Pretending to be from the &quot;Freedom to Breathe Agency&quot;: impersonating an officer? There's a woman going around claiming to be from the federal &quot;Freedom to Breathe Agency&quot;, telling store workers that they can personally be sued for telling customers that they need to wear a mask. Multiple people have said that she should be arrested for impersonating a federal officer. However, 18 U.S. Code § 912 - Officer or employee of the United States says: Whoever falsely assumes or pretends to be an officer or employee acting under the authority of the United States or any department, agency or officer thereof, and acts as such, or in such pretended character demands or obtains any money, paper, document, or thing of value, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. IANAL, but I don't think tricking an employee into believing that they can be personally sued for asking a customer to wear a mask counts as &quot;thing of value&quot;. So what does &quot;act as such&quot; mean when the person claims to be from a non-existent agency? Since there isn't any federal Freedom to Breathe Agency, there doesn't exist any way that an employee of it would act. (NOTE: The woman claiming to be from the &quot;Freedom to Breathe Agency&quot; might very well have committed other crimes. I'm solely asking about the crime of impersonation.)
The clause you highlighted has an &quot;or&quot; in front of it: &quot;..., or in such pretended character...&quot;. It's only one alternative. Demanding or obtaining money, etc, is sufficient to violate the statute but not necessary. Looking at the previous clause, it is still a violation if the pretender merely &quot;acts as such&quot;, which I suppose is what people allege this person is doing. She can be guilty without having demanded or obtained anything, so the question about whether it's a &quot;thing of value&quot; is moot. As to the &quot;nonexistent agency&quot; issue: a useful source for information about how federal criminal laws are interpreted and enforced is the Justice Department's Criminal Resource Manual. (The link may be a past version; they seem to have reorganized their documents and I can't find a version not marked as &quot;archived&quot;, but I think the information is still valuable.) 18 USC 912 is discussed in sections 1469-1477 of that version. Section 1474 examines the meaning of the &quot;acts as such&quot; element, and includes this note: It is not necessary that the act be one which the pretended officer would have authority to perform if he were in fact the officer he represents himself to be. Lamar v. United States, 240 U.S. 60 (1916); United States v. Hamilton, 276 F.2d at 98. Nor is it necessary that there be in fact such an officer as the defendant pretends to be. Caruso v. United States, 414 F.2d 225, 227 (5th Cir. 1969). Caruso in particular was a case in which the defendant, as part of a scam, claimed to be the Administrator of a Veterans Hospital. He was convicted, and appealed on the basis that the government had not proved that the office of administrator existed. (Just as in this case, the government certainly could not prove that the Freedom to Breathe Agency existed, since it does not.) The Fifth Circuit found that his point had &quot;no merit&quot; and, citing Brafford v. United States (6 Cir. 1919, 259 F. 511, 513), that it was &quot;immaterial whether or not there was any government officer or employee with the precise title [the defendant] assumed&quot;. I realize that claiming to be a nonexistent officer is not exactly the same thing as claiming to represent a nonexistent agency, but I would expect that courts would treat it the same.
Am i going to jail? I'm so scared. No, probably not. The details depend on jurisdiction, but normally the only crime you could be accused of would be that of forgery. However, forgery by definition requires an "intention to deceive". So my personal advice would be to come clean immediately: Go to your employer, and tell them you did not understand the checkout system and accidentally signed yourself, instead of having the customer sign. If you do that, what you did would not count as forgery, because (as you explain) you did not do it on purpose to trick someone. Now, your boss may still decide to discipline you in some way, maybe even fire you, but that's out of your hand. If they are reasonable, they'll hopefully understand a minor mistake on the first day. That said, it is possible your jurisdiction has special penalties for incorrectly filling out medical documents, so there may be more to it - but I doubt it. To be sure, try asking someone you know and trust who is familiar with the legal rules around medication. Or book a single consultation with a lawyer - this is not cheap (typically around $100 in the USA, or 100€ in the EU), but will give you peace of mind. You could also try asking around if there is a local initiative which offers legal help, possibly a professional organization or trade union.
That the cop claims to be your friend is not more illegal than a salesman claiming that he has "the best offer" for you because he likes you (in fact didn't you see any film about the good cop/bad cop routine?) The term you are looking for is Entrapment. The (very simplified) basic idea is that police officers can promote the comission of a crime to catch criminals but cannot "trap" innocent people into it; the difference being that their persuassion should not turn otherwise innocent people into criminals. An extreme example would be if the cop threatens the target into commiting a crime. For the more usual situation when a cop promotes a crime to catch the criminal, I saw it explained (just for illustration purposes, it is not that you are safe when the cop insists a third time) as it follows: Legal: Cop) Oh boy! The place where I work is full of cash and they don't even have alarms or store it in a safe box. If someone helps me, we could go this night and take all of it. Are you interested? Target) I don't know. Cop) Trust me, it will be easy, nobody is there at night and it will be just a couple of hours. Target) Ok, count me in. Illegal Cop) Oh boy! The place where I work is full of cash and they don't even have alarms or store it in a safe box. If someone helps me, we could go this night and take all of it. Are you interested? Target) I am not a thief. Cop) Come on, it will be easy, the place is insured and nobody will be hurt. Target) Not interested. Cop) We can get 5000 US$ each one, just for a night of work. Didn't you told me that you had troubles with your bank? You could solve those overnight! Target) Maybe you are right, but I have no experience with these things... Cop) Do not worry, I will tell you what you need to do. Target) Ok, count me in. Note that it is not only "the cop insisted a lot". For the drug dealer example, if the cop insisted a lot but, when agreed, the boy produced the drug from his pocket, already packaged for sale, it would not be entrapment. OTOH, if the guy had told "I do not know where to buy drugs" and the cop had told him "go talk with X so he sells you the drug", then it could be considered entrampment. In any case, this is generic information only, entrapment is difficult to prove and will depend on the views of the judge/jury so, no matter how enticing that criminal offer is, just don't do it.
Yes, why not? It happens all the time. Usually the witness will just say, "I am not sure" or "I don't remember, exactly". Also, if Bob is the only witness, how would anyone prove that he was committing "perjury"? In the case of an uncooperative or dissimulating witness, Judges sometimes can hold them in contempt of court, but it is pretty rare. In general, the court has to find "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the witness is refusing to testify honestly. (See "Federal Grand Jury Practice and Procedure" by Paul Diamond) It depends very much on the situation. Note that just trying to act "drunk" would not be a good idea, because that is contempt of court.
Keep in mind that there are two kinds of legal consequences. One is criminal liability for violating a criminal statute, in a prosecution that must usually be brought by a government official. Merely causing emotional distress, in and of itself, is not generally a crime. For that matter, inducing someone to have sex with you through lies about anything other than the identity of the person having sex is usually not a crime. But inducing someone to disclose secrets or take actions that they otherwise would not have taken based upon a statement like this could be wire fraud, theft, extortion, or a variety of other crimes, depending upon what the person A was induced to do by the messages. Knowing what was sent, in isolation, doesn't tell you everything you need to know. While practicing medicine or other healing arts without a license is a crime or at least a civil offense, this wouldn't necessarily qualify, because person B is pretending to create someone treating person B, not pretending to practice medicine on person A. No one who wasn't in on the prank had medicine purportedly practiced upon them. But if the text were use to cause someone to act in reliance on a medical opinion (e.g., to get an employer to grant family leave to person A) then it might be illegal practice of medicine. The second is civil liability, in the form of a lawsuit for committing a civil wrong, called a &quot;tort&quot; or breaching a contract, or for other private individual initiated requests for remedies. The conduct in the question, conceivably gives rise to civil liability for intentional infliction of emotional distress, or civil fraud. But to know that it isn't enough to know what was said. One also has to know what happened on the other end of the communication. Did person A believe the text? Did person A suffer extreme emotional distress? Did person A part with money or information that couldn't have been obtained without a false statement of fact? Was person A's reputation harmed somehow?
Potentially, yes - especially if its the government you lie to in your CV/resume or course of work. Wayne Simmons, a regular Fox News commentator who claimed to have worked for the Central Intelligence Agency for almost three decades, was arrested on Thursday for allegedly fabricating his agency experience. CNN Money reports that Simmons appeared in court on Thursday, where he faced charges of major fraud against the United States for falsely claiming to be a former “outside paramilitary special operations officer”—a padded resume that federal officials say he used to successfully gain government security clearances. https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/10/wayne-simmons-cia-arrested-fox-news/ Simmons claimed to have been an &quot;outside paramilitary special operations officer&quot; for the CIA from 1973 to 2000. Not only did he use that claim to get guest appearances on Fox News, but the government claims he used it to gain security clearances and a defense contractor gig that included advising senior military personnel overseas. He's now being charged with wire fraud, major fraud against the United States, and making false statements to the government and could face 35 years in prison. https://blogs.findlaw.com/law_and_life/2015/10/can-you-get-arrested-for-lying-on-your-resume.html Making false or fraudulent statements also may be punishable by fine or imprisonment. https://www.usajobs.gov/Help/working-in-government/fair-and-transparent/signature-false-statements/
The answer from @BlueDogRanch is right as far as it goes, but omits a critical point. There are certain acts that are excluded from liability under the Federal Tort Claims Act and granting a visa when it should have been denied is almost certainly one of them. The critical provisions are 28 USC § 2680(a) and (h). 28 USC § 2680. Exceptions to the Federal Tort Claims Act The provisions of this chapter and section 1346(b) of this title shall not apply to-- (a) Any claim based upon an act or omission of an employee of the Government, exercising due care, in the execution of a statute or regulation, whether or not such statute or regulation be valid, or based upon the exercise or performance or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function or duty on the part of a federal agency or an employee of the Government, whether or not the discretion involved be abused. . . . (h) Any claim arising out of assault, battery, false imprisonment, false arrest, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, libel, slander, misrepresentation, deceit, or interference with contract rights: Provided, That, with regard to acts or omissions of investigative or law enforcement officers of the United States Government, the provisions of this chapter and section 1346(b) of this title shall apply to any claim arising, on or after the date of the enactment of this proviso, out of assault, battery, false imprisonment, false arrest, abuse of process, or malicious prosecution. For the purpose of this subsection, "investigative or law enforcement officer" means any officer of the United States who is empowered by law to execute searches, to seize evidence, or to make arrests for violations of Federal law. The decision to grant or deny a visa is generally placed in the discretion of a visa officer, evaluating the facts when informed by guidelines established by the U.S. Secretary of State and Department of Homeland Security which is a quasi-judicial role, and is subject to administrative appeal in some cases. As a result, even if that discretion is abused, the employee and the agency are immune from liability under the FTCA. The claim may be barred under 2680(h), as well, if the visa officer is sued for conspiring to cause one of the enunciated intentional torts and the visa officer is not a law enforcement officer. Also, if liability exists at all under the FTCA, it arises against the United States and not against the employee personally: The general rule is that federal employees enjoy absolute immunity from tort claims that challenge negligent or wrongful acts performed while acting within the scope of government employment. See Osborn v. Haley, 549 U.S. 225, 229-30 (2007). The source of this absolute immunity is the Federal Employees Liability Reform and Tort Compensation Act of 1988, commonly known as the Westfall Act. 28 U.S.C. § 2679 (2010). Under the Westfall Act, the exclusive remedy for anyone injured by the negligent or wrongful act of a federal employee acting in the scope of employment is a suit against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act. 28 U.S.C. § 2679(b)(1) (2010). The bottom line is that there are no private causes of action that arise under the immigration laws for a person not personally claiming improper denial of an immigration benefit. Cf. Mirmehdi v. United States, 662 F.3d 1073, Footnote 4 (9th Cir. 2011) (no cause of action exists for selective enforcement of the immigration laws); Tsolmon v. United States, 15-20609 (5th Cir. November 7, 2016) (discretionary exception clause barred FTCA action for failure to follow department policy re potential visa issue). But see Watson v. United States, 14-CV-6459 (E.D. New York, February 25, 2016) (discretionary acts exception did not apply to the deportation of a child who was a known U.S. citizen by immigration officers since this is beyond the scope of their authority). There is also no constitutional right to have the government deny a visa to someone not entitled to a visa under U.S. law or immigration guidelines. If someone brought a suit of the kind described in the question, they would almost certainly lose, probably on a motion to dismiss by the government filed before they were required to answer the complaint on the merits. A sufficiently negligent decision might constitute good cause to fire the visa officer from that person's civil service job, if their supervisor chose to seek the termination of the visa officer's employment. I will refrain from answering whether the sovereign immunity that exists in this circumstance is good policy as the question asks as that would be beyond the scope of this forum and implicate wide ranging questions of pure opinion. Suffice it to say that U.S. law on this question would not necessarily apply in every country.
This is not possible, simply as a matter of definitions and legal terminology. Someone who is "represented by one or more attorneys" is by definition not pro se which means representing yourself without an attorney. There are very rare instances in criminal trials involving serious consequences in which a pro se defendant is allowed to have an attorney advisor who does not represent them in court in an agency capacity, but, first, people who do that almost always lose and are almost always mentally ill (although not necessarily eligible for an insanity defense), and second, because courts generally don't allow this in any other circumstance (at least in court). The concept of getting advice from an attorney without having full fledged representation is called a "limited representation" and the law regarding limited representations more generally varies greatly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and even between different courts in the same place. For example, Colorado's state courts and Colorado's federal courts have different rules for limited representations.