>>9785721

>knowing lie = knowingly

^^^^^^

Agreed

But Knowing Lie appears to be common terminology for legal fags

>http://archive.vn/bpjr1#selection-293.158-293.247

Perjury requires that the defendant was under oath, made a false statement about something material to the proceeding, and knew that it was false at the time. Mistakes or innocent failures of recollection are not perjury;it requires a knowing lie.

Cover-up Crimes

November 23, 2015 / Randall Eliason

What do one of baseball’s greatest players, a former senior White House official, a domestic diva and Fortune 500 CEO, and a former Speaker of the House all have in common?

This is not the beginning of some bad joke about how they all walk into a bar. Barry Bonds, Scooter Libby, Martha Stewart, and Dennis Hastert all were investigated for possible criminal misconduct and ended up being charged not with that misconductbut with other crimes they committed to try to conceal their actions or thwart the investigation.

Barry Bonds was implicated in baseball’s steroids scandal. He ended up being indicted not for using illegal steroids but for perjury and obstruction of justice after allegedly lying in the grand jury about his steroid use. (He was found guilty of one count of obstruction, but that conviction was recently overturned on appeal.)

I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, who was Chief of Staff to former Vice President Dick Cheney, was implicated in the potentially illegal leak of the identity of a covert C_A agent, Valerie Plame. He was ultimately not charged with the leak but was convicted of perjury, obstruction of justice, and false statements for lying to the grand jury and the FBI about his actions.

Martha Stewart was suspected in 2002 of insider trading after she dumped her stock in a company called Imclone the day before bad news from the FDA caused the stock’s price to plummet. She and her broker Peter Bacanovic ultimately were not indicted for insider trading, but were convicted of multiple counts of false statements, perjury, and obstruction of justice for concocting a phony story about why she sold the stock and then lying to the FBI and SEC.

And Dennis Hastert, the former U.S. Speaker of the House, allegedly had sexual contact with students decades ago while he was working as a high school teacher and coach. He was recently indicted not for any sexual misconduct but for lying to the FBI about his apparent hush-money payments to one of his victims and for structuring his bank transactions to conceal those payments. (Hastert recently pleaded guilty to one count of structuring bank transactions and is awaiting sentencing.)

It’s a legal maxim, particularly in the post-Watergate era, that often the cover-up is worse than the crime. But cover-up crimes are the Rodney Dangerfield of the white collar world: they don’t get any respect. You frequently hear them derided as “gotcha” crimes, or as something prosecutors charge only when they can’t “get” a defendant for anything else. There is a widespread perception that these crimes are somehow less serious than many other white collar offenses.

But the truth is that prosecution of cover-up crimes is vitally important to the proper functioning of the justice system.It’s time these crimes got the respect they deserve.

ALL PB

#12523

>>9784162, >>9784214, >>9784219, >>9784437, >>9784452 Anons are digging on a knowing lie.

>>9785978

Knowing Lie as a component of the False Claims Act

Federal and in New York

>https://nydailyrecord.com/2015/12/10/white-collar-corner-reasonable-interpretation-vs-knowing-lie/

White Collar Corner: Reasonable interpretation vs. knowing lie

How tax fraud is enforced as a false claim in New York

By: Alan J. Bozer and Erin C. Borek December 10, 2015

As one of only two things that are certain in this world, everyone must pay taxes, and if a person fails to pay on time, he is subject to penalties and interest, even if the failure to pay was an honest mistake.

However, under a relatively new feature ofthe New York False Claims Act, a person (or entity) who fails to pay taxes can be liable for treble damages, civil penalties, costs, and attorneys’ fees if he knows that he is not paying his taxes properly. Under the Act, a person“knowingly”makes a false statement to the government if he has “actual knowledge of the information” or “acts in deliberate ignorance [or] reckless disregard of the truth or falsity of the information,” N.Y. State Fin. Law § 188(3)(a).

The scienter element is an important piece of establishing liability under the NYFCA, but, after a recent Court of Appeals case which addressed the NYFCA’s tax enforcement provision for the first time, it is unclear how the AG can prove this element for false statements under the tax law.

When the NYFCA was enacted in 2007, itmirrored the__ federal__ False Claims Act and specifically exempted tax fraud from its ambit. In August 2010, the New York State Legislature passed the New York Fraud, Enforcement and Recovery Act, spearheaded by then-state Sen. Eric Schneiderman, which amended the NYFCA to impose liability for state tax fraud. According to the NY AG’s Office, 30 states have false claims acts, butNew York’s Act is the only one that expressly covers tax fraud,(see Press Release, N.Y. State Office of the Atty Gen., A.G. Schneiderman Announces $6.2 Million Settlement with Lantheus Medical Imaging & Bristol-Myers Squibb For Failing To Pay New York Corporate Income Taxes (Mar. 14, 2014), available at www.ag.ny.gov/press-release/ag-schneiderman-announces-62-million-settlementwith-lantheus-medical-imaging-bristol; see also Franziska Hertel, Qui Tam for Tax?: Lessons from the States, 113 Colum. L. Rev. 1897, 1915 (2013) (reviewing various states’ false claims acts as of 2013).

The NYFCAcan be enforced through civil actions filed by either the AG or a local government or through a qui tam action, whereby a person or entity called a relator (or, more fondly, a whistleblower) brings the action on behalf of the government and people of the State. Relators receive up to 25 or 30 percent of the proceeds recovered, in addition to costs and attorneys’ fees.

Since the creation of the tax enforcement provision in 2010, AG Schneiderman has not hesitated to put it to use. The AG’s Office has announced the settlement of over $13 million in tax fraud cases initiated by whistleblowers under the NYFCA, with huge payouts going to the person or entity who first brought the case as a qui tam action. For example, in March 2014, the AG’s Office announced a $6.2 million settlement of a whistleblower case alleging that Lantheus Medical Imaging Inc. knowingly evaded New York state and city taxes. The whistleblower, a tax services provider, received over $1.1 million from the settlement proceeds.

>>9786066

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_Claims_Act

THE LINCOLN LAW

The False Claims Act (FCA),[1] also called the "Lincoln Law", is an American federal law that imposes liability on persons and companies (typically federal contractors) who defraud governmental programs. It is the federal Government's primary litigation tool in combating fraud against the Government.[2] The law includes a qui tam provision that allows people who are not affiliated with the government, called "relators" under the law, to file actions on behalf of the government (informally called"whistleblowing" especially when the relator is employed by the organization accused in the suit).

The Act establishes liability when any person or entity improperly receives from or avoids payment to the Federal government. The Act prohibits:

Knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented a false claim for payment or approval;

Knowingly making, using, or causing to be made or used, a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim;

Conspiring to commit any violation of the False Claims Act;

Falsely certifying the type or amount of property to be used by the Government;

Certifying receipt of property on a document without completely knowing that the information is true;

Knowingly buying Government property from an unauthorized officer of the Government, and;

Knowingly making, using, or causing to be made or used a false record to avoid, or decrease an obligation to pay or transmit property to the Government.

The False Claims act does not apply to IRS Tax matters. [22]

>>9786091

THE DA NAG DICK BLUMENTHAL ACT CASE

Freedom of Speech and Knowing Falsehoods

By Eugene Volokh on June 28, 2012 5:19 pm in Knowingly False Statements of Fact

United States v. Alvarez, the Stolen Valor Act case, dealt with an important and recurring First Amendment question: When may the government ban lies — not just innocent mistakes, or statements that wouldn’t reasonably be understood as factual assertions (e.g., fiction, parody, or obvious hyperbole),but knowing falsehoods?That question arises in a wide range of cases: libel, perjury, fraud, unsworn false statements to the government, knowingly false statements about a person that aren’t defamatory, knowingly false statements that intentionally inflict emotional distress (e.g., falsely telling someone that his wife or children have been injured), hoaxes that cause a public panic,and more. Some past Supreme Court decisions suggested that all such knowing lies are constitutionally unprotected. Some have suggested that only some limited subsets of such knowing lies are constitutionally unprotected. Which is it?

In Alvarez, the Court held, 6-3, that the Stolen Valor Act — which the Court read as criminalizing speakers’ lies about having supposedly received military decorations — violated the First Amendment. But lurking behind this was a more complicated 4-2-3 split that was in some ways a 5-4 split in favor of treating lies as generally less constitutionally protected.

Here’s what happened:

1. Four Justices — Justice Kennedy, joined by Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor — took the view that even lies are fully constitutionally protected unless they fall within certain categories of punishable lies: defamation, perjury, fraud aimed at getting valuable goods or services, unsworn lies to government officials about official matters, and lies that claim that one is a government official or is speaking on behalf of the government. This list of First Amendment exceptions wouldpresumably also includes nondefamatory false statements about individual people, which are punishable under the so-called “false light” tort.Though the plurality didn’t mention this exception, two past Supreme Court cases have endorsed it (Time, Inc. v. Hill (1967) and Cantrell v. Forest City Publishing Co. (1974)), and the plurality didn’t suggest it would overrule those cases.

Laws banning lies outside these categories would still be potentially justifiable, according to the plurality, but only if they pass the same “strict scrutiny” test (with its requirement that the law be necessary to serve a compelling government interest) that is used for restrictions on true statements or statements of opinion. This strict scrutiny test nearly always leads to the invalidation of content-based speech restrictions, so presumably restrictions on lies that fall outside the exceptions the plurality identified would — in the plurality’s view — almost always be unconstitutional. [UPDATE: Whoops, originally wrote “would almost always be constitutional,” sorry about that.]

>>9786299

baker

Suggesting LINCOLN LAW post be added to the False Claims Act notable

>>9786091

Lincoln Law = Federal Version of False Claims Act

>>9786159

be on lookout for figure8s

slightly different callsign

9 vs 3

different plane. that a learjet?

>>9786459

>different plane. that a learjet?

disregard learjet

Boeing 75

see it now