How to Avoid Going to Jail Under 18 U.S.C. For Lying to Government Agents
corporate.findlaw.com
corporate.findlaw.com
If you take a job at a health provider that you later learn is corrupt, and later knowingly transport false vouchers as part of your job while otherwise avoiding direct participation with the more overtly criminal parts of the enterprise, you are a criminal. What you're doing is wrong. Put into that situation unexpectedly, you must either quit, or immediately report your employer (and, presumably, then quit). You can't knowingly accept a paycheck from a criminal enterprise if doing so requires you to help carry out criminal actions. The law says that's criminal, but even if you don't care about that, so does the social contract.
Are you less culpable than the owners? Sure, of course you are. But this article chose I think a really terrible example, one that creates a false sense of what it means for someone to be incidentally and unjustly swept up in a crime they themselves tried to avoid.
We in this industry all need to be taking more responsibility for our individual actions and the net impact they have on society.
A better case is: you are a healthcare worker. A federal agent asks you about your ex-employer. You always had a bad feeling about that company but you put in your 40 hours for your paycheck and kids' health insurance. Perfectly willing to help the investigation, you answer truthfully. You are asked about a co-worker you slept with after you had met your girlfriend, but before you started dating. Your girlfriend is in the room. Thinking it doesn't matter and not wanting to discuss it with a stranger in front of your girlfriend, you lie. Turns out the co-worker was involved. If the prosecutor decides he doesn't like you, congratulations you are now a federal felon. You don't even need a fun story about a personal relationship: say you misremember something. Or someone else does, and contradicts your truthful story but the feds think you're the one who's lying.
Also I'm not sure the label "criminal" is a useful one. It's almost certainly the case that every adult US citizen is a criminal. They simply haven't been caught yet. Every modern US president has admitted in public to being a criminal (drugs). The expanse of laws is so vast, vague, complex, interpretable and arbitrary it's impossible to not break one. If there were consequences for every lawbreaking act, everyone would be in jail and there would be no-one left to prosecute or to do the prosecuting.
I agree that the labels aren't helpful, but it's vitally important to society that employees don't kid themselves about their responsibility (and culpability). Many employees are paid and treated abusively by their employers. Nonetheless, they cannot allow themselves to become instruments of crimes.
To be fair, the statute does say you must knowingly and willingly be lying. Theoretically, that would be on the feds to prove. Of course, I don't think it's possible to prove whether someone knows something. But if they can prove that you at one time did know, or with a perfect memory should have known... I don't know how that works. Would it be a coin flip at that point whether the jury would believe that you simply "misremembered"?
1. Worked with you.
2. Is neck-deep in the criminal enterprise.
3. Is testifying for the promise of leniency of immunity.
4. And is quite happy to throw the CEO, the CFO, and, since the FBI asked him about your name, you under the bus.
Regardless of whether or not his claims are true, he will be happy to testify that yes, you absolutely knew about the criminality, because you discussed it with him at lunch, and did nothing about it.
This may, or may not be true. He may or may not have misremembered this conversation. He may be trying to save his ass. Either way, it's your word against his, and the prosecutor, who pleads to the jury that there is no possible way you didn't know about your involvement.
You may well be found innocent, but you never want to put yourself in this position. Talking to the police is just giving them more rope to try to hang you with.
Harvey Silverglate, a Harvard law grad who works as an attorney, estimates the average American commits three felonies per day. He published an entire book on the topic[1]. The number is probably a lot higher for people who have built or served as directors of a company.
1) http://thinkaboutnow.com/2016/07/average-americans-commit-3-...
The most commonly commotted one is lying to an employer to claim a paid sick today... And frankly it's unclear to me why people thing that's acceptable, but taking $100 from a convenient store cash register is not.
Another common one is people borrowing parents from their parents to make a down payment on a house. Lots of people do it, but the sentence for using such a loan and not disclosing it is 30 years.
This particular violation is referred to as a "head shot" by investigators looking for something with which to nail a suspect.
http://davidsimon.com/kwame-brown-another-federal-case-anoth...
This doesn't detract from your point! Any felony conviction is a nightmare for someone just trying to build up a down payment for a house! But the way we talk about sentencing needs to be more sophisticated.
Uber was literally hiring contractors for the purpose of breaking the law, in one case actively recruited a driver from a county where it was was legal to a county where it was illegal (driver was arrested), provided drivers training on how to avoid police detection, and even provided at least Miami drivers a lawyer when charged (lawyer was an Uber lobbiest not a traffic lawyer).
Net impact on society: a bunch of rides subsidized by VC money and a lot of unemployed/underemployed workers left with marks on their driving record or criminal records which likely caused them to lose their Uber job and further hurting their chances of future employment.
Very few people care about the direct negative externalities you mentioned, including here in HN.
Nobody should have criminal liability for actions they took on the direction of their employer, while the employer gets away without consequence. Otherwise we should all get law degrees for free.
If you don't want to come out and point blank refuse you can always say that you can't do it because you're not that good. That's a perfectly valid excuse and one that I've used on occasion. (Long story, maybe one day.)
Most people don't have that flexibility.
> chose I think a really terrible example, one that creates a false sense of what it means for someone to be incidentally and unjustly swept up in a crime
I think the author chose an example from their own experience. Just because it seems ridiculous, doesn't change its accuracy.
I think it is quite relevant because it gets past the people who "can't believe that such a thing would happen to them".
actively committing a crime ("stealing cars") v. passively committing a crime (failing to do something or looking the other way)
Also ignoring intent, People don't unintentionally steal a car. People can unintentionally fill out a form or misunderstand or be unaware of the requirements of the law.
Additionally, theft is ingrained into the fabric of society and religion. Following some sort of government reporting requirement is not included in any religious teaching that I am aware of.
I am talking instead about a situation where an employee knows the organization is corrupt, and then knowingly and actively participates in some of those criminal actions. You can't deliver vouchers you know to be fraudulent. If you do, you are and should be criminally liable. Large-scale organized fraud depends in part on the willingness of every cog in the organization to perpetuate the criminal enterprise.
At least as reported, petty theft seems quite rare; poor people qualify for food stamps, food banks, etc., or just beg/panhandle for money, so there aren't many cases. This profile of them suggests most shoplifters do it more for the thrill than any kind of necessity: http://www.shopliftingprevention.org/what-we-do/learning-res...
Most people really don't have the flexibility to not quit. See, if you don't then you could easily end up in the kind of trouble that will cause your life to go right off the good path and onto a terrible one. Keep in mind that simply committing one crime makes you more likely to commit others just because you are now vulnerable. That tactic has caused many smart and otherwise good people to lose their bearings.
Because at the end of the day, you know you can probably get away with institutional crime quite easily, but not with petty theft. And most people know what the consequences of the latter are, but not so for the former.
I'm not suggesting it, I'm saying it.
I am NOT saying "feels" - I am saying "they do NOT have the flexibility to quit".
For example, my sister and her husband do not have that flexibility. They are at the limit of what their "barely above minimum wage" jobs support. They have some savings and they are very good about managing their resources; however they are a job loss or injury away from going negative and both work in jobs that are physically demanding.
https://www.popehat.com/2015/05/29/dennis-hastert-and-federa...
It is very disturbing that we live in a society with laws so obscure to the common person. Unless you know this "one weird trick to avoid indictment under Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001", your life is held potentially at the whim of some random prosecutor. Such detachment of one's legal fate from one's actions has no place in modern lawful society.
Information asymmetry is one of the primary sources of power disparity. Dividing those subject to whimsical prosecution into the "in-the-knows" and "know-nots" – whether through this law, civil forfeiture, the obscure tax code, or pay-to-play building codes – is a progenitor of the police state. Free society requires transparent law.
If you're not in the US, it's worth checking out what your own local jurisdiction expects - all the items in the Don't Talk to the Police video still stand (because they're about human psychology, not points of law), so it's worth knowing how much you can just shut up around police.
https://www.judcom.nsw.gov.au/publications/benchbks/criminal...
http://www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/blog/police-want-fur...
http://www.legalaid.nsw.gov.au/publications/factsheets-and-r...
1.) You're a government employee, and thus not answering will result in your losing your employment
2.) You're working for a private employer who states that continued employment in contingent upon being interviewed
3.) You are the officer or director of a company that is regulated, or does business with the federal government, and not being interviewed could result in sanctions from the federal government.
I don't see it prudent to submit to an interview even when the agents assure you that the interview is only administrative or that they are not investigating you.
Other people, with advice of counsel and hopefully with counsel present, may find it appropriate in those instances to be interviewed rather than lose employment or face federal sanctions.
https://www.popehat.com/tag/shut-up/
His writing makes for accessible, knowledgeable and amusing posts on a very serious topic and are extremely well worth a read. But the summary version is pretty straight forward: there is no such thing as an out-of-the-blue innocent visit from Law Enforcement, ever. This is kind of common sense when you stop think about it: agents are not free and budget is not infinite. If they are actually devoting an actual warm body to talk to you, particularly a warm body to visit you, it is always, always potentially serious. It is not on a lark, they did not roll some dice and have your number come up for a community chat. They're talking to you for a reason and given their fundamental purpose that reason may be quite bad for you, whether you did anything wrong or not. The true super power of government is patience and grinding, relentless inertia. By the time they talk to you odds are high that they have already done their research, extensively. They have a legal theory and narrative already in mind. If the Feds are knocking it's time to get a lawyer, period, particularly if you're fully innocent.
I called the agents and they asked if I could meet them at their office. I agreed.
I had invested in a project with an out of state person. He was referred to me by a close friend. When I stopped sending money, the person disappeared. This person had a reputable background, a family and lived in an expensive house. But he'd call me crying begging for money, claiming other investors were closing soon.
I being young and foolish, contacted his partners and my friend. I could had handled it better but I knew I hadn't broken any laws. I did tell him I'd tell everyone he knew that he was a con-artist.
The FBI agents were comically dense. One was dressed in tactical gear. They claimed they had an email I sent where I threatened the investor's young children. I strongly denied this and then asked to see it.
They refused to show me and responded, "We are the Federal Bureau of Investigation not the Federal Bureau of Information". Then they asked me if I was a member of a foreign intelligence service but mispronounced the name.
They told me not to contact the person and I should consider a lawsuit.
Before I met with them, I did ask a US based intel person what he thought. He said FBI agents are sometimes employed by private interests and that I should ask for identification and verify it with the local branch. I'm not sure if this is actually true but it certainly wasn't in my case.
I felt stupid, and irritated, afterwards.
Certainly some agents are extremely bright, and if you are involved or connected to a serious crime, there's likely to be agents interviewing you trained in deception.
That sounds like it could be a ploy. If you correct them, it proves you know about the agency.
In retrospect, I probably still should have hedged, said "let me see if he's in" and got his okay first. Even if they do mean well, it costs nothing to be cautious.
Yeah, I wouldn't put it past a cop to lie to you about returning his wallet.
1. you know a crime happened around you recently;
2. you saw/heard something;
3. you either feel some sense of moral responsibility in helping to catch the criminal, or you just feel unsafe in your home and want to feel safe again;
then I don't see what's wrong with taking part in a conversation with a police officer that goes specifically along the lines of "we know you were at [place] at [time]" or "[crime] happened in your building", followed by "did you see or hear anyone or anything suspicious?"
Sure, if the conversation goes anywhere else, lawyer up. But is there any risk in providing the same statement when the police come to you, that you'd have willingly provided by actively going down to the police station to give a witness statement?
(Which is, after all, the majority of the interviews the police do. For every one person the police speak to under suspicion, they speak to 5+ other people—witnesses—to figure out who to suspect. This is exactly the "research" you mention above.)
And if you accidentally screw up the answer (very possible, people's memories are terrible even without stress and in a rush to answer) you may now be a criminal, or (possibly just as bad) might make them think you're a criminal. The latter isn't even just about you, it's about overall justice and society too: if they're spending time and resources investigating someone innocent, by definition that's time and resources not spent on whomever actually did it.
Like all general guidelines, there are always limited exceptions to the rule, every adult should be able to use their brains a bit and know when considered deviation is justified. Yes, there may be times where instantaneous response really matters, you can perfectly well imagine scenarios where a criminal literally just ran by and an officer runs up asking if you saw them, no of course you don't need to insist on a lawyer. But in most cases seconds/minutes are not of the essence, and the benefit/risk ratio of just invoking your rights and going through the process carefully is so hilariously (or terrifyingly as the case may be) weighted towards counsel that it really should be considered the standard course of action. We are almost always operating at a vast situational knowledge disadvantage in any of these interactions, and it's prudent to take that into account. This isn't about not cooperating or not appreciating the police or importance of justice, it's about proceeding with due deliberation.
> So, I say, don't talk to the cops. Ask to speak with an attorney, and get competent advice before you answer the cops' questions. Are there mundane situations in which you might rationally decide to talk to the cops — say, if a neighbor's house is burglarized, and they come to ask if you saw anything? Sure. But you should view each interaction with the cops with an extreme caution bordering on paranoia, as you would handle a dangerous wild animal.
From Ken White, https://www.popehat.com/2014/01/15/the-privilege-to-shut-up/
The officer can write down whatever notes he/she wants, however inaccurate, whether intentionally inaccurate or otherwise, then go testify in court later, under oath, that this is what you admitted to.
Now you're trying to argue to a jury that you(the accused, but of course, presumed innocent...yea right) is telling the truth, and the sworn officer is lying.
That's not a good situation to be in, regardless of your actual guilt or wrongdoing.
There is a reason that anyone who has ever had any substantial contact with law enforcement will tell you NEVER TALK TO THE POLICE. You have a 5th amendment right, and a very well known Supreme Court case Miranda V Arizona that clarifies that.
I personally have seen literally hundreds of cases that would have been dismissed before they ever made it to a jury had the defendant not opened his/her mouth. I make no judgments on the actual guilt of the defendant.
In a day and age when every is carrying around an audio recorder, this can be mitigated to some extent, in the case where there may be an exigency which motivated you not to want to wait to get a lawyer involved, by asking the officer to permit you to record the interview.
(Police body cams may also mitigate it in principle, but even in departments which use them they seem to have been conveniently switched off when people are most interested in what they contain.)
If the officer refuses, well, that's probably a pretty strong signal that despite the apparent exigency, you need to involve a lawyer.
If your friend's life is at risk or in danger, you may not have some of these options and would have to make a judgement call at that time.
I personally would do almost anything to protect someone I cared without regard to the risk to myself.
Disregarding risk when someone you care about is in danger, is exactly how people end up with charges pinned on them, no? If you, concerned about a missing friend, talk to police about how you were likely the last person to see them, then if they turn up dead, you might to blame.
It's important exactly for these cases to be able to know what you should do, and how to do it properly, in order to be able to do the most to help those you love, with the least risk. Not to say "never"; not to say "screw it, this time's different, tell them everything"; but to know the precise shape of the middle path you must tread.
Who knows... you do hear of cases where crimes are pinned on innocent people, seemingly because some DA would rather prosecute anybody than leave it 'unsolved'.
I called the police, they interviewed me. Came back a few days later and did it again. At the time, what I remember feeling like was that they were trying to figure out if I made it up and kept the money rather than actually catching the person who had a gun to my head. I was pissed.
You watch too much TV. I know it's hard, but when talking about real life law enforcement, try to forget everything you've ever seen about it on TV. It's about as accurate as the hacking scenes in NCIS.
The justice system in the US is completely broken. You should be very afraid.
OTOH, I think the advice is strongest in the case where the police are initiating contact, and you don't have a pre-existing and independent basis to think there is an interest in talking without delay that justifies the additional risk of doing so without an attorney.
The question is, what are the odds? Most people walking through the door don't do that to me.
But if the police come to your door, what are the odds that they're going to treat you unfairly? I suspect, higher than the odds that the person I hold the door for is going to punch me. Are the odds with the police unacceptably high? For me, no. (But then, first, I've never yet been treated unfairly by the police, whereas at least three times I've received better treatment than I objectively deserved. And second, I'm white and fairly conservative in appearance, so I'm probably going to get as much benefit of the doubt as anyone ever does.)
What are the highly likely penalties for an assailant attacking you in broad daylight like that, in a society under rule of law?
Now, what are the penalties to the FBI treating you unfairly during a surprise visit?
Further-- in the extremely unlikely event of getting punched in the face in broad daylight because you held the door open for somebody, what's it like to recover? Keep in mind that the public at large, law enforcement, and the court system would very likely all be on your side as you seek medical care, justice and remuneration.
Same question for FBI treating you unfairly after entertain their surprise visit without counsel. What does a recovery from that look like, and who would you likely have on your side?
"When petitioner had not yet been placed in custody or received Miranda warnings, and voluntarily responded to some questions by police about a murder, the prosecution’s use of his silence in response to another question as evidence of his guilty at trial did not violate the Fifth Amendment because petitioner failed to expressly invoke his privilege not to incriminate himself in response to the officer’s question."[0]
Combined with some circumstantial evidence or a mistaken eye witness, you've given the police reason to start building a case against you. Unless you're the one reporting the crime, think twice before you volunteer information to police.
(Not a lawyer, not legal advice, etc., just interested in this stuff.)
[0] http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/salinas-v-texas/
My understanding is that in my state filing a false instrument is a criminal act... so a materially wrong report is an issue. With the Feds, much more subtle falsehoods or erroneous statements can be crimes in themselves.
Personally, as a citizen if I witness a crime I have and would report or attempt to provide information to aid an investigation as a matter of conscience.
18 USC 1001 is a felony charge that will be in Federal district court. $25K-$50K in legal fees easy.
That's part of the point.
Once you're talking about the situation or really anything, people tend to continue talking. They don't realize that they've crossed the line or admitted to something else entirely. They don't realize that they should have kept their mouth shut and now they're in trouble. Or something as simple as mis-remembering something that they have proof of and poof now you're in trouble too.
Your pride will cost you.
Do the smart thing. Get an attorney and talk to them FIRST.
That's very much a mindset from your generation. It's not at all prevalent in the newer (millennial and younger) generations. We grew up with more real world tales of people being screwed over by overzealous police than real world tales of murder, muggings and drug crime. We're more likely to give the benefit of the doubt to anybody suspected by the cops than we are to give the benefit of the doubt to the cops themselves.
In a ghetto, "murder, muggings and drug crime" are [still] facts of life. In a ghetto, police cars are like beacons radiating "no crazies are gonna try to get in your face" as long as you stay within line-of-sight of one. Homeless people cluster near police stations in ghettos—for protection.
In a ghetto, someone's always passed out on a street corner, and the police are always there trying to see if they're just drunk or if they need to get to the hospital. Once or twice a night (more often on Fridays), you'll see a dude being forced into a cop car while a working girl stands there crying and bruised.
If you live in a ghetto, you've probably been mugged yourself. In fact, it's probably happened more than once. (3 times for me!) As well, you've probably been "threatened"—ended up surrounded by some "friendly" strangers, in situations that could very well have resulted in your death, if you did anything to provoke anyone. You've also probably had people follow you for blocks ranting and trying to grab at you. Or follow you, giving you a "guided tour" you didn't ask for, then insisting you pay them for their "tour" to get them to go away. And each time one of these things has happened, you've likely wished that there was a police officer nearby, but there wasn't; they were too busy dealing with all that other shit above.
If you live somewhere "nice", police officers can seem kind of pointless, and might in fact be a bit stir-crazy and awful. But if you live in a place where they're as over-worked as hospital ER staff with all the shit that goes on each day, you're usually somewhat thankful to have them there. Even if you still do feel intimidated and a bit scared every time you pass by one.
---
† To disclaim in advance: I don't mean one of those weird mid-US ghettos, with the police who grew up somewhere else, likely of a different race from the people who live there; the kind where all the awful racial police violence happens. I mean a ghetto patrolled by its own.
I don't know what percentage of the generations you mention qualify as "young people living on their own in large cities", but I think it's a fair amount. Enough to skew the results against a supermajority having your described viewpoint.
I bet a black or hispanic man would have a completely different perspective. Hopefully, one will comment.
It's an easy way to try to score points on a nerd message board, amongst an audience of people who are extremely unlikely to experience violent crime. It's also callously instrumentalist. Find a better way to make this point, is what I'm suggesting.
That's the definition of a police state.
"Police state is a term denoting a government that exercises power arbitrarily through the power of the police force." -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_state
If it is consistent in always acting against those doing the most harm, with "the most harm" determined in line with the intent of the laws being broken, that seems substantially better - probably even desirable, given limited resources.
"Tell the agent that you have an attorney and that 'my attorney will be in contact with you.'"
"Simply state that you will not discuss the matter at all without first consulting counsel and that counsel will be in touch with him."
"Just respond that you will consult with your attorney (or 'an' attorney) and that the attorney will be in touch."
"Simply repeat your mantra that you will not discuss the matter with him in the absence of counsel."
"You are not qualified to determine whether you have committed some crime or not"
I think this is the most important part. It could be that you did something but you thought it is not illegal at all.
The sentence regarding "my attorney will be in touch with you" should be the only thing you say.
In my very expensive experience with lawyers I have to say that they only care about my needs about 20% of the time, and usually these 20% happen before I sign their contract.
As much as it's probably correct to not fully trust an FBI agent it's also probably correct to not fully trust a lawyer. One needs to be able to defend oneself to a certain degree.
I'm always surprised when watching one of those reality TV detective shows... inevitably there is someone who knows the police have nothing, yet never insists on a signed agreement from the prosecutor before spilling the beans.
I'm sure there lots of off camera stuff where they make it seem not an interrogation, but...ugh. Get a lawyer, you are the easiest path to closure for the cops.
Edit: Dateline does usually speculate that anyone that does ask for a lawyer, or declines a polygraph, etc...is hiding something. It's a shame they do that.
> It is crucial to note that affirmatively declining to discuss the investigation in the absence of counsel is not the same thing as remaining completely silent. If you are not in custody, your total silence, especially in the face of an accusation, can very possibly be used against you as an adoptive admission under the Federal Rules of Evidence.
I thought we had the right to remain silent. Can someone explain this?
But nothing in the Constitution prevents you from volunteering whatever the heck you want to anyone, including someone from the government, even if it would a completely stupid decision to do so. If an agent/officer just asks you a question that doesn't mean you're in custody. They can legally draw inferences from any of your resulting answers/non-answers, just as they could from 3rd party witnesses, though how well any of those hold up in court is a different question of course. Affirmative assertion of rights is the neutral course there, it doesn't mean anything except that you recognize the situation is serious and want counsel to help you navigate it. It's not an admission of anything, it puts things on hold.
The case before the court was that his silence was protected under the 5th, and thus could not be brought as evidence. It was ruled that, since he was already talking to police, and did not positively assert his 5th amendment right the 5th did not apply.
All of this is based solely on my recollection.
Not sure if this applies (not a lawyer, not even in the US) but usually in that kind of situation you have protection in one direction but then they can just apply pressure from another.
Like researching how to try to convince their client to plea before the trial, even after they've collected their client's retainer that would cover the trial, and then get pissed at their client when the plea deal is refused for any reason (even a great one).
I don't think that's accurate. It's not a short-term tactic - it's a strategy. And it doesn't give you time before they start interrogating you - it helps ensure that you don't have to be interrogated at all.
This is slightly rambling/OT:
I dated a girl who would do that regularly to guys who were being entirely too aggressive about getting her number. She told me it was a pretty effective tactic to shake them off, and even if they figured out it was the wrong number it could be passed off as an innocent mistake.
I'm also fairly certain there's a girl who lives near where I grew up (and likely has a mobile number a short levenshtein distance from mine) who does the same thing, as I have literally no connections to that area, other than my immediate family, who have the same area code and exchange that my mobile number does. Nevertheless, I do occasionally get texts/calls from random guys obviously trying to contact a woman who is not me (this has been happening for almost a decade).
But! To add to your point - what if the aggressive dude trying to get your phone number works for a federal LEO? Could they use the system to hold your disinterest in them against you, just out of spite?
[edit: words for clarity]
Perhaps, in America, we should stop putting people in jail for not doing anything wrong.[1][2][3][4]
[1]-https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-ch... [2]-https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/03/opinion/sunday/locked-up-... [3]-https://melmagazine.com/i-won-104-million-for-blowing-the-wh... [4]-http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/04/01/the-spy-who-sai... [5]-http://thefederalist.com/2017/02/16/arizona-governor-drop-ch...
...
I was close. It's an en-dash. It's a triple of bytes, in decimal representation:
julia> b = UInt8[226, 128, 147]
3-element Array{UInt8,1}:
0xe2
0x80
0x93
julia> String(b)
"–"
julia> ans[1]
'–': Unicode U+2013 (category Pd: Punctuation, dash)This blows my mind. I have a pretty dim view of lying in general - I've railed on HN against "padding" one's resume in any way, but I for one had no idea you could lie to your employer (decidedly not a criminal act), then through no action of your own your employer could turn around and make you subject to Federal prosecution.
Lying to your employer on your time and attendance records is potentially fraud, which is a criminal offence.
I agree that it's weird for it to suddenly elevate to a federal crime just because your employer submits those records to somewhere else.
Everyone should watch this video. It may save your life.
In the context of this thread about visitors to the US, that would include the guy scanning your passport and asking "What's the purpose of this trip?" and the guy telling you to take off your shoes so they can be x-rayed.
Says who? There's nothing stopping you from repeating those same phrases the article details while in the company of people who you have no reason to suspect are federal agents, but could be.
For example, if your significant other is nagging or otherwise interrogating you: "I decline to be interviewed without a lawyer." If your SO turns out to be a federal agent, then the article just solved the problem. :)
Because, if not (I'm guessing not), then I'm guessing this ain't gonna work. :)
In such a situation, you might ask a similar question, receive an honest answer, and still get busted, because you participated in a transaction that was recorded by observers.
Plain clothes officers operating undercover aren't always placed in direct contact with targets at the moment of a bust. Sometimes they just need to gather enough information needed to orchestrate a bust, and then they just disappear, as if completely unconnected.
It's not like this is 1971.
> ... whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully ...
Personally, I would be inclined to agree with you, on the basis that you cannot knowingly and willfully lie in a such a matter if you do not know that you are discussing such a matter. However, I'd believe judicial precedent over my own layman interpretation...
"Federal law enforcement officers can lie to you" and "Lying to the feds can be a serious crime" are both true but extrapolate these to the maximum and suddenly lying to some dude standing next to you at a bus stop who turns out to be a fed is a crime. This is obviously nonsense. FBI agents can't arrest you and lie to you about your Miranda rights or lie to you that they'll beat the shit out of you if you don't cooperate with them. If there's an undercover agent you don't know about in your organization and you lie to them simply because, say, you don't trust them, you're not automatically looking at an indictment.
First thing I looked at when moving to the UK in case I get pulled over and know how to comply to law enforcement powers whilst understanding the limitations and my rights...
Are these published in the US, on a state level at least?
Because they don't want you to know.
Also what if they're the victim of a crime or some other emergency situation and really should talk to the police? If you really absolutize and drill them to "never ever talk to the police", you're setting them up for a worse outcome in that instance too.
I'm actually somewhat surprised that more people don't learn how to properly not attract the attention of cops while in college.
College campuses are full of cause-less traffic stops that escalate into full on searches, money (fines) to be made from underage drinking and drugs all of which increase people's contact with law enforcement. Pretty much everyone at knows someone who's been mistreated in a petty way by the cops or done something dumb and then compounded it by playing straight into their tactics or not STUFing. College provides ample opportunity to experience or become aware of fairly tame instances of many of the things we as a society don't like about law enforcement.
You have to have your head firmly buried in the sand to not at least learn a little bit about how to conduct one's self during an interaction with law enforcement.
I thought law enforcement is allowed to lie to you. Could they lie about this? IANAL.
We already know the State flags people for rigorous, repeated, obnoxious harassment at customs checkpoints and for domestic TSA stuff.
Might as well derisk a little.
.. How on earth is that possible?
Under US law, the default answer to the question of whether your employment can be terminated for <insert cause here> is "yes".
If he doesn't find out, I guess he can't fire you for it. I'm not sure I understand what the underlying question is...
>How does the employer determine cooperation?
Completely arbitrarily. You can be fired for just about anything that isn't explicitly prohibited (e.g. being Black).
In the case of "at-will" employment, I can fire someone for literally no reason at all. I can wake up on the wrong side of the bed at 7:00 AM, decide Joe Schmoe is responsible (or not... that guy just gets under my skin), shit shave and shower, then roll into the office at 9:00 and give him the ax.
So, to answer your question, if the I overhear my neighbors gossiping about how you didn't cooperate with police, that's as good a criterion as any for firing you.
>Surely LEO can't blackmail you into cooperation by going to your employer first?
Think again. In principle, police can threaten to tell people you didn't cooperate. I don't know how often this happens but it's perfectly legal to do so.
You're an IT guy who manages your company's MacBooks, including the FileVault institutional decryption key.
A fellow employee is being investigated for a crime, say possession of child pornography. You have no knowledge of what is or isn't happening on the computer.
Your management directs you to cooperate with the Federal Agent, answer questions, and provide technical assistance as required. You refuse without advice of your personal counsel.
End result: You are terminated for insubordination.
In many situations where you're covered by a collective bargaining agreement, you're protected by this sort of thing an can have a union attorney involved before this happens.
Step 1: Belong to the political elite.
He. Solomon L. Wisenberg is a man: http://pview.findlaw.com/view/1362810_1
> If you take a job at a health provider that you later learn is corrupt, and later knowingly transport false vouchers as part of your job while otherwise avoiding direct participation with the more overtly criminal parts of the enterprise, you are a criminal.
> We in this industry all need to be taking more responsibility for our individual actions and the net impact they have on society.
Yes, you're correct in an absolute sense, much as the prosecutor who indicted Martha Stewart was correct in an absolute sense. But you're incorrect in a different sense, much as the prosecutor who indicted Martha Stewart was incorrect in that same sense.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14206390 and marked it off-topic.
It wasn't an argument about pronouns, just noting that Mr. Wisenberg's gender is known.
And my substantive point remains, I think, unaddressed.
My comment was on-topic. The responses to it (to include my own follow-ups) were off-topic, but my comment was on-topic.
I love it!
As for the claim that "literally" ever means "figuratively", I have never encountered that use - including in examples offered by those who claim its existence. Literally is sometimes used in figurative circumstance, but I would argue the use is hyperbolic - in the same way we don't say "'days' sometimes means 'minutes'" because people say "I've been waiting for you for days". I have never seen an example that would not have been understood to be figurative but for the addition of "literally".
Then again, I'm a grammatical traditionalist: I consider English to not have a male gender, but rather the three genders "inanimate", "female", and "animate".
The prescriptivists have lost this debate, comprehensively. There may be a language that lacks a gender-neutral singular "they", but it isn't English.
I think novelty is a bad choice of word here, as that has a connotation of being related to time and exposure, which makes your statement seem somewhat contradictory... I think the word "controversial" that Thomas uses is more appropriate. I'll continue as if you had used that instead.
I do agree, that length of attestation does not necessarily mean a feature is non-controversial. But I do think it is likely a prerequisite for being non-controversial, precisely because it allows the usage to be non-novel.
Ironically for a grammatical traditionalist making a comment about grammar, this sentence is not grammatically correct.
And you're completely ignoring my substantive point that the fact that someone is technically a criminal does not mean that he actually deserves the full force and power of the State to bear down on him.
From the same page: 'In some situations, an individual may be known but referred to using the pronoun they. This may occur because the individual's gender is unknown to the speaker, or because the gender is non-binary or genderqueer, so that they regard both masculine and feminine pronouns as inappropriate and thus prefer to be referred to as they.'
Mr. Wisenberg's gender is known and he presents as a man in his profile; there is no reason to use 'they' instead of 'he,' and thus it's simply wrong to do so.
I don't think you intended to be rude to him by failing to use the correct pronoun, but I believe you were.
And, again, you continue to ignore the substantive point.
† (in my case: I used "they" because I didn't know or care to learn the gender).
Singular "they" has been used for centuries. Chaucer used it. It wasn't always meticulously used to identify people who don't fit into traditional gender roles. "He" is certainly acceptable for "person without identifying gender," but so is "they."
Is there a difference that you can elaborate for me?