May 04 2009
Now Ignorance Is An Alibi When Committing A Crime
The bad news just keeps coming in. Now it seems that you can steal someone’s identity, as long as you claim you did not know your fake identity belonged to someone else??
An illegal immigrant who uses false identification papers must know they belonged to another person to be convicted of identity theft, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Monday.
The high court’s unanimous ruling was a victory for Ignacio Flores-Figueroa, a Mexican illegal immigrant who used false identification to get a job at a steel plant in Illinois.
He was convicted of aggravated identify theft, a law adopted in 2004 that carries a mandatory two-year prison term. The law has been increasingly used by the federal government to charge some of those arrested in raids at work sites that employ illegal immigrants.
In the high court’s opinion, Justice Stephen Breyer said the law required that prosecutors show that the defendant knew the counterfeit identification belonged to another person.
What a crock. Everyone inside the beltway is certifiably nuts.
Fox News’ Judge Napalitano (sp?) had a great idea the other day on the Glenn Beck show (normally a show I avoid, but was glad I caught this segment). He proposed the states repeal the constitutional amendment covering the income tax to wake up the idiots in DC. I think that is the smartest thing I have heard in ages. It is time we trimmed DC back, just to stop them from screwing everything up more than they have already. No purse strings, no power. Then they can debate their silly ideas all day long and do no harm.
Well, ok, that’s for “identity theft”. Surely there is another law for simply using “false ID” to fool employers, get out of paying taxes, and other purposes, etc, isn’t there???? So, won’t some charge still stick to him?
Is that kind of like saying you can’t be charged with “counterfeiting” as long as you knew it wasn’t “real money”? LOL
No, there must be something we are missing, it can’t be as you commented AJ. It is too ridicules to even consider. I think the case originated in Colorado where the law went in to a business and raided it, then discovered there were illegals working there and wanted to deport them. No probable cause other then the people working there looked Mexican. So I’m thinking it is more complicated then you state.
AJ, I wish you would watch Glenn Beck more often. In spite of his populism, he’s worth watching.
The left will do absolutely nothing to endanger their stranglehold on the Latino vote and this question of identity thief plays right into that.
Not to worry, 42 USC 408(a)(7)(B), False Representation of a Social Security Number, covers the same issue, but there is no “knowing” requirement or specific intent. And it is a felony and a Crime Involving Moral Turpitude, consequently a deportable offense. In any event, to get an illegal deported is not difficult and 18 USC 1028(a)(1), Aggravated Identify Theft is not really needed. So, everyone calm down.
Good job, Combat, I was wondering if anyone knew about specific intent.
To put it a little more simply for those without knowledge of legalese, in general one cannot be convicted of a specific intent crime, such as theft, which one had no knowledge of committing. (general intent crimes are another matter) You can’t be convicted of theft if you didn’t know you were stealing. You *can*, however, be charged with fraud or, as you point out, false representation since those were crimes the defendant knew very well he was committing.
The real story here is that the prosecutor overreached and blew it with a bad charge. A smart prosecutor would not have ended up in this jam.
And on Judge Napolitano’s idea: “He proposed the states repeal the constitutional amendment covering the income tax”.
This isn’t as simple as it sounds – the states can’t simply repeal an amendment, they have to go through the entire amendment process, which means 2/3 of both houses of Congress have to agree. Which I don’t see happening. I suppose you could call another Constitutional Convention, but I don’t see that happening either. So Napolitano’s idea is nonsense.
The proof of this is the method that was required to repeal the Volstead Amendment, aka prohibition. Wouldn’t it have been easier for states simply to vote to repeal that amendment? But that was not constitutionally allowable. An entirely new amendment, the 21st, was required to repeal the 18th.
The same process would be required to repeal the 16th, which authorized an income tax.
Napolitano knows better than to spread this type of nonsense, but he can’t resist playing to the cameras.
Sure…why not? Given some of the views on people living here illegally in the first place…why not? It fits the same mold anyway.