Fraud, Embezzlement, Bad Checks Attorney perjury within a motion and supporting affidavit

[dwdw]

Jurisdiction

Massachusetts

Perjury is a criminal offence in Massachusetts.

Why don't the police investigate perjury crimes even when they are provided evidence supported by multiple sources?

When did it become ok for attorneys to commit perjury in their motions and affidavits?

Why won't the Board of Bar Overseers commit to doing anything about an attorney's perjury even when they are provided evidence supported by multiple sources?

Why do the many attorneys believe that perjury committed by attorneys is something that no one will ever prosecute criminally?

 

[adjusterjack]

Your opinion that somebody committed perjury is meaningless unless you can prove it when it happens.

For example, if an attorney (or anybody else) files a motion or a pleading that includes a false statement, you file a response with your objections to that statement and you provide your EVIDENCE that it is false.

If you can't, won't, or didn't, do that (at the time) "nor all your piety nor wit shall lure it back to cancel half a line nor all your tears wash out a word of it."

 

[dwdw]

So based on your response, the statute of limitations is met instantaneously. If you are not aware of the perjury at that time, you lose the motion or for me the case entirely. And even with perjury being a criminal activity, you will get no justice. I went to the effort of filing a civil lawsuit because of lies, and what I got... were more lies.

 

[adjusterjack]

So based on your response, the statute of limitations is met instantaneously.

What does the statute of limitations have to do with anything? A statute of limitations is a deadline for filing a lawsuit. Has nothing to do with pleadings and filings during a lawsuit.

If you are not aware of the perjury at that time, you lose the motion or for me the case entirely.

Yes, pretty much.

I went to the effort of filing a civil lawsuit because of lies, and what I got... were more lies.

"Saying" lies is not the same as "proving" lies. And there are ways to get judgments set aside on the grounds of "fraud upon the court" if you can "prove" it.

My guess is that you filed a lawsuit on your own, had no idea what you were doing, and got steamrolled by your opponent's attorney.

 

[dwdw]

I used the statute of limitations only as an analogy and in this case I believe that analogy is valid. I have deposition testimony that prove beyond a reasonable doubt that perjury was committed. Those depositions occurred 5 months after the perjury was committed. I did have an attorney, prior to the case being dismissed without prejudice. The attorney I had was not the most strategic thinker and that did not help matters. Call me paranoid, but at times I thought he was working for the opposing council.

 

[mightymoose]

A person must KNOWINGLY make false statements. Making false statements that you believe are true is just a result of having a different opinion.
Can you prove the person KNEW the statements were wrong, or just that the statements were inaccurate?

 

[adjusterjack]

"Dismissed without prejudice" means you can refile your lawsuit.

If you were not satisfied with your previous attorney, hire a different one.

Ranting about injustice will not get you anywhere.

 

[mightymoose]

Why do the many attorneys believe that perjury committed by attorneys is something that no one will ever prosecute criminally?

Attorneys do not testify in court. Their statements are not evidence.

 

[dwdw]

The opposing council made false and misleading statements in an opposition motion, and the supporting affidavit, that she filed with the court. These statements were intended to mislead the court. And as I stated earlier, the proof of the perjury came from depositions. Yes, I do have proof that the opposing council knew the statements were false and misleading.

 

[army judge]

I'm an attorney.
I've been one for 40 decades, succeeded without lying.
I've had many clients, non-attorneys tell many lies.
Lies, alone, do not perjury make.

 

[dwdw]

I have no intention of ever filing another civil lawsuit. The cost was both financially and psychologically draining. It took 10 months of my life... and I feel I have aged 5 years. When I started I had the belief that the courts were there to support and provide a mechanism for the little people to get some small measure of justice. I no longer believe that and I have little or no respect for the legal process. The legal system may work well in some instances, but the process seems too easily corrupted by malicious / legal methods used by attorneys.

 

[dwdw]

I'm an attorney.
I've been one for 40 decades, succeeded without lying.
I've had many clients, non-attorneys tell many lies.
Lies, alone, do not perjury make.

Sounds like a fortune cookie, and just about as helpful.

 

[leslie82]

I have no intention of ever filing another civil lawsuit. The cost was both financially and psychologically draining. It took 10 months of my life... and I feel I have aged 5 years. When I started I had the belief that the courts were there to support and provide a mechanism for the little people to get some small measure of justice. I no longer believe that and I have little or no respect for the legal process. The legal system may work well in some instances, but the process seems too easily corrupted by malicious / legal methods used by attorneys.

You think the courts are there for the "little people" to get justice?? HA!

The legal system does work some people just don't like the outcome. Also realize it was created by humans who are flawed - so then any system we create has flaws.

 

[adjusterjack]

I'm an attorney.
I've been one for 40 decades,

That's 400 years. I'll buy whatever you're using.

 

[army judge]

I have no intention of ever filing another civil lawsuit. The cost was both financially and psychologically draining. It took 10 months of my life... and I feel I have aged 5 years. When I started I had the belief that the courts were there to support and provide a mechanism for the little people to get some small measure of justice. I no longer believe that and I have little or no respect for the legal process. The legal system may work well in some instances, but the process seems too easily corrupted by malicious / legal methods used by attorneys.

The courts are part of this thing some call government.
The thing that confiscates your wages, and taxes your purchases because they're government.

You've learned government wears a cloak of lies.

Governments are evil.

They do what they wish to anyone.

They do it with impunity.

Governments talk of gang violence, and leave out the biggest, baddest gangs of all.

Welcome to the enlightenment.

 

[Highwayman]

That's 400 years. I'll buy whatever you're using.

You beat me to the punch. Count me in on the deal!

 

[dwdw]

That's 400 years. I'll buy whatever you're using.

If we assume that he is not immortal... then I would guess today he told his first lie. Admittedly not perjury, and I suppose it may seem like it has been 400 years.

 

[army judge]

That's 400 years. I'll buy whatever you're using.

Lies are often easy to conceal. LOL

However, some lies can be explained by misstatement of facts.

Often it is simply a misspoken comment, or in a writing, typo.

Some lies, can defeat a perjury charge, such as claiming to have done something for 40 decades.

A lie alone doesn't constitute perjury.

I leave you with former president Clinton.

 

[army judge]

Lies are often easy to conceal. LOL

Lies alone don't make it perjury.

The US Attorneys Office says this about perjury:

The third element of a perjury offense is proof of specific intent, that is, that the defendant made the false statement with knowledge of its falsity, rather than as a result of confusion, mistake or faulty memory. United States v. Dunnigan, 507 U.S. 87, 94 (1993). Section 1621 requires that the defendant have acted "willfully"; the section 1623 requirement is to act "knowingly." In practice, these standards are virtually identical, although the government need not prove both willfulness and knowledge to sustain a section 1623 prosecution. United States v. Fornaro, 894 F.2d 508, 512 (2d Cir. 1990). Under either statute, the government must demonstrate the defendant voluntarily made the false statement with knowledge of its falsity. If the defendant believed his or her statement to be true when it was made, even though it was false, this essential element will not have been proven. See this Manual at 1753.

1747. Elements Of Perjury -- Specific Intent | USAM | Department of Justice

The first type of perjury involves statements made under oath, and requires proof that:

A person took an oath to truthfully testify, declare, depose, or certify, verbally or in writing;
The person made a statement that was not true;
The person knew the statement to be untrue;
The person made the false statement willfully; and
The subject matter of the statement was material to the proceeding in which it was made.
The second type of perjury involves unsworn statements, and requires proof that:

A person made an unsworn declaration as permitted by federal law;
The statement was made "under penalty of perjury";
The person willfully made a statement that he or she did not believe to be true; and
The subject matter of the statement was material.
State laws defining perjury are generally similar to the federal statute. Ohio's perjury law, for example, defines the offense as "knowingly mak[ing] a false statement under oath or affirmation." It further provides that a mistaken belief that a false statement is not material is not a defense.

Perjury Overview :: Justia

Specific intent.

A lie told without the intent to deceive, even if told under oath, isn't perjurious.

Specific intent.

These days, you break one of their laws, you'll be prosecuted.

 

[dwdw]

Lies are often easy to conceal. LOL

Lies alone don't make it perjury.

The US Attorneys Office says this about perjury:

The third element of a perjury offense is proof of specific intent, that is, that the defendant made the false statement with knowledge of its falsity, rather than as a result of confusion, mistake or faulty memory. United States v. Dunnigan, 507 U.S. 87, 94 (1993). Section 1621 requires that the defendant have acted "willfully"; the section 1623 requirement is to act "knowingly." In practice, these standards are virtually identical, although the government need not prove both willfulness and knowledge to sustain a section 1623 prosecution. United States v. Fornaro, 894 F.2d 508, 512 (2d Cir. 1990). Under either statute, the government must demonstrate the defendant voluntarily made the false statement with knowledge of its falsity. If the defendant believed his or her statement to be true when it was made, even though it was false, this essential element will not have been proven. See this Manual at 1753.

1747. Elements Of Perjury -- Specific Intent | USAM | Department of Justice

The first type of perjury involves statements made under oath, and requires proof that:

A person took an oath to truthfully testify, declare, depose, or certify, verbally or in writing;
The person made a statement that was not true;
The person knew the statement to be untrue;
The person made the false statement willfully; and
The subject matter of the statement was material to the proceeding in which it was made.
The second type of perjury involves unsworn statements, and requires proof that:

A person made an unsworn declaration as permitted by federal law;
The statement was made "under penalty of perjury";
The person willfully made a statement that he or she did not believe to be true; and
The subject matter of the statement was material.
State laws defining perjury are generally similar to the federal statute. Ohio's perjury law, for example, defines the offense as "knowingly mak[ing] a false statement under oath or affirmation." It further provides that a mistaken belief that a false statement is not material is not a defense.

Perjury Overview :: Justia

Specific intent.

A lie told without the intent to deceive, even if told under oath, isn't perjurious.

Specific intent.

These days, you break one of their laws, you'll be prosecuted.

The perjury I refer to meets all of the criteria for perjury in both the motion and the affidavit. The intent was to mislead the court, and it was successful. The attorney was aware of the elements of perjury, and so was the person listed in the certificate of service of the motion.