made these statements with reckless disregard for the truth.” Whether an accused established by a preponderance of the evidence that the affidavit was deliberately false or made with reckless disregard for the truth are questions of fact for the military judge to resolve; thus, a military judge’s findings on this issue “are binding unless they are clearly erroneous.” United States v. Allen, 53 M.J. 402, 408 (C.A.A.F.2000). To prove reckless disregard for the truth under Franks, the accused “must prove that the affiant ‘in fact entertained serious doubts as to the truth’ of the allegations.” United States v. Ranney, 298 F.3d 74, 78 (1st Cir. 2002) (quoting United States v. Williams, 737 F.2d 594, 602 (7th Cir.1984)) (agreeing with United States v. Davis, 617 F.2d 677, 694 (D.C.Cir.1979) (<HOLDING>)). There is no evidence that Det. Krause
holding that in the absence of a statutory definition a term should be accorded its ordinary meaning holding that where the first amendment does not protect a certain activity there can be no first amendment right of association to engage in that activity holding that where the definition of lottery is expressly limited to 18 usc  1307b the definition cannot be applied to a related civil statute holding that the first amendment definition should be applied by analogy in the franks setting holding that the exclusions should be applied