TO put it Simply, Hyndman and Agarwal F#@ked up!
You may recall, from a previous post on this website, back in late 2018 Rob Hyndman admitted himself to a clinic in Maryland to be treated for PTSD and Opioid addiction, while coincidentally the criminal pretrial was also taking place. Rob Hyndman and his lawyer, Rahool Agarwal, knew that Hyndman would be summoned to be cross-examined regarding the blatant lies which he stated within his sworn affidavit.
PTSD and drug addiction are both very serious illnesses, and the severity of each should not be diminished. However, Rob Hyndman did just that by admitting himself mere weeks before a likely cross examination was to take place.
Rahool Agarwal then sent a letter to the judge stating that Hyndman would be at the clinic for several months and as a result would not be available for cross-examination on his affidavits.
Keep in mind, Hyndman has already committed one criminal act of perjury when he willfully submitted his sworn and untruthful affidavit. And now, after much investigating, we’ve uncovered that Hyndman has lied to the courts once again. We had our suspicions, but, we were able to confirm from sources within the OPFFA that Rob Hyndman secretly returned to Canada for several days from the clinic to tend to OPFFA business. Hyndman and Agarwal had told the judge he’d be in the Maryland Clinic and unavailable for Court due to PTSD and opioids. However, Hyndman had no issue with sneaking back home to Canada to handle OPFFA business.
This is referred to as criminal malingering: the deliberate feigning of symptoms or grossly exaggerating existing ones for the purpose of avoiding legal ramifications. I couldn’t tell you the penalty committing this fraud but I suspect it would be at least as severe as the penalty for perjury, which can carry a maximum 14 year prison sentence.
Who knows whether Hyndman will face jail time for these crimes? But one thing that is for certain, he (the OPFFA, and Rahool Agarwal) will lose all credibility in Court.
The entire purpose of going to court is to get to the truth. In court there is nothing more important than revealing the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
When a judge is evaluating whether or not someone is telling the whole truth, they are basically assessing that person’s credibility. In giving evidence, there is nothing more critical than a person’s credibility. As a matter of fact, an entire case can depend on one side’s credibility versus the credibility of the opposing side.
During the coming trial, when Hyndman’s lies are revealed (believe it or not, neither Hyndman nor Santoro has testified yet), how credible will he, the OPFFA, and Agarwal appear to the Judge?
Next Mission: prove Agarwal knew that Hyndman returned to Canada.