12 ms·

Don't those vocational experts testify under oath when they make claims that there are all of those jobs that don't actually exist anymore? Is that not perjury

by count 4y ago

Don't those vocational experts testify under oath when they make claims that there are all of those jobs that don't actually exist anymore? Is that not perjury?

ncphil 4y ago
Yes. But they're testifying for the Government, the same Government that has sole prosecutorial authority in these cases.
- count 4y ago
  I don't think it's a good idea to view 'the Government' as a monolithic entity. A local, elected DA could get super popular taking these experts to court over perjury concerns. That DA has no involvement in the social security process or agency at all.
  - cptskippy 4y ago
    But that doesn't really fit with the narrative that's being pushed about how the government is an inefficient monopoly.
  - NikolaNovak 4y ago
    I spent majority of my career implementing ERPs for commercial companies. Then I helped implement one for Canadian government and was shocked (in my previous ignorance) how much more accurate and pragmatic it was to think of it not as "I'm implementing system for various departments in a single large organization" and more like "I'm implementing a single erp for Walmart, air Canada, Canadian tire, Costco, Ontario hydro, Toronto raptors, and 100 other companies with various systems, standards, processes, Interfaces, versions, data, speeds, attitudes, cultures and relationships". It reminds me of similar revelation when I realized that judge is not necessarily in cahoots with police, and in fact may be very humanly annoyed or persnickety with them. Humans are humans and relationships are infinitely complex.
loeg 4y ago
Perjury is essentially not prosecuted, especially against so-called expert witnesses. Essentially every party would accuse their opposing party's expert witnesses of lying about something under oath and if anyone actually suffered for it, it would become difficult to find expert witnesses. Or that's approximately the summary I heard from Popehat (Ken White) at some point.
- maxerickson 4y ago
  You also have to prove it. It's not perjury to make an incorrect statement, it's perjury to intentionally make an incorrect statement, so you have to demonstrate that it's willful, not just point out the incorrect statement. I imagine that the vocational findings are designed to appear mechanistic, whether they are or not (and stating a mechanistic outcome isn't an untrue statement).

by count 4y ago

Don't those vocational experts testify under oath when they make claims that there are all of those jobs that don't actually exist anymore? Is that not perjury?

ncphil 4y ago

Yes. But they're testifying for the Government, the same Government that has sole prosecutorial authority in these cases.

count 4y ago
I don't think it's a good idea to view 'the Government' as a monolithic entity. A local, elected DA could get super popular taking these experts to court over perjury concerns. That DA has no involvement in the social security process or agency at all.
- cptskippy 4y ago
  But that doesn't really fit with the narrative that's being pushed about how the government is an inefficient monopoly.
- NikolaNovak 4y ago
  I spent majority of my career implementing ERPs for commercial companies. Then I helped implement one for Canadian government and was shocked (in my previous ignorance) how much more accurate and pragmatic it was to think of it not as "I'm implementing system for various departments in a single large organization" and more like "I'm implementing a single erp for Walmart, air Canada, Canadian tire, Costco, Ontario hydro, Toronto raptors, and 100 other companies with various systems, standards, processes, Interfaces, versions, data, speeds, attitudes, cultures and relationships". It reminds me of similar revelation when I realized that judge is not necessarily in cahoots with police, and in fact may be very humanly annoyed or persnickety with them. Humans are humans and relationships are infinitely complex.

loeg 4y ago

Perjury is essentially not prosecuted, especially against so-called expert witnesses. Essentially every party would accuse their opposing party's expert witnesses of lying about something under oath and if anyone actually suffered for it, it would become difficult to find expert witnesses. Or that's approximately the summary I heard from Popehat (Ken White) at some point.

maxerickson 4y ago
You also have to prove it. It's not perjury to make an incorrect statement, it's perjury to intentionally make an incorrect statement, so you have to demonstrate that it's willful, not just point out the incorrect statement. I imagine that the vocational findings are designed to appear mechanistic, whether they are or not (and stating a mechanistic outcome isn't an untrue statement).