Can you actively lie to the court when answering a complaint without consequence?

[RJR]

An Answer can not state "Neither affirm or deny" to a paragraph, see my post 14

 

[TheVictortheviking]

Victor, read this.

Florida Rules of Civil Procedure:

Rule 1.110
(c) The Answer. In the answer a pleader shall state in short and plain terms the pleader's defenses to each claim asserted and shall admit or deny the averments on which the adverse party relies. If the defendant is without knowledge, the defendant shall so state and such statement shall operate as a denial. Denial shall fairly meet the substance of the averments denied. When a pleader intends in good faith to deny only a part of an averment, the pleader shall specify so much of it as is true and shall deny the remainder. Unless the pleader intends in good faith to controvert all of the averments of the preceding pleading, the pleader may make denials as specific denials of designated averments or may generally deny all of the averments except such designated averments as the pleader expressly admits, but when the pleader does so intend to controvert all of its averments, including averments of the grounds upon which the court's jurisdiction depends, the pleader may do so by general denial.

(e) Effect of Failure to Deny. Averments in a pleading to which a responsive pleading is required, other than those as to the amount of damages, are admitted when not denied in the responsive pleading. Averments in a pleading to which no responsive pleading is required or permitted shall be taken as denied or avoided.

So if " defendant is without knowledge ", however I am saying that defendant is with knowledge. Its easy to prove they worked for the company and that they knew they worked for the company. No one is going to believe someone worked for a company for 10 years and then forgot it and could not remember it in 30 days they had to do the response.

Can people be charged with perjury on this?

 

[RJR]

The tax man said NO to a perjury charge concerning a filed Answer.

 

[TheVictortheviking]

If the defendant strays too far from what the plaintiff sees as the truth when answering the claims made against him in the complaint, the plaintiff will need to address this in court.

The plaintiff presents the facts and evidence that support his case - and the defendant will present any available facts and evidence that support his defense against the claims.

A court decision does not necessarily reflect "truth" but rather it reflects the best version of the truth.

They are refusing to provide any documents which support their denial however that may be a subject on a new post.

 

[TheVictortheviking]

Understood

I was ok with the example and not confused by it.

 

[TheVictortheviking]

You are misunderstanding the purpose of the answer. It is not testimony and thus not evidence. The answer is not signed under penalty of perjury. Its purpose is basically to set out which of your allegations in your complaint the defendant agrees with (thus removing the need for you to prove it) and which things the defendant disagrees with. Those things the defendant disagree with are things you will have to prove in your case. You bear the burden of proof and should be prepared to prove every relevant fact anyway. So the denials in the complaint are not as big a deal as you seem to be making them. Sure, the defendant should not lie in the complaint, but in the end it's not going to have a huge impact on the course of the lawsuit. When it comes time for trial if the defendant lies on the state, then that is perjury. The testimony in court matters much more because those statements are evidence and can affect the outcome of the case.

Without having read the complaint and answer together I cannot say if the defendant lied. It matters exactly how you phrased things in your complaint. If you were not careful in drafting it you may have left wiggle room for denials that are indeed accurate when read literally. There is an art to this stuff that nonlawyers often do not appreciate. Note the that lawyer largely bases the answer on what his client tells him; the short time for filing the answer does not give the lawyer much time to verify the client's statements.

Oh, I see. So the short answer is that the denials are kind of giving a lot of leeway. More of failing to concede the argument than actual going on record under oath as it not being true. I guess its the playing dumb defense. You start to making up your own definition of what generally understood words mean like when James Clapper said the NSA does not collect information on American citizens then later when proved they do by Edward Snowden, he said that his definition of the word " Collect" means that a person does it not a computer/machine. Webster dictionary defines collect as " to bring together into one body or place " nothing about it having to be a person vs machine doing the collecting.

Well I know these people and they will continue to lie and falsify documents so I guess I should try to catch them at a later stage of the game when they are under sworn oath and lie. I was under the impression that all the document sent to the court/judge were under oath but that is not true for the denials is what you are saying?

Thanks.

 

[TheVictortheviking]

An Answer can not state "Neither affirm or deny" to a paragraph, see my post 14

So denied for lack of knowledge things which are true and have knowledge of. Many of the things they have admitted to me in person. I can also get evidence from 3rd party which show they did what I'm saying in the complaint.

Does anyone ever go to jail for perjury on denials on things they are later shown to be true or is this just like saying " I want you to prove everything and I will concede nothing to you without a fight" Almost like " I won't even admit you have my name right without you providing it with my birth certificate"

 

[TheVictortheviking]

The tax man said NO to a perjury charge concerning a filed Answer.

So case closed? If so, I will have to catch them the next time they lie later on in the process.

 

[RJR]

So case closed? If so, I will have to catch them the next time they lie later on in the process.

Read this.

https://codes.findlaw.com/fl/title-vii-evidence/fl-st-sect-92-525.html


As I said before file a response to their Answer, state your facts.

 

[RJR]

Go to a local university/college law library. Find the Civil Rules of Procedure volume. Look up the Rule for Answer I posted, (post 14), there should be some Annotations (case law) after the text, see if any can help you understand better.

 

[Taxing Matters]

I was under the impression that all the document sent to the court/judge were under oath but that is not true for the denials is what you are saying?

The pleadings (your complaint and the defendant's answer) are not executed under penalty of perjury so a perjury prosecution will not result from a lie in pleading. The pleadings are best thought of as setting out what the two parties dispute — the basic purpose of the pleadings is to sort out what the case is about and what the plaintiff (you) will have to prove in the case. While you aren't supposed to lie in the pleadings, the sort of denial that the defendant put in the answer about whether the defendant worked there is more in the nature of simply not conceding anything to you at this early stage. The pleadings are not generally not evidence. They are not introduced into the trial. The jury won't see the pleadings in the trial.

What will really matter then is what the defendant says at trial. If the defendant lies at trial and you show him to be a liar, that destroys his credibility to the jury and that can be a good help to your case.

And like I said, it matters very much exactly what you stated in your complaint. For example, statements that are vague or too open ended will draw denials because it is not very clear what you are asserting. You may think it was clear because in your head you know what you meant but the other side may not see it as clear. So while you are set in thinking the defendant lied, that may not be case when you examine closely what you asserted and what the defendant is denying.

So I suggest you not waste a lot of time and effort focusing on your perception that the defendant lied concerning your allegation about his employment. Just look at more as simply the defendant not conceding a point to you and move on. All that means is that as things stand now you'll have to prove he was employed there if the case goes to trial. Presumably that will not be all that difficult to do if he was employed there at the relevant time(s). The denials are not something that makes a big roadblock to your case.

 

[quincy]

They are refusing to provide any documents which support their denial however that may be a subject on a new post.

You go to court and prove your case based on your evidence. The defendant does not have to make proving your case easy for you.

 

[Zigner]

For example, statements that are vague or too open ended will draw denials because it is not very clear what you are asserting. You may think it was clear because in your head you know what you meant but the other side may not see it as clear.

Let me give an example of this for the OP - it's just an example:

Question: When you arrived at the intersection, did you turn left, turn right, or go straight?
Answer: No.

It's obvious to you that you were trying to find out what direction the person went, but, even though you may see it as a lie, the answer to the question is appropriate because the person stopped at the intersection when they arrived.

 

[TigerD]

Question: When you arrived at the intersection, did you turn left, turn right, or go straight?
Answer: No.

A fun example of not asking the right question is:
The Xerox Deposition

 

[Eekamouse]

So denied for lack of knowledge things which are true and have knowledge of. Many of the things they have admitted to me in person. I can also get evidence from 3rd party which show they did what I'm saying in the complaint.

Does anyone ever go to jail for perjury on denials on things they are later shown to be true or is this just like saying " I want you to prove everything and I will concede nothing to you without a fight" Almost like " I won't even admit you have my name right without you providing it with my birth certificate"

How are you going to prove the third party isn't lying to help your case? That person could be a personal friend of yours and just wants to help you win? Credibility and all that comes into play. Are you going to be as nauseatingly verbose as you are on this board in court? Better bring some coffee laced with meth to serve the judge and jury or you'll put them all to sleep.