I will knowingly eat a sandwich with cheese today, to honor the SCOTUS, who ruled unanimously on Monday that workers using a mean of identification of another person must know that the means of identification they used belongs to another person.
Pursuant to 18 USC 1028 A(a)(1),which prohibits aggravated identity theft crimes, "Whoever, during and in relation to any felony violation enumerated in subsection (c), knowingly transfers, possesses, or uses, without lawful authority, a means of identification of another person shall, in addition to the punishment provided for such felony, be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 2 years." The question the Supreme Court had to answer was whether the statute required the government to show that the defendant knew that the "means of identification " he had unlawfully transferred, possessed, or used, belonged to "another person". The Supreme Court held that he does.
I found this case particularly interesting for two reasons. First, I have been studying identity theft in the US, and in Europe, for many years, and found it a fascinating topic, because it opened my mind to the more vast topic, of "What exactly is identity"?
Also, the SCOTUS reminded all lawyers, and law students alike, that "It's the law, stupid!". Sometimes, when we are looking for the answer of the legal issue that the senior partner just asked us, we sometimes tends to rush to find a well written article on the subject, which will provide us with all kind of neat little references, and handy quotes to be peppered throughout the memo. However, nothing beats a thorough examination of the law, and its analysis. In order to decipher the meaning, one has sometimes to refer to Congressional debates. But most of the time, printed the text, and read it carefully will allow us to find our arguments.
The Supreme Court offered us in Flores-Figueroa v. United States a lesson in both grammar and lawyering skills. Part II of the Supreme Court opinion analyzes and explain why the word "knowingly" in 18 USC 1028 A(a)(1), must be interpreted as applying to all the subsequent listed elements of the crime. The government was arguing that the word "knowingly" applies to all but the statute's last three words, i.e., "of another person". The Supreme Court reminded us that " in ordinary English, where a transitive verb has an object, listeners in most contexts assume that an adverb (such as knowingly) that modifies the transitive verb tells the listener how the subject performed the entire action, including the object as set forth in the sentence, " and adds further that "if we say that someone knowingly ate a sandwich with cheese, we normally assume that the person knew both that he was eating a sandwich and that it contained cheese."
The government tried to scorn using grammar instead of law in order to analyze a case : "The Government correctly points out that in these cases more was at issue than proper use of the English language. But if more is at issue here, what is it? " I will reflect on that today munching on my cheese sandwich.
Pursuant to 18 USC 1028 A(a)(1),which prohibits aggravated identity theft crimes, "Whoever, during and in relation to any felony violation enumerated in subsection (c), knowingly transfers, possesses, or uses, without lawful authority, a means of identification of another person shall, in addition to the punishment provided for such felony, be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 2 years." The question the Supreme Court had to answer was whether the statute required the government to show that the defendant knew that the "means of identification " he had unlawfully transferred, possessed, or used, belonged to "another person". The Supreme Court held that he does.
I found this case particularly interesting for two reasons. First, I have been studying identity theft in the US, and in Europe, for many years, and found it a fascinating topic, because it opened my mind to the more vast topic, of "What exactly is identity"?
Also, the SCOTUS reminded all lawyers, and law students alike, that "It's the law, stupid!". Sometimes, when we are looking for the answer of the legal issue that the senior partner just asked us, we sometimes tends to rush to find a well written article on the subject, which will provide us with all kind of neat little references, and handy quotes to be peppered throughout the memo. However, nothing beats a thorough examination of the law, and its analysis. In order to decipher the meaning, one has sometimes to refer to Congressional debates. But most of the time, printed the text, and read it carefully will allow us to find our arguments.
The Supreme Court offered us in Flores-Figueroa v. United States a lesson in both grammar and lawyering skills. Part II of the Supreme Court opinion analyzes and explain why the word "knowingly" in 18 USC 1028 A(a)(1), must be interpreted as applying to all the subsequent listed elements of the crime. The government was arguing that the word "knowingly" applies to all but the statute's last three words, i.e., "of another person". The Supreme Court reminded us that " in ordinary English, where a transitive verb has an object, listeners in most contexts assume that an adverb (such as knowingly) that modifies the transitive verb tells the listener how the subject performed the entire action, including the object as set forth in the sentence, " and adds further that "if we say that someone knowingly ate a sandwich with cheese, we normally assume that the person knew both that he was eating a sandwich and that it contained cheese."
The government tried to scorn using grammar instead of law in order to analyze a case : "The Government correctly points out that in these cases more was at issue than proper use of the English language. But if more is at issue here, what is it? " I will reflect on that today munching on my cheese sandwich.
No comments:
Post a Comment