Got this one in an email because it is not making the MSM rounds. Court Allows Use of Stolen Social Security Number.
The Colorado Supreme Court has reversed the conviction of a man who admitted using someone else’s Social Security number to obtain a loan, concluding that the defendant wasn’t really trying to assume a false identity.
The opinion was written by Michael Bender, who was joined by Mary Mullarkey, Gregory Hobbs and Alex Martinez. A strongly worded dissent by Nathan Coats was joined by Nancy Rice and Allison Eid.
The case involved Felix Montes-Rodriguez, who was convicted of criminal impersonation for using another person’s Social Security number on a loan application.
Anyone else see a problem with this? I was wrong, it’s finally making some headway on the MSM.
The state Supreme Court threw out Felix Montes-Rodriguez’s 2006 conviction in a 4-3 decision published Monday. Montes-Rodriguez used his own address, birth date and place of employment to apply for a loan, but used a woman’s Social Security number that he had been using for work. His immigration status isn’t known.
Gee, using a stolen social security number of a female…my guess is that he is here illegally.
A majority of justices ruled that with so much identifying information on his application, he didn’t assume a false identity.
But the other justices said the majority botched the call.
“I not only believe the majority misconstrues the criminal-impersonation statue and reaches the wrong result in this case; but by slicing, dicing, parsing, distinguishing and generally over-analyzing (over the course of some 30 paragraphs) one short and relatively self-explanatory phrase, the majority manages to exclude from the statutory proscription conduct lying at its very heart,” Justice Nathan Coats wrote for the minority, according the Denver Post.
Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey, who was among the majority in the decision, is retiring at the end of next month after facing an uphill battle to keep her job in a election next week. Justice Alex Martinez, who also ruled in favor of Montes-Rodriguez, faces a vote on Tuesday.
Anyone seeing bull red yet? If this isn’t criminal impersonation, what is?
October 29, 2010 at 9:27 pm
In light of court decisions like this travesty, it occurs to me more and more often that the truest, most sensible book I’ve ever read is Alice in Wonderland.
Too ba d we can’t fire the judges along with the Congress.
October 30, 2010 at 7:23 am
Bwhahahahahaha…I’m seeing it Mary.
October 29, 2010 at 11:13 pm
If it’s not criminal impersonation, then why do his actions impact her credit?
I just hate freaking morons.
good riddance to Mullarkey (what an apt name)!
& as for Alex Martinez, I sincerely hope someone tries the same with his social security number, because obviously he is too stupid
racistto learn other than the hard way.October 30, 2010 at 7:23 am
Yeah I thought the name was quite suitable.
October 30, 2010 at 4:20 am
I was listening to talk radio & along the border in AZ & NV unions bus folks in from Mexico to vote….judge overturned the law in AZ to check ID at polls.
Now fake SS# conviction is overturned.
We are becoming a lawless society….as corrupt as the one across the border…
October 30, 2010 at 7:24 am
Indeed WCA. It’s going to turn into the wild west real soon. Where’s Wyatt Earp?
October 30, 2010 at 6:56 am
It is a real pain when somebody uses your SS number. They were never intended to be used for purposes of identification, but obviously they are used like that every day. Because they exist in this kind of legal limbo, you don’t really own your SS number.
I know it sounds crazy and it’s hard to explain, but often it says exactly that right on your card, “not to be used for purposes of identification.” And when you go to apply for a loan, you have to provide your number (for the purpose of identification) but the fine print often reads, “not for the purpose of identification.”
What happens is that when somebody takes your SS number, it’s a bloody nightmare trying to fix the damage they have caused. You can protest, “but that’s my number, it belongs to me!” However, as you can see from this legal ruling, your SS number is not to be used for the purposes of identification, so no identity has been stolen.
If this sounds crazy, that’s because it is. If you ever have a problem with one of the three credit reporting agencies, it really is a bit like falling down the rabbit hole. How can two things be true at the same time? Because in bureaucracy, anything is possible.
October 30, 2010 at 7:26 am
My BIL’s ss# was used by a day laborer in Colorado. My BIL works for the government. The company that allowed the number refused to use e verify because no one really uses it in Colorado.
October 30, 2010 at 8:27 am
FYI- e-verify is a pile of bureaucratic baloney. Worked for a major rest chain that had “entered into an agreement” with the gov to use e-verify. Results?
The rest company was no longer in hot water for hiring illegals. e-verify does nothing but verify that the ss number exists. Six months or a year down the road the company might get a notice telling them the number does not match the name- and to THEN get the EMPLOYEE to verify the match. Meanwhile, the company has had the services of the illegal for six months to a year. AND the restaurant company has covered it’s ass legally by using e-verify- so no prosecution.
Cute huh?
October 31, 2010 at 9:24 am
Great. Leave it to the assclowns in Congress to come up with something that stupid. Colorado doesn’t even try to use the e verify.