Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How ^NOT to Forge a Search Warrant

dirtyprosecutor.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 53 posts

Re: How ^NOT to Forge a Search Warrant

#41

Post by AifVI »

pixl97 wrote: post #40
AifVI wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So one prosecutor acted unethically one time, and that is your evidence that "looking [at] prosecutors to be moral people is [a] mistake"? Come on. First, that's literally one person out of thousands. Second, your example is a single state court prosecutor. The U.S. Attorney's office has extremely high ethical standards.

I'm sure that in the days before cameras everywhere you'd be stating to the first instance of recorded police abuse "That's literally one cop out of thousands, second this is just one police department". But it turns out as more cameras have shown up, and as more people look we seem to find more and more cases. I guess the cameras cause cops to abuse people.

So one instance is sufficient to condemn an entire profession? What profession is ethical in your view?

Re: How ^NOT to Forge a Search Warrant

#42

Post by anigbrowl »

mchannon wrote: post #6
anigbrowl wrote: post #2

Interesting title, useless content. Video seems to be just a collection of document screenshots. Faking search warrants is a serious issue, but the compiler of this collection would have a lot more impact by adding a few hundred words to explain the point of the site instead of leaving it as a puzzle for the reader. Is this an attack on bad prosecutors in general? Is the website author the victim of prosecutorial har…

Thanks for the attempt at constructive criticism. There are actually that many words as subtitles in the video, I didn't leave out the hearing impaired. And a few hundred words are not necessary when six words at the top of the screen pretty much make it clear to most people. Maybe is not big enough, will consider making it bigger.

Your video didn't have subtitles. I get what it's about, but I don't want to sit through your video or spend lots of time trying to figure it out from documents without any other context. Watching videos is extremely time consuming compared to reading, and since I'm going to have to read the source documents anyway to fully understand your argument., I really don't want to process two different kinds of media.

It could be that you're making a really great point, but it could also be that you're a crank or a bullshit artist. If you want me to invest time caring about your issue, invest a little of your own in explaining it.

Re: How ^NOT to Forge a Search Warrant

#43

Post by UncleEntity »

AifVI wrote: post #41
pixl97 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure that in the days before cameras everywhere you'd be stating to the first instance of recorded police abuse "That's literally one cop out of thousands, second this is just one police department". But it turns out as more cameras have shown up, and as more people look we seem to find more and more cases. I guess the cameras cause cops to abuse people.

So one instance is sufficient to condemn an entire profession? What profession is ethical in your view?

Judges seem to be pretty ethical all things considered.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna30210

Re: How ^NOT to Forge a Search Warrant

#44

Post by michaelmrose »

michaelmrose wrote: post #37
mchannon wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for the attempt at constructive criticism. There are actually that many words as subtitles in the video, I didn't leave out the hearing impaired. And a few hundred words are not necessary when six words at the top of the screen pretty much make it clear to most people. Maybe is not big enough, will consider making it bigger.

The point of the words isn't in service of the hearing impaired it's to convince the person of the worthiness of a cause or at least to keep an open mind while watching a 16 minute youtube video. The meat of many matters can be digested in about 10 seconds and the whole meal disposed of in 5-10 minutes given that adults easily read at 300 words per minute. Most "causes" on youtube are to be quite frank absolute garba…

Edit: prosecutorial misconduct damn you spell check. Is it just me or is spell check getting worse?

Re: How ^NOT to Forge a Search Warrant

#45

Post by mchannon »

hirundo wrote: post #39
mchannon wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Appreciate your updating (and catching) that. GoFundMe apparently thought it needed to be changed. No alert to me or anything. Guess I'll have to make one minor change in iMovie and re-upload 2GB. I hope they don't pull this again.

Mr. Channon, is there anything you can say at this point about the allegations in the indictment? Are they whole-cloth fabrications, misreadings of the law, accurate, something else? Is there a victim here besides yourself?

There were three indictments in this case. The two lies the case was based on were:

•OfficeMax lost money every time I traded them a cartridge for $3 in net 45 store credit (pay no attention to the fact they refilled them, put them in generic packaging, and sold them for $10 less than a new $60 cartridge). They went off what they thought I paid as what they were actually worth (like having a pizza delivered, and telling them it's only worth $1.26 because that's all you believe they paid for the ingredients). Also pay no mind to the fact they could have stopped paying me at any time for them, for years, or asked me to stop bringing them in. But no, every time I came in with a bag, beep beep went the scanner 20 times, handed me a receipt confirming same with a smile, and out I went. Yet I was somehow the one stealing from them.

•I got explicit written permission from them with the receipt adjustments. They even reworded it to make it more explicitly permissible to do what I did. My public defender slow-walked this in front of the jury so I couldn't raise it as ineffective assistance.

If you watched the video, you'd know my wife was a victim. But the biggest victim I'd say is the American people. I've worked many years as a bay area mobile developer, and paid a lot in income taxes, and supported my family. Throwing a fine at me wouldn't have cost the tax base anything, but the hit to the taxpayer was substantial by taking away my ability to work and throwing my family onto public assistance. Most of America is disturbingly comfortable pinching pennies when it comes to aid to the poor but goes full drunken sailor when it comes to spending money on prisons.

Re: How ^NOT to Forge a Search Warrant

#46

Post by rtkwe »

primitivesuave wrote: post #32
vxNsr wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are you basing this comment on?

Reading the indictment: 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 rewar…

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.

Re: How ^NOT to Forge a Search Warrant

#47

Post by parasense »

rtkwe wrote: post #46
primitivesuave wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reading the indictment: 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 rewar…

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.

> 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.

Re: How ^NOT to Forge a Search Warrant

#48

Post by rtkwe »

parasense wrote: post #47
rtkwe wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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…

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.

Re: How ^NOT to Forge a Search Warrant

#49

Post by mchannon »

rtkwe wrote: post #48
parasense wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

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…

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.

Re: How ^NOT to Forge a Search Warrant

#50

Post by primitivesuave »

mchannon wrote: post #49
rtkwe wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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 i…

I am truly sorry for what you had to endure, it sounds completely uncalled for. After Bernie Madoff stole billions on Wall Street, the FBI came to his home and asked him "is there an innocent explanation for this?" before allowing him to get dressed and prepared for custody. If you were not showing any signs of resistance, there is no reason you or your wife should have been treated that way - if you have evidence of this, bring it up.

I would also concede that you may have a point with the warrant spacing, signature discrepancies, etc - at the very least, there is indication of a "guilty until proven innocent" mindset against you. However, you should also consider there is substantial hard evidence against you, provided by reputable third parties (Google, eBay, etc) - getting all of it declared inadmissible would be an uphill battle unless you have a highly motivated legal team.

Aside from obvious advice (don't do crime) I would say that the #1 most important thing to keep in mind if you are accused of a crime is to say nothing - no hello, no pleasantries, not even obvious answers - just "I would like a lawyer" and only speak when your lawyer is present. Innocent people have been convicted for not following this principle in dealing with the authorities.

Post reply on HN