Under FECA's reporting and disclosure requirements, to bypass the law in effect required violating it. Taking Goland at his word, he would not have used individuals as conduits if the law did not prohibit making anonymous contributions. His contribution was not anonymous it was secret. 11 According to the Commission, although Goland purports to challenge the constitutionality of applying contribution limits to anonymous contributions, the indictment does not charge Goland with making an anonymous contribution, but rather with seeking to avoid detection of his excessive contribution by using "conduits" so that his contribution would be attributed to others. The United States and the Commission challenge Goland's standing on the additional ground that his claim involves a hypothetical application of FECA. The very conduct that provides the factual basis for this challenge should not disqualify the challenge. And as Goland points out, one of the rights he seeks to vindicate is the ability to make anonymous donations. if the First Amendment protected only the forthright, there would be no chilling effect doctrine." 463 F.2d at 852. As Judge Wright observed in Rodriguez, ". This general principle has special force in the context of a first amendment challenge, where standing restrictions are relaxed in certain cases to avoid "chilling" protected expression. To continue the example, the picketer would be permitted to bring a constitutional challenge against the law that prohibits resisting arrest. One should, however, be able to raise the unconstitutionality of the statute under which one is charged as a defense to a charge of having violated it. Similarly, one may not be allowed to defend against a charge of lying to the government by claiming that one should not have been forced to divulge certain information. If, for example, a local ordinance prevents picketing, and a picketer assaults an officer while being arrested, the unconstitutionality of the picketing ordinance should not be available as a defense to a charge of resisting arrest.
![michael goland michael goland](https://samuelslaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/TaxBill-e1419268102612.jpg)
![michael goland michael goland](https://a.mktgcdn.com/p/xz2ucHVSS97t4rvnnIGhXAHg-Se3pKm6bJUeTTsdCuk/400x557.jpg)
This limitation on the capacity of a criminal defendant to challenge the constitutionality of a statute is sensible when so confined. 1973) (conviction for filing false statements to the government not subject to challenge on ground of unconstitutionality of the requirement). 1972) (federal employee was subject to discharge for making false statements on security clearance application requiring information as to past Communist associations regardless of constitutionality of questions posed) United States v. 2d 212 (1976) (fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination does not require suppression of false statement in perjury prosecution) Rodriguez v.
#Michael goland registration
2d 275 (1969) (constitutionality of government's demand for information on wagering registration form is irrelevant to charge of filing false statements with government) United States v. 2d 264 (1969) (unconstitutionality of statute which required union officers to file non-communist affidavits is irrelevant to validity of conviction for filing false statement in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (statutes criminalizing conspiracies to defraud the government and causing false statements to the government) he could not collaterally raise the constitutionality of FECA. Were Goland's crimes limited to charges of violating 18 U.S.C. In other words, what the Dennis defendants were prosecuted for were their conspiratorial false statements to the government. The Court held that "a claim of unconstitutionality will not be heard to excuse a voluntary, deliberate and calculated course of fraud and deceit." Id. They sought to have their convictions set aside on the ground that the law prohibiting Communist Party members from holding office in a labor union was unconstitutional. § 371 10 by conspiring to obtain fraudulently NLRB services for the union by filing false "non-Communist" affidavits. The petitioners in Dennis were indicted for violating 18 U.S.C. Some doubt exists as to the vitality of the Dennis rule, but we need not decide that here. Goland's criminal defense would seem to be the criminal proceeding. In fact, the proper forum for evaluating the effect, if any, of Dennis on Mr. Therefore, what might be a bar to the assertion of a defense in the criminal case does not prevent an individual from pursuing his declaratory judgment suit. The fact that a criminal action is pending does not preclude civil proceedings.
![michael goland michael goland](https://www.pennmedicine.org/-/media/mpd/providers/rickels_michael.jpg)
CALMED established that each route for testing the constitutionality of a FECA provision (an enforcement action and a parallel declaratory judgment action) may be pursued independently.
![michael goland michael goland](https://video.vitals.com/Dr_Michael_Goland.jpg)
The present case is civil-a declaratory judgment action under Sec. First, Dennis restricted the availability of certain defenses against criminal charges. However, ultimately it fails for several reasons.