If you lie to someone, you are committing fraud.
Whether or not it is a criminal offense is up to whatever remains of our "justice" system.
A lie is not a fraud. To be a fraud there must be a transfer of real value gained or lost by the lie.
“Whether or not it is a criminal offense is up to whatever remains of our “justice” system.”
That’s not what you said. You said it was a crime, which is incorrect.
That said, I have much sympathy for your position, as I despise these guys.
But I would rather have a bunch of fake heros than a Ministry of Truth run by Obama.
>Split another legal hair.
No! Definitions, and words, are important. Especially legal ones. Or does “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed” mean that congress can make laws which are retroactive? What about tax laws? They are either laws, and thusly covered, or they are not and therefore cannot be punishable offenses because they would not be [legal] offenses.
>If you lie to someone, you are committing fraud.
Here’s the entry from dictionary.com:
Fraud –noun
1. deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage.
2. a particular instance of such deceit or trickery: mail fraud; election frauds.
3. any deception, trickery, or humbug: That diet book is a fraud and a waste of time.
4. a person who makes deceitful pretenses; sham; poseur.
It looks like definition #3 matches what you are saying... but let’s take a look at a legal dictionary. http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=785
“the intentional use of deceit, a trick or some dishonest means to deprive another of his/her/its money, property or a legal right.”
>Whether or not it is a criminal offense is up to whatever remains of our “justice” system.
Not really, you’re blurring two different things here: the EFFECTIVENESS of our judicial system and the law itself. A law remains law regardless of whether it is observed and/or enforced or not; this is why it is INCREDIBLY important that people realize the scope/hierarchy of our law-system... any law contrary to a higher law is null-and-void, so if there’s a state law saying you cant keep-and-bear arms, it is null-and-void because the Constitution says that you DO have that right with its second amendment, which is not limited as some are with the prefix “congress shall.”