Maud wrote:
On 5/19/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
And "as if they were true". This would de-criminalize things like
BobTHJ's recent claims to act on behalf of PP and HP2, which (in
context) were clearly only presented as if they /might/ be true.
I disagree. The action of attempting to act on behalf of an entity
includes an implicit claim that it is possible to do so. Remember
that until 2005, attempting to act on behalf of an entity of which one
is not the executor constituted the Crime of Impersonation.
Do you disagree that the phrase should be added, or that it would
succeed in de-criminalizing claims such as BobTHJ's? (Assuming
for the sake of argument that at least one of em was, in fact,
false.) If the latter, then could it have been overridden by an
explicit denial of the claim ("this may or may not work")?
If we ever brought back Crimes and Infractions (to allow CFJing
on "X committed the Crime/Infraction of Y" rather than the drier
"X violated Rule Z"), we should probably include a blanket definition
that Crimes require intent but Infractions don't, and then apply the
labels accordingly.
