how does the united states supreme court define fraud?
111285
First, let's look at the definition of "Fraud": "Intentional deception resulting in injury to another." The Elements of Fraud are: a false and material misrepresentation made by one who either knows it is a falsity or is ignorant of its truth; the maker's intent that the representation be relied on by the person and in a manner reasonably contemplated; the person's ignorance of the falsity of the representation; the person's rightful or justified reliance; and proxmiate injury to the person.\n\nIt "usually consists of misrepresentation, concealment, or non disclosure of a material fact, or at least misleading conduct, devices, or contrivance."\n\nIn accordance with Title 18 U.S.C., there are various degrees of fraud, from Bank Fraud to Mail/Wire Fraud to Insider Trading. All of the aforementioned are serious crimes and to some degree, Felonies. They are punishable by Fines to Prison time or both.\n\nThe U.S.S.Ct. would rely on the aforemention statutes, however, the Court is not the one that prosecutes in this matter. This is done by the US Attorneys' Office. \n\nKeep in mind that the U.S.S.Ct. is the court of last resort, where specific and selective Appeals are heard after all else has failed at the lower levels of the judiciary.
354267
There's also the issue of a Public Figure or matter of Public Concern.\n\nWhere the topic being described is a private individual, or a private matter, then the law favors the person complaining by assuming (taking their word) that the statement is false.\n\nHowever, where the statement is made about someone who is famous or an elected official (Public Figure), or about a topic that is of significant interest to lots of people (Public Concern) additional steps are required. The person complaining must also (in addition to the normal elements: publication, of/concern, etc.) prove that the statement is false. For public topics, falsity is no longer presumed.\n\nIn addition, the law requires that the person making the statement have a culpable mental state regarding the falsity of the statement. When talking about a Public Figure, the mental state is "actual malice", which means that the person making the statement either knew the statement was false, or made it with reckless disregard for whether it was false.\n\nWhen the statement is made about a matter of Public Concern, but talking about a private person (for example: what a generic citizen said an important town meeting), then the mental state required is negligence. Basically, the person making the allegedly defamatory statement had to at least been careless about whether the statement was true/false.\n\nWhen talking about a private person, in a private situation, no mental state is required. However, the person making the statement has the option of proving the statement was true, thus defeating the 'falsity' element of the tort.\n\nRegarding the opinion issue, it's also important to remember that some opinions can be defamatory. "I think he's a thief and a liar" implies factual assertions, so just adding "I think...." doesn't get the person off the hook. However, "He's ugly" is generally too subjective to be anything other than pure opinion.\n\nFinally, other 1st Amendment protections also apply for parody and satire, accurate reporting of public events, job references (where accurate information is requested), legislative and judicial privilege (testimony given during hearings), and a few other special cases.
1186500
On all issues of law the final arbiter in the United States is the Supreme Court.  That body in the USA's tricameral system of government has frequently overruled the executive and/or legislative branches of government as to interpretations of existing law.  This in no way should lead one to make such statements as "the President is ignoring the constitution."  It merely demonstrates that a reading  of existing law has been more narrowly defined by the court as interpreted vis-a-vis the constitution and that the system of checks and balances work.
354749
The word is "appeal" if you're convicted. Then write a book about it. It happens a lot. The main thing judges say is "ignorance of the law is not a defense to breaking the law." In front of a judge alone, you may be up the creek, but there's always a chance if you appeal to get a jury. Human Error is something jury's can relate to easily, we are all human after all.
722055
Well the "Supereme Court of the United States" can declare any law of the legislature (i.e. Congress) and executive (i.e. The President) null and void, if it is against the constitution. This power of the Supereme Court is called "Judicial Review". A famous case in this connection is the case of "Marbury vs Madision".
253677
Such case is decided under a "strict scrutiny" level: the distinction/discrimination/etc must be necessary for a compelling government interest. The means must be narrowly tailored,  the gov must show that no least restrictive means are available and the gov has the burden of proof.
299839
Look up the "Sarbanes-Oxley Act" online.  It was the law that congress passed to try and stop things like "Enron" from happening again.  It isn't perfect,(government work never is) but it will give you an idea of what type of controls you should have in place to prevent fraud.....
656344
Yes, it is fraud. Prison sentence in our fair state.
1084363
A little note on the particulars of lawmaking and judgments (which are NOT the same).  The creation of laws is done by the legislative branch (ie. Congress or Administrative Agencies - whose legitimacy can be debated as well).  The interpretation of laws is done by the Judicial Branch (ie. judges, ultimately the Supreme Court).  \n\nThere are several types of law in the United States, which is followed from the ancestors from England...Common Law, Natural Law, positive Law, Administrative Law, Ordinances, State Law,  and Constitutional Law.  Most people have no idea how these all fit together.  BASICALLY....\n\nWhen an entity (usually a person) appeals a case to the United States Supreme Court, and it is accepted for review by the Court, the parties are arguing points of law, not whether something happened or not.  In reviewing a case, the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court are supposed to use above all else for their considerations the United States Constitution - the SUPREME law of this land.  (This is how if something is found unconstitutional, the case is over becuase it is by nature illegal.)  \n\nThe Constitution however is viewed through the lenses of human eyes that have had experiences and posses hidden motives.  These are what move a Justice to decide one or another.  \n\n(In regards to a precedent....this applies to Common Law only, which is the lowest forms of law in this country.  All that a precedent is, is a way another Justice at some level decided in a particular region.  That is, if an Alabama judge decided a case for a certain reason...other Alabama judges would be expected to find the same decision in similar cases.  This precedent would not at all apply to courts in Colorado or Maine or...any other state.  Precedents are most similar to ordinances - "don't do that because we have realized it causes harm to many.")
536815
It used to be called "Zealous Advocacy" in the ethical codes.\n\nThe basic idea is that the legal system is adversarial, and that truth is best found when opposing learned individuals vigorously advocate their respective sides of the argument.\n\nThe 6th Amendment also guarantees assistance of counsel, which has been interpreted as effective assistance. Since the prosecutor is likely to be vigorous in seeking conviction (given the nature of the adversarial system), the defense must be equally vigorous.
781570
The supreme court's most important power as a branch of government is particularly for checks and balance.  Each branch is there to kinda keep the other two from getting too out of control.  It got it's power from the constitution that's where the branches of government were defined and where they're roles were defined.
70834
The Supreme Court is independent because a justice can serve for life.  President Bush indicated before he was elected that he would place "strict constructionists" on the court who would decide cases on the merits of the Law only after considering all the facts.\n\nThe fact remains that the country has many issues that could be clarified by new laws.  one good example is obortion, whether you favor or oppose it.  The truth is that the issues divides the country regardless of party affiliation and is highly polarizing.  Therefore, it is impossible for Congress to pass any law that resolves the issue and the Constitution can not be amended for the same reason.  There aren't enough votes on either sidebut more than enough votes to stop the "wrong" decision by the other side.  Because of a failure of the Congress to pass laws, some expect the Supreme Court to take up the slack and legislate from the bench.  That would be a violation of the separation of powers for the three branches of government.  Therefore, regardless of his/her own beliefs, Supreme Court justices must set aside any personal views (one way or the other) and determine based on the arguments they hear and the briefs they read and a study of past decisions, who should win any particular case.  During recent hearings for Supreme Court nonimees, I heard no Politician blame himeself for failing to pass clear laws on any important issue.  Many had to be left vague to even get through Congress.\n\nLet's hope the Supreme Court remains above politics, even if different views are strongly held.  If we don't have the rule of law we have nothing.
806626
There are three situations.\n\nFirst, there are some cases where the Supreme Court has original (not appellate) jurisdiction, as defined in Article III of the Constitution. In such cases, the Supreme Court must take the case.\n\nThere are also some situations where there is a mandatory appeal from either a state Supreme Court or a federal Appellate court. These are defined by statute, and again, the Supreme Court must take the case.\n\nHowever, most cases heard by the Supreme Court are discretionary appeals, either from a state Supreme Court or a federal Appellate court. In such situations, the party filing the appeal asks the Supreme Court to hear the case. This is called a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari (meaning "to make certain"). If the Court agrees to hear the case, it "grants cert". Else it "denies cert". So, in this third category, it's up to the Supreme Court itself whether they hear the case or not.
609749
Although imaginative, your idea would violate the "cases and controversies" clause in Article 3 of the Constitution.  That clause has been interpreted to mean only actual cases in which a person who has really been affected or is about to be affected brings an actual controversy before the courts.  US federal courts can not try to imagine how a law or Presidential act is going to play out and just decide it's unconstitutional.  Somebody always has to file an actual lawsuit or be charged with an actual crime before the courts have any power to do anything in our system -- which sorta deflates the nonsense we hear about activist judges in this country.\n\nIn many other countries, including many European democracies, the system works differently.  Those countries often have "constitutional courts" that basically check laws as they're being made to decide whether they are going to be ok or not.  If not, they are often returned to parliament to be re-worked.  Of course, courts in general there work very, very differently from what we're used to in the US, and they are not always an independent branch like they are here.  That's why it makes sense to limit the power of our federal courts by making them more passive, removing their ability to have a voice on subjects where no real trouble has yet arisen.\n\nAlso, the Constitution's second Article gives the President a lot of trust and authority precisely so our country would have somebody in a position to handle emergencies quickly and without long debates.  The President has a duty to keep secrets, even from the courts unless -- yup, unless an actual case or controversy comes from a valid lawsuit or a criminal charge.  Making the President keep members of the judicial branch around with him to hear all his secrets would violate the separation of powers that is so important to the structure of our republic.\n\nIn any case, we do have judges who sit in special federal courts, where the judges have top security clearance and are supposed to review the President's activities, grant or deny him search warrants, and that sort of thing.  Sadly, this President has decided that, despite what the laws say, he can ignore that court and its judges.  I see little reason at this point to trust that he would cooperate with judges or obey their rulings in your plan any more than he already has in reality.
566966
Order issued by an appellate court, typically the US Supreme Court, ordering that a case be brought before it from a lower court, for the purpose of reviewing the issues of law.
49761
Hard to say without knowing what context you've heard/seen it in.\n\nIn California, defendants who are charged with felonies are given a preliminary hearing before a judge to determine if there's sufficient information to indicate the defendant did what the government is alleging.  If there is, the defendant is "bound over" for trial in superior court.  Maybe this is a similar thing, but you really need to provide some additional details to get a solid answer.
1092291
Determined by supreme court case.