united-states criminal-law legal-terms
Pretending to be from the &quot;Freedom to Breathe Agency&quot;: impersonating an officer?
<p>There's a woman going around claiming to be from the <strong>federal</strong> &quot;Freedom to Breathe Agency&quot;, telling store workers that they can personally be sued for telling customers that they need to wear a mask.</p>
<p>Multiple people have said that she should be arrested for impersonating a federal officer. However, <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/912" rel="noreferrer">18 U.S. Code § 912 - Officer or employee of the United States</a> says:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Whoever falsely assumes or pretends to be an officer or employee acting under the authority of the United States or any department, agency or officer thereof, and <strong>acts as such</strong>, or in such pretended character demands or obtains any money, paper, document, or thing of value, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>IANAL, but I don't think tricking an employee into believing that they can be personally sued for asking a customer to wear a mask counts as &quot;thing of value&quot;.</p>
<p>So what does &quot;act as such&quot; mean when the person claims to be from a non-existent agency?  Since there isn't any federal Freedom to Breathe Agency, there doesn't exist any way that an employee of it would act.</p>
<p>(<strong>NOTE</strong>: The woman claiming to be from the &quot;Freedom to Breathe Agency&quot; might very well have committed <em>other</em> crimes.  I'm solely asking about the crime of impersonation.)</p>

<p>The clause you highlighted has an &quot;or&quot; in front of it: &quot;..., <strong>or</strong> in such pretended character...&quot;.  It's only one alternative.  Demanding or obtaining money, etc, is <em>sufficient</em> to violate the statute but not <em>necessary</em>.</p>
<p>Looking at the previous clause, it is still a violation if the pretender merely &quot;acts as such&quot;, which I suppose is what people allege this person is doing.  She can be guilty without having demanded or obtained anything, so the question about whether it's a &quot;thing of value&quot; is moot.</p>
<p>As to the &quot;nonexistent agency&quot; issue: a useful source for information about how federal criminal laws are interpreted and enforced is the Justice Department's <a href="https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual" rel="noreferrer">Criminal Resource Manual</a>.  (The link may be a past version; they seem to have reorganized their documents and I can't find a version not marked as &quot;archived&quot;, but I think the information is still valuable.)  18 USC 912 is discussed in sections 1469-1477 of that version.  <a href="https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1474-element-18-usc-912-acts-such" rel="noreferrer">Section 1474</a> examines the meaning of the &quot;acts as such&quot; element, and includes this note:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>It is not necessary that the act be one which the pretended officer would have authority to perform if he were in fact the officer he represents himself to be. Lamar v. United States, 240 U.S. 60 (1916); United States v. Hamilton, 276 F.2d at 98. Nor is it necessary that there be in fact such an officer as the defendant pretends to be. Caruso v. United States, 414 F.2d 225, 227 (5th Cir. 1969).</p>
</blockquote>
<p><a href="https://casetext.com/case/caruso-v-united-states-3" rel="noreferrer"><em>Caruso</em></a> in particular was a case in which the defendant, as part of a scam, claimed to be the Administrator of a Veterans Hospital.  He was convicted, and appealed on the basis that the government had not proved that the office of administrator existed. (Just as in this case, the government certainly could not prove that the Freedom to Breathe Agency existed, since it does not.)  The Fifth Circuit found that his point had &quot;no merit&quot; and, citing <em>Brafford v. United States</em> (6 Cir. 1919, 259 F. 511, 513), that it was &quot;immaterial whether or not there was any government officer or employee with the precise title [the defendant] assumed&quot;.</p>
<p>I realize that claiming to be a nonexistent officer is not exactly the same thing as claiming to represent a nonexistent agency, but I would expect that courts would treat it the same.</p>

<p>From the <a href="https://law.stackexchange.com/revisions/56241/1">initial</a> version of the post:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Would tricking an employee into thinking that they can be personally sued for asking a customer to wear a mask be a &quot;thing of value&quot; such that the law could be applied?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Regardless of actionability under the statute you point out, there are other penal statutes --be it from state or federal law-- which do not require that a <em>thing of value</em> be at stake.</p>
<p>Consider <a href="http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(djmerrlwymxdwrbowmr3c1zq))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&amp;objectName=mcl-750-215" rel="noreferrer">MCL 750.215(1)(c)</a>, prohibiting an individual to &quot;<em>[r]epresent to another person that he or she is a peace officer or a medical examiner with the intent to compel the person to do or refrain from doing any act against his or her will</em>&quot;.</p>
<p>See also <a href="http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(djmerrlwymxdwrbowmr3c1zq))/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&amp;objectname=mcl-750-217c" rel="noreferrer">MCL 750.217c</a>. This statute is in terms of &quot;<em>legal process or unauthorized process that affects or purports to affect persons</em>&quot;, with section (7)(b) of that statute defining <em>legal process</em> as something intended &quot;<em>to direct persons to take or refrain from an action</em>&quot;.</p>
<p>Thus her method can certainly lead to her prosecution.</p>

<p>Presumably, you're talking about <a href="https://www.insider.com/grocery-worker-threatened-woman-claiming-from-anti-mask-agency-2020-8" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Lenka Koloma</a>. I didn't hear her use the term &quot;federal&quot; in the video, and the facts that she is speaking in a heavy accent and not wearing pants, a shirt with sleeves, or closed-toed shoes work against the idea that she is expecting people to believe she is a federal officer. On the other hand, the article claims she is using the DoJ seal, which raises issues of whether she is implying to represent them. With the facts at hand, she isn't doing anything illegal (other than violating mask ordinances, and, arguably, trespassing).</p>
