DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**TpDoctorOneTp** · 12-03-2010, 04:50 PM

The Supreme Court case discussed in the first post is Flores-Figueroa v. U.S, 129 S.Ct. 1886 (2009). There, the accused was charged with "aggravated identity theft" which requires proof that the offender “knowingly transfers, possesses, or uses, without lawful authority, a means of identification of another person.” The Court addressed the question of whether the Government has to show that the accused knew that the numbers on the documents he used belonged to someone else. The court held that the statute says what it says, and that the Government was wrong to make that particular charge. All justices agreed on the result.

There is no doubt that the courts are correct in the interpretation of the "elements of the crime" not being met.... what we have in most of these cases is the failure of the "requestor" assuring that the perp is aware that the SSN he is providing must have been issued to him by the U.S. SS Administration upon his legal application and that he is aware that the number must be original and provided to him through such application and received by no other means.

If the aforementioned statement is then verified by the perp's signature, then, when it turns out to be a fictitious SSN he could be prosecuted upon also meeting the other "elements" of the crime.

12-03-2010, 04:50 PM	#13
TpDoctorOneTp Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 384 Senior Member	The Supreme Court case discussed in the first post is Flores-Figueroa v. U.S, 129 S.Ct. 1886 (2009). There, the accused was charged with "aggravated identity theft" which requires proof that the offender “knowingly transfers, possesses, or uses, without lawful authority, a means of identification of another person.” The Court addressed the question of whether the Government has to show that the accused knew that the numbers on the documents he used belonged to someone else. The court held that the statute says what it says, and that the Government was wrong to make that particular charge. All justices agreed on the result. There is no doubt that the courts are correct in the interpretation of the "elements of the crime" not being met.... what we have in most of these cases is the failure of the "requestor" assuring that the perp is aware that the SSN he is providing must have been issued to him by the U.S. SS Administration upon his legal application and that he is aware that the number must be original and provided to him through such application and received by no other means. If the aforementioned statement is then verified by the perp's signature, then, when it turns out to be a fictitious SSN he could be prosecuted upon also meeting the other "elements" of the crime.
	Quote