What is the legal term for saying something is definitely not available, when you don’t actually know that to be true? In other words, you say “that’s 100% not true” when you only know it’s 90% not true (and are aware that there’s another 10% you don’t know the details of).
This is inspired by the ongoing debacle with the IRS refusing a FOIA (freedom of inro act) request because they accidentally destroyed the requested information. Recently it turns out they have backups of that info, but thought extracting that specific information from the backups was too onerous.
That scenario isn’t exactly what you’re asking though. If you’re asked in court, you can say, “To the best of my knowledge…” The IRS saying that they do not have that information when they do is lying.
Maybe, if under oath. Maybe “contempt of court.” Lying seems to fit too. If I tell a judge “I’ve searched every file in my office and don’t have a copy of that letter,” my claim better be absolutely and literally true. Lawyers are experts at leaving wiggle room. “after a diligent search, no letter was found” is harder to pin down as false.
Judges get really wound up and excited if you use such a direct term as “perjury” or “liar”. Less so for “misrepresentation” and “fabrication”. They don’t even interrupt their daydreaming fantasies if you say “misleading”.
And what I meant by that was “I’ve searched every file in my office and I found the letter you’re asking about but which I then destroyed so now I don’t have a copy of that letter.”
The important distinction is not between “mostly true” and “downright lie”. It’s between “materially true” and “materially false”.
“Materially” here doesn’t mean substantially or largely; it means in a way that matters. So if I say that I spent eight days searching my office and I found no trace of a particular document, and the actual fact is that I spend seven (or nine) days on the search, the actual number of days is probably not material. But if I say that I have searched everywhere the file is likely to be, and in fact while I searched a lot of places I failed to search my backup archives, that statement is false in a material respect.
The other material distinction is, where is the statement made? It’s only perjury if it’s a statement given in evidence. A statement made in the pleadings, as a procedural matter, might turn out to be false (in a material respect) and that might attract sanctions, and it could be contempt of court, but it’s not perjury.
Under oath you also have the issue (in the US at least), that the oath is to “tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.”
Omitting to mention details contrary to your interest fails the “whole truth” test. As explained by UDS materiality is the relevant standard for what constitutes violation here.
This is where precision in wording is important, which is why legalese is a language unto itself. Normal conversation consists of a collection of assumptions and shortcuts. Sometimes the definition of “is” is in question when attempting to be precise.
It’s also why lawyers usually ask a series of yes or no questions. To use the example that’s been given, they wouldn’t just let you say something like “I’ve looked for the letter and I don’t have it.”
Instead you’ll get something like this:
“Did you look for the letter?”
“Did you look for it in all of the places where such a letter might have been filed?”
“Do you know of any other locations where this letter might be?”
“Do you know of anyone else who might have knowledge of the letter’s location?”
“Do you know of any plans to remove or relocate the letter?”
“Did you find the letter?”
“Do you now have the letter in your possession?”
“Has there been any point since this suit was filed during which you had the letter in your possession?”
Interesting. I was on jury duty recently here in California and every witness was sworn in to tell “the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth”. I assumed that was still the standard oath.
D*mnit, Bright!! This is why people hate lawyers and courts. Just when we think we’ve got something figured out they have to throw in a permanent and universal (i.e. precedent-setting) exception. Even worse, the exceptions are almost always rational and reasonable-sounding (once you understand it well enough).