| I stand by my previous comment, and, further harming your argument: * It appears (and obviously so in retrospect) that 1001 applies only to agents of the federal government; lying to a plainclothes police officer can't violate 18 USC 1001. * Convictions on 18 USC 1001 have been overturned simply because the agent eliciting the statement was "unfair", for instance by concealing that they already knew the answer. * US v Stark says held that mere denial of a fact absent a legal duty to speak didn't create a material breach of 1001 (your example was a simple denial). * US v. Schnaiderman held that "willfulness" for 1001 requires an affirmative act calculated to confound a function of the state. Which also breaks your example, and refutes several of the points you've made. It is apparently so difficult to win 1001 cases that US Attorneys are required to get special permission before bringing them against defendants who have simply lied to investigators during criminal investigations. I was sick at home with a head cold today and had time to do some research. :) I conclude that you are not just wrong, but comprehensively wrong. But I'm grateful to have a wild goose to chase! |