Why are there three truth parts to an oath? In mathematical logic we have iff: if and only if. As an example of this for my classes I realised that in sworn oaths there are three statements for telling: 1: the truth, 2: the whole truth, and 3: nothing but the truth. The first two of these I rewrite as follows: Statement 1: If I say something, then that something is true. Statement 2: If something is true, then I will say that something. Together these two statements are enough, since they imply what you say if and only if it is true. Hence the third statement is superfluous. So my questions is: why is this third phrase included in the oath?
Your translation of the first statement is not correct. Saying that one promises to tell the truth is not saying that one promises to not tell a falsehood. If telling truth and telling falsehood are items labeled T and F, then this is a logical statement ~(T > ~F) for ~ negation and > implication. The combination of the first and third statements is necessary to obtain what you have called Statement 1, while the combination of the first and second statements is necessary to obtain what you call Statement 2. It could also be argued that the first statement is not even necessary, as it is just a less strict version of the second statement (and a less desirable one at that, if one values the honest sharing of complete knowledge), but the redundancy does not harm the meaning or impact of the following statements.
This is very common in all sorts of legal documents, not just the United States Code. Another familiar example where this is seen is on checks. It serves as a sort of &quot;redundancy check&quot;, to help catch errors where either the words or the numerals could have been incorrectly transcribed. Of course, one could ask why similar redundancy isn't used to avoid errors in other contexts; there doesn't seem to be a good answer for this besides &quot;tradition&quot;. Some people feel the practice is obsolete and should be abandoned, e.g. https://www.butlersnow.com/2020/04/five-5-reasons-to-stop-writing-numbers-like-this/.
What does one do if, a party at trial denies having made a statement in a published article? A combination of a) and b). The plaintiff should gather other evidence with which to disprove the denials of authorship, or at least to question the reliability the publisher's testimony. The jury needs that evidence in order to discern who is credible. Whether decisive or not for credibility purposes, any material inconsistencies the plaintiff is able to point out from the witness's testimony(-ies) tend to guide the fact-finder (i.e., the jury) on matters of credibility. Whenever possible, the evidence should include admissible documents from when the events took place. For instance, records reflecting the submission &amp; editing process of that article. Those documents typically are obtained by subpoenaing the publisher and/or relevant non-parties, accordingly. That will reduce the chances of testimony deficiencies, whether these stem from witnesses' perjury, lack of memory, inability to clearly articulate what they know, or inability to testify at all (due to witness's illness or death by the time the matter goes to trial).
No The term "sword and shield" is allegorical rather than legal and may be called up in any number of contexts. Such as ... Waiver of privilege In the particular instance, Anthem was claiming that the reports were privileged and hence protected from discovery, presumably because they were prepared in contemplation of litigation - this litigation, one supposes. However, privilege is lost or waived if the privileged information is disclosed, as it was by relying on the conclusion of the report in its defense. As such, the entire suite of reports is no longer protected. Basically, if you want to keep privilege you have to keep what is privileged secret. Note, the could have lost privilege if they had disclosed the findings of the report in any way such as by press release or by simply leaving the document in a public place. In this context, the judge is stating that they cannot use the "shield" of privilege to protect a report that they have used as a "sword" to make a attack their opponent.
The word for a false statement of fact that is used most often is a &quot;misrepresentation&quot; or &quot;false representation of fact&quot; or more generally, an inaccurate quotation. A statement is a libel only if it damages the reputation of the person about whom one makes a misrepresentation and is communicated in writing to a third-party. Making a false statement of fact about what someone said to the person who said it is frequently a form of &quot;gaslighting.&quot;
A witness is not evidence, but what a witness says (their testimony) may be evidence. Or, the body of a person who happened to be a witness is evidence. I suspect that there is a translation problem. It is always physically possible to try pay a person to lie and AFAIK never legal: the person who lies and the person who induces the lie will be punished by law. The witness who testifies will have to swear that their testimony is the truth.
The phrase is added to ensure that a portion of the contract is construed as the parties intended. For example, say the terms of a contract already imply some particular term. To make it clear that this is what the parties intended, they may also state that term explicitly. The problem is, if you specify a term a particular way, a party could argue that interpreting another part of the contract to mean that very same thing would render that portion of the contract redundant and therefore it should be interpreted some other way. The phrase "for avoidance of doubt" indicates a part of an agreement that is intended to restate what another portion of the contract (often in conjunction with applicable law) already implies. The phrase is added to ensure that the restatement won't be pointed to as a way to argue that other parts of the contract should be interpreted differently than intended. It is often used where it's superfluous and there it should be avoided because it will actually do the opposite of what's intended -- implying that what it covers is covered elsewhere when it actually isn't, possibly leading to other portions of the contract becoming ambiguous or subject to misintepretation.
maryland I think not In Maryland (a typical state on such issues) the relevant law is Section 9-101 - Perjury, which reads in pertinent part: a) Prohibited.- A person may not willfully and falsely make an oath or affirmation as to a material fact: (1) if the false swearing is perjury at common law; (2) in an affidavit required by any state, federal, or local law; (3) in an affidavit made to induce a court or officer to pass an account or claim; (4) in an affidavit required by any state, federal, or local government or governmental official with legal authority to require the issuance of an affidavit; or (5) in an affidavit or affirmation made under the Maryland Rules. A statement of intended future conduct is probably not a &quot;fact&quot; as required by this section. Classic perjury, that is making a false statement during testimony in an actual court session is covered by subsection (a)(1), which makes it relevant what was considered perjury at common law. In Volume 2 of A Treatise on the Criminal Law of the United States By Francis Wharton (Kay and brother, 1874) section 2226 says: At Common law perjury cannot be committed in an official oath, as far as such oath touches future conduct. On page 321 of The Law and Higher Education: a Casebook by John Seiler Brubacher (Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1971) appears the phrase: ... a promise of future conduct, the breach of which would not support a conviction for perjury This was in reference to the 1931 US law mandating a loyalty oath, and why such a law violates due process. Also relevant is the article &quot;When Is a False Statement Perjury?&quot; by the MoloLamken law firm. This discusses the federal perjury lws: 18 U.S.C. §1621 and 18 U.S.C. §1623. There is no mention of false sttements about future conduct.