U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Happy Easter!
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Illegal Immigration
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-26-2011, 12:13 PM
 
7,022 posts, read 5,772,668 times
Reputation: 6963

Advertisements

From the link posted-
Quote:
Mew described Mora-Lopez as a "sterling" officer with a good reputation and a "very professional" manner.

Colleagues of the officer were "devastated" to learn the news, especially those who worked the busy evening shifts with him, Mew said.

"He was known as a core member of the shift. He's a popular guy. Everybody likes him," Mew said. "We're going to miss him. But he did what he did and the chickens come home to roost."
Sociopaths and criminals are master manipulators, so I'm not surprised he was well-liked. If anything, his popularity made him even more dangerous if he worked as a mole for the Mexican drug cartel. Nobody would ever question him because "he was so nice".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-26-2011, 12:22 PM
 
Location: Maryland
15,179 posts, read 15,809,199 times
Reputation: 3028
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1751texan View Post
It not what the defendent claims...its what the procecutor can prove.

Are you saying that if a procecutor can prove Identity Theft...if an illegal claims he didnt know the identy was an actual persons, he gets off?
If an illegal pleads ignorance, how can a prosecutor prove he/she “knowingly” used the ID of an actual person? Remember, polygraph results are inadmissible in court. It isn’t a matter of proving an illegal committed ID theft, because that’s a given. It is proving he/she “knew” the ID actually belonged to someone.

Sorry, but it is impossible to prove or disprove a person’s thoughts. That is the ridiculous burden of proof this travesty masquerading as justice requires of the prosecution.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-26-2011, 12:28 PM
 
Location: Maryland
15,179 posts, read 15,809,199 times
Reputation: 3028
Quote:
Originally Posted by renault View Post
From the link posted-


Sociopaths and criminals are master manipulators, so I'm not surprised he was well-liked. If anything, his popularity made him even more dangerous if he worked as a mole for the Mexican drug cartel. Nobody would ever question him because "he was so nice".
Exactly! God only knows how many illegals or other criminals he may have aided and abetted during his “stellar” years in law enforcement.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-26-2011, 12:41 PM
 
Location: SouthCentral Texas
3,855 posts, read 4,084,676 times
Reputation: 957
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benicar View Post
If an illegal pleads ignorance, how can a prosecutor prove he/she “knowingly” used the ID of an actual person? Remember, polygraph results are inadmissible in court. It isn’t a matter of proving an illegal committed ID theft, because that’s a given. It is proving he/she “knew” the ID actually belonged to someone.

Sorry, but it is impossible to prove or disprove a person’s thoughts. That is the ridiculous burden of proof this travesty masquerading as justice requires of the prosecution.
In a nutshell...

If a person commits identity theft, he uses that information to profit from the person information. Opening credit lines, paying bills from the person accounts, making purchases using the person's accounts, stealing funds this all leaves a "paper trail". This is toatally provable.

If a person uses another's SSN to gain work, apply for beneifits...but does not profit from the original persons accounts or assumes the other person's identity....then that is Identity fraud. also provable.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-26-2011, 12:49 PM
 
Location: Maryland
15,179 posts, read 15,809,199 times
Reputation: 3028
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1751texan View Post
In a nutshell...

If a person commits identity theft, he uses that information to profit from the person information. Opening credit lines, paying bills from the person accounts, making purchases using the person's accounts, stealing funds this all leaves a "paper trail". This is toatally provable.

If a person uses another's SSN to gain work, apply for beneifits...but does not profit from the original persons accounts or assumes the other person's identity....then that is Identity fraud. also provable.
Clearly, you don’t understand this law. They can open as many bank accounts, obtain as many credit cards, purchase a home, car, etc. in the “fraudulent” name, but it still does NOT prove they “knew” the assumed identity was that of a “real” person.

Quote:
Question:
In order to prove aggravated identity theft, does the government need to prove the defendant knew the identification he possessed belonged to another person?

Conclusion:
Yes. The Supreme Court held that the government needs to prove that the defendant "knew" that the identification he possessed belonged to another person. With Justice Stephen G. Breyer writing for the majority and joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, and Justices John Paul Stevens, Anthony M. Kennedy, David H. Souter, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Court reasoned that ordinary grammar indicates that "knowingly" should be read to apply to all subsequently listed elements of the crime in the relevant statute.
http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2008/2008_08_108/

Last edited by Benicar; 04-26-2011 at 01:02 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-26-2011, 01:21 PM
 
Location: SouthCentral Texas
3,855 posts, read 4,084,676 times
Reputation: 957
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benicar View Post
Clearly, you don’t understand this law. They can open as many bank accounts, obtain as many credit cards, purchase a home, car, etc. in the “fraudulent” name, but it still does NOT prove they “knew” the assumed identity was that of a “real” person.


Flores-Figueroa v. United States | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law
the example you cited is ID fraud.

ID theft is assuming the persons identity and causing that person harm by attacking thier accounts, their credit.

I had ID theft commited against me...the person didnt just open credit cards...they opened credit cards in my name, paid bills in my name with my accounts, withdrew monies from my accounts in my name. Signed checks using my name...They assumed my identity for their profit.

In paying their cable, electric, rent, and phone bills we were able to track them.

I know the difference.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-26-2011, 01:36 PM
 
Location: Maryland
15,179 posts, read 15,809,199 times
Reputation: 3028
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1751texan View Post
the example you cited is ID fraud.

ID theft is assuming the persons identity and causing that person harm by attacking thier accounts, their credit.

I had ID theft commited against me...the person didnt just open credit cards...they opened credit cards in my name, paid bills in my name with my accounts, withdrew monies from my accounts in my name. Signed checks using my name...They assumed my identity for their profit.

In paying their cable, electric, rent, and phone bills we were able to track them.

I know the difference.
This is beyond ridiculous. Do you not see the word THEFT in the following quote? Causing “harm” is irrelevant if the person claims he/she did not “know” they were harming anyone. Why is this so incredibly difficult for you to grasp?

Quote:
Question:
In order to prove aggravated identity theft, does the government need to prove the defendant knew the identification he possessed belonged to another person?

Conclusion:
Yes. The Supreme Court held that the government needs to prove that the defendant "knew" that the identification he possessed belonged to another person. With Justice Stephen G. Breyer writing for the majority and joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, and Justices John Paul Stevens, Anthony M. Kennedy, David H. Souter, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Court reasoned that ordinary grammar indicates that "knowingly" should be read to apply to all subsequently listed elements of the crime in the relevant statute.

Last edited by Benicar; 04-26-2011 at 01:52 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-26-2011, 02:14 PM
 
Location: SouthCentral Texas
3,855 posts, read 4,084,676 times
Reputation: 957
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benicar View Post
Clearly, you don’t understand this law. They can open as many bank accounts, obtain as many credit cards, purchase a home, car, etc. in the “fraudulent” name, but it still does NOT prove they “knew” the assumed identity was that of a “real” person.


Flores-Figueroa v. United States | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law
you're debating the question that was before the US Supreme court...not the current Idnetity theft/fraud law. A court rulling is not law...it is the reasoning for subsequent laws.


Alaska identity laws...
Quote:
A person commits the crime of criminal impersonation if he possesses an access device or identification document of another person, and uses it without authorization to obtain a false identification document, open an account at a financial institution, obtain another access device, or obtain property or services, damaging the financial reputation of the other person.

An access device is defined as a card, credit card, plate, code, account number or identification number, including a Social Security number, electronic serial number or password, that is capable of being used, alone or in conjunction with another access device or identification document, to obtain property or services.
Quote:
A person commits the crime of criminal impersonation in the second degree if he assumes a false identity and acts in the assumed character with intent to defraud, commit a crime, or obtain a benefit to which the person is not entitled; or pretends to be a representative of some person or organization and acts in the pretended capacity with intent to defraud, commit a crime, or obtain a benefit to which the person is not entitled. Criminal impersonation in the second degree is a class A misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail and/or a fine up to $10,000.

Alaska gets it...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-26-2011, 02:31 PM
 
4,999 posts, read 1,720,926 times
Reputation: 2786
Well, first it has to be said that this guy gets the big brassy balls award. After this, they should retire the award.

Second, it should be obvious to everyone that this guy will wind up costing Alaska perhaps millions of dollars in wasted money prosecuting people that he arrested and in citations that he administered. Not to mention what it cost to pay for his training, salary, benefits, gas, etc...

He is a criminal in a masterfully executed case of identity theft and fraud. Everyone that he arrested will have to be let go and all cases involving him will have to be dropped. Him acting as a cop was a huge waste of time, money, resources, and a good career for a real American was sacrificed.

Anyone who lives in the USA and has the mindset that this guy is some type of folk hero, and therefore will almost certainly be an illegal or an immigrant who refuses to assimilate, should be shipped back to wherever they came from too.

If you support this guy then you may as well support the latino gangs that arise wherever immigrants/illegal immigrants take hold. They are all criminals. This guy was just more creative than most.

And why the HELL is Alaska hiring law enforcement officers with what are most assuredly obvious accents? They should be embarrassed to show their faces for a few years.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-26-2011, 02:55 PM
 
Location: Maryland
15,179 posts, read 15,809,199 times
Reputation: 3028
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1751texan View Post
you're debating the question that was before the US Supreme court...not the current Idnetity theft/fraud law. A court rulling is not law...it is the reasoning for subsequent laws.

Alaska identity laws...



Alaska gets it...
Clearly, you MUST believe you’re right, regardless of irrefutable evidence. Obviously, you don’t realize the Supreme Court ruling is now the federal “law.”

I suppose since the Supreme Court “ruled” in Plyler v. Doe, states are not required to provide a K-12 education for illegal aliens. Likewise, the Supreme Court “ruled” in Roe v. Wade. Therefore, abortion isn’t legal in every state. In both cases, each state can have their own laws. Right?

Bottom line: This illegal alien ID thief will escape prosecution by claiming he did not realize the stolen ID belonged to an actual person. Watch it unfold.

I am so through with this exchange.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Illegal Immigration
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top