
How to Avoid Going to Jail Under 18 U.S.C. For Lying to Government Agents - gist
http://corporate.findlaw.com/litigation-disputes/how-to-avoid-going-to-jail-under-18-u-s-c-section-1001-for-lying.html
======
tptacek
Without getting into the scope of the 1001 statute (I think they're probably
mostly right about it), I just want to chime in with a nit about the example
they chose:

If you take a job at a health provider that you later learn is corrupt, and
later knowingly transport false vouchers as part of your job while otherwise
avoiding direct participation with the more overtly criminal parts of the
enterprise, _you are a criminal_. What you're doing is wrong. Put into that
situation unexpectedly, you must either quit, or immediately report your
employer (and, presumably, then quit). You can't knowingly accept a paycheck
from a criminal enterprise if doing so requires you to help carry out criminal
actions. The law says that's criminal, but even if you don't care about that,
so does the social contract.

Are you less culpable than the owners? Sure, of course you are. But this
article chose I think a really terrible example, one that creates a false
sense of what it means for someone to be incidentally and unjustly swept up in
a crime they themselves tried to avoid.

We in this industry all need to be taking more responsibility for our
individual actions and the net impact they have on society.

~~~
pm24601
> you must either quit

Most people don't have that flexibility.

> chose I think a really terrible example, one that creates a false sense of
> what it means for someone to be incidentally and unjustly swept up in a
> crime

I think the author chose an example from their own experience. Just because it
seems ridiculous, doesn't change its accuracy.

I think it is quite relevant because it gets past the people who "can't
believe that such a thing would happen to them".

~~~
tptacek
It doesn't matter what kind of flexibility you have. Poor people also can't
steal cars --- and virtually none of them do. An argument could be made
(probably only on a message board) that between being forced into petty theft
and forced to be a cog in a criminal conspiracy, the petty theft option is
more justifiable --- all the proceeds address a real need, and the action
itself is "honest" about the tradeoff being made. But we have no trouble
recognizing theft as theft, even when done out of economic necessity.

~~~
pm24601
This is an argument fallacy. Conflation of:

actively committing a crime ("stealing cars") v. passively committing a crime
(failing to do something or looking the other way)

Also ignoring intent, People don't unintentionally steal a car. People can
unintentionally fill out a form or misunderstand or be unaware of the
requirements of the law.

Additionally, theft is ingrained into the fabric of society and religion.
Following some sort of government reporting requirement is not included in any
religious teaching that I am aware of.

~~~
tptacek
No, you're misunderstanding the example. The issue isn't "looking the other
way". I am not arguing that someone is or should be criminally culpable for
doing workmanlike work at, e.g., administering benefits at a health management
organization they happen to know is corrupt.

I am talking instead about a situation where an employee knows the
organization is corrupt, and then knowingly and actively participates in some
of those criminal actions. You can't deliver vouchers you know to be
fraudulent. If you do, you are and should be criminally liable. Large-scale
organized fraud depends in part on the willingness of every cog in the
organization to perpetuate the criminal enterprise.

------
colanderman
> Whether you speak, what you say and how and when you say it can have a
> profound effect on your future when you find yourself involved in a white-
> collar criminal investigation.

It is very disturbing that we live in a society with laws so obscure to the
common person. Unless you know this "one weird trick to avoid indictment under
Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001", your life is held potentially at
the whim of some random prosecutor. Such detachment of one's legal fate from
one's actions has no place in modern lawful society.

Information asymmetry is one of the primary sources of power disparity.
Dividing those subject to whimsical prosecution into the "in-the-knows" and
"know-nots" – whether through this law, civil forfeiture, the obscure tax
code, or pay-to-play building codes – is a progenitor of the police state.
Free society requires transparent law.

------
mnm1
I don't see it prudent to submit to an interview even when the agents assure
you that the interview is only administrative or that they are not
investigating you. The agent can lie without penalty. Unless this is something
official, in writing, from the AUSA's office that was verified by one's
lawyer, it's likely to be a trick. It's a standard tool in any law enforcement
officer's arsenal. I always see scenes on TV where in an emergency people talk
to the FBI telling them where the perp went or some other details and I think:
if this were real life, I would expect the FBI to be turned away every time,
even when lives are at risk and people will die because the FBI cannot get the
information they need. It's too bad that this is the kind of society we chose
to create, one where trying to help law enforcement is simply too risky to
oneself.

~~~
rconti
Obligatory "Don't Talk to the Police"

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE)

~~~
vacri
It's worth noting that outside the US, things are different. Here in
Australia, you can't have 'not talking to the police' held against you...
unless you were already talking to the police and shut up when they started
asking questions. If you were being friendly and shooting the breeze with
them, then they starting questions and you shut up, that change in manner can
be held against you, for example.

If you're not in the US, it's worth checking out what your own local
jurisdiction expects - all the items in the Don't Talk to the Police video
still stand (because they're about human psychology, not points of law), so
it's worth knowing how much you can just shut up around police.

~~~
kevin_b_er
Unless you're in New South Wales. I suggest you look up the Evidence Amendment
Act of 2013. There your silence to any question may be used against you, so
long as the question(s) you were silent about are any part of your defense.

~~~
angry_octet
It was imported from the UK legal system in an ill considered way. It is
rather nuanced though. Ironically it has led to solicitors choosing not to
attend interviews to avoid the possibility of the special caution requirement
occurring.

[https://www.judcom.nsw.gov.au/publications/benchbks/criminal...](https://www.judcom.nsw.gov.au/publications/benchbks/criminal/special_bulletin_31.html)

[http://www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/blog/police-want-
fur...](http://www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/blog/police-want-further-
dilution-of-right-to-silence/)

[http://www.legalaid.nsw.gov.au/publications/factsheets-
and-r...](http://www.legalaid.nsw.gov.au/publications/factsheets-and-
resources/burn-movie/police-interviews)

------
xoa
Ken White, a criminal defense attorney and former US prosecutor at
Popehat.com, writes about these subjects, and has an entire series devoted to
this sort of thing under the what-it-says-on-the-tin tag of Shut Up:

[https://www.popehat.com/tag/shut-up/](https://www.popehat.com/tag/shut-up/)

His writing makes for accessible, knowledgeable and amusing posts on a very
serious topic and are extremely well worth a read. But the summary version is
pretty straight forward: _there is no such thing as an out-of-the-blue
innocent visit from Law Enforcement, ever._ This is kind of common sense when
you stop think about it: agents are not free and budget is not infinite. If
they are actually devoting an actual warm body to talk to you, particularly a
warm body to _visit_ you, it is always, always potentially serious. It is not
on a lark, they did not roll some dice and have your number come up for a
community chat. They're talking to you for a reason and given their
fundamental purpose that reason may be quite bad for you, whether you did
anything wrong or not. The true super power of government is patience and
grinding, relentless inertia. By the time they talk to you odds are high that
they have already done their research, extensively. They have a legal theory
and narrative already in mind. If the Feds are knocking it's time to get a
lawyer, period, particularly if you're fully innocent.

~~~
derefr
If the police are at your door, and,

1\. you know a crime happened _around_ you recently;

2\. you saw/heard something;

3\. you either feel some sense of moral responsibility in _helping to catch_
the criminal, or you just feel unsafe in your home and want to feel safe
again;

then I don't see what's wrong with taking part in a conversation with a police
officer that goes _specifically_ along the lines of "we know you were at
[place] at [time]" or "[crime] happened in your building", followed by "did
you see or hear anyone or anything suspicious?"

Sure, if the conversation goes anywhere _else_ , lawyer up. But is there any
risk in providing the same statement when the police come to _you_ , that
you'd have willingly provided by actively going down to the police station to
_give_ a witness statement?

(Which is, after all, the majority of the interviews the police do. For every
one person the police speak to under suspicion, they speak to 5+ other
people—witnesses—to _figure out_ who to suspect. This is exactly the
"research" you mention above.)

~~~
dsp1234
The advice still stands. You have nothing to gain from speaking to the police
without an attorney, and everything to lose.

~~~
derefr
I guess, in the case of a crime committed in my neighbourhood, where I saw
something, I see myself as having the safety of my neighbourhood to gain.

~~~
eriknstr
And also, if someone was murdered a few blocks down and then you refuse to say
anything and say that you want your lawyer, won't that just needlessly make
them suspect you for the murder? I'm all for encryption and a right to privacy
and so on but I mean when it's obvious they just want to solve a crime and
they are looking for info from you as a witness, well I don't see any reason
not to be helpful.

~~~
bitwize
As I understand it, I suppose it could make the cops _suspicious_ , but "So-
and-so refused to answer questions and asked to speak to a lawyer first" is
legally inadmissible in court as evidence against you.

~~~
dragonwriter
If the police are suspicious of you, it makes it more likely that they will be
inclined to view information recieved from other sources in a light
unfavorable to you, and devote resources to investigating you rather than
others. Depending on how focussed that gets, you run into the "Three Felonies
a Day" problem.

~~~
rootusrootus
To be fair, if you read up on the 'three felonies a day' book, you find that
most of the examples given are fairly contrived. Some of them are things you
should absolutely know are likely to be illegal, the rest are situations that
require significant legal contortions to be plausible and are unlikely to
survive scrutiny by a judge. Average Joe doesn't really go around committing
three felonies a day.

------
mpweiher
"But why, you may ask, should law-abiding citizens be alarmed about this
statute? Don't the feds only pick on big-league liars?"

That's the definition of a police state.

"Police state is a term denoting a government that exercises power arbitrarily
through the power of the police force." \--
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_state](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_state)

~~~
dllthomas
It's not arbitrary, to whatever degree there is consistency in determining
what makes a liar "big-league". That may or may not make it better.

~~~
kilotaras
Consistent selective law-enforcement doesn't make it better.

~~~
dllthomas
That seems to depend on how it's consistent. If it consistently consolidates
the power of the police, it's probably worse than inconsistent. (And I find it
weird calling it "less of a police state", despite the deviation from the
provided definition...)

If it is consistent in always acting against those doing the most harm, with
"the most harm" determined in line with the intent of the laws being broken,
that seems substantially better - probably even desirable, given limited
resources.

------
Overtonwindow
This is really excellent advice. I work in legislative affairs with lobbyists
and lawyers. After 12 years working in DC with and for congress, I can say
unequivocally there is absolutely nothing good that can come from voluntarily
cooperating with the police. You should avoid them at all cost. Do not
volunteer. Speak through your lawyer if you speak at all, and never allow
yourself to get trapped. It's nice to think prosecutors won't go after small
fish, but to them you are worth nothing, and they will hang you out to dry if
it gets them even the most remote, minor, or inconsequential conviction.

------
bradleyjg
To summarize:

"Tell the agent that you have an attorney and that 'my attorney will be in
contact with you.'"

"Simply state that you will not discuss the matter at all without first
consulting counsel and that counsel will be in touch with him."

"Just respond that you will consult with your attorney (or 'an' attorney) and
that the attorney will be in touch."

"Simply repeat your mantra that you will not discuss the matter with him in
the absence of counsel."

~~~
TerminalJunkie
Probably a daft question but I'm curious as to what others have to say. If
this happens, what kind of attorney or lawyer should you contact? Is simply
googling "attorney's near me" and reaching out to the first result good
enough? The lawyers I work with are all corporate contract lawyers, not the
kind that deal with criminal law.

~~~
pnw_hazor
Former Asst. US Attorneys who practice criminal defense. Otherwise you are
really rolling the dice.

~~~
jessaustin
I'm sure this is good advice, but just stating it like that makes it seem like
a protection racket, doesn't it? The only way not to suffer at the hands of
these people is to hire them...

------
Animats
Also worth noting is that FBI agents are permitted to lie in the course of
their duties. So anything they say to you cannot be trusted.

~~~
xenadu02
You should also remember that FBI agents, police officers, et al do NOT have
the authority to grant immunity. They can claim things will "go easier" for
you, promise you won't be charged, etc but all that counts for nothing.

I'm always surprised when watching one of those reality TV detective shows...
inevitably there is someone who knows the police have nothing, yet never
insists on a signed agreement from the prosecutor before spilling the beans.

~~~
tyingq
The guys that submit to grueling interviews following their spouses' murder,
on things like Dateline, mystifies me.

I'm sure there lots of off camera stuff where they make it seem not an
interrogation, but...ugh. Get a lawyer, you are the easiest path to closure
for the cops.

Edit: Dateline does usually speculate that anyone that does ask for a lawyer,
or declines a polygraph, etc...is hiding something. It's a shame they do that.

------
tylercubell
The part that sticks out to me is:

> It is crucial to note that affirmatively declining to discuss the
> investigation in the absence of counsel is not the same thing as remaining
> completely silent. If you are not in custody, your total silence, especially
> in the face of an accusation, can very possibly be used against you as an
> adoptive admission under the Federal Rules of Evidence.

I thought we had the right to remain silent. Can someone explain this?

~~~
GavinMcG
Not sure if there's case law specifically on this point, thus the hedging from
the author with "can very possibly". The Supreme Court has ruled that when in
custody, it's not enough to simply remain silent – you must invoke the right.
And, it's not an invocation that's valid indefinitely. They can try to
interview you again after a reasonable amount of time has passed, so you may
need to invoke your right to remain silent every 24 hours.

------
rexf
Stepping back a bit, do people have a lawyer on call? I haven't had to use a
lawyer for anything, but I don't have a lawyer when it comes to telling
someone that they have to talk to my attorney first.

~~~
kemiller2002
It's a tactic to get them to back off. Telling them you want a lawyer present
gives you time to find one before they start interrogating you. Even if you
are arrested and you need someone else to find one for you, it stops them from
being able to pull unethical/illegal tactics to get you to confess to things
you shouldn't.

~~~
pavel_lishin
> _It 's a tactic to get them to back off. Telling them you want a lawyer
> present gives you time to find one before they start interrogating you._

I don't think that's accurate. It's not a short-term tactic - it's a strategy.
And it doesn't give you time before they start interrogating you - it helps
ensure that you don't have to be interrogated at all.

------
hollander
So if you lie to anybody in the US, and this person submits this lie to the
government, it could be used to prosecute you? That is creepy!

~~~
mywittyname
I wonder how deep this goes. What if you a mistyped phone number on a bank
form that get submitted to government authorities as part of routine
compliance? Is that a crime? Is there even a difference between a mistake and
intentionally transposing two numbers?

~~~
eric_h
> difference between a mistake and intentionally transposing two numbers

This is slightly rambling/OT:

I dated a girl who would do that regularly to guys who were being entirely too
aggressive about getting her number. She told me it was a pretty effective
tactic to shake them off, and even if they figured out it was the wrong number
it could be passed off as an innocent mistake.

I'm also fairly certain there's a girl who lives near where I grew up (and
likely has a mobile number a short levenshtein distance from mine) who does
the same thing, as I have literally no connections to that area, other than my
immediate family, who have the same area code and exchange that my mobile
number does. Nevertheless, I do occasionally get texts/calls from random guys
obviously trying to contact a woman who is not me (this has been happening for
almost a decade).

But! To add to your point - what if the aggressive dude trying to get your
phone number works for a federal LEO? Could they use the system to hold your
disinterest in them against you, just out of spite?

[edit: words for clarity]

~~~
praptak
TFA says it needs to influence, or at least have some potential to, their
decisions as a government agent. So, no.

------
ghufran_syed
Extremely relevant and important video on the same subject "Don't talk to the
police" by a law school professor.
[https://youtu.be/d-7o9xYp7eE](https://youtu.be/d-7o9xYp7eE)

~~~
mtempleton
I've travelled to many countries and the US is the only country I've been to
where citizens have a legitimate and real fear of their government using force
against them for something that most people would define as 'not doing
anything wrong.'

Perhaps, in America, we should stop putting people in jail for not doing
anything wrong.[1][2][3][4]

[1]-[https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-
ch...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-charges-
snowden-with-
espionage/2013/06/21/507497d8-dab1-11e2-a016-92547bf094cc_story.html)
[2]-[https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/03/opinion/sunday/locked-
up-...](https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/03/opinion/sunday/locked-up-for-
seeking-asylum.html) [3]-[https://melmagazine.com/i-won-104-million-for-
blowing-the-wh...](https://melmagazine.com/i-won-104-million-for-blowing-the-
whistle-on-my-company-but-somehow-i-was-the-only-one-who-went-to-7ed8a808d50c)
[4]-[http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/04/01/the-spy-who-
sai...](http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/04/01/the-spy-who-said-too-
much) [5]-[http://thefederalist.com/2017/02/16/arizona-governor-drop-
ch...](http://thefederalist.com/2017/02/16/arizona-governor-drop-charges-
against-guy-giving-free-haircuts-to-homeless/)

------
alexbecker
I wonder what bug resulted in the string "government226128147that" being
inserted. Clearly something to do with signed integer arithmetic, but where
would that be happening?

~~~
3JPLW
More likely shoddy unicode handling. I'd wager that the author intended for an
emdash at that point (—).

...

I was close. It's an en-dash. It's a triple of bytes, in decimal
representation:

    
    
        julia> b = UInt8[226, 128, 147]
        3-element Array{UInt8,1}:
         0xe2
         0x80
         0x93
            
        julia> String(b)
        "–"
            
        julia> ans[1]
        '–': Unicode U+2013 (category Pd: Punctuation, dash)

------
pc86
> _For example, if you lie to your employer on your time and attendance
> records and, unbeknownst to you, he submits your records, along with those
> of other employees, to the federal government pursuant to some regulatory
> duty, you could be criminally liable._

This blows my mind. I have a pretty dim view of lying in general - I've railed
on HN against "padding" one's resume in any way, but I for one had no idea you
could lie to your employer (decidedly _not_ a criminal act), then through no
action of your own your employer could turn around and make you subject to
Federal prosecution.

~~~
DanBC
> but I for one had no idea you could lie to your employer (decidedly not a
> criminal act)

Lying to your employer on your time and attendance records is potentially
fraud, which is a criminal offence.

I agree that it's weird for it to suddenly elevate to a federal crime just
because your employer submits those records to somewhere else.

~~~
pc86
You are right I probably generalized it a little more than I should have.
Lying in order to beef up your paycheck or increase billables is very likely
criminal fraud.

------
forrestthewoods
Obligatory: Don't Talk to Cops
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik)

Everyone should watch this video. It may save your life.

~~~
rconti
Oops, just duplicated your comment in reply to the current-top post because
the parent of my comment asked a relevant question. I searched the thread for
"police" before posting it, but missed your post because "cops" instead of
"police" :)

~~~
forrestthewoods
It's ok. Your comment is much better and more detailed. Thankfully it's
getting lots of upvotes which is what's important.

------
rebuilder
As a non-US resident potentially wishing to visit the USA, do I want to click
this link or will it result in a flag being raised?

~~~
tptacek
The TL;DR is simply "decline to be interviewed without a lawyer".

~~~
hollander
Problem is that the agent doesn't have to identify himself as such. He or she
might be dressed casually with no signs of being an FBI agent, he doesn't have
to tell you he's an agent, and he may lie as well. He doesn't even have to be
an agent. Your employer can submit your lie to an agent. Creepy!

~~~
pvg
The article doesn't say you're liable if you lie to someone who hasn't
identified themselves as a federal agent but then turns out to be one.

~~~
tptacek
I think it kind of does; see, for instance, the employer example.

~~~
pvg
You're lying to your employer who in turn sends your lies to the feds, you're
liable. That's unexpected and unintuitive but it's not the same thing as you
lying to someone who intentionally hides their status as a federal agent from
you. There's no deception in the former case. What the posters here seem to be
saying is that you can get in trouble for lying to some rando who happens to
work for the man but never told you. That sounds unlikely, to me.

------
andrewflnr
Is it normal for people to just have a lawyer they can call? I don't. I
wouldn't know how to find a lawyer for this sort of situation, or even what
kind to look for. Am I looking for a criminal defense lawyer?

------
dmacedo
Why doesn't the US federal government publish a "your rights" like the UK
does:
[https://www.gov.uk/browse/justice/rights](https://www.gov.uk/browse/justice/rights)

First thing I looked at when moving to the UK in case I get pulled over and
know how to comply to law enforcement powers whilst understanding the
limitations and my rights...

Are these published in the US, on a state level at least?

~~~
valar_m
> Why doesn't the US federal government publish a "your rights" like the UK
> does

Because they don't want you to know.

------
ryanmarsh
This and other reasons are why I've drilled into my children "never, under any
circumstances, talk to the police". It's a shame it has to be this way.

~~~
MaxfordAndSons
I hope you made clear that "don't talk to" ≠ "ignore or evade"...

~~~
ryanmarsh
In the article the language you should use is made clear.

~~~
MaxfordAndSons
No I mean, if you just tell a child "don't ever talk to the police", you're
really putting them in danger because they might think it means "avoid or run
from the police as if they were dangerous strangers" which can obviously
result in tragic outcomes.

Also what if they're the victim of a crime or some other emergency situation
and really should talk to the police? If you really absolutize and drill them
to "never ever talk to the police", you're setting them up for a worse outcome
in that instance too.

------
trhway
no wonder what so many non-college educated people get imprisoned. It is like
a minefield.

~~~
dsfyu404ed
College education has almost nothing to do with this. It teaches most people
nothing about this subject.

I'm actually somewhat surprised that more people don't learn how to properly
not attract the attention of cops while in college.

College campuses are full of cause-less traffic stops that escalate into full
on searches, money (fines) to be made from underage drinking and drugs all of
which increase people's contact with law enforcement. Pretty much everyone at
knows someone who's been mistreated in a petty way by the cops or done
something dumb and then compounded it by playing straight into their tactics
or not STUFing. College provides ample opportunity to experience or become
aware of fairly tame instances of many of the things we as a society don't
like about law enforcement.

You have to have your head firmly buried in the sand to not at least learn a
little bit about how to conduct one's self during an interaction with law
enforcement.

~~~
belenos46
College definitely has something to do with it --for all the reasons you just
rattled off. We get fucked once on, say, a misdemeanor, and then we learn this
FUCK out of how to handle cops. And a fed is just a cop with better shoes.

~~~
dsfyu404ed
I'm saying that despite that environment the number of college educated people
who don't know to STFU is low enough that the impact of college is negligible.

------
a3n
> and if the agent promises you that nothing will happen to you if you tell
> the truth

I thought law enforcement is allowed to lie to you. Could they lie about this?
IANAL.

~~~
evan_
not only are they allowed to lie, a law enforcement officer has no authority
to offer you this kind of deal, and they know it; so they can't say this
without lying about it.

------
ternaryoperator
An attorney once added to the info in this article that if law enforcement
come to your home and asks, "May we come in?" the answer is always "no." Step
outside, pull the front door shut, and then tell them you won't speak without
your attorney. If you consent to let them in the house, anything they see of
interest is something they can act on.

------
coolsunglasses
Hopefully I arranged the images correctly. I've posted an imgur album of the
article because a pastebin/gist is trivially haystacked

[https://imgur.com/a/C5Ijc](https://imgur.com/a/C5Ijc)

~~~
hollander
Better use https: [https://imgur.com/a/C5Ijc](https://imgur.com/a/C5Ijc)

~~~
coolsunglasses
Changed to https. Sorry about that and thank you for noting it.

------
aleksei
> Furthermore, a private employer can require you to cooperate with a law
> enforcement or regulatory investigation as a condition of continued
> employment.

.. How on earth is that possible?

~~~
omginternets
Because "people who don't want to cooperate with law enforcement" isn't a
protected class.

Under US law, the default answer to the question of whether your employment
can be terminated for <insert cause here> is "yes".

~~~
aleksei
But how does the employer even find about this? How does the employer
determine cooperation? Surely LEO can't blackmail you into cooperation by
going to your employer first?

~~~
omginternets
>But how does the employer even find about this?

If he doesn't find out, I guess he can't fire you for it. I'm not sure I
understand what the underlying question is...

>How does the employer determine cooperation?

Completely arbitrarily. You can be fired for just about anything that isn't
explicitly prohibited (e.g. being Black).

In the case of "at-will" employment, I can fire someone for literally _no
reason at all_. I can wake up on the wrong side of the bed at 7:00 AM, decide
Joe Schmoe is responsible (or not... that guy just gets under my skin), shit
shave and shower, then roll into the office at 9:00 and give him the ax.

So, to answer your question, if the I overhear my neighbors gossiping about
how you didn't cooperate with police, that's as good a criterion as any for
firing you.

>Surely LEO can't blackmail you into cooperation by going to your employer
first?

Think again. In principle, police can threaten to tell people you didn't
cooperate. I don't know how often this happens but it's perfectly legal to do
so.

------
Kenji
>How to Avoid Going to Jail Under 18 U.S.C. For Lying to Government Agents

Step 1: Belong to the political elite.

------
gonzo
tl;dr: lawyer up, and don't talk to the feds until you do.

------
geekamongus
I thought the answer would be: run for office.

------
zeveb
> Without getting into the scope of the 1001 statute (I think they're probably
> mostly right about it), I just want to chime in with a nit about the example
> they chose:

 _He_. Solomon L. Wisenberg is a man:
[http://pview.findlaw.com/view/1362810_1](http://pview.findlaw.com/view/1362810_1)

> If you take a job at a health provider that you later learn is corrupt, and
> later knowingly transport false vouchers as part of your job while otherwise
> avoiding direct participation with the more overtly criminal parts of the
> enterprise, _you are a criminal._

> We in this industry all need to be taking more responsibility for our
> individual actions and the net impact they have on society.

Yes, you're correct in an absolute sense, much as the prosecutor who indicted
Martha Stewart was correct in an absolute sense. But you're incorrect in a
different sense, much as the prosecutor who indicted Martha Stewart was
incorrect in that same sense.

~~~
tptacek
In English, the singular "they" is gender-neutral.

~~~
zeveb
Only when one doesn't know someone's sex. In the case of Mr. Wisenberg, one
does.

And you're completely ignoring my substantive point that the fact that someone
is technically a criminal does not mean that he actually deserves the full
force and power of the State to bear down on him.

~~~
tptacek
Respectfully, that is a rule you just made up.

~~~
zeveb
From your own Wikipedia link: 'It typically occurs with an antecedent of
indeterminate gender,' meaning that use with an antecedent of determinate
gender is atypical.

From the same page: 'In some situations, an individual may be known but
referred to using the pronoun they. This may occur because the individual's
gender is unknown to the speaker, or because the gender is non-binary or
genderqueer, so that they regard both masculine and feminine pronouns as
inappropriate and thus prefer to be referred to as they.'

Mr. Wisenberg's gender is known and he presents as a man in his profile; there
is no reason to use 'they' instead of 'he,' and thus it's simply wrong to do
so.

I don't think you intended to be rude to him by failing to use the correct
pronoun, but I believe you were.

And, again, you continue to ignore the substantive point.

~~~
tptacek
I think you're responding to the wrong commenter. I didn't provide you with a
Wikipedia link. The rest of your comment, which amounts to a rule saying "the
singular they is okay but only as a last resort", is incorrect. Singular
"they" is correct even with a known gender†. I can, of course, back this up
with cites, but at this point you're going to have bet me $100 (charity of
your choice) that you're right to make me continue along this tiresome
tangent.

† _(in my case: I used "they" because I didn't know or care to learn the
gender)._

------
wehadfun
Someone post the youtube video.

