Originally Posted by
davidlpope
It's the Ninth Circuit, though, so I expect them to make bad law. I suspect it will get sorted out on appeal.
David
I'm not defending the Ninth Cir., but the article does note that the three judges participating in the decision were Republican appointments....that may make a difference in whether this decision was a stretch, or the product of a mainstream legal analysis.
No one condones or accepts the Defendant's lies as appropriate behavior, his lies are reprehensible, it just seems from the summary that the court's analysis was that there are other ways of accomplishing the goals of the statute that don't involve criminalizing mere speech.
Certainly someone who claims vets benefits by means of a lie about service that did not happen can be prosecuted for fraud, and someone who obtains other kinds of benefits, like public office [which this guy may have done] or charitable contributions, can likely be prosecuted for crimes in most jurisdictions. I would like to read the entire decision myself to get a better sense of the court's analysis, but I can see the rationale as it has been reported.
"Before two notes of the theme were played, Colin knew it was Patrick Mor MacCrimmon's 'Lament for the Children'...Sad seven times--ah, Patrick MacCrimmon of the seven dead sons....'It's a hard tune, that', said old Angus. Hard on the piper; hard on them all; hard on the world." Butcher's Broom, by Neil Gunn, 1994 Walker & Co, NY, p. 397-8.
Bookmarks