ID Thief Tries To Get Witnesses Whacked 168
adeelarshad82 writes "Pavel Valkovich of Sherman Oaks, CA has pleaded guilty to solicitation of murder, admitting that he attempted to hire hit-men to kill witnesses working with Federal authorities in their investigation of Valkovich's ID theft activities and subsequent crimes. According to the Justice Department: '...Valkovich and others had stolen personal identifying information and used that information to transfer funds from victims' bank accounts to PayPal accounts.'"
Re:What. The. Funk? (Score:2, Interesting)
It's the same all around the world. You steal a few grand and you get the maximum sentence. You steal double digit millions and you get a bonus. That and the fact that you get harsher sentences for crimes involving money and copyright than murder and violence.
Put the onus on financial institutions (Score:5, Interesting)
Sure, requiring you to go to a licensed notary and have a credit card application notarized might not make it so easy to get credit, but it would also make it harder to get credit in your name.
The banks and credit card companies could do this, but it's more profitable to let people steal your identity and then just jack up fees and interest rates to cover the losses.
Re:What. The. Funk? (Score:3, Interesting)
But wonder what's going on inside the guy's head tho, he acts like he would be in an action movie:
Perhaps some action movies functioned as training and provided role models for this guy.
Watching too much bad stuff may make it seem more normal, making a line a bit easier to cross.
i was called to jury duty once (Score:5, Interesting)
and the case was a triple murder, drug related, in upper manhattan. this was being tried at the downtown manhattan courthouse
i was winnowed down to the final 20, almost an alternate juror. what surprised me was all of this personal identifying information was being disclosed, about me and a whole bunch of other people, while the defendant, ostensibly a triple murdering drug dealer, with obvious possible ties to organized crime, was sitting there hearing all of this personally identifying info about people who were going to judge him, and he was even taking notes. they were even asking me and others questions about our siblings and what they did (maybe they were asking that because the defendant killed a sibling? i never heard any further details of the crime after i was weaned out and put back in the snooze room)
so why is it, in the us court system at least, that the identity of witnesses and jurors is given so much free play with sleaze bag defendants who usually have no problem ordering hits for all sorts of reasons, not least of which the desire to avoid jail time. surely there can be more anonymity, no? i don't understand the status quo
ps:
notice to anyone who wants to get off jury duty:
when they ask you if you would consider other people's opinion when making up your mind, or if you would make up your mind on your own, answer (in my case honestly), that you wouldn't care what other people on the jury thought, that you would make up your mind on your own... booted
Re:Put the onus on financial institutions (Score:3, Interesting)
How do you prove you are you?
People have used completely made up identities for years and never been detected
It is not uncommon for people to have no formal identity, especially people who avoid being in the system
Many of the cases of identity theft are so frustrating for the victims because they have to continually and repeatedly prove they are who they say they are and have trouble doing so because the identity thief has more and better forms of ID then the real person does....
Re:i was called to jury duty once (Score:4, Interesting)
It's good to see others who actually accept responsibility for the world we live in.
I actually rescheduled my jury duty for when I had a break in my grad school courses, even though I could have been excused entirely. There's a reason it's called "jury duty", and not "jury we'd-really-like-it-if-you-came-and-helped-please".
Re:Put the onus on financial institutions (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah, this is something that strikes me as weird: a (former) friend borrowed money, even signed a note for it. However, the note wasn't notarized, and my attorney said that I'm SOL. On the other hand, none of the credit card agreements that I've signed were notarized, either, so why do I not get the same legal protections that a bank gets?
(Note the "former" -- don't lend friends money.)
Re:i was called to jury duty once (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:What. The. Funk? (Score:3, Interesting)
I think solicitation for murder should have a higher penalty.
Both are very very bad, however attempted murder could be a crime of passion or intense anger with very little reasoning. While solicitation for murder always indicate premeditation
I've always been of the same opinion with regard to crimes relating to murder.
1st Degree: Obviously in this case the most severe
2nd Degree: I can understand that the 'heat of the moment' can be a mitigating factor.
However, I believe that the following should receive the EXACT SAME penalty as the above examples.
Attempted Murder: You should get a lesser sentence simply because you failed to achieve your goal? Your intent was the same. If you were convinced that someone was deathly allergic to peanuts and you hit him in the face with a gallon of peanut butter, only later to find out that it was an allergy to wheat, that doesn't change the fact that you had completely planned to have that person die, and only failed due to your own idiocy.
Solicitation for Murder: This should carry a higher sentence than 1st degree murder. First, you are contributing to an increase in crime in society more than a simple murder (2 people involved instead of 1) Second, there is a reduced ability to change your mind at the last minute, thus it is more likely that the person would end up being killed. It just seems to me that solicitation for murder is perhaps one of the worst crimes you can possibly commit.
Re:i was called to jury duty once (Score:3, Interesting)
they were even asking me and others questions about our siblings and what they did (maybe they were asking that because the defendant killed a sibling?
In a criminal case, they're generally going to drop potential jurors who have a close family member in law enforcement or incarcerated, etc... as that might give the potential juror a stronger-than-usual ability to identify with one side or another on the case. That much is reasonable...
If you want to be on a jury (I did, and have), especially for jury nullification [wikipedia.org] purposes, be dumb and malleable during that interviewing process... not outrageously stupid, just a nodding your head in the direction the lawyers want you to sort of way; keep your eyes wide. Oh, and never admit to knowing what Jury Nullification is. The last thing you want to do is what another poster here mentioned and that is give well-reasoned, articulate answers that show you've thought about the relevant topics before and have come to conclusions. Be as much of an Every Man as you possibly can in your responses. If asked whether you agree with the laws as written, the answer is "yes." Both the prosecution and the defense want to sway you with emotion, and they want to target average Joes, because that's who they're trained to appeal to. A highly rational person is the best potential juror for justice, and the worst potential juror from a lawyer's perspective.
As for "getting out of" jury duty vs. trying to get in... consider that it is one of the few and only ways an individual citizen can make a significant difference in how the government treats its citizens, in the face of massive lobbying efforts, emotionally manipulated masses, etc... having a stranglehold on the legislative branch, and massive bureaucratic inertia on the executive branch.
Re:i was called to jury duty once (Score:2, Interesting)
Funny. Seems to me he was axed from the list of prospective jurors because he showed himself to be someone who could think independently and 'make up his own mind'. Was he supposed to lie and be dishonest in order to get on the jury? Isn't that sort of wrong, from the 'how it's supposed to work' standpoint?
Where is the fault, here? The 'intelligent, educated prospective juror' who dodged jury duty, or the system designed to select jurors, that removed him from consideration for jury duty for being an intelligent, educated prospect.
Re:i was called to jury duty once (Score:3, Interesting)
I have the best one, I bet.
I was called to jury duty here at a time when my own case was going to be called. I'd have been in my own jury!
The charge was bogus, long story, but it was for a felony....but I'm a respected citizen, a voter, and eligible. Here in the boonies, jury duty probably means a few days sitting on perhaps a half dozen cases (all the court drums up that need juries in a month -- this is far out boonies, not much happening).
That was one funny phone call! Since everyone knows everyone here, there wasn't even the bureaucracy excuse...."Hey, Sue, do ya really want me to sit in judgment of me? I can make this real simple for ya then."
Re:i was called to jury duty once (Score:2, Interesting)
Notice, he did not say he was trying to get out of jury duty. He sarcastically noted that the system did not want independent thinkers. They booted him for saying he would think for himself. Are you suggesting he should have lied? If someone maliciously sued me, I would want people who can think for themselves on a jury. Obviously, lawyers who make decisions on whom to boot, prefer easily manipulated jurors. I suggest that your ire is misplaced.