |
| movingrobewoman |
Posted - October 07 2006 : 4:57:33 PM
Joe--
You make some very good points here, especially an unwritten prejudice towards the words of Native American. I can't help but think that occurred in the past, as well as by a few unenlightened authors today.
Savage people who killed the brilliant blond Hero ... can't believe them. After all, they were Neolithic folks who didn't have a written language, and they went around killing the Civilised.
When I read Indian eyewitness accounts, I look for other sources that will confirm them--Indian or Anglo.
Later, pal!
|
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - October 07 2006 : 2:56:36 PM
AZ, all three can be used interchangeably. Testimony in Court is a statement (either verbal or written) which is submitted to a Court of Law as evidence. As such, this evidence/testimony is subjected to a rigid set of rules and criterion and, subsequently, blessed by a judicial officiator as testimony.
Testimony is also a statement, account or narrative that is corroborated by outside sources as substantially correct. Since 1984, in the aftermath of the great fire on the Big Horn battlefield, much of the past Native American Indian testimony was corroborated by artifacts discovered there. Physical objects that were examined, categorized, and authenticated by men such as Douglass and Fox. Our own Bob Reese participated in recent archaeological digs upon the battle field.
Testimony can also be found in the mythology of various cultures. The Iliad is an example. In other words, testimony that is difficult to corroborate because of a lack of evidence that may or may not be true.
Testimony may also be derived from the Fisherman's conviction that the 5 inch fish he caught in a pond somehow grows into a deep, sea Marlin when he subsequently describes the "catch" to his buddies after a few brews. In other words, testimony may also be bull****.
Testimony is all of these things and more. The credibility/truthfulness of testimony is determined by the factors described. My only point of contention is this,to totally disregard all Indian "testimony" as somehow ludicrous is, in fact, ludicrous. To swear by all native American testimony as absolutely correct would be equally foolish.
Many honorable, dedicated, and trustworthy scholars have committed themselves to unselfish efforts towards the interpretation of the Indian perspective for the benefit of people like you and I. What sense does it make to classify these great men into a category of charlatan when there is no evidence/testimony to support it. Where their incompetents who made a debacle of Indian Testimony? Of Course. Fortunately,their works have not been preserved and handed down. Why, because serious scholars did not take their work as serious.
No one will ever know what exactly occurred at this battle. However, by screening, digesting, and acknowledging all information/testimony as relevant (until proven otherwise) we can go far towards obtaining a credible hypothesis. |
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - October 06 2006 : 12:42:09 AM
Joe explain what is the diference in your own definitions of:
Indian testimony
Indian statement
Indian account
|
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - October 06 2006 : 12:39:35 AM
Evidence is also determined by the court. It is only evidence if the court allows it. As officers we collect what we believe to be evidence but the court makes the determination. |
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - October 06 2006 : 12:34:46 AM
quote:
Testimony does not cease to be because it is incorrect, it remains evidence based upon observation although it may be an incorrect observation or conclusion. Yes, you are quite right,
Joe that is not correct. A judge will not allow false testimony to be considered. |
|
|
