Press Room

For Immediate Release
January 30, 2006

Contact
Paul Murphy:
(801)538-1892
pmurphy@utah.gov

• Could a student be charged with communications fraud for claiming "the dog ate my homework" to a teacher?
  
  
• Do trick-or-treaters violate the same law every Halloween?
  
  
• Do freedom of speech laws give us the freedom to trick people out of their money?

     The Attorney General's Office says the answer is "no" to all of those questions and state appellate lawyers will ask the justices to uphold the convictions in all 4 fraud cases----2 involving the same person. Here are brief summaries
of each case:

State v. Brooks Bradshaw

Brooks Bradshaw approached 8 individuals and 4 couples and falsely claimed he could get them financing for real estate. He collected between $400 and $600 in fees from the victims but didn't help anyone get a mortgage. Bradshaw pleaded guilty to 4 felonies but he wants the charges reduced or dismissed because it wasn't really a "single scheme to defraud." The appeal argues that Bradshaw's schemes were separate because he sometimes made different claims about his occupation, services and fees.

Richard Jeremy Mattinson took his girlfriend to a hospital emergency room to have her treated for spinal meningitis. Both Mattinson and his girlfriend gave fake names, addresses and other personal information. After being treated, Wells left without paying or arranging to pay the $5,867.83 medical bill. A jury convicted Mattinson on 1 count of communications fraud. In his initial appeal, Mattinson claimed that the communications fraud law is so broad that it could prohibit a woman from wearing a push-up bra because it "imparts or makes known false information." His latest appeal says the statute could also include: trick-or-treating because kids conceal their identity while asking for candy; a clothing salesman who falsely tells a customer, "You don't look fat in that dress;" or a student who claims "the dog ate my homework."

Richard Norris signed people up to sell diet products and promised to pay them salaries. However, he also made the sales people sign contracts that unknowingly obligated them to pay for the diet goods they couldn't sell. Nobody got a salary and Norris sued his sales force in small claims court when they didn't pay for the product. Norris was originally charged with misdemeanors but prosecutors later changed the charges to felonies. Norris appealed but eventually pleaded guilty to 2 class A misdemeanor charges of communications fraud. In the latest appeal, the Supreme Court will consider whether the state communications fraud law is too broad under the First Amendment; and whether the district judge had jurisdiction on the felony counts at the same time appeals were being heard on the misdemeanor charges.

Same con man, slightly different con. Though not a lawyer, Richard Norris was in the business of making money by suing Utah sub-contractors he had hired to sell advertising in brochures. He would ask sub-contractors to sign an agreement and promissory note before selling the ads and then through a series of misrepresentations forced them to default on their agreements. Norris then used his own collection agency to collect the full amount in the agreement, plus late fees, court costs and attorneys fees without a notice or a hearing. Norris pleaded guilty to 3 counts of communications fraud. In his appeal, Norris admits his communications were not Constitutionally protected, but argues that the state communications fraud statute should be thrown out because it could be applied to conduct or speech that is protected.

###