"Defendants-Appellants [redacted] used fictitious names and addresses to open rewards accounts at OfficeMax, known as “MaxPerks” accounts. They used these accounts to fraudulently obtain more than $100,000 in OfficeMax products. The scheme came to light when Steven Gardner, an OfficeMax fraud investigator, noticed an unusually high number of online-adjustments across several different accounts. Gardner observed that most of the accounts were registered to one of three email addresses, differing only with interspersed periods between the characters of each address. OfficeMax recognized the variations as unique email addresses, but gmail did not. Defendants then used these fraudulent email addresses to claim purchases by other customers, thus generating rewards to which they were not entitled. They also used various accounts to sell more than 27,000 used ink cartridges, receiving $3 in rewards from OfficeMax for each after paying an average of $.32 per cartridge on eBay. In total, over the 21 months of their scheme, Defendants redeemed $105,191 in OfficeMax rewards. Defendants were ultimately were convicted by a jury of wire fraud and conspiracy to commit wire fraud relating to a scheme to defraud OfficeMax. They appealed, challenging the district court’s decision to: (1) admit exhibits derived from computer records and (2) enter a money judgment forfeiture. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeal upheld the district court’s admission of the exhibits but remanded so the district court may conduct further proceedings on the money judgment of forfeiture."
So, that indictment doesn't just describe an elaborate scheme for cashing in more printer cartridges than OfficeMax allowed individuals to recycle, but also a scheme where you claimed the unrelated purchases of strangers as your own to earn store credits.
The evidence in this case to support that indictment was fabricated (its author even disavowed its authorship under oath).
Many judges feel that if a computer is used to produce evidence, it is self-authenticating. This is the issue we plan to take up, since we (and our experts) were never allowed access to the evidence against us.
According to your appeals case, you were convicted for both, the fraudulent scheme to bypass OfficeMax's limits on the number of printer cartridges you could sell them, and the use of bogus accounts to claim the purchases of strangers as your own.
I'm not sure publicizing this whole story was your best move here.
Given the limitations of this messaging forum and your interest in the discussion, I hope it’s all right if I continue this discussion directly. For the benefit of everyone else on the thread, they can likewise reach me directly.
I understand the coder’s urge to distill the argument down to a missed OR operator, but it wrongly oversimplifies a matter that can take hours to fully get across.
As to the wisdom of the publicity, it remains to be seen. If you were wrongfully convicted, how quiet would you be?
I'd be very interested to know "what evidence was suppressed" and how it makes the OP innocent. If indeed the OP created 5k+ accounts and intended to deceive OfficeMax then this is anything but innocent.
"I didn't know it was a crime" perhaps.
Worse still the iOS app provides no value whatsoever. Which makes it seem like this is just a marketing ploy for a useless app.
Here[1] is a court opinion mentioning at least one type of evidence that was excluded: testimony regarding OfficeMax's accounting of rewards that would show that the rewards were not "property" that could be stolen. Not sure if that's what OP is referring to.
Incidentally, looking at all the different court opinions from this case [2] and the motions they refer to, I can't imagine how expensive it must have been to litigate this. Probably much more than what they had to pay back to OfficeMax.
Suffice it to say, [1] is not what was being referred to (though it’s still a fair point).
Let’s talk about the costs of this case. It’s been dragging on for 7+ years now and I’d love to share an official accounting of what it cost every party involved, but no such accounting will ever exist. I’m sure it’s immense and well into the 7 figures by now.
We’ve been unable to afford our own counsel (a situation verified by, and kinda forced by, the government) so our defense has been paid for by your tax dollars. The 4 prosecutors in this case have been paid for by your tax dollars. The judge and jury? Yep, you guessed it. (BTW, judge earns more each day than the entire 14-member jury does). The 17+ agent FBI assault team armed with M4 assault rifles and hundreds of hours of “billable” phone hours by certain agents who couldn’t recall under oath the names of the people they spent those hours talking to? Your tax dollars.
Even if that company gets that amount of money from us (and gets to keep it), I’m certain the amount they’ve paid their own people to tilt at this particular windmill will make it a loss even to the company. That’s before the upcoming news of the consumer data leak makes it out there.
Dear taxpayer, you’re not done paying. The only question left is whether the bureau of prisons or yours truly, or both, will be cashing those checks.
Wow. This is fucking insane, I can't believe they got you for this. I'll never do business with OfficeMax again. This is a policy issue of their own that fucked them, punishing an external party, for their own dumbass mistake is appalling and a horrendous misuse of our judicial system.
- Both products (the site, and the app) are copies of
others. Neither looks like it took great skill to
throw together. I don't know that anyone would want
to hire you based on these 2 examples.
- I don't know that I agree with the sentence. IMO
seems harsh. But you certainly appear to have crossed
some kind of line beyond "returning too many used ink
cartridges"
23 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 41.7 ms ] threadIf it is, it's pretty distasteful. If it's not, I need to hear more about this court case.
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca10/1...
"Defendants-Appellants [redacted] used fictitious names and addresses to open rewards accounts at OfficeMax, known as “MaxPerks” accounts. They used these accounts to fraudulently obtain more than $100,000 in OfficeMax products. The scheme came to light when Steven Gardner, an OfficeMax fraud investigator, noticed an unusually high number of online-adjustments across several different accounts. Gardner observed that most of the accounts were registered to one of three email addresses, differing only with interspersed periods between the characters of each address. OfficeMax recognized the variations as unique email addresses, but gmail did not. Defendants then used these fraudulent email addresses to claim purchases by other customers, thus generating rewards to which they were not entitled. They also used various accounts to sell more than 27,000 used ink cartridges, receiving $3 in rewards from OfficeMax for each after paying an average of $.32 per cartridge on eBay. In total, over the 21 months of their scheme, Defendants redeemed $105,191 in OfficeMax rewards. Defendants were ultimately were convicted by a jury of wire fraud and conspiracy to commit wire fraud relating to a scheme to defraud OfficeMax. They appealed, challenging the district court’s decision to: (1) admit exhibits derived from computer records and (2) enter a money judgment forfeiture. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeal upheld the district court’s admission of the exhibits but remanded so the district court may conduct further proceedings on the money judgment of forfeiture."
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1pwl-vwy-nQelwZ2iGguv...
Many judges feel that if a computer is used to produce evidence, it is self-authenticating. This is the issue we plan to take up, since we (and our experts) were never allowed access to the evidence against us.
I'm not sure publicizing this whole story was your best move here.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=188754768436510...
I understand the coder’s urge to distill the argument down to a missed OR operator, but it wrongly oversimplifies a matter that can take hours to fully get across.
As to the wisdom of the publicity, it remains to be seen. If you were wrongfully convicted, how quiet would you be?
"I didn't know it was a crime" perhaps.
Worse still the iOS app provides no value whatsoever. Which makes it seem like this is just a marketing ploy for a useless app.
Incidentally, looking at all the different court opinions from this case [2] and the motions they refer to, I can't imagine how expensive it must have been to litigate this. Probably much more than what they had to pay back to OfficeMax.
[1] https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=444697524394189...
[2] https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=6,33&q=us+v+...
Let’s talk about the costs of this case. It’s been dragging on for 7+ years now and I’d love to share an official accounting of what it cost every party involved, but no such accounting will ever exist. I’m sure it’s immense and well into the 7 figures by now.
We’ve been unable to afford our own counsel (a situation verified by, and kinda forced by, the government) so our defense has been paid for by your tax dollars. The 4 prosecutors in this case have been paid for by your tax dollars. The judge and jury? Yep, you guessed it. (BTW, judge earns more each day than the entire 14-member jury does). The 17+ agent FBI assault team armed with M4 assault rifles and hundreds of hours of “billable” phone hours by certain agents who couldn’t recall under oath the names of the people they spent those hours talking to? Your tax dollars.
Even if that company gets that amount of money from us (and gets to keep it), I’m certain the amount they’ve paid their own people to tilt at this particular windmill will make it a loss even to the company. That’s before the upcoming news of the consumer data leak makes it out there.
Dear taxpayer, you’re not done paying. The only question left is whether the bureau of prisons or yours truly, or both, will be cashing those checks.
Corporations can use the US government as bill collectors, when they’d lose in civil court.
The joke is that any prosecutor worth her salt can indict a ham sandwich. The sad fact is convicting a ham sandwich is almost as easy.
I'm very sorry this happened to you.
I also didn't anticipate that abusing a rewards system could lead to a wire fraud case.
I am sorry to hear about this case, but I don't quite get how you are arguing you are innocent. What part of their case do you dispute?