...and found guilty of said charges, what sort of penalties would they face? i am refering to the jackson trial here. anyone know the laws regarding perjury?

In some cases penalty can mean incaceration but not sure the severity. I am waiting for her WELFARE FRAUD CASE. And FOR THE BOOK that is now being written about her life.

A quick and incomplete read mentions four years as possible (but much less is likely). But, it's a very hard to prove. Perjury requires far more than a contradiction in testimony. As a comparison: a) You can convict on molestation based solely on one witnesses uncorroborated testimony. b) You cannot convict on perjury, based solely on the testimony of one other witness, who contradicted a statement. If you're real curious, search for "perjury" in the Penal Code at: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html But, I think the actual statute is less important than how it's applied, and who gets to apply it. It seems unlikely that the DA would prosecute their own witness.

b) You cannot convict on perjury, based solely on the testimony of one other witness, who contradicted a statement. ================================= They can however certainly convict based on the JC Penney case for perjury and Insurance fraus as well as the welfare fraud...

"They can however certainly convict based on the JC Penney case for perjury and Insurance fraus as well as the welfare fraud..." You must be new to the justice system. Almost no conviction is certain. I'm sure prosecutors would have loved to pursue perjury charges against MJ when he denied even knowing a boy he slept with 365 times. Same goes for the OJ lie about shoes. But, they didn't, because it's very difficult to prove, and little punishment results. The law should make being caught in a lie, like being caught with illegal drugs. If you're caught with illegal drugs it's very hard to "get off" by claiming you didn't know where they came from. With perjury, people shouldn't be able to get off easily, by claiming memory failure. But that's not how the law is written today. As far as welfare fraud. She pretty much did the equivalent of a person not declaring income on their tax return. The vast majority of such people are never prosecuted. They have to repay the money, with penalties, might be barred from future claims, and that's about it. Because of the publicity, though, it appears there is a chance the welfare fraud case will go forward.

I wouldn't worry about the Arviso's. Their reputation is in tatters, and even if they don't get charged for perjury, they have been shown to be liars and parasites. They have been exposed=shown to be liars=con artists=free-loading parasites who steal the reputation of other people, by deception. What goes around, comes around, as they say.

I wouldn't worry about the Arvisos. Their reputation is in tatters, and even if they don't get charged for perjury, they have been exposed=shown to be liars=con artists=free-loading parasites who steal the reputation of other people, by deception. What goes around, comes around, and their day will come, eventually.