From the article:
"Toby J. Heytens, representing the government in the case, Flores-Figueroa v. United States, No. 08-108, said the court should focus on the victims of identity fraud rather than on its perpetrators. The law often makes distinctions, Mr. Heytens said, between equally culpable conduct based on the harm it causes."
AND
"Mr. Heytens, representing the government, said the Supreme Court had said as recently as Tuesday, in Hayes v. United States, that “a certain amount of ambiguity doesn’t automatically trigger the rule of lenity.”
It's a good thing we're all clear that Mr. Heytens is representing the government. On a serious note, that is f*cking awesome. That's the only way I can describe that. It's my dream as a aspiring lawyer to argue in front of the Supreme Court. It's great to see a former mocker getting to do this. Congratulations.
When I started reading the article I was wondering how on earth someone could argue against this. However, it seems that the way Toby is arguing this case makes even more sense.
