Bravo! Petit larceny, a misdemeanor, serves as the basis of a felony business records violation where the defendant "returned" merchandise they hadn't purchased for a store credit then used to buy other stuff. The fraudulent business record charge is premised on causing the store to enter a false credit. Very cute. The case cites to two …
Bravo! Petit larceny, a misdemeanor, serves as the basis of a felony business records violation where the defendant "returned" merchandise they hadn't purchased for a store credit then used to buy other stuff. The fraudulent business record charge is premised on causing the store to enter a false credit. Very cute. The case cites to two other cases where defendants did similar things.
Let me ask you a question, though. Do you like this use of the business records law? I mean, in a cosmic sense, how is this conduct worse than just shoplifting that would involve no business record? What about the business record aspect of the defendants' conduct, in your mind, makes this a significantly more serious crime than just stealing stuff? My vote would be to punish these people the same as shoplifters of items of similar value.
But maybe your point is, hey, what's good enough for Ramirez is certainly good enough for Trump, and I'm with you there.
Do I like this use of the business records law? To be honest I would have to say no. It’s similar to the Illinois rule that allows what would otherwise be retail theft misdemeanants to be convicted of the felony of burglary if the State can prove they had an intent to steal at the time they entered the store. The theory being that the entry into the building was unauthorized because a merchant’s invitation to enter, which is extended to the public at large, does not apply to people who have an intent to steal. See below.
What makes the Trump New York prosecution seem completely fair and reasonable to me is the fact that Michael Cohen got a three-year prison sentence for his involvement in the Stormy Daniels affair, and, at least until July 11, 2024, Trump, the person for whose benefit the whole cover-up was engineered, will have suffered no consequences at all.
Yeah, but he pled on a federal charge never brought against Trump. Maybe it's a touch of cosmic justice, but I'm not sure I buy that a state prosecutor should move in ways they ordinarily wouldn't to make up for the feds not moving on it. Maybe.
I really like the angle, though, that criminal defendants like retail thieves routinely face dubious, stretchy legal shenanigans like the business record thing and the not-a-burglary theory you mention (which strikes me as a joke, frankly) -- the sort of thing I'm complaining about -- and what's sauce for the goose, etc. I would prefer a world with no shenanigans.
Bravo! Petit larceny, a misdemeanor, serves as the basis of a felony business records violation where the defendant "returned" merchandise they hadn't purchased for a store credit then used to buy other stuff. The fraudulent business record charge is premised on causing the store to enter a false credit. Very cute. The case cites to two other cases where defendants did similar things.
Let me ask you a question, though. Do you like this use of the business records law? I mean, in a cosmic sense, how is this conduct worse than just shoplifting that would involve no business record? What about the business record aspect of the defendants' conduct, in your mind, makes this a significantly more serious crime than just stealing stuff? My vote would be to punish these people the same as shoplifters of items of similar value.
But maybe your point is, hey, what's good enough for Ramirez is certainly good enough for Trump, and I'm with you there.
Do I like this use of the business records law? To be honest I would have to say no. It’s similar to the Illinois rule that allows what would otherwise be retail theft misdemeanants to be convicted of the felony of burglary if the State can prove they had an intent to steal at the time they entered the store. The theory being that the entry into the building was unauthorized because a merchant’s invitation to enter, which is extended to the public at large, does not apply to people who have an intent to steal. See below.
What makes the Trump New York prosecution seem completely fair and reasonable to me is the fact that Michael Cohen got a three-year prison sentence for his involvement in the Stormy Daniels affair, and, at least until July 11, 2024, Trump, the person for whose benefit the whole cover-up was engineered, will have suffered no consequences at all.
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/il-court-of-appeals/1935492.html
Yeah, but he pled on a federal charge never brought against Trump. Maybe it's a touch of cosmic justice, but I'm not sure I buy that a state prosecutor should move in ways they ordinarily wouldn't to make up for the feds not moving on it. Maybe.
I really like the angle, though, that criminal defendants like retail thieves routinely face dubious, stretchy legal shenanigans like the business record thing and the not-a-burglary theory you mention (which strikes me as a joke, frankly) -- the sort of thing I'm complaining about -- and what's sauce for the goose, etc. I would prefer a world with no shenanigans.