5 ms·

This is absolutely not satire. The case is 1:13-CR-00966-JCH-KK-1.

milesokeefe 8y ago
Details: 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 ago
Is that this: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1pwl-vwy-nQelwZ2iGguvrtIcsJq30_U7 https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1pwl-vwy-nQelwZ2iGguv...
- innocentfelon 8y ago
  At first glance, that filing is indeed from this case.
  - tptacek 8y ago
    So, 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 ago
      The 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 ago
        According 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
        Given the limitations of this messaging forum and your interest in the discussion, I hope it’s all right if I continue this discussion directly. For the benefit of everyone else on the thread, they can likewise reach me directly. I understand the coder’s urge to distill the argument down to a missed OR operator, but it wrongly oversimplifies a matter that can take hours to fully get across. As to the wisdom of the publicity, it remains to be seen. If you were wrongfully convicted, how quiet would you be?

Details: 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 ago

Is that this: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1pwl-vwy-nQelwZ2iGguvrtIcsJq30_U7 https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1pwl-vwy-nQelwZ2iGguv...

innocentfelon 8y ago
At first glance, that filing is indeed from this case.
- tptacek 8y ago
  So, 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 ago
    The 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 ago
      According 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
        Given the limitations of this messaging forum and your interest in the discussion, I hope it’s all right if I continue this discussion directly. For the benefit of everyone else on the thread, they can likewise reach me directly. I understand the coder’s urge to distill the argument down to a missed OR operator, but it wrongly oversimplifies a matter that can take hours to fully get across. As to the wisdom of the publicity, it remains to be seen. If you were wrongfully convicted, how quiet would you be?