or as a false statement.” I read the comment to imply that it could be similarly “punished” under North Dakota law but that the Bureau was seeking specific declaration to that effect. Thus, I believe this is an amendment intended to clarify existing law under Efferiz v. North Dakota Workers Compensation Bureau, 525 N.W.2d 691 (N.D.1994). [¶ 18] We should not discourage clarification of statutes with the threat that clarifications may be used to render useless existing law. [¶ 19] When the statute is clear and unambiguous, we look only to the face of the statute to determine legislative intent, In re Craig, 545 N.W.2d 764 (N.D.1996), and when the statute is clear and unambiguous, we cannot disregard it under the pretext of pursuing legislative intent. Ad 998 ND 40, 575 N.W.2d 436 (<HOLDING>). [¶ 21] It is elementary that under separation
holding that an attorney who made false representations to a court did not violate okla rpc 33 because that rule addresses professional misconduct as an advocate for making false statements to a tribunal not false statements by a lawyer as a witness holding that false statements are constitutionally protected holding that defendant could be charged for making false statements to treasury officials under the tax evasion statute or the statute prohibiting false statements to government officials holding alj did not specifically find false statements to be willful for purposes of forfeiting future benefits under ndcc  650533 holding that good faith is a defense to the willful filing of false statements under 18 usc  1001