Government document - knowledge and belief

[avidseeker]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Texas

If someone signs that a government document to is true and correct to "best of my knowledge and belief" and they have doubts, could they get in trouble if the document turns out to be wrong?

The criminal statute says it is a crime to knowingly provide false information on this document.

Let's say someone thinks it was 55% likely to be true, and 45% likely to be false. Basically they felt that it was more likely to be true than not true. Is that still to the best of their knowledge and belief?

What throws me off is the word "belief" which can imply lack of doubt.

Here is what I understand about the term "knowledge and belief":

-There is no duty to investigate the facts

-It means it is based on the person's actual knowledge (and not necessarily personal knowledge)

-Reckless indifference to truth is not a form of fraud with this language since the statement is limited (implying the person might be wrong)

-If a person does not actually believe what they are signing, it would be a falsehood even if they didn't know (here is the point I am stuck on - I don't think a person trying to be honest would have signed the document if they didn't actually believe it; if they tried to evaluate the mostly likely true statement). I mean, would you bet your life on everything you certified "to the best of your knowledge and belief"? I wouldn't.

 

[Proserpina]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Texas

If someone signs that a government document to is true and correct to "best of my knowledge and belief" and they have doubts, could they get in trouble if the document turns out to be wrong?

The criminal statute says it is a crime to knowingly provide false information on this document.

Let's say someone thinks it was 55% likely to be true, and 45% likely to be false. Basically they felt that it was more likely to be true than not true. Is that still to the best of their knowledge and belief?

What throws me off is the word "belief" which can imply lack of doubt.

Here is what I understand about the term "knowledge and belief":

-There is no duty to investigate the facts

-It means it is based on the person's actual knowledge (and not necessarily personal knowledge)

-Reckless indifference to truth is not a form of fraud with this language since the statement is limited (implying the person might be wrong)

-If a person does not actually believe what they are signing, it would be a falsehood even if they didn't know (here is the point I am stuck on - I don't think a person trying to be honest would have signed the document if they didn't actually believe it; if they tried to evaluate the mostly likely true statement). I mean, would you bet your life on everything you certified "to the best of your knowledge and belief"? I wouldn't.

How about you tell us whether this is purely academic or if it's pertaining to a real situation?

 

[avidseeker]

How about you tell us whether this is purely academic or if it's pertaining to a real situation?

It is a real situation - I didn't really think it would matter but I suppose you wouldn't want to waste your time debating something fake. The document is a car title transfer form. I was only really confused on that one point I mentioned about doubt. For a little background, I always try to be an honest person - I won't even tell someone there cooking is fantastic unless I really think so. So if the things I ask about seem strange, it is because I am trying to be absolutely sure I didn't do something wrong legally. None of this means I am a perfect person, but in this case the law is not 100% clear to me. I know (or knew) little about car title tax law when I had a bunch of pre-completed documents placed before me by a car dealer and was asked to sign on the spot. I determined to be honest in signing the documents, but I did feel pressured to evaluate everything quickly due to the circumstances. I asked dealer if documents were correct because it looked like there was a discrepancy and dealer assured me the transaction was structured correctly. I don't think dealer is 100% honest but he knows more than me on this by virtue of years of experience that I don't have in this area; I did trust dealer on some thinigs fully, others not so much but admittedly he knows more. I tried to be logical and make the best decision on the spot to the best of my knowledge and belief. Now I am not sure everything was done right. Technically speaking, it COULD have been completed right, but even the law I have researched on this issue is not 100% clear. For example, I read that GENERALLY (implying there are exceptions) a transaction like mine should be structured a certain way, but it was not structured that way in my case. Furthermore, my transaction was admittedly unusual, and I suppose it COULD have been structured as it was, but nothing I read says for sure and it is driving me nuts! ALSO, I read that dealer is the one liable to pay the tax on this transaction, rather than myself. So even if the documents are wrong, now what? I write a check to the tax department for what I think the tax should be? Do I write a check to dealer for the tax I think I should have paid? Or do I do nothing unless dealer asks for the tax payment? I believe the difference would be $93.75 - and that is if I am right, which I might not be. I also read that the seller is supposed to pay sales tax whether or not the purchaser pays it; so I imagine dealer is liable for any missing taxes on this one.

What I am ultimately concerned about is NOT the $93; it is not like I can't afford that if necessary. It is whether in signing the documents I committed a crime.

 

[quincy]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Texas

If someone signs that a government document to is true and correct to "best of my knowledge and belief" and they have doubts, could they get in trouble if the document turns out to be wrong?

The criminal statute says it is a crime to knowingly provide false information on this document.

Let's say someone thinks it was 55% likely to be true, and 45% likely to be false. Basically they felt that it was more likely to be true than not true. Is that still to the best of their knowledge and belief?

What throws me off is the word "belief" which can imply lack of doubt.

Here is what I understand about the term "knowledge and belief":

-There is no duty to investigate the facts

-It means it is based on the person's actual knowledge (and not necessarily personal knowledge)

-Reckless indifference to truth is not a form of fraud with this language since the statement is limited (implying the person might be wrong)

-If a person does not actually believe what they are signing, it would be a falsehood even if they didn't know (here is the point I am stuck on - I don't think a person trying to be honest would have signed the document if they didn't actually believe it; if they tried to evaluate the mostly likely true statement). I mean, would you bet your life on everything you certified "to the best of your knowledge and belief"? I wouldn't.

If statements are true "to the best of your knowledge and belief," that means you are unaware of anything that contradicts the statements in a way that would make them false.

What the phrase tests is your knowledge as to the truth or falsity of a statement or statements. Because you would be swearing to the truth as you know it, if you have any "guilty" knowledge, signing that statements were true when you knew them to be false would be perjury.

If you are charged with a crime (unlikely), consult with an attorney in your area. And, next time you are asked to sign something and you are unsure of the possible legal ramifications of signing, consult with an attorney in your area prior to signing.

 

[avidseeker]

Thank you thank you thank you - this has been driving me nuts! I specifically remember, at the time of signing, trying to think of anything that I knew that would prove that the documents were wrong - I could not think of any reason it MUST be wrong, just reasons it could be wrong (I.e. Suspicions). Since I couldn't substantiate my doubts, and because of the dealer's knowledge and expeience, I relied on his statements combined with the facts I knew. I anyone else has any more input please let me know.

 

[cbg]

Before you could be held criminally responsible, not only would the authorities have to prove that the papers were wrong, they'd have to prove that you knew they were wrong.

 

[Zigner]

Thank you thank you thank you - this has been driving me nuts! I specifically remember, at the time of signing, trying to think of anything that I knew that would prove that the documents were wrong - I could not think of any reason it MUST be wrong, just reasons it could be wrong (I.e. Suspicions). Since I couldn't substantiate my doubts, and because of the dealer's knowledge and expeience, I relied on his statements combined with the facts I knew. I anyone else has any more input please let me know.

"Move along, nothing to see here."

[SUB]---Frank Drebin[/SUB]

 

[avidseeker]

Regarding the "belief" part of the certification, I can't really say that I fully believed or disbelieved it. Like I said, I considered the statements of the dealer more reliable than my unsubstantiated doubts. It doesn't mean I would have bet my life on the certification, but neither can I say that I disbelieved it. Did I mention that I have dealt with obsessive-compulsive disorder in the past? I say that in case my questions sound crazy (maybe they don't). When I signed everything, I didn't think about the belief part until later. I didn't want to call dealer a liar and look like an idiot if I was wrong. I thought that Dealer's explanation was reasonably possible yet suspicous. This is what I get for rushing all this I suppose. I should have listened to my gut when I felt something was amiss, yet I relied on my logic precisely so I wouldn't go into an OCD moment on the spot.

 

[cbg]

You want an opinion? I think that you are seriously overthinking this and the odds that you're going to have any problems over this at all are approximately 100,000 to one against.

 

[avidseeker]

Proabably what I need to hear. Maybe it is my OCD. People with OCD want 100% certainty on things, and that sounds like me here. I can't lie - I'm like Jim Carrey from the movie "Liar, Liar" when he had to always tell the truth. So if anyone asked me my state of mind on something I would tell them. My whole family knows that they can ask me something and I won't lie and they playfully use it against me in front of other people (like asking me "did Jane skip school today?" right in front of Jane's parents).

So anyone thinks, proof aside, that I violated the statute, please let me know.

 

[quincy]

Proabably what I need to hear. Maybe it is my OCD. People with OCD want 100% certainty on things, and that sounds like me here. I can't lie - I'm like Jim Carrey from the movie "Liar, Liar" when he had to always tell the truth. So if anyone asked me my state of mind on something I would tell them. My whole family knows that they can ask me something and I won't lie and they playfully use it against me in front of other people (like asking me "did Jane skip school today?" right in front of Jane's parents).

So anyone thinks, proof aside, that I violated the statute, please let me know.

If a legal problem arises (and, again as I said before, this is unlikely), consult with an attorney in your area.

Let the attorney do all the speaking for you because, quite frankly, the more you let your OCD talk, the guiltier you are making yourself seem.

That said, you are smart to read contracts carefully, and understand all of the terms of any contract, before signing. Good luck, avidseeker.

 

[avidseeker]

Hey all, I just wanted to give you all an update.

So I think I mentioned before that I spoke to several attorneys and they all said I was fine.

In the end, I came to the conclusion that:

-my goal was to give the most accurate answer possible with the very limited information I had

-I felt very suspicious of everything, but I found no concrete evidence to support my doubts

-The reason I was so stressed about this was because I didn't FEEL like I believed, even though rationally I went with what I thought was the most logical answer.

-To require someone to FEEL like they believe something in this case would be absurd, as they have used logical reasoning to come up with the best answer, and found nothing concrete to support their doubts

-My feelings may have questioned my response, but that again is because I had very limited information and I normally scour the evidence to be very sure beforehand.

-Putting all that together, I would say that I was perhaps reckless but did not break the law, which is also in accordance with what several attorneys are telling me. Not that it was the best idea for me to be reckless, but again recklessness is not illegal in this case.

-Finally, I don't plan on signing something like this again until I am more sure first - I don't care if the local expert is offended if I don't fully trust him. No more doubtful answers.

Thank you all for your input.

-avidseeker

 

[quincy]

... -Finally, I don't plan on signing something like this again until I am more sure first - I don't care if the local expert is offended if I don't fully trust him. No more doubtful answers. ...

Whenever your signature on a document commits you legally (to the truth of a statement, to the terms of a contract, to whatever), it is always important to read and fully understand what the document says. You should never ever feel pressured by anyone into signing something if you have doubts about what you are signing.

You are smart in your decision to approach all future legal documents in this way in the future.

Good luck, avidseeker. Thank you for the update and we all thank you for the thanks.