[lbo-talk] False Statement Statute

andie nachgeborenen andie_nachgeborenen at yahoo.com
Wed Jul 21 07:49:13 PDT 2004


The Code in question is the United States Code, i.e., it's a federal criminal statute, cited 18 USC 1001. 18 is the Title Number, 18 being the criminal provisions (not all of them, some of drug provisions are under 26, the antitrust provisions under 15, stc. 1001 is the section number.

Anyway, the False Statements Statement is a Civil War-era statute (1863) makes it a crime to lie in any material way (way that matters) to any agent or employee of the federal government about a mtter within its jurisdiction. The federal prosecutors use this in the open-ended way they did in the Stewart case, to prosecute (and almost always convict) people they can't get on anything else, but whom they are convinced did something wrong. Likewise, the money-laundering and reporting statutes are used against drug dealers and tax evaders where the evidence of those crimes is lacking.

Up until fairly recently court interpretated the statute pretty narrowly, excluding from the scope of the law exactly the thing for which Stewart was convicted -- the "exculpatory 'no.'" That is, it wasn't a violation to falsely deny to a federal agent or employee that you had done something wrong (perjury aside). There is 1941 S.Ct case., United States v. Gilliland, 312 U.S. 86 (1941), suggested a broader interpretation, saying tjat the false statement didn't have to involve a fraud on the go'vt -- that case inmvolved false reports to the govt about the productiveness of oil wells. In United States v. Bramblett, 348 U.S. 503 (1955), the S.Ct. held that the statute applied to the legislative and judicial departments, not just the executive. (Congress more or less excepted statements to the judiciary in the 1996 amendments.) In United States v. Rodgers, 466 U.S. 475 (1984), the S.Ct held that 1001 applied in criminal investigations. The appeals courts cut back some on this increasing expansiveness by holding that it was lawful to lie about your own culpability (the "exculpatory 'no" doctrine"), but the S.Ct rejected that idea in Umited States v. Brogan, 522 US 398 (1998). This one blew me away when I was in law school, I thought (and think) it outrageous. I can understand making ita crime not to lie under oath, but even not under oath?

Basic conclusion: if you can't tell federal authorities the truth, don't say anything at all. It's a bad idea, and also a crime, to lie to the feds. In a criminal investigation, you don't have to unless you are given immunity. In a civil investigation, talk to your lawyer. Obviously also in a criminal one.

--- Yoshie Furuhashi <furuhashi.1 at osu.edu> wrote:
> R rhisiart at charter.net, Tue Jul 20 14:12:02 PDT
> 2004:
> <snip>
> >i have an question for the list's attorneys. in
> his book Imperial
> >America, Gore Vidal cites a law he calls the "False
> Statement
> >Statute." Title 18, Section 1001. he doesn't say
> of what Code.
> >let me quote his cite:
> >
> >"whoever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of
> the executive,
> >legislative, or judicial branch of the Government
> of the United
> >States, knowingly and willfully (1) falsifies,
> conceals, or covers
> >up by any trick, scheme or device a material fact;
> (2) makes any
> >materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent
> statement or
> >representation; or (3) makes or uses any false,
> fictitious, or
> >fraudulent statement or representation; or (4)
> makes or uses any
> >false writing or document knowing the same to
> contain any materially
> >false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or
> entry.."
> >
> >is in violation of Title 18, Section 1001.
> >
> >are you gentlemen familiar with this statute?
> could you say where
> >it comes from and how it's applied? any analysis,
> details and
> >background would be appreciated.
> >
> >R
>
> Here's some info:
>
<http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20040524/011590.html>
> --
> Yoshie
>
> * Critical Montages: <http://montages.blogspot.com/>
> * Greens for Nader: <http://greensfornader.net/>
> * Bring Them Home Now!
> <http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/>
> * Calendars of Events in Columbus:
> <http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html>,
> <http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php>, &
> <http://www.cpanews.org/>
> * Student International Forum:
> <http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/>
> * Committee for Justice in Palestine:
> <http://www.osudivest.org/>
> * Al-Awda-Ohio:
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio>
> * Solidarity: <http://www.solidarity-us.org/>
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>

__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list