# What is this flavor of deceiving/lying to the court called? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [August 27, 2014, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-flavor-of-deceiving-lying-to-the-court-called/696666 "2014-08-27T19:01:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![dstarfire](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dstarfire/32/5762_2.png) [@dstarfire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dstarfire)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2014, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-flavor-of-deceiving-lying-to-the-court-called/696666/1 "2014-08-27T19:01:09Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2014, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-flavor-of-deceiving-lying-to-the-court-called/696666/2 "2014-08-27T19:22:00Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![jtur88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e9c0ed/32.png) [@jtur88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jtur88)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2014, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-flavor-of-deceiving-lying-to-the-court-called/696666/3 "2014-08-27T19:24:26Z")
Yes, I think the term you are looking for is “perjury”. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2014, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-flavor-of-deceiving-lying-to-the-court-called/696666/4 "2014-08-27T19:26:28Z")
Evading the truth. Exaggeration. Stonewalling. ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2014, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-flavor-of-deceiving-lying-to-the-court-called/696666/5 "2014-08-27T19:27:58Z")
> [@jtur88](#): > > Yes, I think the term you are looking for is “perjury”. 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. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2014, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-flavor-of-deceiving-lying-to-the-court-called/696666/6 "2014-08-27T19:28:48Z")
> [@jtur88](#): > > Yes, I think the term you are looking for is “perjury”. 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”. ---
**Author:** ![dstarfire](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dstarfire/32/5762_2.png) [@dstarfire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dstarfire)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2014, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-flavor-of-deceiving-lying-to-the-court-called/696666/7 "2014-08-28T00:44:02Z")
> [@jtur88](#): > > Yes, I think the term you are looking for is “perjury”. So, there’s no legal distinction between a statement that’s “mostly true” and an outright lie? That sounds suspiciously sensible for the courts. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2014, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-flavor-of-deceiving-lying-to-the-court-called/696666/8 "2014-08-28T03:17:39Z")
> [@Procrustus](#): > > 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. 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.” ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2014, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-flavor-of-deceiving-lying-to-the-court-called/696666/9 "2014-08-28T04:11:34Z")
> [@dstarfire](#): > > So, there’s no legal distinction between a statement that’s “mostly true” and an outright lie? That sounds suspiciously sensible for the courts. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/46a35a/32.png) [@Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tim_T-Bonham.net)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2014, 5:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-flavor-of-deceiving-lying-to-the-court-called/696666/10 "2014-08-28T05:36:26Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > 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.” Or that only the files for my currently active cases are in my office; the rest are kept in the file room down the hall. ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2014, 12:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-flavor-of-deceiving-lying-to-the-court-called/696666/11 "2014-08-28T12:27:51Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2014, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-flavor-of-deceiving-lying-to-the-court-called/696666/12 "2014-08-28T13:57:17Z")
> [@dstarfire](#): > > So, there’s no legal distinction between a statement that’s “mostly true” and an outright lie? That sounds suspiciously sensible for the courts. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2014, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-flavor-of-deceiving-lying-to-the-court-called/696666/13 "2014-08-28T15:09:33Z")
> [@md2000](#): > > 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?” ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2014, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-flavor-of-deceiving-lying-to-the-court-called/696666/14 "2014-08-28T15:19:01Z")
> [@LSLGuy](#): > > 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. That oath is not widely used in US courts, and even if it was, it don’t think it expands the witnesses obligation, which is simply to tell the truth. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2014, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-flavor-of-deceiving-lying-to-the-court-called/696666/15 "2014-08-28T17:14:43Z")
Beyond that, “we don’t have X document requested in discovery” is generally going to take the form of an attorney’s attestation rather than testimony. ---
**Author:** ![Valgard](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/7feea3/32.png) [@Valgard](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Valgard)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2014, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-flavor-of-deceiving-lying-to-the-court-called/696666/16 "2014-08-28T17:24:00Z")
> [@Procrustus](#): > > That oath is not widely used in US courts, and even if it was, it don’t think it expands the witnesses obligation, which is simply to tell the truth. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2014, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-flavor-of-deceiving-lying-to-the-court-called/696666/17 "2014-08-28T17:28:03Z")
> [@Valgard](#): > > 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. I’ve seen it, but it’s rare, in my experience. Maybe we see it on TV and movies because it’s used in Califirnia ---
**Author:** ![dstarfire](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dstarfire/32/5762_2.png) [@dstarfire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dstarfire)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2014, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-flavor-of-deceiving-lying-to-the-court-called/696666/18 "2014-08-28T18:09:49Z")
Thanks, UDS that explains it a lot better. I guess it’d be contempt of court since it would have been stated in their response to the courts order. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2014, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-flavor-of-deceiving-lying-to-the-court-called/696666/19 "2014-08-28T18:13:06Z")
> [@UDS](#): > > 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. Nitpick: a knowing false statement made in a _verified_ pleading can be perjury (at least in some jurisdictions). ---
**Author:** ![dstarfire](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dstarfire/32/5762_2.png) [@dstarfire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dstarfire)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2014, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-flavor-of-deceiving-lying-to-the-court-called/696666/20 "2014-08-28T19:51:50Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Nitpick: a knowing false statement made in a _verified_ pleading can be perjury (at least in some jurisdictions). 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). _steals nit back and tosses it on the pile_