found supreme court case that helps me!

[tranquility]

my point is that i used numbers just like the illegal immigrant without knowing if they were truely real or not.

If they weren't real, you would not have gotten credit. Sorry, the case will not help you.

 

[javajoe7]

Tranquility, stop acting like ur god or leave this site

hey tranquility
its ok for you to give ur opinion but to state boldly
something like you did when u said "sorry it wont help ur case"
is just acting arrogant. you are not the jury.
and once again, u dont have good logic.
i talk about the "knowingly" clause and all you talk about is
whether the numbers turned out to be real or worked as u say.
dont u get it, the numbers worked for the illegal immigrant
but he didnt know if they would or not. well, he couldve known
but he sure wasnt telling anybody if he knew they worked.

 

[tranquility]

its ok for you to give ur opinion but to state boldly
something like you did when u said "sorry it wont help ur case"
is just acting arrogant. you are not the jury.

Cases guide the judge, the jury determines the facts.

Here, you intentionally took SSN and names from a source and used them to gain credit. You are tying to say that, because you didn't know the person, you did not knowingly take their identity. Knowledge gets to the result and not the act. (As I have explained before.) That you don't get the difference between the case and your case is obvious. That you really, really, really, want to be not guilty of an element of the crime you are charged, is even more obvious.

However, your case does not help you. In that case, the suspect did not care if the number or if the person were real. In this case, you do. Your intent will be easy to prove.

You can differ, of course. But, you are not going to convince group of reasonable people your intent was not to gain the credit of the people you were typing in in the hope at least one were real.

 

[anteater]

I wonder if the coffee shop will be accepting credit cards?

My sister and her husband are buying a bigger building for their doctor office and she wants to help me start a business, as she knows ill need my own business, and said shed be willing to let me use the other side of the building and i was thinking maybe a coffee shop would be a good idea ...

https://forum.freeadvice.com/starting-operating-business-3/coffee-shop-location-question-555268.html

 

[javajoe7]

tranquility just doesnt have logic

tranquility
u cant just pass up words in a law!
in aggravated identity theft, the law uses the word "knowingly"
and therefore, they can never say i "knowingly" knew they were real.
the word "knowingly" has nothing to do with "intent"!
also u keep saying the illegal immigrant didnt care if the ss number he used
was real or not and thats simply not true! did you know alot of businesses have some kind of employment verification number they call when u give them a social security number on your application. i remember them doing that years ago at a chi chis i applied to. so the immigrant does care if the ss number hes using is real!

 

[cbg]

You "knew" that they were not yours.

You know, you seem to be quite sure that a jury is going to see things your way and be eager to let you off the hook. Keep in mind that you've got a pretty good cross section of the population here; that it's people like us that will be on your valued jury, and most of us are hoping you get sent to jail for the longest time you legally can. You haven't convinced US that you should be found not guilty - what makes you think the jury you're so enamoured of will be any different?

 

[anteater]

Tranquility, stop acting like ur god or leave this site

tranquility just doesnt have logic

Well, Tranq, now we know that you aren't God and that you lack logic.

Anything else that we need to know about you?

 

[tranquility]

Judges determine the law which the jury decides the facts.

also u keep saying the illegal immigrant didnt care if the ss number he used
was real or not and thats simply not true!

Facts from the case:

Ignacio Flores-Figueroa is a citizen of Mexico. In 2000, to secure employment, Flores gave his employer a false name, birth date, and Social Security number, along with a counterfeit alien registration card. The Social Security number and the number on the alien registration card were not those of a real person. In 2006, Flores presented his employer with new counterfeit Social Security and alien registration cards; these cards (unlike Flores’ old alien registration card) used his real name. But this time the numbers on both cards were in fact numbers assigned to other people.

Where the court looked to the legislative history:

Moreover, the examples of theft that Congress gives in the legislative history all involve instances where the offender would know that what he has taken identifies a different real person. H. R. Rep. No. 108–528, at 4–5 (identifying as examples of “identity theft” “ ‘dumpster diving,’ ” “accessing information that was originally collected for an authorized purpose,” “hack[ing] into computers,” and “steal[ing] paperwork likely to contain personal information&#8221.

Now, how did the OP get the number? Oh, yeah:

justalayman also said "How did you obtain matching names and SSN's without knowing the number was associated with that (a real) name?"

thats not my problem, the prosecution has to prove where i found them AND that where i found them was reliable to me as in i believed them to be real, just meaning they have to show that i knew they were real. So if someone found a tax receipt with name and ss number on it , then thats definite proof that they KNEW they were real, but if someone just finds some on the web or on youtube, then that is 100% non proof that the person thought they were real as that is totally unreliable and not proof.

Even though the statement by the OP pointing not to the law but to facts shows a misunderstanding of the law, he also has a misguided idea of what "knowledge" is when applied to statutes. The OP claims that the prosecution cannot prove an element. I can only suppose he is aware that intent is always the hardest element to prove. Yet, the prisons are full of people where the prosecution handled their burden.

I'd love to know what the OP's attorney says about this.

Info edit:

You "knew" that they were not yours.

In the OP's defense, that is not enough knowledge to fulfill the element of the statute. He needs to know they belong to someone. (It seems he is arguing he needs to know the person the info belongs to.) That he did know is clear (and the point of his alleged crime). If the prosecution can prove it, is another question.

 

[You Are Guilty]

I'd love to know what the OP's attorney says about this.

I'd love to know what the OP's prosecutor thinks of this thread. If only god would post a reply so I could ask who to send the link to...

 

[cyjeff]

I want to underline the simple fact that in the case you mentioned, the illegal used his own name and a random number.

You used a name and the associated number.

This is a huge difference between the accounts because, by using the correct name with the correct number, you were ASSUMING the identity of the person named for a fraudulent purpose.

Fine, don't believe us, though. Enjoy court. I recommend against having anything else to do that day and go ahead and find someone to water the plants for a while.

 

[cbg]

I wasn't necessarily trying to define "knowing" in terms of the statute in question. Joe here was using names and numbers that did not belong to him and he knew that they did not belong to him.

That's all I'm saying. If he wants to play semantic games with statutes he does not understand, on his own head be it.

 

[javajoe7]

researched upheld convictions, money was paid for id

I've conducted more research and found that where convictions were upheld by higher courts, defendants either paid money for the stolen id or in another case was a tax preparer that definatley knew the id was real.
this again just shows the high burden of proof of knowing it was real.
heres the 2 cases where they paid money for real id.

Duval County Man Pleads Guilty to Federal Charges of Aggravated Identity Theft and False Representation of a Social Security Number
U.S. Attorney’s Office February 22, 2011
Middle District of Florida(904) 301-6300
JACKSONVILLE, FL—United States Attorney Robert E. O’Neill announces that Brock Lynnale Thompson (47, Duval County) today pleaded guilty to aggravated identity theft and false representation of a Social Security number. Thompson faces up to five years in federal prison for the false representation charge, to be followed by a mandatory consecutive term of two years in federal prison for the aggravated identity theft charge. No sentencing date has been set.
According to court documents, in the 1990s while living in Baltimore, Maryland, Thompson purchased the identity of “C.B.,” to include C.B.’s Social Security number. C.B. is a deceased infant who died at approximately three months of age. Thompson purchased the personal identification information and a copy of C.B.’s birth certificate from C.B.’s mother.
Between April 1998 and June 2009, in Duval County, Thompson used the personal identification information of C.B., including C.B.’s Social Security number to obtain approximately 12 different Florida driver’s licenses and identification cards in the identity of C.B. On July 8, 2005, Thompson entered the Social Security Administration office located at 3733 University Boulevard West in Jacksonville. Using C.B.’s Social Security number, Thompson applied for and subsequently received a replacement Social Security card in the name of C.B. In early 2010 Thompson met with law enforcement and stated in substance that he had been living under the assumed identity of C.B., had obtained numerous Florida driver’s licenses and identification cards in the name of C.B., and also had obtained a Social Security card in C.B.’s name.
This case was investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation; Social Security Administration, Office of the Inspector General, Office of Investigations; Coast Guard Investigative Services; Florida Department of Law Enforcement; and Florida Highway Patrol, Bureau of Investigations. It is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Kevin C. Frein

 

[javajoe7]

2nd case

ANOTHER CASE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. VIELKA MERCEDES GOMEZ CASTRO



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. VIELKA MERCEDES GOMEZ-CASTRO, Defendant-Appellant.


No. 09-12557 D.C. Docket No. 08-21122-CR-DLG

-- May 13, 2010



Before PRYOR and FAY, Circuit Judges, and QUIST,District Judge.*




The question presented by this appeal is whether the government, in its prosecution of an offender for aggravated identity theft, 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1), can rely on circumstantial evidence about the offender's misuse of the victim's identity to satisfy its burden of proving that the offender knew the identity belonged to a real person.   Vielka Mercedes Gomez-Castro appeals her conviction of aggravated identity theft for knowingly possessing and using the means of identity of another when she attempted to enter the United States on a passport that bore the identity of another person.  Id. During the pendency of this appeal, the Supreme Court decided Flores-Figueroa v. United States, 556 U.S.

1886 (2009), which held that section 1028A requires the government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused knew the means of identity at issue belonged to a real person.   Gomez-Castro argues that the government failed to prove at her bench trial that she knew she had used the identity of a real person.   Because circumstantial evidence supports the finding of the district court that Gomez-Castro knew the means of identity belonged to a real person, we affirm her conviction.

I. BACKGROUND

Gomez-Castro, a citizen of the Dominican Republic, arrived at Miami International Airport on November 11, 2008, and presented to a customs and border protection officer a United States passport that bore her photograph, but someone else's name.   Upon further investigation, a customs and border protection officer determined that Gomez-Castro had falsely identified herself to gain entry into the United States and took her into custody.

In December 2008, a federal grand jury returned a three-count indictment against Gomez-Castro that alleged she illegally reentered the United States after having previously been deported, 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a);  falsely and willfully represented herself to be a citizen of the United States when she attempted to gain entry into the United States, 18 U.S.C. § 911;  and knowingly possessed and used a means of identity of another when she presented a passport to an officer of the United States to gain entry into the United States, id.  § 1028A(a)(1).   On February 2, 2009, Gomez-Castro pleaded guilty to reentering the country illegally and falsely and willfully representing herself to be a citizen.   Later that month, the district court held a bench trial on the charge of aggravated identity theft.

At trial, the government proved by stipulation that Gomez-Castro is a citizen of the Dominican Republic.   Gomez-Castro was forcibly removed from the United States and returned to the Dominican Republic on April 10, 2001.   On or about November 11, 2008, Gomez-Castro arrived at Miami International Airport from the Dominican Republic.   Gomez-Castro had not obtained permission to reenter the United States.   At passport control, Gomez-Castro falsely presented herself as a citizen of the United States with a passport that bore the name of Rosa Maria Rivera Collazo, but contained Gomez-Castro's photograph.   Customs and border protection officers escorted Gomez-Castro to baggage claim where they inspected her bags and found a birth certificate issued by Puerto Rico, a social security card, a New York driver's license, a New York benefits card, two credit cards, and a bank card all issued in the name of Collazo.   Officers also found a passport issued by the Dominican Republic, which revealed Gomez-Castro's true identity.

The parties stipulated that the Puerto Rico Demographic Registry had confirmed the authenticity of the Puerto Rican birth certificate issued to Collazo and that Collazo was a real person.   The parties stipulated that Gomez-Castro's real name was Vielka Mercedes Gomez-Castro.   The parties stipulated that Gomez-Castro had purchased the birth certificate and social security card for $2,500, and with those documents was able to obtain credit cards, a driver's license, insurance cards, and a United States passport in the name of Collazo.

After the government read the stipulated facts into the record and the district court admitted the accompanying exhibits, Gomez-Castro moved for a judgment of acquittal on the ground that “under the aggravated identity theft statute, the government must prove that Gomez-Castro knew that [Collazo] was a real person,” and the government failed to meet this burden.   The district court denied the motion because it was bound by our decision in United States v. Hurtado, 508 F.3d 603 (11th Cir.2007), which held that section 1028A did not require the government to prove the accused knew that the means of identity belonged to a real person.   The district court found, in the alternative, that “there is certainly enough evidence in the record for the Court to infer that the defendant knew that Rosa Maria Rivera Collazo was a real person.”   The district court explained that, because Gomez-Castro had paid $2,500 for the birth certificate and social security card and repeatedly had used those forms of identification to obtain credit cards, a driver's license, insurance cards, and a United States passport, the government had proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Gomez-Castro knew Collazo was a real person.

The district court convicted Gomez-Castro of aggravated identity theft.   The district court then sentenced Gomez-Castro to 34 months of imprisonment, with concurrent terms of 10 months for the two counts to which she pleaded guilty, and a consecutive term of 24 months for aggravated identity theft.   The district court also ordered Gomez-Castro to serve one year of supervised release.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Gomez-Castro's conviction must be upheld if “any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.”   United States v. Mintmire, 507 F.3d 1273, 1289 (11th Cir.2007).   We view “the evidence “in the light most favorable to the government, with all reasonable inferences and credibility choices made in the government's favor.”  United States v. Harris, 20 F.3d 445, 452 (11th Cir.1994).

III. DISCUSSION

Gomez-Castro contends that the government failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she knew Collazo was a real person.   She argues that her previous deportation and the sum she paid for Collazo's identifications tend to prove only that she hoped the identifications were real, but not that she knew they belonged to a real person.   Gomez-Castro concedes that the government can rely on circumstantial evidence to prove that she knew the means of identity belonged to a real person, but insists that the only relevant evidence concerns the circumstances in which she obtained the birth certificate and the social security card, not the circumstances in which she later used the documents.

Gomez-Castro's argument fails.   Gomez-Castro's entire course of conduct before she used Collazo's identity to gain entry into the United States is relevant to prove that Gomez-Castro knew Collazo was a real person.   Both the circumstances in which an offender obtained a victim's identity and the offender's later misuse of that identity can shed light on the offender's knowledge about that identity.

 

[javajoe7]

2nd case continued

Gomez-Castro argues and we agree that the government must prove more than that the defendant used a false identity.  Section 1028A required the government to prove that Gomez-Castro knew that the identity listed on the passport she presented to an officer at the border belonged to a real person.  Flores-Figueroa, 129 S.Ct. at 1894;  see also 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1).   The Supreme Court explained in Flores-Figueroa that it may be more difficult for the government to prove knowledge without evidence that the accused acquired the means of identity in circumstances that, standing alone, suggest the accused knew the means of identity belonged to a real person.  129 S.Ct. at 1893.   The Supreme Court also gave a few examples of circumstances where “intent is generally not difficult to prove”:  the accused acquired the means of identity from a trash bin, by accessing information that had been collected for a permitted purpose, or by hacking into a computer.  Id. But this list of examples does not foreclose the possibility of proving knowledge in a more difficult case.

Our decision in United States v. Holmes, 595 F.3d 1255 (11th Cir.2010), establishes that the government can rely on circumstantial evidence about an offender's misuse of a victim's identity to prove the offender knew the identity belonged to a real person.   We held that a reasonable jury could have found that the government had proved that Holmes knew that a social security card and birth certificate belonged to a real person when she used them to apply for a driver's license.  Id. at 1258.   We reasoned that, because Holmes had obtained a line of credit and had successfully used the social security card and birth certificate to obtain a passport and two driver's licenses or identification cards before she used the victim's identity in the charged offense, a reasonable trier of fact could have found Holmes knew the identity belonged to a real person.  Id.

A rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Gomez-Castro knew Collazo was a real person when Gomez-Castro presented the passport with Collazo's identity to the customs and border protection officials.   After being forcibly removed from the United States on April 10, 2001, Gomez-Castro attempted to reenter the United States in 2008 with a passport that bore the name Collazo.   Gomez-Castro obtained the passport with the use of a birth certificate and social security card that also bore the name Collazo.   Gomez-Castro paid the large sum of $2,500 for the birth certificate and social security card.   Before she presented the passport for entry in 2008, Gomez-Castro had repeatedly and successfully tested the authenticity of the birth certificate and social security card:  she used them to obtain a New York driver's license and benefits card, two credit cards, a bank card, and the United States passport used in this crime.   This circumstantial evidence supports a finding that Gomez-Castro knew the Collazo identity belonged to a real person when she later presented the passport bearing that identity to the border officer.   See id.

Gomez-Castro argues that our decision in Holmes is distinguishable because the government, in that case, presented evidence of the rigorous verification processes used by the government for the issuance of licenses to drive and passports.   We disagree.   In Holmes, we rejected the argument that the government had to prove that Holmes was aware of the rigorous verification processes used by the federal and state governments.  Id. We explained that a reasonable jury could have found that Holmes knew at least that the federal and state governments routinely obtain an applicant's identity to verify the authenticity of that identity.  Id. That knowledge can be inferred reasonably based on ordinary human experience for which no special proof is required;  a trier of fact can rely on common sense.   See United States v. Cruz-Valdez, 773 F.2d 1541, 1546-47 (11th Cir.1985) (en banc);  see also Head v. Hargrave, 105 U.S. 45, 51 (1882) (“[T]he jury [can] very properly exercise their own judgment and apply their own knowledge and experience in regard to the general subject of inquiry.” (internal quotation marks omitted));  United States v. Marino, 562 F.2d 941, 944 (5th Cir.1977) ( “[J]urors are not to be presumed ignorant of what everybody else knows.   And they are allowed to act upon matters within their general knowledge, without any testimony on those matters.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).   Even if the government did not present evidence about the verification processes used by the state and federal governments, a rational trier of fact could have found that Gomez-Castro knew at least that the New York and federal governments obtained proof of an applicant's identity to verify that identity.   Drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the government, a rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Gomez-Castro knew the identity belonged to a real person when she presented the passport to gain entry into the United States.

IV. CONCLUSION

Gomez-Castro's conviction is AFFIRMED.

PRYOR, Circuit Judge:

 

[You Are Guilty]

Oh good grief. Did you actually read your new case? Please feel free to show it to the prosecutor when you make your defense argument.