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

[NeilTheCop]

None of that says he "wasn't" farming the fields for two decades before you purchased the property. He could have been farming without a permit, he could have be farming it for somebody else, or even squatting.

Is this an adverse possession action?

That made me smile because what I imagined was a line of stealth tractors slipping into the field in the dead of night to perform some clandestine plowing
The actual case is one of private nuisance and the farmer is trying to use the right to farm act as a defense. One of the exclusions of the NM act is that I would have had to move to the nuisance for the farmer to use the act. Simply put, I was there first. The judge has already agreed to this and granted my preliminary injunction.

NMSA 47-9-3
D. No cause of action based upon nuisance may be brought by a person whose claim arose following the purchase, lease, rental, or occupancy of property proximate to a previously established agricultural operation or agricultural facility, except when such previously established agricultural operation or agricultural facility has substantially changed in the nature and scope of its operations.

Had he been farming without a permit or squatting it would be even better for me. From the same statute;

"except that the provisions of this section shall not apply whenever an agricultural operation or agricultural facility is operated negligently or illegally such that the operation or facility is a nuisance."

 

[quincy]

That made me smile because what I imagined was a line of stealth tractors slipping into the field in the dead of night to perform some clandestine plowing
The actual case is one of private nuisance and the farmer is trying to use the right to farm act as a defense. One of the exclusions of the NM act is that I would have had to move to the nuisance for the farmer to use the act. Simply put, I was there first. The judge has already agreed to this and granted my preliminary injunction.

NMSA 47-9-3
D. No cause of action based upon nuisance may be brought by a person whose claim arose following the purchase, lease, rental, or occupancy of property proximate to a previously established agricultural operation or agricultural facility, except when such previously established agricultural operation or agricultural facility has substantially changed in the nature and scope of its operations.

Had he been farming without a permit or squatting it would be even better for me. From the same statute;

"except that the provisions of this section shall not apply whenever an agricultural operation or agricultural facility is operated negligently or illegally such that the operation or facility is a nuisance."

Neil, the state of concern in this thread is Florida. It is confusing for you to keep speaking of New Mexico and introducing irrelevant information.

 

[NeilTheCop]

Neil, the state of concern in this thread is Florida. It is confusing for you to keep speaking of New Mexico and introducing irrelevant information.

Sorry, but the thread was about attorneys lying in court, and I was actually defending the attorneys by relating my case and the fact that the attorney is only stating information given to him by his client. If that information is a lie, such as in my case, the attorney should not be held responsible.
Florida and New Mexico both have attorneys, and both have liars for clients.

 

[quincy]

Sorry, but the thread was about attorneys lying in court, and I was actually defending the attorneys by relating my case and the fact that the attorney is only stating information given to him by his client. If that information is a lie, such as in my case, the attorney should not be held responsible.
Florida and New Mexico both have attorneys, and both have liars for clients.

Your posts were confusing. It is best to post state-relevant information and not discuss unrelated cases.

This is a Florida thread.

 

[NeilTheCop]

Your posts were confusing. It is best to post state-relevant information and not discuss unrelated cases.

This is a Florida thread.

Understood

 

[quincy]

Understood

Good.

 

[TheVictortheviking]

Be clearer please in what you are asking. How did the lawyer actively lie?

He lied on the response of the complaint on every single point. Even that the defendant worked for the company in question. When the company website shows the man as an employee and his resume on social media shows that he works for the company.

Its like saying that you never worked for a supermarket but your picture is up as the employee of the month on their wall as well as in their employee directory.

 

[TheVictortheviking]

Just because the opposing party has a different story than you doesn't make them a liar nor does it mean you're telling the truth. That's for the court to decide.

The FBI has put people in jail who have committed no crime other than lying on an investigation. If you work for a company for 5 years then you write down you never worked there. Even when you name/profile is on the company website and your online resume show that you wrote shows that you worked for the company. That is lying not a different story.

To keep things simple, lets say I accumulate a mountain of evidence showing a person worked for a company and they knew they worked for the company yet they answered a complaint saying they did not work for a company. Is this false oath?

This is acceptable in the legal system to lie under penalty of perjury?

 

[TheVictortheviking]

A lawyer does not provide the answers to a complaint. The defendant does. A lawyer for the defendant can assist the defendant in drafting the answers, though.

So the attorney can't just claim he was ignorant because he intentionally did not bother to ask his client about what actually happen?

 

[TheVictortheviking]

Take my case. The attorney for the defense stated that his client had been farming the field next to my house for nearly two decades before I purchased my property. The only thing is that I purchased my house in 2005 and my neighbor registered his company and got all his permits in 2012, and he only purchased the field in 2014. So what he claims is a physical impossibility and therefore a blatant lie.
Don't blame the attorney for telling the court what he has been told by his clent, even if they are lies.

What happen in your case? He was farming for 5 years but told the court it was 20? In my case its like a Walmart employee punched you in the face then you sue them and Walmart and they say the guy never worked for walmart despite having a Walmart name tag on, having their picture show up as employee of the month on the wall, having a resume listing that they worked for walmart during the past 5 years including the time when the event happen, so on and so forth.... You know that on subpoena you can show employment records for Walmart. Walmart knows the employee worked for Walmart but decided lie about that fact.

If you can show they lied and they knew they were lying when they did. Can you get any benefit to it? Perhaps a warning for them? Perhaps some penalty? Favor with the judge? etc....

 

[RJR]

He lied on the response of the complaint on every single point. Even that the defendant worked for the company in question. When the company website shows the man as an employee and his resume on social media shows that he works for the company.

Its like saying that you never worked for a supermarket but your picture is up as the employee of the month on their wall as well as in their employee directory.

Surely the Rules permit a response from you to their Answer, state your facts as you see fit and file it.

 

[TheVictortheviking]

The defendant cannot lie in his answer. But given the fairly short time period that a defendant has to file an answer, the lawyer will reply that it either denies an allegation or has no knowledge of the allegation for anything the lawyer cannot confirm prior to the filing of the answer. This is done because under the rules of evidence that are used in many courts the admission of an allegation in the complaint concedes that issue in the lawsuit and a defendant will not want to concede anything unless it certain of it. So it is very common to see answers in which the responses to most allegations are something similar to "deny" or "denies for lack of information". That simply then starts the case putting the plaintiff to the burden of proving the allegations he or she made in the complaint. The denial doesn't hurt the plaintiff other than he/she must prove what he or she said in the complaint, and as the plaintiff is not supposed to allege things that are untrue presumably the plaintiff will be able to do just that.

Thank you for your answer.

Is it considered lying to deny for lack on information on something that you know to be true. Such as that you worked for a company considered the fact that you worked there for the past 10 years?

Or is everything at this stage of the game considered fair game to lie due to as you say the limited time to respond to a complaint?

Thanks.

 

[Taxing Matters]

To keep things simple, lets say I accumulate a mountain of evidence showing a person worked for a company and they knew they worked for the company yet they answered a complaint saying they did not work for a company. Is this false oath?

This is acceptable in the legal system to lie under penalty of perjury?

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.

 

[TheVictortheviking]

Responding with "neither affirm nor deny" is a relatively safe way to answer a complaint when you do not have enough information to know if the claims made in the complaint are true or false.

The answers to the complaint are based on the "truth" as the defendant is telling it to his attorney. While it should be the actual truth, people lie.

It was not " "neither affirm nor deny" which hedges the bets. It was basically denied for lack of knowledge of event or something to that effect.

It was for every single point even on things that are simple and easily known to them such as their place of employment for the past 10 years.

Does any reasonable person not know where they worked for the past 10 years and can't figure that out in the 30 day response time?

Unless they are in a coma or have serious brain damage, I think someone would have to lie when then deny for lack of knowledge of their place of employment especially when they wrote it down on social media and their name and picture are on the company's official directory for their profile.

I have no doubt that they lied on the response however are complaint responses allowed a free pass on the whole " Under penalty of perjury " thing or can this at least be used to maybe gain goodwill with the judge by showing they are operating under bad faith?

 

[TheVictortheviking]

People also err. A person who believes that they are telling the truth but who is mistaken, is not lying.

The person at the company admitted to me what they did several months before the lawsuit. Its not just what they are saying is incorrect, they know its incorrect. If I can show that

1. The information they said is incorrect
2. They knew when writing the response that the information was incorrect.

Is that false oath on the response to the complaint?