Does 18 USC 1542 contain a materiality requirement? 18 USC 1542: Whoever willfully and knowingly makes any false statement in an application for passport with intent to induce or secure the issuance of a passport under the authority of the United States, either for his own use or the use of another, contrary to the laws regulating the issuance of passports or the rules prescribed pursuant to such laws; or Whoever willfully and knowingly uses or attempts to use, or furnishes to another for use any passport the issue of which was secured in any way by reason of any false statement— Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 25 years (if the offense was committed to facilitate an act of international terrorism (as defined in section 2331 of this title)), 20 years (if the offense was committed to facilitate a drug trafficking crime (as defined in section 929(a) of this title)), 10 years (in the case of the first or second such offense, if the offense was not committed to facilitate such an act of international terrorism or a drug trafficking crime), or 15 years (in the case of any other offense), or both. 18 USC 1425: (a) Whoever knowingly procures or attempts to procure, contrary to law, the naturalization of any person, or documentary or other evidence of naturalization or of citizenship; or (b) Whoever, whether for himself or another person not entitled thereto, knowingly issues, procures or obtains or applies for or otherwise attempts to procure or obtain naturalization, or citizenship, or a declaration of intention to become a citizen, or a certificate of arrival or any certificate or evidence of nationalization or citizenship, documentary or otherwise, or duplicates or copies of any of the foregoing— Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 25 years (if the offense was committed to facilitate an act of international terrorism (as defined in section 2331 of this title)), 20 years (if the offense was committed to facilitate a drug trafficking crime (as defined in section 929(a) of this title)), 10 years (in the case of the first or second such offense, if the offense was not committed to facilitate such an act of international terrorism or a drug trafficking crime), or 15 years (in the case of any other offense), or both. Neither section addresses false statements explicitly, but courts have found that 1425 has a materiality requirement, namely that immaterial false statements do not violate the statute (see US v. Alferahin). Is it safe to say that a similar analysis would apply to section 1542? Has any court ruled explicitly on this question?
See United States v. Hart, 291 F.3d 1084: This appeal presents the question whether materiality is an element of the crime of making a false statement in an application for a United States passport in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1542. We have implicitly indicated that it is not, see United States v. Suarez-Rosario, 237 F.3d 1164, 1167(9th Cir. 2001), and now explicitly hold that proof of materiality is not required for this &quot;false statement&quot; offense. There is, explicitly, no materiality requirement. See also US v. Ramos, 725 F.2d 1322: Properly applied § 1001 requires proof that the false statement be of a material fact, see United States v. Baker, 626 F.2d 512, 514 (5th Cir. 1980), an element not needed for § 1542 where &quot;any false statement&quot; is sufficient. See Neder v. US, 527 U.S. 1 for SCOTUS-level analysis of reading materiality requirements into statutes that don't explicitly impose them.
Note that "pedophilia" is a psycological or social term, and not a legal term. What laws prohibit is the creation, distribution, and possession of child pronography Under 18 U.S.C. § 2251- Sexual Exploitation of Children: Any person who employs, uses, persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any minor to engage in, or who has a minor assist any other person to engage in, or who transports any minor in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, or in any Territory or Possession of the United States, with the intent that such minor engage in, any sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing any visual depiction of such conduct or for the purpose of transmitting a live visual depiction of such conduct, shall be punished as provided under subsection (e), if such person knows or has reason to know that such visual depiction will be transported or transmitted using any means or facility of interstate or foreign commerce or in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce or mailed, if that visual depiction was produced or transmitted using materials that have been mailed, shipped, or transported in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including by computer, or if such visual depiction has actually been transported or transmitted using any means or facility of interstate or foreign commerce or in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce or mailed. This means that there is no offense if no real child is involved, and this is also true of the various other US laws on child porn. Since the case of Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002) erotica which appear to depict a minor engaging in sexual activity, but which are not depictions of any actual child are protected speech under the US First Amendment and are therefor not criminal. So called "furry cub porn" might include modified images of actual minors, in which case it would seem to be covered under US laws against child porn. But if the character is totally invented, or is based on an adult rather than a minor, then it would seem to come under the rule of Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition. Note, the law in other countries is significantly different. In particular in the UK a realistic drawing may be considered to be a "pesudo-photograph" even if not based on an actual person, and may be punishable in the same way as an actual photo of an actual minor. Note also, the making, distribution, or posse ion of 'child porn' is a very serious criminal offense. I am not a lawyer, and one should not rely on this post to determine what acts are and are not legally safe. If there is any question, consult a lawyer. Note also that under the above statute (18 U.S.C. § 2251), something may be "child pornography" if the person involved is a minor, even if that person is old enough under local law to consent to sexual activity, and even if the person did in fact so consent, and even if there was no intent to distribute the image or video. So a person taking, say, a cell-phone video of him- or herself having sex with a 17-year-old, intended for personal watching only, in a state where the age of consent to sex is 16, can still be found guilty under this law, and such cases have occurred.
According to USCIS Adjudicator's Field Manual chapter 40.9.2(b)(1)(C)(ii) (on page 73-74 of this PDF), it seems that unlawful presence began to accrue when your 2-year green card expired: The alien begins to accrue unlawful presence as of the date of the second anniversary of the alien’s lawful admission for permanent residence. See id . Also, failure to appear for the personal interview that may be required by USCIS in relation to the Form I-751 or I-829 petition results in the automatic termination of the conditional legal permanent resident status, unless the parties establish good cause for the failure to appear. In chapter 40.9.2(b)(1)(C)(iii) (on page 74), it says that if you make a late filing of Removal of Conditions and it is approved, you are deemed to not have accrued unlawful presence, but if it is denied, you are still considered to have accrued unlawful presence from the expiration of your 2 years. If the late filed petition is accepted and approved, no unlawful presence time will be deemed to have accrued. [...] If, however, the late filing is rejected, the alien begins to accrue unlawful presence time on the date his or her status as a conditional resident automatically terminated.
The linked news story says that the journalist was detailed as a material witness. according to 18 USC § 3144 If it appears from an affidavit filed by a party that the testimony of a person is material in a criminal proceeding, and if it is shown that it may become impracticable to secure the presence of the person by subpoena, a judicial officer may order the arrest of the person ... Release of a material witness may be delayed for a reasonable period of time until the deposition of the witness can be taken pursuant to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. No specific time seems to be specified for which detention is allowed. What a court would consider &quot;reasonable&quot; would no doubt depend on the specific circumstances.
The Supreme Court rules in US v. Wong Kim Ark ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment, which states All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside It is not disputed that said areas are &quot;in the United States&quot;. The court found that &quot;subject to the jurisdiction thereof&quot; is intended to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the national government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases,—children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation, and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign state neither of which are the case in your scenario. Technically, the child is not &quot;eligible&quot; for citizenship, the child has US citizenship, it is just a matter of getting a government official to recognize it (e.g. in issuing a passport).
The Criminal Code of the Russian Federation does not list the digital nature of the evidence as an aggravating circumstance for sentencing / punishment. Rather, it lists: a. repeated commission of crimes; recidivism of offences; b. grave consequences of the commission of a crime; c. commission of a crime by a group of persons or a group of persons as a result of a preliminary conspiracy, by an organized group, or by a criminal community (criminal organization); d. especially active role played in the commission of a crime; e. involvement in the commission of the crime of the persons who suffer from heavy mental derangement or who are in a state of intoxication, or of persons who have not attained the age of criminal responsibility; f. commission of a crime by reason of national, racial, or religious hatred or enmity, out of revenge for the lawful actions of other persons, or with the purpose of concealing or facilitating another crime; g. commission of a crime against a person or his relatives in connection with his official activity or the discharge of his public duty; h. commission of a crime against a woman who is obviously in a state of pregnancy, or against a minor, another defenseless or helpless person, or a person who is dependent on the guilty person; i. commission of a crime with especial brutality, sadism, or mockery, or involving torments for the victim; j. commission of a crime with the use of weapons, ammunition, explosives, fake explosives, specially manufactured technical means, poisonous or radioactive substances, medicinal or other chemical and pharmacological preparations, or with the use of physical or mental compulsion; k. commission of a crime during a state of emergency, natural or social disaster, or during mass disturbances; l. commission of a crime, abusing confidence placed in the guilty person through his official position, or through a contract; m. commission of a crime with the use of uniforms or documents of representatives of the authorities. As a practical matter, this makes sense. Facts are determined based on evidence. If the evidence considered in the totality of the case, gets the finder of fact to a particular conclusion, it should not matter any further what the nature of that evidence was. I also see no logical or practical distinction between, for example, evidence of an act of murder captured by digital camera and that same evidence captured on cinematographic film.
At the federal level, per 18 USC 751, escaping is a crime. In United States v. Allen, 432 F.2d 939 it was held that an arrest need not be lawful in order for an escape to be illegal; Laws v. US states that "This court has said that a sentence imposed for a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 751 is 'not affected by the validity of the sentences being served at the time of the escape'", giving numerous citations. I don't find cases where the escapee was exonerated; prosecutors have the discretion to not prosecute for committing a crime, so it would be hard to find a case where the legality of such a conviction was upheld (also, hard to find a jury willing to convict in such circumstances).
The way "with intent to lose citizenship" works in US law is extremely demanding; it is very hard to establish it by doing anything short of appearing before a consular officer and formally renouncing citizenship. Other ways include serving in the military of a country at war with the US, being convicted of treason for committing one of the specified potentially expatriating acts (serving in an army at war with the US is sort of a trial-less special case of that, because engaging in a war against the US is treason), or serving in a "policy-level position" in a foreign government. The State Department says as much in the link. Obtaining citizenship is listed as a case where the administrative premise applies; so is swearing allegiance to a foreign state, serving in the military of a state at peace with the US, and serving in lower-level government posts of a foreign state. In those cases, the person retains US citizenship but at some point in the future may be asked by the State Department if they wanted to renounce it. Intent to renounce citizenship is established only by explicit declaration if you've only obtained citizenship in another country. With "policy-level posts" the premise doesn't apply, but then the State Department just decides on a case-by-case basis. You may well lose US citizenship (although the King of Thailand was born in the US, and I'm not sure if he's considered to have lost citizenship), but it's not automatic. Your senior ministers may lose citizenship, but it is likewise not automatic. But the normal citizens? The link explicitly says that the administrative premise covers that.