FALSE TESTIMONY Testimony is "false" if it was untrue when it was given and was then known to be untrue by the

witness or person giving it. A statement contained within a document is false if it was untrue when used and was then known to be untrue by the person using it. Testimony should be viewed in the context of the series of questions asked and answers given, and the words used should be given their common and ordinary meaning unless the context clearly shows that a different meaning was mutually understood by the questioner and the witness. If a particular question was ambiguous or capable of being understood in two different ways, and that the person truthfully answered one reasonable interpretation of the question under the circumstances presented, then such answer would not be false. Similarly, if the question was clear but the answer was ambiguous, and one reasonable interpretation of the answer would be truthful, then the answer would not be false. A false testimony, also known as perjury, refers to a testimony given under oath that is not true or not entirely true. This is a criminal offense that is punishable with jail time or severe fines if convicted. False testimony does not include false information that is not directly related to the outcome of the case. For example, lying about ones marital status would not be considered perjury unless the witnesss marital status had a direct correlation with the case itself. Before any witness is placed on a stand or invited to give a written testimony, he or she must swear an oath to answer all questions truthfully. Failure to do so could result in inaccurate trial results, which can lead to false imprisonment for defendants or lack of justice for victims of crimes. For instance, if one lies under oath about the location of a defendant in a murder trial, thus giving him a false alibi, then he may be found innocent even if he is guilty. This allows a murderer to go free while leaving the victims family with little closure. False testimony also may be used to describe a situation when one knowingly lies on a written statement aside from a formal court testimony. This includes things like tax returns, which are protected by an under penalty of

perjury agreement in some nations. The person doing the return can be convicted of false testimony if he or she knowingly lies when filling out the forms. The rate of false testimony convictions are rare in most countries. One reason for this is that it is hard to prove that someone is lying. For instance, if someone claims that he did not see a defendant at the scene of a crime; aside from video tape with both individuals recorded in the same place at the same time, proving the witness a liar would be near impossible. Even with a video, it is hard to prove that one person noticed the other. Both people would have to be speaking to one another or interacting within the same group, presenting an obvious connection between the two. A conviction of false testimony can result in prison time in most countries. In the United States and many European nations like the UK, perjury is considered a felony offense and warrants anywhere from 5-7 years in prison. In some other countries, such as France and Germany, witnesses are not permitted to speak under oath and therefore are not able to commit legal perjury. As with any crime, false testimony must be proven to have been premeditated. Since human error is common and often accidental, one cannot be convicted of perjury if misinformation is given unknowingly due to personal perception or distorted memory. This is another factor in the low instance of perjury convictions. Laws on False Testimonies

False testimonies can land you in prison.

The truth will set you free, but perjury could land you in prison. Perjury is the crime of giving false testimony. There are different kinds of perjury as defined by federal and state laws. To be convicted of perjury, you must know that what you're saying is a lie at the time you say it. Perjury crimes carry fines and terms of imprisonment. Lying on or off the witness stand never amounts to anything good. 1. Perjury Defined
o

Perjury is the legal term for lying under oath. You commit perjury when you knowingly give an oral or written false testimony to someone after you have sworn to tell the truth. Both criminal and civil laws in federal and state governments outlaw perjury. This crime can carry high fines or even result in incarceration. Two types of perjury are common in U.S. courts: subornation of perjury and false statements. Subornation of Perjury

When you convince another person to give false testimony under oath, you are guilty of subornation of perjury. Procuring another to commit perjury in federal courts carries a fine or imprisonment of up to five years. In order to be convicted of this crime, you must know that the statement you convinced another to give was false and you must have willingly convinced the other to commit perjury. Subornation of perjury is more frequently prosecuted as obstruction of justice. False Statements

In federal courts, the crime of false statements occurs when you knowingly lie in any matter governed by U.S. executive, legislative or judicial branches. The lie is a crime regardless whether its spoken, written or otherwise communicated. Federal courts will fine you for false statements and/or incarcerate you for up to five years. If the false statement relates to terrorism or certain sex crimes, the term of incarceration could be as high as eight years.

More on Perjury
o

In most jurisdictions, the defendant must know for sure that the testimony he gave or convinced another to give was false in order to be convicted of perjury. If you didn't know at the relevant time that a testimony was a lie, then you likely cannot be convicted of perjury. Also, even something as simple as signing a form could constitute perjury. Remember that you always sign your name to your IRS taxes "under penalty of perjury."

The reason perjury has become so common is our government is run by corrupt people on a large scale. In legal terms, perjury is defined as willfully giving incomplete, misleading, or simply false testimony while under oath. It is usually used to refer to a court trial. Some legal documents are signed under penalty of perjury, meaning that if someone lies about anything on that form, he or she could face perjury charges. Perjury charges are rarely prosecuted, but if they are and the person is convicted, he or she can face a significant fine as well as jail time. When perjury is committed, it can represent a serious abridgment of the legal process. When someone testifies in court, the judge and jury are led to believe that the testimony is truthful and reliable. If a witness deliberately chooses to lie on the stand, twisting the testimony in one way or another, the trial is no longer fair. If it is not caught, false testimony may result in wrongful conviction or release. In order to be considered perjury, testimony must satisfy two conditions. The first is that the lie committed must be deliberate, rather than accidental or unknowing. If the witness believes that he or she is telling the truth, the testimony is not perjury, although it may be confusing. The second condition is that the testimony must be material to the trial, having a direct impact on the outcome. If the witness lies about something which is not material, this is frowned upon, but it is not perjury.

Angry federal judge rips 'false testimony' of federal scientists

By: Ron Arnold | 09/22/11 8:05 PM

A tough federal judge in Sacramento has become a folk hero of Central California citizens for protecting people and endangered species instead of putting the interests of either over the other. In the process, U.S. District Judge Oliver Wanger made two huge splashes last week in what began as a water-supply war a decade ago, then grew into a convoluted endangered-fish war. Today, it's a gigantic good science versus bad science war pitting California residents against a tiny fish and government officials diverting two years' worth of water for a large city or agricultural region and flushing it into the San Francisco Bay. The flushing might help save the allegedly endangered 2-inch-long fish, the delta smelt. So many lawsuits sparked by the conflict have landed on Wanger's desk, with so many plaintiffs and so many defendants, that he merged them into one and titled his rulings "The Consolidated [salmonid, delta smelt, or whatever] Cases." In a searing opinion, Wanger ripped two Interior Department scientists for giving "false" and "incredible" testimony to support a "bad faith" delta smelt preservation plan. The two scientists are Frederick V. Feyrer of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, and Jennifer M. Norris of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Wanger also threw out huge chunks of the federal government's official "biological opinion" on five different species, calling the opinion, which is a guidance document for environmental regulators, "arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful." Wanger has become a hero to millions of Californians thanks to his strict interpretation of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Section 1 of NEPA establishes policy. Section 2 describes penalties. Environmentalists focus solely on the latter, while ignoring the former, even though both are federal law. Wanger says "the public policy underlying NEPA favors protecting the balance between humans and the environment," by, according to the first purpose listed in the statute, establishing "a national policy which will

encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment." Environmentalists worship NEPA as "the environment's bill of rights" and focus almost entirely on the penalties it provides, while Wanger looks at the whole law. In an earlier decision, for example, he excoriated the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Agency for its to-hell-with-people policy: "Federal defendants completely abdicated their responsibility to consider reasonable alternatives that would not only protect the species, but would also minimize the adverse impact on humans and the human environment." Craig Manson, general counsel of the vast Westlands Water District (and a former assistant secretary of the interior for fish and wildlife and parks), said of Wanger's ruling on the government's biological opinion: "The court is again calling for sound science. The people who depend on water supplied by these projects, are entitled to the government's best efforts supported by the best available science. The recent rulings by the court give us the best opportunity in a decade or more to make real NEPA's policy of harmony between humans and their environment." Brandon Middleton, a Pacific Legal Foundation attorney, said, "The court's willingness to recognize NEPA's policy of 'protecting the balance between humans and the environment' is refreshing. For decades, environmental groups have attempted to impose their viewpoint without any consideration for the human impacts of 'environmentalism at all costs.' " After reading Wanger's opinion, Feyrer and Norris may need to consider new careers. In a court transcript of last week's decision obtained by The Washington Examiner, Wanger wrote of Norris: "I find her testimony to be that of a zealot. ... The suggestion by Dr. Norris that the failure to implement [her plan], that that's going to end the delta smelt's existence on the face of our planet is false, it is outrageous, it is contradicted by her own testimony." Feyrer got worse -- a ruling of "agency bad faith." Isn't that a firing offense, even for a career civil servant? I asked Julie McDonald, former deputy assistant secretary of interior for fish and wildlife and parks.

"No, they don't get fired, they get promoted," McDonald said, citing the power of the federal "science cartel" to protect its rule over America's environmental regulations from people like Wanger. Wanger, who has announced his retirement, has cut a larger-than-life figure ever since he was nominated for the federal bench in 1991 by President George H.W. Bush. He's been called colorful, but I think red white and blue are the colors that fit him best.

According to the corpus of traditions false testimony is a Greater sin. It is also mentioned in the narration of Abdul Azeem quoted from Imam Muhammad al-Taqi (a.s.). Similarly the tradition of Fazl Ibne Shazaan includes it in the list of Greater sins as mentioned by Imam Reza (a.s.). That it is a Greater sin is also proved by the hadith of Imam Ja'far as-Sadiq (a.s.) as quoted by Amash. We have already mentioned in the chapter on "lying" that falsehood is a Greater sin. False testimony obivously is also a branch of falsehood. False Testimony By A Defendant In A Criminal Case: What Do You Know And When Do You Know It? by Jane Rabe, Assistant Bar Counsel The question of what a criminal defense attorney should do when his client, the defendant, intends to commit perjury in a criminal trial has been a longtime subject of concern and debate. In Matter of Foley, 439 Mass. 324 (2003), a criminal defense lawyer was suspended for three years for assisting and encouraging his client in the preparation of a fabricated defense to a criminal complaint and using the fabricated defense to negotiate with the prosecution. In that case, the lawyer knew the defense was fabricated because he made it up himself. More common, however, are the circumstances presented by a client who wants to testify to a defense

that the lawyer believes is false. See Nix v. Whiteside, 475 U.S. 157, 160161 (1986) (client told lawyer shortly before murder trial that he would be dead unless he testified that he had seen the victim with a gun). Mass. R. Prof. C. 3.3(e) provides that a criminal defense attorney who knows that the defendant, the client, intends to testify falselyhas a duty strongly to discourage the client from testifying falsely, advising that such a course is unlawful, will have substantial adverse consequences, and should not be followed. How certain the lawyer must be that the proposed testimony is not truthful and what steps the lawyer must take to ascertain the truth will be addressed in this article. In Commonwealth v. Mitchell, 438 Mass. 535, 544-545 (2003), the Supreme Judicial Court considered the conviction of a defendant on two counts of first-degree murder. Pursuant to Rule 3.3(e), the defendants lawyer had the client testify in a narrative that he had not killed the two victims and did not argue that defense to the jury because the defendant had previously admitted to the lawyer that he had killed the victims and his confession was supported by substantial evidence in the case. On appeal from the denial of the defendants motion for new trial claiming ineffective assistance of counsel based on the lawyers invoking Rule 3.3(e), the Court considered the standard that ought to be applied when determining whether an attorney knows that his clients testimony will be perjurious as well as the appropriate procedure to be followed by defense counsel after making such a determination. The Court rejected as too lenient the test of whether a lawyer believes in good faith that the defendant will testify falsely, citing People v. Bartee, 208 Ill.App.3d 105, 108, 153 Ill.Dec.5, 566 N.E.2d 855, cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1014, 112 S.Ct. 661, 116 L.Ed.2d 752 (1991) (the defendant was not denied effective assistance of counsel or a fair trial by the courts order requiring him to testify, if at all, in narrative form based upon his lawyers good faith opinion midway through the trial that the defendant intended to commit perjury). The Court also rejected a standard requiring the lawyer to know beyond a reasonable doubt that the testimony is false because that standard would be too difficult to satisfy and would eviscerate Rule 3.3(e).

Ultimately, the Court held that an attorney knows that his client intends to commit perjury when he or she has a firm basis in fact, citing for this standard the case of State v. Hischke, 639 N.W. 2d 6, 10 (Iowa 2002) (attorney had an objectively reasonable basis for believing that his client intended to commit perjury based upon the clients previous admission to counsel that the marijuana found in his jacket by the police was his, his subsequent claim that the jacket and marijuana were not his after he learned that the sentence would be enhanced due to a third drug possession conviction, and other objective factors such as the defendants statement to the police that the jacket was his but not the contents). It is not sufficient for an attorney merely to believe that a client intends to commit perjury. As Justice Brennan cautioned in his concurring opinion in Nix v. Whiteside: Except in the rarest of cases, attorneys who adopt the role of the judge or jury to determine the facts,pose a danger of depriving their clients of the zealous and loyal advocacy required by the Sixth Amendment. Nix v. Whiteside, supra at 189, citing United States ex rel Wilcox v. Johnson, 555 F.2d 115, 122 (CA3 1977). The firm basis in fact standard requires more information than mere suspicion, conjecture, or inconsistent statements by the defendant. The attorney must act in good faith upon objective circumstances firmly rooted in fact in determining the clients intent to commit perjury. Commonwealth v. Mitchell, supra at 546. However, the Court declined to impose an independent duty on defense counsel to investigate because such a duty would be incompatible with the fiduciary nature of the attorney-client relationship. Id. at 545, citing United States v. Del Carpio-Cotrina, 733 F.Supp. 95, 99 n.9 (S.D.Fla. 1990). Once the lawyer knows the client intends to testify falsely, both Mitchell and Mass. R. Prof. C. 3.3(e) provide guidance to a defense attorney. The appropriate conduct depends on the circumstances facing the lawyer when he or she learns of the proposed false testimony: First, if the criminal defense attorney discovers the clients intent to testify falsely prior to accepting the case, he or she must refuse representation.

Second, if the criminal defense attorney discovers the clients intent to testify falsely after taking the case, the attorney shall attempt a quiet withdrawal. If the attorney discovers the clients intent to testify falsely before trial, he or she must seek the required permission to withdraw. The attorney should not disclose the perjury. In the motion to withdraw, disclosure of privileged or prejudicial information shall be made only to the extent necessary to effect the withdrawal. If it is necessary to disclose confidential or prejudicial information, the lawyer should file the motion ex parte and seek to have the motion heard in camera and the record of the proceeding impounded, except for the order granting the motion to withdraw. Mass. R. Prof. C. 1.16 (b) and (c); Mass. R. Prof. C. 3.3(e) and Comment 8; Butler v. U.S., 414 A.2d 844 (D.C. 1980). Third, if the criminal trial has begun and the defense attorney discovers that the client intends to testify falsely at the trial, the attorney may seek to withdraw but is not required to do so. The defense attorney should not withdraw if he or she reasonably believes that the client will be prejudiced. If the criminal defense attorney is unable to get permission to withdraw, he or she may not prevent the client from testifying in his or her own defense. See Mass. R. Prof. C. 3.3(e). The client has a constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel, due process of law, and a fair trial, including his right to testify in his own defense. Commonwealth v. Mitchell, supra at 544. The Mitchell decision requires that the defendant be present at the sidebar conference at which Rule 3.3(e) is invoked. Once the matter is called to the court's attention, Mitchell then indicates that the judge should instruct the lawyer on how to proceed. (In evaluating the situation, the judge will have to rely on the representations of counsel, which of necessity will be cryptic, because counsel is the one who must make the disclosure while maintaining client confidences and allowing for continued zealous advocacy at trial.) Before giving instruction, it may be appropriate for the judge to conduct a colloquy with the defendant, if it appears that the defendant does not clearly understand the situation he has created. The attorney is permitted to ask the client to testify in a narrative fashion and to remain standing while the client testifies. In Mitchell, counsel asked

his client what do you wish to tell these jurors? The attorney may not examine the client or elicit any testimony from the client that he or she knows to be false. The attorney is permitted to object to the prosecutors cross-examination as appropriate, mindful not to assist the client in presenting false testimony. The attorney must not argue the false testimony in the closing argument or in any other proceeding, including appeals. Mass. R. Prof. C. 3.3(e). Fourth, if during the clients testimony, or after the clients testimony, the attorney knows that the client testified falsely, the attorney must confidentially call upon the client to correct the testimony. If the client refuses to follow the attorneys advice, or is unable to do so, the attorney shall not reveal the false testimony to the court. Mass. R. Prof. C. 3.3(e) and Comment 10 to Rule 3.3(e). The provisions of Mass. R. Prof. C. 3.3(e) apply only in criminal cases and only to the defendant, not to other witnesses. These special procedures are necessary to protect the constitutional right of the defendant to testify. For a discussion of lawyers obligations regarding false testimony of other witnesses in a criminal case or litigants and their witnesses in a civil case, see related articles on Bar Counsels Web site Lies My Client Told Me and Getting Defensive: Ethical Obligations of Criminal Defense Counsel on Bar Counsels Web site, www.mass.gov/obcbbo.

For MUSLIMS: 'False words' imply sin and false testimony From the traditions quoted above it becomes clear that whenever the term 'false words' etc. occurs in Quran it implies 'lying.' Similar verses have been quoted in the chapter of music and songs. Hence some traditions state that 'false words' refers to music or songs. Actually the word 'false' stands for every evil, wrong and undesirable thing. Music, songs and lies head the list of these things.

One who testifies falsely is soon exposed If a person testifies in an Islamic court and later regrets for his testimony, then it is first determined whether he had knowingly and intentionally testified wrongly. If it was so, then that person is branded as a transgressor whose testimony is no more valid in the Shariat Court. But if he had been a victim of doubt and uncertainty he is not disqualified from testifying in the future. However, if due to the wrong testimony someone had to undergo undeserved punishment or suffer harm, it is wajib for this witness to make up the loss. The details of such laws could be obtained from the books of Jurisprudence. One of the methods of disproving a testimony is that the witness himself confess it to be false. Another procedure for this is that two just witnesses may testify against him. This is known as 'Bayyana'. Finally, the judges may on the basis of some firm evidence falsify the testimony of a witness who had tried to mislead the court. Hence the

judge is empowered to reject a witness if he is himself certain. If someone has suffered a loss the judge shall impose on the witness some exemplary punishment of a few lashes so that he may not repeat such a crime in future. The judge should also announce in the city and the surrounding areas that such and such person is a false witness so that people may not be misled by him and may not rely upon his evidence. In this way, one who testifies falsely becomes notorious for his falsehood in the society, and the wellbeing of society is maintained. Both these actions i.e. exemplary punishments and warning the people against a false witness, are put into effect whether the judge has already passed his judgment (based upon that false testimony) or not. They do not qualify as a witness Imam Ja'far as-Sadiq (a.s.) is reported to have said,

"The false witness must be lashed, and the number of lashes is determined by the Imam (or the Islamic judge) and he should be paraded (in the city) till people know him (and may not rely on him in the future)."
The Imam (a.s.) recited the following verse of the Quran: "...and do not admit any evidence from them ever; and these it is that are the transgressors, except those who repent after this and act aright, for surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful." (Surah Nur 24:4-5) (It means that after he repents and reforms, his evidence again becomes valid) The narrator says that he asked Imam (a.s.), "How do we know that he has repented?" Imam (a.s.) replied,

"At the place where he is lashed, he must confess in public that he had given a false testimony. And he must seek the forgiveness of Allah. In this way it could be known that he has repented."
(Wasaelush Shia)

Compensation for the loss If, due to a false testimony a Muslim has had to suffer some monetary loss or loss to one's life or property, the witness has to make good the loss. A narrator by the name of Jamil inquired from Imam Ja'far as-Sadiq (a.s.) regarding the one who has testified falsely. Imam (a.s.) told him:

"If the disputed property is still intact it must be restored to the rightful owner. If it is not then the false witness is responsible to the extent of it's loss." (Masaalik)
This means that if it is not possible to return the property, the false witness will have to reimburse it by providing a thing similar to that property or pay a price for it. Detailed laws are discussed in the books of Islamic Jurisprudence. Repentance for the sin The method of repenting for the sin of giving false testimony has already been explained. The first important requirement is that the sinner must feel a deep remorse for the act committed by him. He must also seek the forgiveness of Allah for disobeying His command; and compensate the Musilm who suffered the loss. As Allah Himself says, "except those who repent after this and act aright, for surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful."

The bearing of false witness is forbidden by the Ninth Commandment (Ex. 20:13; Deut. 5:17). Perjury applied to a group of witnesses and not to an individual (who, on his own, could not bring about a conviction). Generally, in order to be convicted of perjury under Jewish law, a group of witnesses must be impeached by later testimony in a manner known as hazamah. Hazamah occurs when one group of witnesses asserts that a previous group had not been where it claimed and therefore could not have seen what it testified to. Thus, if the first group testifies that it observed

one man kill another in a certain place on a certain date, and the second group testifies that it was with the first group in an entirely different place on that date, this is hazamah. The second group is believed, and the first is considered as perjurers, or edim zommemim (lit. "scheming witnesses"). If, however, the second group testifies that the accused was somewhere else at the time of the murder, or that no murder took place at all, this is called hakhhashah (contradiction), and the testimony of both groups is disregarded (Mak. 1:4; Maim., Yad, Edut 18:2). The punishment for bearing false witness is set forth in Deuteronomy 19:19: "You shall do to him as he schemed to do to his fellow." Thus, edim zommemim who testify in a criminal case receive the punishment that would have been meted out to the accused; in a civil case, they forfeit the amount of monetary damages the defendant would have been liable for. However, there are exceptions to this rule, and in certain cases edim zommemim are flogged even though the consequence of accepting their testimony would have been other than flogging (see Mak. 2a-b; Yad, Edut 18.:1, 20:8; Tur, HM 38:1-3). All convictions for perjury had to be widely publicized since anyone found guilty was disqualified from ever appearing as a witness again. A crime that occurs when an individual willfully makes a false statement during a judicial proceeding, after he or she has taken an oath to speak the truth. The common-law crime of perjury is now governed by both state and federal laws. In addition, the Model Penal Code, which has been adopted in some form by many states and promulgated by the Commission on Uniform State Laws, also sets forth the following basic elements for the crime of perjury: (1) a false statement is made under oath or equivalent affirmation during a judicial proceeding; (2) the statement must be material or relevant to the proceeding; and (3) the witness must have the specific intent to deceive. The punishment for perjury in most states, and under federal law, is the imposition of a fine, imprisonment, or both. Federal law also imposes

sentencing enhancements when the court determines that a defendant has falsely testified on her own behalf and is convicted. Under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, the court is required to automatically increase the defendant's sentence. Two federal statutes govern the crime of perjury in federal proceedings. Title 18 U.S.C.A. 1621 codifies the common law of perjury and consists of the elements listed above. In 1970, the scope of section 1621 was expanded by the enactment of 18 U.S.C.A. 1623. Section 1623 changes the definition of intent from willfully offering false testimony to merely having knowledge that the testimony is false. In addition it adds to the definition of perjury to include the witness's use of information, including any book, paper, document, record, recording, or other material she knows contains a false material declaration, and includes proceedings that are ancillary to any court, such as affidavits and depositions, and grand jury proceedings. Section 1623 also contains a retraction defense. If, during the proceeding in which the false statement was made, the person admits to the falsity of the statement before it is evident that the falsity has been or will be exposed, and as long as the falsity does not affect the proceeding substantially, prosecution will be barred under section 1623. Commentators believe that the existence of these two federal statutes actually frustrates the goals of Congress to encourage truthful statements. The reasoning behind this concern is that when a retraction exists, prosecutors may charge a witness with perjury under sec- tion 1621 and when a retraction does not exist, the witness may be charged under section 1623. Two variations of perjury are subornation of perjury and false swearing; in many states these two variations are separate offenses. Subornation of perjury is a crime in which the defendant does not actually testify falsely but instead induces, persuades, instigates, or in some way procures another witness to commit perjury. False swearing is a false statement made under oath but not made during an official proceeding. Some states have created a separate offense for false swearing, while others have enacted perjury

statutes to include this type of false statement. These crimes also may be punished by the imposition of a fine, imprisonment, or both. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor is one of the Ten Commandments,[1] which are widely understood as moral imperatives by legal scholars, Jewish scholars, Catholic scholars, and Post-Reformation scholars.[2] The book of Exodus describes the Ten Commandments as being spoken byGod,[3] inscribed on two stone tablets by the finger of God,[4] broken by Moses, and rewritten on replacements stones by the LORD.[5] There are different views on the meaning of this commandment. Some interpret the scope in the narrowest possible sense, as only a prohibition of lying in courtroom testimony. Other interpretations view the commandment as a prohibition on any false statement that degrades our neighbors reputation or dignity. Still others interpret the commandment in the broadest possible sense: as a prohibition on all lying.[6] There are six things that the LORD hates, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among brothers. Proverbs 6:1619 The command against false testimony is seen as a natural consequence of the command to love your neighbor as yourself. This moral prescription flows from the command for holy people to bear witness to their God who is the truth and wills the truth. Offenses against the truth express by word or deed a refusal to commit oneself to moral uprightness: they are fundamental infidelities to God and, in this sense, they undermine the foundations of covenant with God.[7]