Mr. Steadson's unqualified interpretation of the law of perjury is a lie
It's difficult to believe that the 'Amway' Lord Haw Haw, Mr.'IBOFB,' Steadson, is not blind drunk when he composes the unsolicited, reality-inverting bullshit which he regularly dumps your Blog. So far, his only explanation of why Robert FitzPatrick has not been charged with pejury for making what Mr. Steadson claims to have been a false declaration to the California courthearing the Pokorny RICO lawsuit against 'Amway' ( http://www.casewatch.org/civil/amway/fitzpatrick.pdf ) has been: that Robert FitzPatrick was not lying to the court and, therefore, not committing perjury, because he believed his false statement to be true.
As you know, perjury is the willful act of swearing a false oathor affirmation to tell the truth (whether spoken or in writing) concerning matters material to a judicial proceeding (i.e. a witness falsely promises to tell the truth about matters which effect the outcome of the case). Perjury is considered a serious offence as it can be used to usurp the power of the courts, resulting in miscarriages of justice. In the USA, the general perjury statute under Federal law defines perjury as a felony and provides for a prison sentence of up to five years. In the UK, a potential penalty for perjury is a prison sentence of up to 7 years. The rules for perjury also apply when a person has made a statement under penalty of perjury, even if the person has not been sworn or affirmed as a witness before an appropriate official. Statements of interpretation of simple fact are not perjury because people often make inaccurate statements unwittingly and not deliberately. Individuals may have honest, but mistaken, beliefs about certain simple facts, or their recollection may be inaccurate. Like most other crimes in the common law system, to be convicted of perjury one must have had the intention to commit the act, and to have actually committed the act, of lying in order to effect the outcome of a judicial proceeding. Subornation of perjury, or attempting to induce another person to perjure themselves, is itself a crime.
Mr. Steadson's simplistic interpretation of the law of perjury in respect of Robert FitzPatrick's declaration in the Pokorny RICO lawsuit is, therefore, a demonstrable lie; for Robert FitzPatrick is not just a simple witness whom Mr. Steadson has accused of unwittingly making an innaccurate statement of simple fact to a court. In reality, this expert witness gave a long and detailed explanation to a court of what qualifies him as a expert witness and of why 'Amway's' so-called 'Multilevel Marketing Business Opportunity' (which, during the previous 50+ years, has had no significant or sustainable source of revenue other than its own victims) is, in his expert opinion, fundamentally fraudulent. Given the intentional, extensive and detailed nature of his declaration, and the fact that he has delivered essentially the same declaration in more than a dozen State and federal prosecutions concerning so-called 'Multilevel Marketing' companies, it would be impossible for Robert Fitzpatrick to be simply mistaken.
Self-evidently, Mr. Steadson has, on behalf of the billionaire bosses of the 'Amway' mob, been trying to weasel his way out of possibly being sued for libel for making a false (albeit indirect) accusation of perjury against Robert FitzPatrick.