[secondmortgagek]

"Is using a forged Social Security Number -- but your own name -- to obtain employment or buy a car an identity theft crime? Lately, U.S. courts are saying it's not."

"The most recent judicial body to take on the issue, the Colorado Supreme Court, ruled last month that a man who used his real name but someone else's Social Security number to obtain a car loan was not guilty of "criminal impersonation," overturning convictions by lower courts."

"That follows a ruling last year by the U.S. Supreme Court that a Mexican man who gave a false SSN to get a job at an Illinois steel plant could not be convicted under federal identity theft laws because he did not knowingly use another person's identifying number."

"The ruling overturned an opinion by a federal appeals court in St. Louis -- and contradicted earlier findings by circuit courts in the Southeast, upper Midwest and the Gulf states."

Full article: http://redtape.msnbc.com/2010/11/cou...t-a-crime.html


This shows an awful lot of "Interpretation flexibility" by higher courts.



"The courts' logic"
"The U.S. Supreme Court decision was unanimous. In it, the justices found that an immigrant using an unknown person's SSN to obtain work authorization did not "knowingly" use information that belonged to another person, as required by the statute.
The suspect in the case, Ignacio Flores-Figueroa, presented a Social Security card with his name but a false SSN -- the number turned out to belong to a minor -- so he could work at steel plant in East Moline, Ill."

"He was convicted of immigration offenses and aggravated identity theft and given a 75-month jail sentence, including a two-year enhancement for the federal ID theft charge. His success in the Supreme Court reduced his sentence by 24 months. He is still subject to deportation when he finishes serving his time."

"Because Flores-Figueroa did not know if the number was real or manufactured, he did not know the number belonged to another person, so could not knowingly have committed identity theft the court said."

I don't see the "logic" to this decision because just using the SSN is a "Knowable" crime because the perp gives a number he doesn't own or know the source of and must know that he is providing a number he has no association with.

[sauppyshurb]

Complete and utter bullshit.

If you are using any SSN but your own (including if you never had one), you are knowingly using someone else's (whether they exist now or not).

[tooratrack]

He signed a contract that indicated that the personal information provided is true and correct to the best of his knowledge. If he used a false SSN, whether it actually belonged to another person or not, should be illegal. The criminal intent here is why would he knowlingly use someone else's SSN if he wasn't attempting to commit a crime ? Why bother ?

[Almolfuncomma]

Obama is using someone elses SSN, and nobody seems to care...

[velichay]

Do you know how difficult it would be to arrest every illegal alien in America for using someone else's social? Good luck with that one! ha ha!

[regfortruegoo]

germany, china, and russia had no problem rounding up millions of people...

[rusculture]

Do you know how difficult it would be to arrest every illegal alien in America for using someone else's social? Good luck with that one! ha ha!

So cause it is hard to do, don't bother...

Sounds like the call many on welfare have against getting off.

[Xqjfxmfk]

germany, china, and russia had no problem rounding up millions of people...

that's funny man...Classic!

[encumeterz]

It appears that the courts are focusing on the fundamental criminal law rule that intent to defraud is a prerequisite to liability for fraud. Many illegals pay persons to find them jobs and get them papers. Not familiar with how Americans get Social Security numbers, they believe that it is OK for an agent to go to the Government and get the card for them. Often, the illegals pay taxes -- certainly withholding taxes -- to that Social Security number, and it may be years before they discover that what they were doing was wrong (and worse, they got no credit for all of those Social Security taxes they paid). Who is harmed? The lender -- in the Colorado case, a car dealer -- says they are the victim because they lent money to someone whose credit rating they could not validate. However, lenders have the ability to tap into a special Government website where they can check the legitimacy of a SSN, and check it against the name. The lender's failure to do that is there own fault.

[JakeBarkings]

Awe, so the person didn't know, we shouldnt hold him to the law? Is that it?

[legal-advicer]

Awe, so the person didn't know, we shouldnt hold him to the law? Is that it?

If the person didn't know he had someone else's SSN, then he could not have committed fraud. Fraud is "an intentional perversion of truth for the purpose of inducing another in reliance upon it to part with some valuable thing belonging to him or to surrender a legal right." Black's Law Dictionary. Fraud is not easily proved, either in criminal or civil cases, and must be pled by plaintiffs/prosecutors with great specificity. The Colorado case, Montes-Rodriguez v. People, 2010 WL 4276059 (Colo. Oct. 25, 2010), is instructive. There, Mr. Montes-Rodriguez was charged with criminal impersonation for using a false Social Security number on an application for an automobile loan. The Colorado Supreme Court said that the trial court wrongly focused only on the incorrect Social Security number. The accused's loan application included his correct name, current and previous addresses, employment information, salary, and more. He did not pretend to be anyone else but himself. The court noted, also that one is not required to give his SSN in order to apply for a loan, and there was no evidence that the dealership required SSNs in order to ascertain the legal status of applicants. Accordingly, the state supreme court found that the accused had been wrongly convicted of that particular crime. That doesn't mean that he did not violate some Federal law, subject to a civil penalty (i.e. a fine). I don't have time to look that up. But he clearly wasn't pretending to be who he wasn't, and there was no fraud involved.

[hujdrftgkas]

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.

[TpDoctorOneTp]

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.

[u8MmZFmF]

That may be (and if so is correct to my eyes)< but i just cannot see how someone who has been given said SSN by someone NOT working in the govt, can have ANY way to say that it is not false.

[selayeffethy]

ChiefB, When the Supreme Court issued this decision about illegals using bogus Social Security numbers I was aghast and wrote about it on my Judicial Salary blog (#198). The decision was unanimous which tells me that those Justices are of one mind when it comes to protecting the interests of illegal aliens. Who benefits from decisions like this? Well, nobody on my block, that's for sure. It benefits big business and corporate interests who want to make it more difficult to deport illegals. They want cheap labor and the tool they use to get it is the federal courts, and to a lesser degree the state courts. If this was the only reprehensible decision the SC had made recently I wouldn't be so upset but there have been many, many more, quite a few of which I have written about here.

When I started writing on this board about my own experience in federal court and argued that federal judges do not deserve a pay raise, based on their dreadful job performance, I was roundly criticized by quite a few people here. I know I was a zealot and strident but I was portrayed as a nutcase by my debating opponent. I have only one analogy for that: In the former Soviet Union dissidents were routinely tossed in mental hospitals as a way to marginalize them and discredit their complaints. These fedeal judges, who have no oversight and no reluctance to issue rulings that are contrary to our best interests, want more money and lots of it. We Americans have no control over them except through the purse strings and my argument is, do a better job and then ask for more money.

When I began my crusade to deprive federal judges of their pay raise (there were bills in Congress to raise it a whopping 51%) I wrote to many, many members of Congress describing what had been done to us in federal court and arguing that if Congress was considering granting the raise, then there should be Congressional debates about it. I said I wanted the attorney who handled our case to be given the opportunity to testify. The debates were not held and the bills expired. I had to use my real name and when I started writing on this board I again used my real name because it was necessary. There are probably a lot of federal judges who want my head on a platter.

Anyway, the federal courts frequently issue rulings that are damaging to us and I am genuinely afraid of them. They do not care about Americans but they do care about money. When they answer to the citizens of this nation, then and only then, should they ask for more money.

[Britiobby]

If the person didn't know he had someone else's SSN, then he could not have committed fraud. Fraud is "an intentional perversion of truth for the purpose of inducing another in reliance upon it to part with some valuable thing belonging to him or to surrender a legal right." Black's Law Dictionary. Fraud is not easily proved, either in criminal or civil cases, and must be pled by plaintiffs/prosecutors with great specificity. The Colorado case, Montes-Rodriguez v. People, 2010 WL 4276059 (Colo. Oct. 25, 2010), is instructive. There, Mr. Montes-Rodriguez was charged with criminal impersonation for using a false Social Security number on an application for an automobile loan. The Colorado Supreme Court said that the trial court wrongly focused only on the incorrect Social Security number. The accused's loan application included his correct name, current and previous addresses, employment information, salary, and more. He did not pretend to be anyone else but himself. The court noted, also that one is not required to give his SSN in order to apply for a loan, and there was no evidence that the dealership required SSNs in order to ascertain the legal status of applicants. Accordingly, the state supreme court found that the accused had been wrongly convicted of that particular crime. That doesn't mean that he did not violate some Federal law, subject to a civil penalty (i.e. a fine). I don't have time to look that up. But he clearly wasn't pretending to be who he wasn't, and there was no fraud involved.

It's easy enough to look up fraud in Black's Law Dictionary and tell us that technically Montes-Rodriguez didn't commit it. You don't seem to have a problem with courts, both state and federal, ruling that it is not criminal to make up SS numbers and put them on official forms. Well, it harms law abiding people but that doesn't seem to concern the courts at all. The bigger issue is ignored by the courts-what happens to people violated by illegals using their SS numbers, whether or not the illegal knew who it belonged to. The courts are far more concerned with protecting criminal illegals than they are with protecting you and me.

[allvideO]

If it WERE a crime (which I still think it should be), there would be a LOT of people in some trouble. According to a recent study, Out of 280 million #s; 40 million have more than one name attached, 20 million names have more than one SSN, 100,000 have 5 or more SSNs attached to their names.
http://www. denverpost.com/business/ci_16211016
http://www2. nbc4i.com/news/2010/dec/06/2/study-finds-millions-duplicate-soci
al-security-num-ar-316988/

The worst part? According to the dude interviewed on CNN, the IRS and the Social Security Administration know damn well it is happening because they get revenue from the illegals using your # but won't do anything or even let you know that you have a doppelganger because they are getting P-A-I-D.

[rusculture]

"Service Members Face New Threat: Identity Theft": NY Times

"The government warns Americans to closely guard their Social Security numbers. But it has done a poor job of protecting those same numbers for millions of people: the nation’s soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines."

"At bases and outposts at home and around the world, military personnel continue to use their Social Security numbers as personal identifiers in dozens of everyday settings, from filling out health forms to checking out basketballs at the gym. Thousands of soldiers in Iraq even stencil the last four digits onto their laundry bags."

"All of this is putting members of the military at heightened risk for identity theft."

"That is the conclusion of a scathing new report written by an Army intelligence officer turned West Point professor, Lt. Col. Gregory Conti. The report concludes that the military needs to rid itself of a practice that has been widespread since the 1960s."

“Service members and their families are burdened with a work environment that shows little regard for their personal information,” the report says, adding that the service members, “their units, military preparedness and combat effectiveness all will pay a price for decades to come.”

"Representatives for the military say they are aware of the problem and are taking steps to fix it, with the Navy and Marines making efforts in the last few months. The Defense Department said in 2008 that it was moving to limit the use of Social Security numbers, and in a statement last week it said the numbers would no longer appear on new military ID cards as of May."

"But Colonel Conti said in an interview that the situation had not really changed: “The farther you get away from the flagpole at headquarters, those policies get overturned by operational realities.”

"Social Security numbers are valuable to thieves because they often serve as a crucial identifier when dealing with banks and credit card companies. In the wrong hands they can lead to a cascade of problems, like ruined credit and, in turn, challenges for military personnel in getting security clearances or promotions."

"In 2009, Social Security numbers were used in 32 percent of identity thefts in which the victims knew how their information was compromised, according to Javelin Strategy and Research, which tracks identity theft."

"Javelin last looked at identity theft in the military in 2006, finding that 3.3 percent of active military personnel had been victims of such fraud that year, slightly below the 3.7 percent in the public at large. Over all, identity theft is on the rise; in 2009, the nationwide rate crept up to 4.8 percent, with each person losing $373 on average, Javelin estimated."

"Most of those incidents affect individuals or households and do not make headlines. But in June, the Richmond County district attorney in Staten Island announced the indictment of a gang of identity thieves who victimized, among others, 20 soldiers at Ford Hood, Tex."

"According to the district attorney’s office, the soldiers’ Social Security numbers were stolen from the base by a former Army member who moved to New York, and the thieves then made 2,515 attempts to abuse the soldiers’ identities, obtaining checkbooks or credit cards in their names."

"Officials said some of the soldiers had been singled out because they were stationed in Iraq or Afghanistan where they would be slow to catch on to the fraud. That is precisely the fear of military officials concerning the vulnerability of soldiers."

Full article: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/07/te...dlines&emc=a25

[mirex]

The worst part? According to the dude interviewed on CNN, the IRS and the Social Security Administration know damn well it is happening because they get revenue from the illegals using your # but won't do anything or even let you know that you have a doppelganger because they are getting P-A-I-D.

Which to me shoudl put HIM (and all the others ) in teh slammer for aiding and abbetting criminal activities.
Hell, anyone hit by id theft should SUE the IRS and SSA for not stopping it since by that news report (and others) they know it is going on and don't do any thing to stop it.

[artofeyyy]

Which to me shoudl put HIM (and all the others ) in teh slammer for aiding and abbetting criminal activities.
Hell, anyone hit by id theft should SUE the IRS and SSA for not stopping it since by that news report (and others) they know it is going on and don't do any thing to stop it.

Sue the IRS or SSA and you'll find yourself in federal court. It isn't likley you'll find any justice there.