the fucking day she decided to go after Joe Biden with her fucking Fantasy Shite.

GAWD, they throw SO much shit out there and the numb-brains believe it all, no matter WHAT is provided as ACTUAL TRUTH!!!!

I cry for what we've become..........

is keep trying to get the truth out there the very best we can.

Karma makes a guest appearance.

Alohs Cha

be a really harsh eye opener for some.. “You receive what you put out into the world.”

This should be plastered all over twitter.. where they push Reade's Lies.. 'cause agenda.

Aloha, Me

There is something seriously wrong with this woman.

has the same type of grandiosity. She was an opportunist more than anything. This looks like such a familiar pattern.

I can’t imagine how any conviction can be upheld when the so-called expert is a fraud.

i hope the DA's office goes after her for perjury.

Perjury is lying under oath about something that is material to the case which is before the court.

She can’t be convicted of perjury any more than Starr could indict Clinton for perjury despite spending $100M trying and failing.

The whole point of going through the credentials of an expert witness is to not only establish if they qualify as an expert, but if the credentials support the expert's opinions.

Her educational background wasn't a question the court was trying to answer.

Even by some miracle of jurisprudence a prosecutor could prove her statement about her education was material to the matter before the court, they would also have to prove she had the intent to deceive which would be just as difficult of a hurdle. All she has to claim is she believed it to be true and it wouldn't surprise me if she did. She's either a very accomplished liar or on some level she convinces herself of her own bullshit. Either way any prosecutor trying to nail her on a perjury rap would be forked.

I was a defense attorney for 27 years.


I believe your understanding of what "material to the proceedings" means differs from mine.

The U.S. Supreme Court defined it, in Kungys v. United States, as a statement that “has a natural tendency to influence, or was capable of influencing, the decision of the decision-making body to which it was addressed.”(internal quotation marks omitted).

https://www.justia.com/criminal/offenses/white-collar-crimes/perjury/

An expert witness is called to give opinions about evidence in a case, what I believe you would call a material fact. In order to judge whether the opinions of the expert should be believed, it is necessary to consider what their qualifications are to render such an opinion. Lying about their qualifications absolutely affects the trustworthiness of their opinions about the evidence.

I also don't buy that Reade believed she had a degree from Antioch with only 35 credits.

We do agree that she'll probably not be prosecuted. Witnesses lying under oath are common...prosecutions for it are not.

Here are some examples of experts being prosecuted for perjury after lying about their credentials under oath:
(As an aside, you're more likely to be prosecuted for perjury due to fudged credentials if you're called as a defense expert.

https://www.bizjournals.com/tampabay/news/2016/10/12/second-arrest-for-tampa-businessman-accused-of.html

https://lancasteronline.com/news/doctor-called-as-expert-witness-in-drunk-driving-trial-charged/article_ce436099-bd4a-599a-8bd3-468bc0788547.html

Here's one for a prosecution witness lying about credentials:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/local/2000/02/11/dc-police-expert-admits-perjury/90986df0-8725-47fa-b512-b44335299b93/

California defines materiality as that which "could probably have influenced the outcome".

Subsequent to the SCOTUS decision you are referencing is one that requires materiality as a question for jurists.
https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-gaudin-3

In the case of an expert witness who is interpreting forensic evidence, then materiality is going to be relevant in regards to credentials, especially if there was little in the way of other evidence. To expand that to any expert witness who provides a false statement about their credentials is a bit of a stretch. It may well be her testimony itself was a very small piece of a much larger body of evidence and had no chance of affecting the outcome, let alone whatever her claimed credentials added.

The only reason you call an expert is to testify about a material fact. An expert who is QUALIFIED to even have an opinion. Saying that an expert's qualifications are not material/not relevant would result in being able to call anyone as an expert for anything, without requiring them to actually have any actual expertise. I don't think it's a bit of a stretch to require expert witnesses to be absolutely truthful about their credentials when testifying under oath. After all, the only reason an expert is involved is because they're being PAID for their opinions.

An expert's qualifications most definitely influence the outcome of court rulings and jury verdicts.
For example, let's say in a DUI case one expert testifies that the amount of Xanax in a person's system would render a person impaired. A second expert says the person would not be impaired.

One expert is a Dr. who graduated from Harvard, has extensive background related to toxicology and was involved in studies of drugs and impairment. The other expert is a pharmacist. Which expert's testimony do you think "could probably have influenced the outcome"? The one with more "impressive" credentials. Now imagine those impressive credentials are fake. That's why experts can be prosecuted for perjury when they lie about credentials.

You're right that I don't have transcripts of her testimony, but that goes to whether those convictions in cases where she testified should be overturned, not whether she COULD be charged with perjury. The perjury issue stands separate.

The cases I cited showed that an expert was prosecuted for perjury after they lied about their credentials. The case you shared has to do with whether the court or a jury was responsible for deciding whether a false statement was material in a prosecution for someone charged with making false statements on loan documents.

Seems like we're destined to have a difference of opinion as to what material means.

I'm pretty sure there's more to it than that. As Nixon said, "Perjury is an awful hard rap to prove." Ken Starr spent $100M trying to prove one and failed.

Charging someone with perjury is rare. Charging a state's witness, even rarer. I stand by my contention that she COULD be charged, not that it would actually happen. My arguments are specifically aimed at experts being subject to perjury charges when they lie about their credentials. The fact they rarely are is reality, not that legally they couldn't be.

I'm not sure that really means much.

Not exactly the same as a fake forensic scientist interpreting empirical data on crime scene evidence. In her testimony she claimed to have a liberal arts degree in political science on cases concerning domestic violence. I'm not sure how her education was at all relevant to whatever she was testifying about, let alone material to the question before the court.

You think that doesn't affects her credibility as a witness?

Personally I don't think she has any credibility for anything.

Very little weight is given to truth in the criminal justice system. If a prosecutor were to charge an expert they used with perjury it would call into question every single case where that witness testified. Protecting convictions is more important than following the law or pursuing the truth.

We still disagree on the importance of truthfully relating credentials. It would not surprise me at all if the majority of cases she testified in had no competing defense expert. To my mind, that makes the lying about credentials even more egregious. The court and/or jury is faced with the opinion of one witness, put forth as an expert, with no competing opinion, and no ability to judge which witness is more qualified to give an opinion.

And the question should be not so much whether she lied about having a liberal arts degree in political science, but what else she lied about.

There's something really wrong here, and I have no desire to see this woman hounded and tortured, but she definitely needs investigating and her lies exposed.

lady has been unmasked as a serial liar who has no problem making shit up. I noticed that she has accused her husband of domestic violence, and the husband says it never happened. This is hard for me, because my usual inclination is to believe the woman, but in this case, I'm glad Joe Biden has held his ground. I only wish Al Franken had stuck it out.

She claimed she was discriminated against for being white, and she tried to get a restraining order against a neighbor.

I think it's entirely possible all of that is true and likely at least some of it. One thing is clear, in many if not most of these instances she used those situations to solicit sympathy, money, goods, and services from other people. Then you look at her history of lying in all sorts of situations you start to get the picture of someone who was and is an accomplished con artist.

she gets the help she needs, and doesn't wait until her deathbed to atone for all the reputations she may have harmed. She's definitely a very litigious individual, much like the current occupant of the WH.

In the hope others aren't conned by them. Her 15 minutes of fame are quickly running out, and the problem that presents to her is as soon as right wing sources stop sending her money, she's going to have a very tough go running her cons again.

The University of Seattle is having to dodge some tough questions and I suspect her lying is also going to call the integrity of their law school into question.

This woman seems to leave a trail of shit piles for someone else to clean up everywhere she goes. According to at least one of her fucked over former landlords, literally.

She deserves to go to prison for her lies about Biden but that will never happen. But it would be sweet if she'd still face severe consequences for this and she'd only have herself to blame. Eventually, the lies will catch up with you.
Who is so stupid and arrogant to jump into the national spotlight when there is so much to hide?