Is oath breaking a crime?

[Loach]

@ASL_v2.0

Oddly, the UCMJ does still appear to have a “false swearing” provision under Article 134 (the general article, very much a catch all for otherwise unlisted offenses). And this is distinct from perjury, which is covered under article 131.

One of the elements is “That the oath or equivalent was administered to the accused in a matter in which such oath or equivalent was required or authorized by law;” but, again, the provision for false swearing is supposed to be distinct from perjury.

I guess the question would be… what do they mean by “required or authorized by law”?

https://www.sapr.mil/public/docs/ucmj/UCMJ_Article134_General_Article.pdf#page=17

But like perjury, it seems to be about lies, not just any particular breach of an oath (such as to abstain from certain conduct).

As a disclaimer I have to say most of my knowledge is from my state and despite being in the Army for several decades I don’t have expert knowledge of the UCMJ. I believe that perjury has to be during a judicial proceeding like testimony in a court martial. False swearing would be like if a CID agent is questioning a soldier during an investigation and puts him under oath.

[Loach]

@gdave

@gdave

Your answers on the SF86 can’t actually be used against you in a judicial or disciplinary proceeding, but lying on it is a criminal offense.

What I mean is, the SF86 has questions about previous drug use and criminal activity. If you admit to such on the SF86, that admission can’t be used against you. But you can be charged with lying under oath if you falsely deny such activity on the SF86.

That would be another example. There are multiple times in the military when you may be called upon to take an oath swearing to tell the truth that don’t involve being in court. That’s where the false swearing charge comes in. The penalty is not as much as perjury but it will ruin your career.

[RivkahChaya]

@UDS1

The action for damages taken by a woman agaisnt a man who had jilted her was an action for “breach of promise”, not “breach of contract”

Oh, crap-- and I knew that. Just pulled the wrong word out of the creases of my brain.

@Cervaise

As noted elsewhere in the thread, there are certainly organizations, such as the military, that formalize the oath in such a way as to create a legally enforceable standard. But they’re certainly the exception to the norm.

Well, the military is paying you money, so it is a two-way contract.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Loach

Someone can make this in more lawyer speak but basically the court found there was no due process claim because Colorado law did not specify any mandatory actions by police with regards to restraining orders. When there is no specified process there isn’t a due process violation.

I do not understand this.

I mean, I believe you that is what the court said but I do not get it.

The court issues a directive. The police are the means of enforcing that directive. Without the police enforcing court orders absolutely everyone could thumb their nose at the court and ignore them.

There is an enforcement arm of the judicial system and that is the police. When the court orders someone apprehended it is the police who do it. What world is it where the police just say no, they won’t do it? Cuz reasons.

It leads to absurd results. A court mandated something and here we have the police just choosing to not enforce that legal mandate.

It makes no sense to me. The police take an oath to uphold the law. When they choose not to uphold the law that is a problem and a violation of their oath. The very basis of what they do.

[Loach]

@Whack-a-Mole

@Loach

Someone can make this in more lawyer speak but basically the court found there was no due process claim because Colorado law did not specify any mandatory actions by police with regards to restraining orders. When there is no specified process there isn’t a due process violation.

I do not understand this.

I mean, I believe you that is what the court said but I do not get it.

The court issues a directive. The police are the means of enforcing that directive. Without the police enforcing court orders absolutely everyone could thumb their nose at the court and ignore them.

There is an enforcement arm of the judicial system and that is the police. When the court orders someone apprehended it is the police who do it. What world is it where the police just say no, they won’t do it? Cuz reasons.

It leads to absurd results. A court mandated something and here we have the police just choosing to not enforce that legal mandate.

It makes no sense to me. The police take an oath to uphold the law. When they choose not to uphold the law that is a problem and a violation of their oath. The very basis of what they do.

That sounds all neat and tidy like that but that’s not how things actually are. “Upholding the law” is different depending on the law. If the law says the police “shall” do something and they don’t then they are breaking the law. If the law says they “may”’do something and they don’t then that’s up their discretion. If there is a grey area in the law that doesn’t say what should be done that’s where case law is born.

When it comes to judicial orders, not all are created equal and it’s different in every state. As a local police officer I can arrest on warrants issued by a judge. I can arrest on violations of a domestic violence restraining order. I can do absolutely nothing to enforce a court ordered child custody ruling even if you wave the paper in my face. I will take a report and tell you to go back to family court. I can do nothing to enforce a court ordered eviction (but the sheriff’s office can). There are lots of things that a judge can order that police can’t enforce because they fall under civil jurisdiction. They can be enforced through a threat of civil contempt by the judge but the police can not make you do it. In my state a DV restraining order is also a civil order through family court but there is a specific statute written to make violation of the order a criminal charge that shall be investigated and enforced by local police.