The defendant in this case seems to misunderstand the law. His contention is that his offer to bribe is an absurdity and that Patti should have recognized it as such. His logic is that there can be no...

The defendant in this case seems to misunderstand the law. His contention is that his offer to bribe is an absurdity and that Patti should have recognized it as such. His logic is that there can be no fraud unless the person who is allegedly being helped by the fraud reasonably believes the promised act will occur. In other words, the more outrageous the promise, the more the person charged with fraud can escape liability. The court in this case makes it clear that it is the act of the person initiating the fraud that is the key to the offense, not the response of the person being defrauded.

1. Does the rule of law in mail fraud cases require any particular action or belief on the part of the person being defrauded? Clue: Study the quote in the next-to-last paragraph of the decision.

2. What ethical norm is being emphasized by the rule of law with respect to mail fraud? Clue: Look back at the list of alternative ethical norms and make a determination about which of them is being advanced by the rule of law as it applies to mail fraud.