Under Oath

Question: What happens after an examination under oath? I attended an examination under oath today. I had a lawyer present and the whole process took a little less than an hour from the time questioning began. The court reporter affirmed the attorney's (insurance) statement that it would take about 2-3 weeks to produce a report. My lawyer said that I waive my rights to review and sign. What happens now that I have complied with their request?

Answer: No one but your attorney can tell you what will likely happen next in your case. Not all cases proceed in the same way.

Question: Will the witnesses in the Iraq war enquiry be questioned under oath, or will it be another fudge? I am aware that the enquiry into Dr. Kelly etc. ( I cannot remember the name) witnesses were not questioned under oath and lied through their back teeth. They were rewarded with promotions etc. by Blair. Should we respect e findings of this report when it is published because if it implicates Brown it will course problems and indeed maybe cost someones career or indeed life. they've done it a least once they will do it again.

Answer: Under oath or not, truth is unlikely to emerge from this typical Brown fudge - delayed long enough to ensure any revelations won't affect the next General Election. His weasel words about the Inquiry being held in order that "We learn from the mistakes" is insulting to the intelligence. We know grievous mistakes were made and Brown's assertion that blame won't be allocated is enough to guarantee this exercise will be a monumental waste of time, effort and money - a dishonour to all the lives that were lost. As Benn has pointed out, we want to know 'Why ?' - especially the extent to which Parliament might have been deliberately deceived. Above all we want to know why we stood shoulder to shoulder with the US in smashing up Iraq's infrastructure, leaving so much suffering and distress, embroiling our troops in years of peacekeeping and rebuilding a shattered state. The outcome of the invasion was never in any doubt - but grave mistakes were made and we need to know who was responsible for failing to think through the dire consquences for not only the Iraqis but also our own troops. And - what this ill-advised exercise has cost the country in terms of hard cash, distrust abroad and vulnerability to terrorism in our own country. I supported the invasion - regime change and nullifying an apparent threat - but can't accept the decision makers failed to have a follow-up plan except the awarding of rebuilding contracts to US companies whilst the population went so long without basic necessities of life. The best we can hope for is that when Cameron is elected he will change the terms of reference so that the truth will be known - Blair and Brown's 'legacies' fully exposed.

Question: what should I do, after receiving a letter from a Law Office for Cross Examination under Oath? I received a letter from a Law Office, telling me that I have to appear before them to have a Cross Examination under Oath, regarding a car accident. The fact is that I have not have any accident. The other fact is that for some reason I don't know my name and my address obviously are in the letter. I have not received any documents from any court? What should I do? Should I go? Should I call?

Answer: Perhaps you witnessed an accident. Call the law office and ask what the matter is about. It is possible that a mistake has been made and calling may help to clear it up

Question: What is vicious slander about a person's reputation and character, when it is done under oath, called? Four people viciously slandered my reputation and character with malicious lies in a civil court in the US while under oath. Is this called slander, libel, perjury, or anything else? What might my legal options be in this case?

Answer: Lying in court under oath is called perjury. But unless you could prove it, you won't get them in trouble. And their punishment would be criminal. It would also be the basis for a mistrial or cause for appeal if you were found guilty or liable in a trial based on their statements. You can't sue someone for slander when it something they said on a court record. It is one of the few places people have immunity for that tort. They can always be cross-examined. You can attack their credibility and the truth of their statements. That would be your remedy. That's what having a good lawyer is for. "Privilege is a defense when witness testimony, attorneys' arguments, and judges' decisions, rulings, and statements made in court, or statements by legislators on the floor of the legislature, or statements made by a person to his spouse, are the cause for the claim. These statements are said to be privileged and cannot be cause for a defamation claim."

Question: Should I have my own attorney present for an examination under oath for a insurance claim? My car was stolen & State Farm has already questioned me & now they want be to do an examination under oath.

Answer: An examination under oath is a right that an insurance company has to ask you questions about a loss. The EUO is usually performed by an attorney hired by an insurance company. The EUO is recorded by a stenogrpaher who will first swear you in and then make a transcript of your statement. Some people take the attitude that if you have nothing to hide, there is no reason to bring an attorney to the EUO. I would not agree with this concept, even if you don't have anything to hide. Since there is no one else in the room, there is no one to protect your rights or to tell the attorney that he has stepped over the line. For example, if the attorney were to ask a question that touched on wholly inapprorpiate subject matter or if she asked a question that was improperly phrased (something like - do you still beat your mother - a yes or no question that can't be answered with a yes or no) - you would not know how to act. Another reason to take an attorney is that you may not even know that an area is problematic to you. I have seen many cases where people were (unwittingly) committing policy violations that were exposed at an EUO. Your attorney will know what to ask you before the EUO and to prepare you to answer questions that may be asked. The EUO is a very powerful tool in the insurance carrier arsenal. When used properly it can prevent insurance carriers from paying claims they should not be required to pay. When used improperly, it can lead to nightmares for the insured where they are interrogated about irrelevant issues before having their claim denied on completely bogus grounds. If this happens, you will then need to hire an attorney anyway to go to court and force State Farm to pay the claim. Bottom line - State Farm has a well earned reputation for being aggressive with their EUO practices. Even if you don't believe that you have done anything wrong, you should still talk to a lawyer and consider bringing one to the EUO.

Question: Where can I find a link to a Rafael Palmeiro picture, when he was testifying under oath about steroids? Where can I find a link to a Rafael Palmeiro picture, when he was testifying under oath about steroids? I'm looking for a link to the pic where he is pointing his finger, when he was under oath at that congressional hearing on steroid use.

Answer: http://i.a.cnn.net/si/2005/scorecard/12/… I think this is the one that you were talking about.

Question: Is it possible to sue DHS (Child protective services) if a social worker lied under oath? Dhs, social worker lied under oath. I have been to court 11 times concerning my children. Also, the court date for me to get custody back to my daughter has been cancelled and rescheduled 6 times!! This has been going on for 12 months now with DHS. Please help!

Answer: Yes if you can prove DHS worker lied.*

Question: Does anyone else find it comforting to see Clemens lie under oath to Congress? It reminds me of another prominent figure who lied under oath to Congress, what was his name again? It depends on what the word is is, classic! I could really care less if baseball players take HGH, why does Congress (OUR TAXPAYER DOLLARS) have to investigate? If anything, let the gambling conglomerates sue them, leave MY money out of this crap! To Clemens I say, keep lying, it worked for Clinton, why should anyone have integrity before Congress anyway, they are the worst liars around!

Answer: I'm with you! Congress should have lots of better things to do and waste our money on that sticking their idiot noses into MLB. What a bunch of morons. I couldnt care less about pro sports. Where is our border fencing? Why arent you investigating THAT??? CONGRESS? HELLOOOO???? ARE ANY OF YOU DUMBASSES LISTENING????!!!!! ........no wonder they are the worst rated congress in American history.

Question: Why Are People Sworn Under Oath In Court? People go to court everyday and lie their butts off for whatever reason. To make matters worse, those lies can make a guilty person go free or an innocent person go to prison. Why do courts swear people under oath? Not saying that everybody lies in court at all. Still it's obvious that it's full of flaws and yet they use this today.

Answer: good question,my answer is that it,s meant to intimidate. a bit of theatre is all,make you scared. you know god hanging over your head and he will be able to deal with you should you lie coz he can hear you. politicians however seem to be completely free from guilt. and are some of the best liars around. some how they get away telling incomplete truths all the time.

Question: What does it mean to not "testify under oath" to Congress? This is in the context of the congressional inquiry into the firing of federal prosecutors. Bush officials want to testify "not under oath." What does that mean? Surely it doesn't mean that they can lie? I am assuming there is a technical definition.

Answer: Yes, it means they can lie. Not being under oath means they cannot be charged with perjury if they lie. They can still be charged with providing false testimony to Congress, under a different statute (18 USC 1001). But that only applies in formal hearings on the record (a transcript). So, being off the record (no transcript) and not under oath, they could lie all they want with no legal consequences.

Question: 1998 impeachment of Clinton for obstructing justice & lying under oath about his sexual affair? In 1998 impeachment of Bill Clinton for obstructing justice and lying under oath about his sexual affair with Monica Lewinsky, but the Senate early the following year found him not guilty on his impeachment charges. How could they find him not guilty, when he did auctually did what he was impeached for? Is there no justice? He did lie under oath, every one knows that even him and Hilary. If you don't know that he lie, you are asleep. He told the whole world he lied!

Answer: The united states senate didn't find him guilty by a majority but by all accounts the American people saw him for what he was as the perjury charge was defeated with 45 votes for conviction and 55 against. The obstruction of justice charge was defeated with 50 for conviction and 50 against Then in January 2001, on the day before leaving office, Clinton agreed to a five-year suspension of his Arkansas law license as part of an agreement with the independent counsel to end the investigation. Based on this suspension, Clinton was automatically suspended from the United States Supreme Court bar, from which he then chose to resign. So in a way he was punished just not removed from office Additional information: Yes you are right about him lying and In April 1999, about two months after being acquitted by the Senate, Clinton was cited by Federal District Judge Susan Webber Wright for civil contempt of court for his "willful failure" to obey her repeated orders to testify truthfully in the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit. For this citation, Clinton was assessed a $90,000 fine, and the matter was referred to the Arkansas Supreme Court to see if disciplinary action would be appropriate

Question: if a person admits under oath in a court of law to DWI can they be charged? the person is the plaintiff in an assualt case in texas and she admits to drinking and driving under oath during the assault hearing. can she be charged with DWI?

Answer: No. She was not caught, arrested or field tested at the time. There are no tests that were performed to warrant an arrest even though after a period of time she admitted to drinking while driving. As the other answer stated, there is no proof that she was above the legal limit or her driving was impaired.

Question: In Texas, what happens if an insured does not submit to examination under oath? I am speaking about THIRD-PARTY claims ... not first-party claims. I am talking about third-party claims ... i.e., when a person sues the insured, and the insurer has to provide a defense for the insured. Is there any authority that says an insurer has no duty to provide you a defense in a lawsuit if you do not submit to an examination under oath?

Answer: All insurance policies have a section titled "conditions". Take out your policy and read that part of it. One of the conditions is that you cooperate with your insurance company by assisting with your defense. If you fail to do that the insurer can void your policy because you breached one of the policy conditions. How can you expect an effective defense against a third party claimant if you do not cooperate with your own insurer? They are on your side unless you make it impossible.

Question: In a civil law suit, are requests for admissions under oath? Is anything you say in a civil law suit under oath in court, such as discoveries, admissions, iterrogatories etc. Thanks Thanks so much!!!!! Awesome answer. I'll vote yours as best answer! This helped me out a lot!

Answer: Requests for Admissions are deemed as admitted if you fail to answer them timely. There are ways to get around this, but once the judge rules that they are all admitted, you are bound to those answers and they can be used in trial. The only discovery format that is truly considered "under oath" are interrogatories as they require a verification page that states your answers are of truth. In all discovery, your answers can be admitted as evidence. With the exception of interrogatories, it isn't necessarily "under oath", but keep this in mind. If you lie on any discovery response, it is on paper and can be used to damage your creditability. Failure to timely answer discovery can hurt your case and possibly have it thrown out.

Question: Doesnt anyone realize its not about the steroids, ITS all about the lying under oath? How long do you think it will take before they charge ol Raj for lying under oath?

Answer: Yes, people don't seem to understand that perjury is a crime. On top of this, the distribution of steroids is also a crime. We expect the government to go after people selling heroin and cocaine, why do we give people selling steroids a free pass? Another major issue is MLB's trust exempt status. If baseball is going to flout this, then naturally the government would become involved. It is a federal matter and that is why Congress is involved. Other businesses and companies that have been charged with violating anti-trust laws have testified before Congress, why should MLB be any different? So no, Congress' is not making steroid use the issue, it is the other laws being broken by MLB and MLB players that Congress is concerned with.

Question: can employer lie under oath in unemployment trials? What are the penalty? My employer allow me to work for two weeks after an incidence that led to my termination. At the hearing, the employer claimed that I was not allowed to work and that I was suspended on the same day of the incidence. However, the employer testified in previous hearing that I was allowed to work. Then in another hearing, the employer says I was not allowed to work. What are the penalties of employers lying under oath?

Answer: employment hearings are not court of law , there is no judge only a mediator

Question: If Palin's innocent regarding 'Troopergate', why's her lawyer advising her staff to avoid interview under oath? If Sarah Palin has nothing to hide regarding 'Troopergate' shouldn't a thorough investigation vindicate her and be a boon to the Republican presidential campaign? If so, why would her lawyer advise her staff to avoid being interviewed under oath?

Answer: Because they want to hide as much possible until after the Presidential election cause if anything bad comes out before Nov, it's going to be really bad looking for Mc Cain for picking Palin for VP.

Question: WHat happens when someone lies under oath? I had a trial hearing today against my ex and she sat up on the stand lying through her teeth about numerous things. The case was closed today regarding several domestic issues and the order of protection I have against her. She has a scumbag attorney and I had to represent myself due to financial reasons due to her screwing me over. Can and how do I prove that she lied under oath as well as sworn statement?

Answer: If you could prove she was a liar you should have done so at the hearing when it would have mattered. Even if you could now prove it its likely too late, the hearing is finished and your case is closed. You can appeal but you cannot enter new evidence on appeal. You could take your evidence to a prosecutor and ask that they press charges but they have better things to do and wont bother. If you're asking how to create evidence that she lied, I dont have the slightest idea without knowing the circumstances and even if I did I doubt its possible, Sorry.

Question: Can you change info once you submit it to court under oath? If you press charges against someone and when you submit it's under oath, but then realized you gave the wrong date...are you allowed to go back and say "oh wait, I messed up. I put the wrong date!" Also, if the judge finds out you completely lied...what can you be charged with? That's what's happening to this dumb girl..and I'm curious what could happen. Thanks!

Answer: Really intentionally lied? perjury. Made a simple mistake? you amend the statement, no problem. Intentionally lied while on the stand at a hearing? If you admit and tell the truth before that hearing is over no legal problem (plenty of problems with people believing whatever you are saying but not legal ones)

Question: Should lying under oath about a personal affair be an Impeachable offense? UNDER OATH Should the WIFE of anyone caught lying under oath and who thinks there is NOTHING WRONG WITH IT be elected the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES and our Commander-in-Chief?

Answer: Yes. He lied UNDER OATH. Absolutely we shouldn't have Hillary in office. It really scares me, because if she thinks there is nothing wrong with what Bill did, lying under oath, then can you imagine how she'd run the country? We'd have to always be living in fear...