Posted by Melvin on October 09, 2002 at 06:36:26:
In Reply to: Re: Criminal Aspects posted by RandySM on October 08, 2002 at 15:56:26:
Actually, I do. The criminal charge was Idenity Theft. I thought this was a misapplication of the law, but there it is.
When our mystery person logged in using CALDIVER AND HER e-mail address, he crossed the line and stole her idenity. That IS the exact nature of the criminal charges that were brought. Idenity theft. He is attempting to mislead people into thinking he is the DM/Attorney who was using the screen name before.
If you are interested the Criminal Trail was at Downey Superior Court on Feb 23, 2000 Defendant (the convicted) was named Sutton if memory serves me correctly. You can look the case up.
The central element to the charge that the DA had to prove was that she used his screen name and logged into the computer and posted messages. At no time was there ever an attempt to cause purchases to be charged to anyone but the defendants own credit card. The purchase she made and had sent to him was charged to her own credit card. So the crime was the theft of idenity. The crime was in using the other persons screen name in a deliberate attempt to have people believe it was the other person. So yes, I do see some elements in common.
I don't agree with the use of the statute in the case. Idenity theft was intended to stop people from using your name and credit to obtain credit cards and then have you pay the bill. That was not the case here, she was just using his screen name. But hey its Calif and OJ is walking the streets. What can I say. Courts are interesting places. I was rather supprized that the charge had been brought and realy did not see any crime myself. But the jury thought differently and so conviceted. I only testified and got paid to do so.
Now back to diving.
Post a Followup