5 ms·
InnocentFelonForHire.com – High Quality Software Service, at a Competitive Price
- crachau 8y agoInnovative approach! Hopefully someone reacts well to this ;)
- InitialLastName 8y agoAs acknowledged, this page isn't the innovative one. This is: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16925069 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16925069
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- aqme28 8y agoIs this satire? I cannot tell. If it is, it's pretty distasteful. If it's not, I need to hear more about this court case.
- innocentfelon 8y agoThis is absolutely not satire. The case is 1:13-CR-00966-JCH-KK-1.
- milesokeefe 8y agoDetails: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca10/16-2254/16-2254-2018-01-31.html https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca10/1... "Defendants-Appellants [redacted] used fictitious names and addresses to open rewards accounts at OfficeMax, known as “MaxPerks” accounts. They used these accounts to fraudulently obtain more than $100,000 in OfficeMax products. The scheme came to light when Steven Gardner, an OfficeMax fraud investigator, noticed an unusually high number of online-adjustments across several different accounts. Gardner observed that most of the accounts were registered to one of three email addresses, differing only with interspersed periods between the characters of each address. OfficeMax recognized the variations as unique email addresses, but gmail did not. Defendants then used these fraudulent email addresses to claim purchases by other customers, thus generating rewards to which they were not entitled. They also used various accounts to sell more than 27,000 used ink cartridges, receiving $3 in rewards from OfficeMax for each after paying an average of $.32 per cartridge on eBay. In total, over the 21 months of their scheme, Defendants redeemed $105,191 in OfficeMax rewards. Defendants were ultimately were convicted by a jury of wire fraud and conspiracy to commit wire fraud relating to a scheme to defraud OfficeMax. They appealed, challenging the district court’s decision to: (1) admit exhibits derived from computer records and (2) enter a money judgment forfeiture. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeal upheld the district court’s admission of the exhibits but remanded so the district court may conduct further proceedings on the money judgment of forfeiture."
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- tptacek 8y agoIs that this: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1pwl-vwy-nQelwZ2iGguvrtIcsJq30_U7 https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1pwl-vwy-nQelwZ2iGguv...
- innocentfelon 8y agoAt first glance, that filing is indeed from this case.
- tptacek 8y agoSo, that indictment doesn't just describe an elaborate scheme for cashing in more printer cartridges than OfficeMax allowed individuals to recycle, but also a scheme where you claimed the unrelated purchases of strangers as your own to earn store credits.
- innocentfelon 8y agoThe evidence in this case to support that indictment was fabricated (its author even disavowed its authorship under oath). Many judges feel that if a computer is used to produce evidence, it is self-authenticating. This is the issue we plan to take up, since we (and our experts) were never allowed access to the evidence against us.
- tptacek 8y agoAccording to your appeals case, you were convicted for both, the fraudulent scheme to bypass OfficeMax's limits on the number of printer cartridges you could sell them, and the use of bogus accounts to claim the purchases of strangers as your own. I'm not sure publicizing this whole story was your best move here. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1887547684365100183&q=us+v+channon+officemax&hl=en&scisbd=2&as_sdt=6,33 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=188754768436510...
- innocentfelon 8y ago
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- l33tbro 8y agoCan you explain the ink cartridge thing further? I'm not from the US so this seems ridiculous.
- innocentfelon 8y agoBeing from the US doesn’t help it make any more sense. Corporations can use the US government as bill collectors, when they’d lose in civil court. The joke is that any prosecutor worth her salt can indict a ham sandwich. The sad fact is convicting a ham sandwich is almost as easy.
- rubyn00bie 8y agoWow. This is fucking insane, I can't believe they got you for this. I'll never do business with OfficeMax again. This is a policy issue of their own that fucked them, punishing an external party, for their own dumbass mistake is appalling and a horrendous misuse of our judicial system. I'm very sorry this happened to you.
- justboxing 8y agoHow does this compare with "ReformedFelonForHire.com – High quality software skills, at a competitive price" => https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16925069 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16925069
- XR0CSWV3h3kZWg 8y agoHuh I didn't know that fraud through email could be considered wire fraud. I also didn't anticipate that abusing a rewards system could lead to a wire fraud case. I am sorry to hear about this case, but I don't quite get how you are arguing you are innocent. What part of their case do you dispute?
- handbanana 8y agoTwo thoughts: - Both products (the site, and the app) are copies of others. Neither looks like it took great skill to throw together. I don't know that anyone would want to hire you based on these 2 examples. - I don't know that I agree with the sentence. IMO seems harsh. But you certainly appear to have crossed some kind of line beyond "returning too many used ink cartridges"