Although that is sound advice, unless the question was leading to whether he dropped his house on top of the wicked witch causing her death, no one is going in front of a judge to get a communications data warrant in the off chance that someone went anonymously on a message board and said that he lied about owning a house. I know as a law speaking guy you feel the obligation to give the warning and there is nothing wrong with that but the chances of it biting him in the ass in this case is very very small.
I don’t know, you might be surprised. Facebook posts are constantly causing people pains in the ass; while an SDMB post is less likely to be immediately tied to a person, all it takes is one person whose interests are affected to know it exists. They don’t have to have a judge sign off on collecting the guy’s lifetime internet history, they just have to say “did you post this?” and let him decide whether or not to further perjure himself.
Yes it is a possibility. It is also an extremely remote possibility.
You’re most likely correct. But weighed against that small chance is no real benefit – that is, he gains no legal advantage from posting the admission, and incurs a possible – small, but possible – detriment.
And given that posts on the SDMB are indexed by Google, and that particular reasoning he advanced – that “a home is a construct thought” – is on the unusual side, I’d advise him to err on the side of caution.
I think small is still overstating the chances. We have no name, location or context for this house is not a home perjury. If authorities are chasing down his lie there are a dozen easier ways to check up on him than demanding IP records from every website that mentions “a home is a construct” - especially when they shouldn’t even know that’s his reasoning.
Sometimes we are too smart for our own selves.
This is a dumb thing to be arguing about, but how about this: our OP is locked in an extremely hostile custody battle. His perjury occurred in the filing of an application to proceed in forma pauperis, so he wouldn’t have to pay filing fees on his custody petitions. His ex-wife knows that he posts here and knows, now, that he lied on that application. She tells her lawyer, who is now going to bring up his documented penchant for dishonesty in legal proceedings at the next hearing on her petition for modification of custody.
Anything like that ever happen?
Minor historical aside: I think the phrase “a house which is not a home” was a euphemism, a century or so ago, for a whorehouse.
Do you people win lotteries? Yes I am sure it’s happened. If he posted this on Facebook, popular and set up for easy “stalking” there could be something to worry about. Here they’d have to know about this website, his username and run periodic searches. He has a lot more to worry about the fact that he has a house that would assuredly come up in a custody battle and someone remembering about the form.
I just talked to my lawyer and she says I have nothing to worry about (whew). I was just very anxious about this last night. Someone is suing me and I claimed under oath that I have no assets. Apparently, I don’t have enough equity in my home (err, I meant house) and I wasn’t perjuring myself.
I always suspected that Dionne Warwick was a prostitute.