Hacker News Reader

Comment by mchannon | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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.

Thanks for the decency, though I ask you: What signs of resistance could a half-naked woman offer a squad of SWATted-out FBI agents with assault rifles pointed at her head? No one claimed, in the hearing to follow, that there was any sign of resistance.

I suggest you read a little higher up in the threads ID 34241769 to see the nonsensical nature of the charges. It's a bit like:

We have proof you exited the bank, drove your own personal car without obscuring the license plate, and have video of you entering your own driveway. And you had $2000 in cash that came from the bank. Therefore, you are guilty of bank robbery. The evidence is overwhelming, we got it from cell phone records, Google street view and the outside bank security camera, the bank ledger says $2000 was removed from that drawer, as well as fingerprints and DNA tests of the bills we're going to seize as evidence. If you object, you're just a bank robber trying to escape punishment. Why should I believe you, bank robber? You see the missing pieces here?

Regarding your last paragraph, whoever first gave or followed that advice didn't consider being startled half-naked at gunpoint. Almost anyone who went through what my wife did would do the same as she did, except half would've wet themselves to boot. I know I would've. Ever had an M4 pointed at you?

It appears a number of dirty fed sockpuppets are on this board. Their staunchest defender has made 0 submissions and 6 comments in the entire life of the account, 5 of them on this thread. Can you spot it?

Again, completely agree with you that the situation you're describing should be rendered inadmissible as evidence given the severe duress you must have been under.

In regards to the printer cartridges (thread 34241769), I'd agree that objectively speaking you didn't really steal anything. You found an arbitrage opportunity and used it to the mutual benefit of yourself and the corporation buying the cartridges for $3 each to refill/resell.

In the case of the business rewards, that corporation created a customer rewards system, and you found an exploit in the system (i.e. using the store/receipt number along with a programmatic search for past transactions). I think if you had used this exploit casually, the FBI would not even bother pursuing it, and it probably wouldn't have been detected in the first place. There is some level of acceptance you need to have in the fact that you broke the terms of service by creating thousands of fake accounts, went to many stores in many different cities/states, adapted the exploit (when they added purchase amount verification) by noting purchase amounts of other customers in the store, resold the benefits on eBay, hired an accomplice in New Mexico, and so on.

On a personal level though, I'm sincerely rooting for you - the amounts in question are a rounding error to that size of corporation, and the "stolen funds" in question were anyways intended for customer rewards. I think your best outcome from a legal perspective is to admit what the evidence overwhelmingly seems to indicate, be radically honest with yourself about the situation, and resist the urge to be combative on technicalities - consider how it may lead to a worse overall outcome.

I encourage you to watch or re-watch the stoning scene in Life of Brian. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDe9msExUK8 @ 2:50).

"You're just making it worse for yourself!"

"Worse? How could it be worse?"

1. They have no force of law behind them.

2. They aren't written by congress and should not be treated as such.

3. A corporation writes them for their own benefit.

4. A corporation changes them for their own benefit.

5. A corporation follows them, or doesn't, for their own benefit.

Any violation of corporate terms of service is, at best, a civil tort, not a criminal offense against these United States. Unless you're me, I suppose.

Further, these aren't terms of service I clicked "Agree" to, and in fact they evolved several times without my having read them, nor needed to have read them.

In retrospect, a steady series of frog boiling changes turned my conduct from allowed to questionable. I say questionable instead of illegal, or even forbidden, because I also had, upon every adjustment, explicit written permission from the company to adjust transactions I had not made. Maybe they didn't intend that with their word choices (they reworded it once without changing the meaning), but that just makes it sharp dealing, not fraud. That was absolutely sharp dealing (not a single other customer lost out on rewards, because of how their system was set up). Sharp dealing also happens to take place when an average consumer signs up for a rewards program, or a protection plan, or this week's sale when the actual price on a sale item is actually higher than last week's. I sharp dealt a sharp dealer. That much is true.

The accounts were actual accounts, predicated on fake information (this is not a minor distinction). The fake information was never read by any human, and fake not as a vehicle to defraud (since no human read them), but to avoid getting confused with other customers (it had been a problem), and to avoid getting junk mail. Is the person in line ahead of you at Kroger or Albertson's a fraudster for doing the same? Even if they have 5,000 rewards accounts? Assuming the worst motives in people might be the most comforting way to be, but it's not always the correct way to be.

Appreciate the legal advice (though I don't advise giving people legal advice), but I'd appreciate your considering how many people advise me to do what is easy (they think) instead of what is right. Ever considered signing something you knew wasn't true? That's what the plea offers were, not true. I had 20+ years staring at me on the other side of this false paper I was asked to sign and I don't think I could've signed it if my life depended on it. There's something deeper and more visceral to a signature than an idle scrawl. It's a door to your soul. Does that make me a more moral person than average? Perhaps not, but better than the treatment I've been getting.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com