• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Perjurious statements allowed by Attorney

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Taxing Matters

Overtaxed Member
I know I probably went into too much detail but I tried to keep it brief. When the order was filed, the court only heard evidence from the wife and her attorney. The wife listed a statement from this third party on line 4, sec b of the order pertaining to the "most serious incident that causes her to ask for a civil protection order". Her lawyer had not yet contacted the third party and did not yet know she had never made any such statement at the time of filing the order. Her attorney found out about this false statement 3 days prior to the motion to make permanent the order, 11 days after filing the order and never brought this up to his attorney or the court. We found out about this one day after the motion was made permanent when his attorney allowed him to contact the third party, who is a very good friend of his.

Super short version..... 8/14/17 Motion for civil protection order is granted. 8/25/17 her attorney contacts the third party to verify the statement. Her attorney finds out there is a problem with the statement made by the wife concerning what the third party did or did not say. 8/28/17 We all arrive in court and her attorney says nothing about the problem of credibility concerning the third party. Motion to make permanent is granted with what we know now to be a false statement. Incedently, my friend has instructed his attorney to share all aspects of his case with me.

Thanks for your input!
Taking everything you’ve said at face value (and that relies on taking what your friend is telling you to be true and unbiased, and it might not be) what I think to be the most likely scenario here on the wife’s side of things is that the wife lied to her attorney when he prepared the filing and tried to get the other person to go along with it to back her up. It is not uncommon that clients fail to tell their lawyers everything and even lie to their lawyers fearing that if they tell the lawyer the whole truth the lawyer won’t be able to help them. He took his client’s word as to what happened and filed the complaint for the protection order. He later then finds out that what his client told him may have been untrue. He would need to discuss what he found with his client, and who knows what she told him. Let’s suppose, though, that confronted with what the friend told her lawyer she admits that incident didn’t happen, at least not the way she said it did. That puts the lawyer in an awful bind. He cannot come right out in court and say that his client lied, as that may expose his client to sanctions or other legal problems. That would violate his duty to protect his client’s interests. But the lawyer also cannot perpetuate fraud on the court. At the very least, the lawyer cannot further repeat the wrongful statements that were made in the complaint to the court in subsequent filings or in evidence presented at a hearing.

So now we get to the hearing on whether to make the order permanent. Her lawyer now has reason to know the wife’s story on that one incident is false. The wife is the only one to testify. The key question I have here is this: did the wife’s attorney ask her questions that prompted her to repeat the fabricated story at that hearing? Or, put another way, was he able to dance around that issue to avoid her repeating that story and instead simply get her testimony on the parts that presumably were not known to be fabricated?

The reason this matters is because it is only the evidence that is presented at the hearing that the judge is to take into account in deciding whether to grant the permanent order. What is written in the complaint is not evidence and thus not to be taken into account at the hearing. So if the attorney managed to keep out that fabricated story, he effectively threads his way through the tight spot his client put him in. He has not further advanced the false story and, since what is in the complaint is not supposed to be relied upon by the judge in making the ruling, there is no need to explicitly retract the statement she made in the complaint. If the judge was sharp he or she would have noticed the omission of that story from the testimony and figured out that the attorney purposefully left it, which is a signal to the judge (and the opposing lawyer) that there may have been some problem with that statement. If the story was not repeated in her testimony, there was also then nothing that the opposing lawyer (your friend’s lawyer) had to do about it. The story wasn’t entered into evidence so there was no need to rebut it.

On the other hand, if the wife’s lawyer put her on the stand and asked questions to bring out testimony he knew to be false, that would be a serious breach of the rules of conduct. That's the sort of thing that leads to suspension or disbarment.
 


Taxing Matters

Overtaxed Member
There appears to be something missing from the story.
There could well be. Quite often when parts of the story are coming second hand there are things missing or incorrectly stated. But all I can go by is what is stated. If the facts turn out to be different, well then my answer may turn out to be worthless. As the old computer science expression goes: garbage in, garbage out. :D
 

quincy

Senior Member
There could well be. Quite often when parts of the story are coming second hand there are things missing or incorrectly stated. But all I can go by is what is stated. If the facts turn out to be different, well then my answer may turn out to be worthless. As the old computer science expression goes: garbage in, garbage out. :D
Yes. A poster benefits most from this forum when all facts are known.

I understand the curiosity of friends who know someone in a legal pickle but friends often hear only part of the story. It the often the part that is missing that is important.
 

cbg

I'm a Northern Girl
I often wonder about the thought processes of some posters. They tell us in great detail about A, B and C, and carefully do not mention D, E or F because they're trying to solicit a particular response. (Yes, I realize that in some cases they don't know D, E, or F and in other cases they honestly don't realize it matters. I'm talking about the ones who do.) So they get the response they want and feel all justified because some folks on the internet told them what they wanted to hear. What do they think is going to happen when they go into a courtroom and they have to acknowledge D, E and F, which creates an exception to the rules regarding A, B and C? Just because some guy on the internet, who didn't have all the facts, gave them an answer they liked doesn't mean the legal system is going to change for them.
 

quincy

Senior Member
I often wonder about the thought processes of some posters. They tell us in great detail about A, B and C, and carefully do not mention D, E or F because they're trying to solicit a particular response. (Yes, I realize that in some cases they don't know D, E, or F and in other cases they honestly don't realize it matters. I'm talking about the ones who do.) So they get the response they want and feel all justified because some folks on the internet told them what they wanted to hear. What do they think is going to happen when they go into a courtroom and they have to acknowledge D, E and F, which creates an exception to the rules regarding A, B and C? Just because some guy on the internet, who didn't have all the facts, gave them an answer they liked doesn't mean the legal system is going to change for them.
It is a puzzle. :)

I suspect many posters are simply curious about what could have happened to a friend, or what will happen to a friend, but have in the way of facts only what their friend told them or what they have been able to glean from gossip. Without hard facts and without knowing all sides of a story, it is hard to respond with anything but (hopefully educated) guesses.

But I suppose that is all ANY legal forum can hope to offer, along with a little education about the laws that apply, or may apply. For any REAL legal advice and direction, a poster will always need to see an attorney licensed to practice in their own jurisdiction.
 
Last edited:

cbg

I'm a Northern Girl
Absolutely agree. There are limits to what a message board can do, and I think some posters do not realize that.
 

Just Blue

Senior Member
I often wonder about the thought processes of some posters. They tell us in great detail about A, B and C, and carefully do not mention D, E or F because they're trying to solicit a particular response. (Yes, I realize that in some cases they don't know D, E, or F and in other cases they honestly don't realize it matters. I'm talking about the ones who do.) So they get the response they want and feel all justified because some folks on the internet told them what they wanted to hear. What do they think is going to happen when they go into a courtroom and they have to acknowledge D, E and F, which creates an exception to the rules regarding A, B and C? Just because some guy on the internet, who didn't have all the facts, gave them an answer they liked doesn't mean the legal system is going to change for them.
BIG HUGE FAT LIKE ^^^:cool:
 

quincy

Senior Member
Absolutely agree. There are limits to what a message board can do, and I think some posters do not realize that.
Agreed.

As far as legal forums go, though, FreeAdvice offers (in my opinion) the best and most accurate information provided by the best and most educated members. I am actually embarrassed by some of what is being offered as legal information on other sites. Perhaps the "report" feature on this site, and member-monitoring, has helped to keep nonsense and nonsensical posters to a minimum.

That said, judging by several postings by one disgruntled poster last night, there is apparently some room for improvement. :)
 

Just Blue

Senior Member
Agreed.

As far as legal forums go, though, FreeAdvice offers (in my opinion) the best and most accurate information provided by the best and most educated members. I am actually embarrassed by some of what is being offered as legal information on other sites. Perhaps the "report" feature on this site, and member-monitoring, has helped to keep nonsense and nonsensical posters to a minimum.

That said, judging by several postings by one disgruntled poster last night, there is apparently some room for improvement. :)
The whiney little poster that had his/her feelings hurt?
 

quincy

Senior Member
The whiney little poster that had his/her feelings hurt?
The underlying message in the postings had some merit, though, although the underlying message was a bit hard to read through the heavy layering of threats and craziness. :)

Just as I would not expect volunteers to go to Houston area to yell at victims of the flood for being up to their necks in water, I see no reason for volunteers to yell at visitors to this site who come to the forum needing legal help.
 

Just Blue

Senior Member
The underlying message in the postings had some merit, though, although the underlying message was a bit hard to read through the heavy layering of threats and craziness. :)

Just as I would not expect volunteers to go to Houston area to yell at victims of the flood for being up to their necks in water, I see no reason for volunteers to yell at visitors to this site who come to the forum needing legal help.
Why do I feel 'i just got a smack on by bottom?? :D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Sponsored Ad

Top