On Mon, 30 Apr 2001 09:00:35 GMT, Neil <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>Can scientology use the fact that lying is part of their "religious"
>scriptures as a defense against perjury?
>Just a thought.
They did. I was forbidden by the judge to mention TR-L because it is a scientology belief or practice. He didn't forbid it on religions grounds, but under Evidence Code 352 which means it's value is outweighed by the prejudice it generates. By the same ruling we could not mention the scientology policy (HCO PL 1.9.69R) under which Hoden got paid a thousand bucks if his false testimony and those of his subordinates as witnesses got me convicted. This last point is really interesting. Under 132.5 of the penal code, getting paid as a witness will get you up to 6 months in jail. If someone with a little more time than I have could research the cases where that law has been applied I would appreciate it. I would like to know how circumstantial evidence can be and still invoke this law. For sure no canceled check "payment for testimony in the Henson case" is going to surface, but here we have a corporate policy to pay Hoden which has already been made part of the record in this case. Of course, it is a "religious policy" . . . . Keith Henson