Archive for the ‘Provo Attorneys’ Category

Yesterday, the US Supreme Court debated the ethics and effects of a lie as a law punishing those who falsely claim winning military honors came up for ruling.

During an intense hour of debate before the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday that touched on the harms and benefits of lying, the dramatic high point came when Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. asked if a “pure lie” had any value under the First Amendment. Federal public defender Jonathan Libby fumbled for an answer, positing that author Samuel Clemens’ creation of his false Mark Twain persona had value. But that did not cut it for Roberts, so Justice Stephen Breyer interjected with a historic lie that saved lives and no one would want to punish. ”Obvious example: Are there Jews hiding in the cellar? No!” Breyer said with theatrical emphasis, recalling the days of World War II when Europeans gave safe haven to Jews who were being hunted down by Nazis.

But whether that honorable lie will lead the Court to strike down the law under debate on Wednesday is far from clear. At issue in U.S. v. Alvarez is whether the Stolen Valor Act of 2006, which makes it a crime to falsely claim winning a military honor, violates the First Amendment. The Court at first seemed poised to reject the law, with several justices expressing fear it could lead to laws forbidding fibs about high school diplomas or extramarital affairs. “Where do you stop?” Roberts asked of Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr., who was defending the law. Justice Anthony Kennedy also worried about the creation of a government “ministry of truth” policing prevarication in many spheres of expression. And Kennedy said there is no Court precedent for upholding a law criminalizing falsehoods that cause no injury. “I simply can’t find that in the cases,” he said.

But true to his role as swing justice, Kennedy was soon sounding like he would uphold the law. If the Stolen Valor Act is struck down, Kennedy asserted, the constitutionality of a much older law forbidding the wearing of falsely obtained military medals would be in “serious doubt.” That’s because wearing a medal could be viewed as a form of expressive conduct meriting as much protection as verbally lying about a military medal. He and other justices suggested striking down the Stolen Valor Act could also jeopardize a range of federal fraud and impersonation statutes, including the law that makes it a crime to make false statements to a federal agent. “It seems to me you’re proposing a test that would invalidate all of the laws on the books regarding false statements,” Justice Elena Kagan told Libby, the lawyer challenging the Stolen Valor Act.

More than once, Kennedy pointed toward a compromise way out: avoiding the knotty First Amendment issue and upholding the law as a form of trademark protection, akin to protecting the name of the U.S. Olympics from being used by others, which the Court allowed the government to do in the 1987 case San Francisco Arts & Athletics v. U.S. Olympic Committee. A brief offering that alternative was filed in the Alvarez case. With both sides making “slippery slope” arguments about the impact of upholding or striking down the law, that option may gain appeal. Though the government mentioned the trademark defense only in passing in its brief, Verrilli appeared to embrace it during oral argument.

The case was argued against the backdrop of a string of decisions in recent terms giving strong First Amendment protection to offensive speech, ranging from films depicting animal cruelty, to virulent protests at military funerals, to violent video games. The challenge for Verrilli was to frame the Stolen Valor Act as a very narrow law that would not significantly expand the zone of speech that the Court views as unprotected, and would not threaten related speech that should be protected. Verrilli went a long way toward doing that, repeatedly asserting that the law only involved an easily verified falsehood about oneself, and served the valid interest of protecting the integrity of a military honors program that was launched in 1782 by George Washington—#8212;whose birthday was Wednesday.

Verrilli also stressed that the law did not impinge on the “breathing space” needed to protect valid political commentary, theater, satire or parody. “It advances a legitimate, substantial, indeed compelling governmental interest,” Verrilli said, “and it chills no protected speech.” Justice Sonia Sotomayor seemed to reject Verrilli’s argument, questioning what harm flowed from lying about having won a military honor. Someone who validly won such a medal would not think less of it just because someone else was lying about having won one, she said. “So outside of the emotional reaction, where’s the harm? And I’m not minimizing it. I too take offense when people make these kinds of claims, but I take offense when someone I’m dating makes a claim that’s not true.”

Verrilli responded, “As a father of a 20-year-old daughter, so do I, Justice Sotomayor.” For Libby, his adversary, the task was to show that the law swept more broadly, criminalizing lies that caused no harm and were not aimed at monetary gain. He represented Xavier Alvarez, a local California politician who was prosecuted after claiming in a public speech that he was a Marine veteran and had won the Congressional Medal of Honor. In fact, Alvarez never served in the military.

“It doesn’t matter whether the lie was told in a public meeting or in a private conversation with a friend or family member,” Libby told the justices. “And the law punishes false claims to a military award regardless of whether harm results or even is likely to result in an individual case.” But Libby stumbled in rebutting Verrilli’s argument that the law gave adequate breathing space to speech that deserved First Amendment protection. When Kagan pointedly asked him, “What truthful speech will this statute chill?” Libby replied, “Your honor, it’s not that it may necessarily chill any truthful speech.”

Kagan’s reply: “So, boy, I mean, that’s a big concession, Mr. Libby.” Libby tried to recover, asserting that nothing in the law would prohibit prosecution of those who lie about military honors in the context of satire or parody. But the damage was done. When Verrilli gave his rebuttal, his final words were, “As respondent concedes, there is no chill here, so this statute is constitutional.”

For original article: http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202543179580

 By: Jordan K. Rolfe

            There is a reason you formed your limited liability company or corporation…it serves as protection from personal liability.  It is smart to limit personal liability.  However, your new entity comes with specific requirements, which, if not followed, may expose you to personal liability despite the entity’s existence.

This is a great time of year to review your company’s corporate compliance with Utah law. Have you filed your Annual Report with the Utah Division of Corporations? If not, you may be surprised to learn that your corporation might have been administratively dissolved. How about that annual meeting required by statute or the meeting minutes?  Is your entity in need of corporate resolutions? Have you changed your statutory agent or moved to a new location?  These are some of the seemingly unimportant details that cause legal headaches for your company.

Although simple non-compliance issues may be remedied in likewise simple fashion, I see too many instances of big problems resulting from simple inattention to corporate compliance requirements. For instance, a company can lose the right to use its own name or may be unable to maintain a lawsuit.  Moreover, a minority member or owner may bring a lawsuit against the company and the other owners.

Perhaps, most frightening, a creditor of the company could seek to pierce the corporate shield and pursue claims against the owners personally if they haven’t paid adequate attention to corporate compliance issues.

Tellingly, most legal problems your business will face could have been prevented with proper attention paid to the requirements related to corporate compliance.  Although you may not have a law degree or legal background, you, as the business owner, principal, or officer, are required to know and ensure that the compliance requirements are fulfilled.  If you are unsure of what needs to be done and do not have time to become an expert on corporate law, you need to make sure someone responsible performs the compliance work for the company.

You may consider hiring an attorney to help you with the compliance requirements.  In many cases, it may cost less to hire an attorney to help when you take into account the time spent researching the law by someone without legal expertise.

In a relatively short meeting with an attorney, you will be able to discuss and review your company’s legal status and receive suggestions on ways to protect your company.  Regardless of how you go about ensuring compliance, make sure compliance is high on your company’s priority list.

       Jordan K. Rolfe is an attorney with the law firm of Hansen Wright Eddy & Haws, P.C. in Utah County, Utah.  His practice includes business law and litigation.  He can be reached at 801-443-2380. 

Related articles

• Disclaiming Dancers, Replevining Race Cars, Taxing Transformers (centralutahlaw.com)
• Fukushima Reparations (centralutahlaw.com)