Hacker News Reader

Comment by 16s | Hacker News Reader

An omission of fact is a lie. Try doing it under oath. You'll go to jail.

Source - "Also known as a continuing misrepresentation, a lie by omission occurs when an important fact is left out in order to foster a misconception. Lying by omission includes failures to correct pre-existing misconceptions. When the seller of a car declares it has been serviced regularly but does not tell that a fault was reported at the last service, the seller lies by omission. It can be compared to dissimulation" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie

View on HN

I think it's important to realize that what constitutes a lie in a legal framework under oath is often completely different than several of the myriad definitions of lies found in popular culture as well as lies that are civilly actionable in conjunction with sales transactions.

The closest fit from your link (only listed lie I saw that pertained to legal proceedings):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie#Perjury

doesn't speak of omission, but rather only material representations that are verifiably false.

If you're seeing something that I'm not, let me know.

Let's say a DEA agent is testifying and I ask him, "why did you stop the truck?" If he gives me a bunch of malarkey about a unreadable tag or a broken tail light instead of telling me about the NSA intercept, he has committed perjury. Pure and simple.

Whether you fully misrepresent the story (tell a complete lie) or omit a portion of the story (tell a partial lie), they are both still lying. A partial lie is not more noble than a complete one.

Whether you fully misrepresent the story (tell a complete lie) or omit a portion of the story (tell a partial lie), they are both still lying.

This is completely and utterly wrong. Please stop spreading misinformation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perjury

Further, statements that are facts cannot be considered perjury, even if they might arguably constitute an omission

I guess the point that I'm trying to make is that this does not appear to be the case based upon the source you cited.

I take "the whole truth" clause of the oath taken by witnesses to disallow omitting relevant facts.

An omission of fact is a lie. Try doing it under oath. You'll go to jail.

You can see from my comment history that I am vehemently opposed to recent government actions including this one. The prosecution omitting exculpatory evidence is illegal but omitting information under oath is not.

When you are under oath, you are expected to answer the question before you. You are not required or even expected to guess or to elaborate. I've heard from many attorneys I've been a client of that you need to make opposing counsel "work for it". If they ask a broad question, answer narrowly. If you're asked, "Have you ever done anything wrong?", it's not your duty to list everything wrong you've ever done in your life going back to the time you tripped Timmy in third grade at recess.

"The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth."

You obviously have a hard time understanding what you quoted means. Here is an easier to understand citation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perjury

Further, statements that are facts cannot be considered perjury, even if they might arguably constitute an omission

No offense, but it's very obvious you have no or very limited experience in court proceedings. Please quit while you are ahead.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com