Would a SAO file a perjury charge if I submitted a Probable Cause Packet (Perjury) based on facts listed below, had a pre-file advocacy, and someone to assist with prosecution engineering?

Location: FL

1. SWORN PETITION – ASSERTION OF OBJECTIVE ACTS (UNDER OATH)

In the verified petition, Petitioner swore to categories that assert specific, objective conduct, including:
“Attempted to harm the petitioner…”

“Used, or has threatened to use, against the petitioner any weapons such as guns or knives.”

“Physically restrained the petitioner from leaving the home or calling law enforcement.”

Conduct constituting domestic violence under Florida law

These are not statements of general fear; they assert the occurrence of discrete acts.

2. SUBSEQUENT LEGAL CONSEQUENCE

The Court relied on these sworn assertions to issue a temporary injunction, which was subsequently used as a predicate for criminal charges in Case No. XYZ

3. LATER SWORN TESTIMONY – DENIAL OF THE SAME ACTS

Civil Deposition (Under Oath)
“He never pointed a weapon at me.” (Depo XX:XX)

Criminal Deposition (Under Oath)
“No, he did not [threaten me physically]. He didn’t verbally.” (Depo XX:XX)

“No… physical violence, no. Physical harm, no.” (Depo XX:XX)

4. IRRECONCILABLE CONTRADICTION (BINARY)
These statements cannot all be true:
The petition asserts attempted harm, weapon use/threat, and physical restraint (objective acts).

The later sworn testimony denies any physical threat, any physical harm, and any weapon use.

If no physical threat, no harm, and no weapon use occurred, then the sworn assertions of attempted harm, weapon threat/use, and restraint did not occur.

The statements are mutually exclusive and concern material facts.

5. MATERIALITY
The asserted acts (weapon use/threat, attempted harm, restraint) are central elements supporting:
Imminent danger

Credible threat of violence

These assertions were relied upon by the Court and carried direct legal consequences, including the initiation of criminal proceedings.

6. CONTEMPORANEOUS CONTEXT (NON-ARGUMENTATIVE)

May 12, 2024: Petitioner moved out and obtained a separate lease (copy retained).

July 20, 2024: Petitioner wrote, “I know you would never hurt anyone.”

July 21, 2024: Doorbell footage shows a voluntary, peaceful visit, including entry into the home.

July 24, 2024: Respondent filed for divorce and a Florida Bar complaint.

July 26, 2024: Petition filed.

(Provided for context of timing; not offered as a legal conclusion.)

7. KNOWLEDGE / ADOPTION

Petitioner:

Executed the petition under oath, adopting its contents as true

Later denied the occurrence of the same acts under oath

Petitioner also stated:
The petition involved third-party assistance

She did not fully understand the language

Notwithstanding, execution under oath constitutes adoption of the factual assertions.

8. DEFENSE NEUTRALIZATION (INTAKE OBJECTIONS ADDRESSED)

A. “Fear vs. Threat” (interpretation)
The petition does not rely solely on fear; it asserts objective acts: attempted harm, weapon use/threat, physical restraint.

Later testimony denies the occurrence of those acts.
This is a fact contradiction, not a difference in interpretation.

B. “Implied vs. Explicit Threat”
Petition asserts weapon use/threat (specific conduct).

Testimony denies any physical threat and any weapon use. If no such acts occurred, the asserted conduct is false.

C. “Language / Third-Party Drafting”
Petitioner signed under oath, adopting the statements.

She later disclaimed the occurrence of the same acts. The contradiction exists regardless of authorship.

D. “Emotional Context / Subjective Fear”
The contradiction concerns objective acts, not subjective feelings.

The sworn denials remove the factual basis for those acts.

E. “Mistake / Confusion”
The denials are clear and repeated across two sworn proceedings. This is not a single ambiguous statement.

9. CONCLUSION

Petitioner made sworn statements asserting specific acts of domestic violence (weapon use/threat, attempted harm, restraint) that are irreconcilably inconsistent with her later sworn testimony denying those same acts.

These statements cannot simultaneously be true and concern material facts that produced judicial and criminal consequences.