4 ms·

What are you basing this comment on?

by vxNsr 4y ago

zoklet-enjoyer 4y ago
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...
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
rtkwe 4y ago
Most of it is available in these two links. The justice.gov is the easiest and shortest but the justia.com has some information about their appeal and evidentiary challenges. 1 - https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca10/1 https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca10/1... 2 - https://www.justice.gov/usao-nm/pr/albuquerque-couple-senten https://www.justice.gov/usao-nm/pr/albuquerque-couple-senten...
primitivesuave 4y ago
Reading the indictment: https://dirtyprosecutor.org/11401.pdf https://dirtyprosecutor.org/11401.pdf If you skip to page 12 and 13, you get a pretty good sense of the amateur nature of this fraud. There is a preponderance of evidence against [name redacted]. He used the same emails from the fraudulent scheme to sign up for a Netflix account, pay for items shipped to his home address, and even used a personal PayPal account in conjunction with stolen rewards to make purchases. The FBI got data from eBay, Netflix, Google, and even Staples, to make a pretty airtight argument that this guy was the sole perpetuator behind the fraud.
- rtkwe 4y ago
  Yeah even if they threw out anything associated with this supposedly bogus search warrant it really seems like there's plenty to convince a jury that he did in fact defraud OfficeMax.
  - parasense 4y ago
    > Yeah even if they threw out anything associated with this supposedly bogus search warrant it really seems like there's plenty to convince a jury that he did in fact defraud OfficeMax. There is a legal doctrine called something like "fruit of the poisoned tree" which means any evidence and any subsequent evidence is tainted, and gets thrown out in court. So yeah, there is the potential he could appeal his case, and have a retrial where anything obtained from the FBI raid is thrown out. That could be huge for his case, or not.... (who knows) The FBI swat team, while conducting their raid, supposedly extracted a confession under duress. There is a potential problem right there with Miranda rights, but also anything done under duress is potentially not admissible as evidence in criminal court. When you say plenty of evidence against him, you are saying they had enough evidence in isolation of any evidence improperly gathered from his home & wife. Perhaps, or perhaps not enough to convince a jury.
    - rtkwe 4y ago
      Just the info from OfficeMax seems like enough in my opinion. He used 4 gmail addresses and reused some of them for his netflix and to get items delivered to his house. They could also find out where the gmail's were accessed from from google. All that combined would paint a pretty convincing picture to me, then it's just convincing the jury this rises to the level of fraud. But also if you look at his actual appeals they don't challenge the evidence from the raid at all that I see it's all about the data from the OfficeMax rewards program that was produced by a 3rd party company; arguing they're not originals, aren't admissible because they're hear-say, etc. Maybe he just noticed this but this is even pretty weak evidence given there's not actually a standard form for any of the documents he pulls up. As for the duress OP is a deeply involved narrator and there's no mention of this being before or after the Miranda warning.
      - mchannon 4y ago
        Miranda warning? There was no Miranda warning. You see, the judge ruled that enough time had elapsed that the conversation was consensual. My wife said it was almost instant from when they pointed guns and sexually assaulted her in the front yard, the FBI agent said no more than 10 minutes, the judge said it was at least 15 minutes. So, consensual, while they're literally blocking any exit she has, won't let anyone in the house use the bathroom without them watching, she's still not wearing anything decent, and a squad is ransacking the house. This case stinks to high heaven. What beggars belief, for me, is how everyone finds it so easy to doubt what I say and so easy to accept as gospel what the government says.

What are you basing this comment on?

by vxNsr 4y ago

What are you basing this comment on?

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...

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

rtkwe 4y ago

Most of it is available in these two links. The justice.gov is the easiest and shortest but the justia.com has some information about their appeal and evidentiary challenges. 1 - https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca10/1 https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca10/1... 2 - https://www.justice.gov/usao-nm/pr/albuquerque-couple-senten https://www.justice.gov/usao-nm/pr/albuquerque-couple-senten...

primitivesuave 4y ago

Reading the indictment: https://dirtyprosecutor.org/11401.pdf https://dirtyprosecutor.org/11401.pdf If you skip to page 12 and 13, you get a pretty good sense of the amateur nature of this fraud. There is a preponderance of evidence against [name redacted]. He used the same emails from the fraudulent scheme to sign up for a Netflix account, pay for items shipped to his home address, and even used a personal PayPal account in conjunction with stolen rewards to make purchases. The FBI got data from eBay, Netflix, Google, and even Staples, to make a pretty airtight argument that this guy was the sole perpetuator behind the fraud.

rtkwe 4y ago
Yeah even if they threw out anything associated with this supposedly bogus search warrant it really seems like there's plenty to convince a jury that he did in fact defraud OfficeMax.
- parasense 4y ago
  > Yeah even if they threw out anything associated with this supposedly bogus search warrant it really seems like there's plenty to convince a jury that he did in fact defraud OfficeMax. There is a legal doctrine called something like "fruit of the poisoned tree" which means any evidence and any subsequent evidence is tainted, and gets thrown out in court. So yeah, there is the potential he could appeal his case, and have a retrial where anything obtained from the FBI raid is thrown out. That could be huge for his case, or not.... (who knows) The FBI swat team, while conducting their raid, supposedly extracted a confession under duress. There is a potential problem right there with Miranda rights, but also anything done under duress is potentially not admissible as evidence in criminal court. When you say plenty of evidence against him, you are saying they had enough evidence in isolation of any evidence improperly gathered from his home & wife. Perhaps, or perhaps not enough to convince a jury.
  - rtkwe 4y ago
    Just the info from OfficeMax seems like enough in my opinion. He used 4 gmail addresses and reused some of them for his netflix and to get items delivered to his house. They could also find out where the gmail's were accessed from from google. All that combined would paint a pretty convincing picture to me, then it's just convincing the jury this rises to the level of fraud. But also if you look at his actual appeals they don't challenge the evidence from the raid at all that I see it's all about the data from the OfficeMax rewards program that was produced by a 3rd party company; arguing they're not originals, aren't admissible because they're hear-say, etc. Maybe he just noticed this but this is even pretty weak evidence given there's not actually a standard form for any of the documents he pulls up. As for the duress OP is a deeply involved narrator and there's no mention of this being before or after the Miranda warning.
    - mchannon 4y ago
      Miranda warning? There was no Miranda warning. You see, the judge ruled that enough time had elapsed that the conversation was consensual. My wife said it was almost instant from when they pointed guns and sexually assaulted her in the front yard, the FBI agent said no more than 10 minutes, the judge said it was at least 15 minutes. So, consensual, while they're literally blocking any exit she has, won't let anyone in the house use the bathroom without them watching, she's still not wearing anything decent, and a squad is ransacking the house. This case stinks to high heaven. What beggars belief, for me, is how everyone finds it so easy to doubt what I say and so easy to accept as gospel what the government says.