Jump to content


Photo

Misconduct In Office, A Felony Charge


  • Please log in to reply
41 replies to this topic

#1 freemannabis

freemannabis

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 600 posts
  • LocationThe Keweenaw: A Land Where Food Grows On The Waters

Posted 12 November 2010 - 09:05 AM

FACT:

"It is corrupt for an officer purposely to violate the duties of his office."

**

Here's the rest of "the facts" (along with a couple of relevant stories):

Misconduct in office, a felony charge,applies when a police officer acts with
“corrupt purpose.”

A police chief had a copy of a sergeant’s
promotional exam in his office. The defendant
in this case was an officer who had access to
the chief’s office and obtained the copy prior to
taking the exam. The defendant took the
sergeant’s exam and scored 191 out of 200
when the test was designed for a top score of
150. It was determined that the test was
compromised and was invalidated. The cost of
offering the exam was $250,000, which did not
include the officer’s salaries. The defendant
was charged and convicted with misconduct in
office for his actions.

HELD – “Defendant violated the duties of his
office
because he had a continuing duty not to
possess the test materials in advance of the
examination, to immediately report to his
superior that he had obtained an advance copy
of the examination questions, to report anyone
who provided unauthorized access to test
materials, to avoid conduct unbecoming an
officer – such as unauthorized possession of
an advance copy of the examination, and to
withdraw from the examination after having
obtained advance review of the test questions.
These actions, and failures to act, constituted
acts of malfeasance and misfeasance that
violated the duties of defendant’s office. ‘It is
corrupt for an officer purposely to violate the
duties of his office.’ The facts and
circumstances do not support the allegation
that defendant’s possession was innocent,
inadvertent,
and promptly returned. Rather, the
score on the examination and the time frame in
which it was completed indicate that the
examination was reviewed and studied by
defendant at the expense of all other
applicants seeking promotions whose scores
were invalidated. Therefore, the trial court
correctly ruled that defendant acted with a
“corrupt purpose” when he made deliberate
and knowing use of the advance copies
of the
test to assist him in taking the sergeant’s
examination and thereby improperly obtain a
promotion.” People v Hardrick, C/A No.
238147 (August 26, 2003).
Uttering and publishing may include a copy
of a document.
After trying to ascertain her status as a
licensed R.N., defendant’s employer required
her to immediately submit her nursing license.
Defendant left and returned with a license,
which she had copied and presented the copy
to her employer. The word “VOID” appeared
on the sides of the documents. At the
preliminary examination, the State produced
evidence that licensure cards have colorcoding
so that if they are photocopied, the
license will state “VOID.” The defendant was
not licensed and was charged with uttering and
publishing. The question presented was
whether a copy of a forged, counterfeited, or
altered license constitutes a forged instrument
within the meaning of the uttering and
publishing statute.

HELD - “The language of MCL 750.249 does
not distinguish between a copy of and an
original false, forged, altered or counterfeit
record, deed, or instrument. The clear intent of
the statute is to preclude individuals from using
a false, forged, alerted or counterfeit record,
deed or instrument to injure or defraud.
It is
therefore immaterial whether the instrument
relied upon by the injured party is an original or
a copy. One commits the crime by uttering or
publishing a false, forged, altered or counterfeit
record, deed or instrument, whether it is an
original or a copy. Even though the copy of
defendant’s alleged license is marked ‘VOID,’ it
appears from the record before us that
defendant offered it as proof that she
possessed a valid nursing license. Once
defendant offered the copy as evidence of a
nursing license, the crime was complete.”
People v Cassadime, C/A No. 247967
September 09, 2003.

http://www.michigan....ept_74479_7.PDF

****

Be Informed.

Be FREE!

#2 freemannabis

freemannabis

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 600 posts
  • LocationThe Keweenaw: A Land Where Food Grows On The Waters

Posted 12 November 2010 - 09:14 AM

THE MICHIGAN PENAL CODE (EXCERPT)
Act 328 of 1931


750.248 Alteration, forgery, or counterfeit of public record; intent; felony; penalty; exception; venue; court order.
Sec. 248.

(1) A person who falsely makes, alters, forges, or counterfeits a public record, or a certificate, return, or attestation of a clerk of a court, register of deeds, notary public, township clerk, or any other public officer, in relation to a matter in which the certificate, return, or attestation may be received as legal proof, or a charter, deed, will, testament, bond, writing obligatory, letter of attorney, policy of insurance, bill of lading, bill of exchange, promissory note, or an order, acquittance of discharge for money or other property, or a waiver, release, claim or demand, or an acceptance of a bill of exchange, or indorsement, or assignment of a bill of exchange or promissory note for the payment of money, or an accountable receipt for money, goods, or other property with intent to injure or defraud another person is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 14 years.

(2) This section does not apply to a scrivener's error.

(3) The venue in a prosecution under this section may be in the county in which the forgery was performed; in a county in which a false, forged, altered, or counterfeit record, deed, instrument, or other writing is uttered and published with intent to injure or defraud; or in the county in which the rightful property owner resides.

(4) If in the proceedings resulting in a conviction under this section, or for any lesser included offense, the circuit court finds that the person made, altered, forged, or counterfeited a deed, discharge of mortgage, or other real estate document, the circuit court shall enter an order indicating that the document is invalid and requiring a copy of the invalid document and a certified copy of the order to be recorded in the office of the register of deeds of any county where the subject property is located, as provided in section 2935 of the revised judicature act of 1961, 1961 PA 236, MCL 600.2935. If the invalid document has previously been recorded, the prosecutor shall provide the circuit court with the liber and page number or unique identifying reference number of the invalid document, which shall be included in the order. The register of deeds shall make reference to the liber and page number or unique identifying reference number of the invalid document in the index of the recorded documents. Any recording fees incurred under this subsection shall be paid as ordered by the court.


History: 1931, Act 328, Eff. Sept. 18, 1931 ;-- CL 1948, 750.248 ;-- Am. 1964, Act 101, Eff. Aug. 28, 1964 ;-- Am. 1967, Act 64, Eff. Nov. 2, 1967 ;-- Am. 1991, Act 145, Imd. Eff. Nov. 25, 1991 ;-- Am. 2008, Act 378, Imd. Eff. Dec. 23, 2008
Former Law: See section 1 of Ch. 155 of R.S. 1846, being CL 1857, § 5802; CL 1871, § 7631; How., § 9213; CL 1897, § 11659; CL 1915, § 15432; and CL 1929, § 17048.


© 2009 Legislative Council, State of Michigan

#3 freemannabis

freemannabis

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 600 posts
  • LocationThe Keweenaw: A Land Where Food Grows On The Waters

Posted 12 November 2010 - 09:14 AM

THE MICHIGAN PENAL CODE (EXCERPT)
Act 328 of 1931


750.249 Forgery of records and other instruments; uttering and publishing; exception; court order.
Sec. 249.

(1) A person who utters and publishes as true a false, forged, altered, or counterfeit record, deed, instrument, or other writing listed in section 248 knowing it to be false, altered, forged, or counterfeit with intent to injure or defraud is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 14 years.

(2) This section does not apply to a scrivener's error.

(3) If in the proceedings resulting in a conviction under this section, or for any lesser included offense, the circuit court finds that the person uttered and published as true a false, forged, altered, or counterfeit deed, discharge of mortgage, or other real estate document, the circuit court shall enter an order indicating that the document is invalid and requiring a copy of the invalid document and a certified copy of the order to be recorded in the office of the register of deeds of any county where the subject property is located, as provided in section 2935 of the revised judicature act of 1961, 1961 PA 236, MCL 600.2935. If the invalid document has previously been recorded, the prosecutor shall provide the circuit court with the liber and page number or unique identifying reference number of the invalid document, which shall be included in the order. The register of deeds shall make reference to the liber and page number or unique identifying reference number of the invalid document in the index of the recorded documents. Any recording fees incurred under this subsection shall be paid as ordered by the court.


History: 1931, Act 328, Eff. Sept. 18, 1931 ;-- CL 1948, 750.249 ;-- Am. 2008, Act 378, Imd. Eff. Dec. 23, 2008
Former Law: See section 2 of Ch. 155 of R.S. 1846, being CL 1857, § 5803; CL 1871, § 7632; How., § 9214; CL 1897, § 11660; CL 1915, § 15433; and CL 1929, § 17049.


© 2009 Legislative Council, State of Michigan

#4 freemannabis

freemannabis

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 600 posts
  • LocationThe Keweenaw: A Land Where Food Grows On The Waters

Posted 12 November 2010 - 09:16 AM

THE MICHIGAN PENAL CODE (EXCERPT)
Act 328 of 1931


750.250 Forgery of notes issued for debt of state or political subdivisions.

Sec. 250.

Forgery of notes, etc., issued for debt of state—Any person who shall falsely make, alter, forge or counterfeit any note, certificate, bond, warrant or other instrument, issued by the treasurer or other officer authorized to issue the same, of this state, or any of its political subdivisions or municipalities, with intent to injure or defraud as aforesaid, shall be guilty of a felony, punishable by imprisonment in the state prison not more than 7 years.

History: 1931, Act 328, Eff. Sept. 18, 1931 ;-- Am. 1934, 1st Ex. Sess., Act 16, Imd. Eff. Mar. 28, 1934 ;-- CL 1948, 750.250
Former Law: See section 3 of Ch. 155 of R.S. 1846, being CL 1857, § 5804; CL 1871, § 7633; How., § 9215; CL 1897, § 11661; CL 1915, § 15434; and CL 1929, § 17050.


© 2009 Legislative Council, State of Michigan

#5 freemannabis

freemannabis

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 600 posts
  • LocationThe Keweenaw: A Land Where Food Grows On The Waters

Posted 12 November 2010 - 09:20 AM

STATE PERSONAL IDENTIFICATION CARD (EXCERPT)
Act 222 of 1972


28.293 False representation of information; violation as felony; additional violations; penalty.

Sec. 3.

(1) A person who falsely represents information upon application for an official state personal identification card is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not less than 1 year but not more than 5 years, or by a fine of not less than $500.00 but not more than $5,000.00, or both.

(2) A person who is convicted of a second violation of this section is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not less than 2 years or more than 7 years, or by a fine of not less than $1,500.00 or more than $7,000.00, or both.

(3) A person who is convicted of a third or subsequent violation of this section is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not less than 5 years or more than 15 years, or by a fine of not less than $5,000.00 or more than $15,000.00, or both.


History: 1972, Act 222, Imd. Eff. July 25, 1972 ;-- Am. 1975, Act 307, Eff. Jan. 1, 1976 ;-- Am. 1977, Act 286, Eff. Mar. 30, 1978 ;-- Am. 1998, Act 2, Eff. July 1, 1998


© 2009 Legislative Council, State of Michigan

#6 DenturesLost

DenturesLost

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 447 posts

Posted 12 November 2010 - 09:38 AM

I am assuming you are looking for info regarding the creation of false MM identifications? If so those laws above don't apply. They are aimed at public record. For example you cannot forge a judge's signature on a court order in an attempt to pass it off as a genuine order to someone who does know better. You cannot forge a birth certificate,..., etc.

The state ID card law above is in regard to using false info to obtain a state ID not creating the ID itself.

#7 peanutbutter

peanutbutter

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8,093 posts
  • LocationDexter

Posted 12 November 2010 - 09:50 AM

I am assuming you are looking for info regarding the creation of false MM identifications? If so those laws above don't apply. They are aimed at public record. For example you cannot forge a judge's signature on a court order in an attempt to pass it off as a genuine order to someone who does know better. You cannot forge a birth certificate,..., etc.

The state ID card law above is in regard to using false info to obtain a state ID not creating the ID itself.


I watched a case where the judge was presented with a search warrant that he was supposed to have signed.

The judge looked at it very carefully. Then said "That's not my signature!"

Nothing happened. The case went forward.

#8 DenturesLost

DenturesLost

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 447 posts

Posted 12 November 2010 - 10:09 AM

I watched a case where the judge was presented with a search warrant that he was supposed to have signed.

The judge looked at it very carefully. Then said "That's not my signature!"

Nothing happened. The case went forward.

Which is probably because there wasn't an issue. In district courts where there is more than one judge it is entirely possible that when the drawer of the warrant drew it up they printed the judge's name on the signature line that they thought was the arraigning judge for the day in that court.

In some courts only one of the judges will handle arraignments, warrants, etc., all day long and the judges take turns doing that. It can generally be more efficient than dividing up the cases between the other judges to arraign and then making them squeeze in arraignments that come up throughout the day in between the regularly scheduled docket. This is especially true in a very busy court with several judges in it. Rather than scheduling cases on the docket for the day the arraigning judge will do nothing but arraignments, search warrants, arrest warrants, etc. Things that come in without notice and without being scheduled.

So, back to the point. If the prosecutor's office drew up the warrant, thinking judge A was the arraigning judge that day but it was really judge B, then they may have listed judge A's name under the signature line. Then later maybe judge B signed it. That doesn't make the warrant invalid.

So that is among the possibilities.

There is also the possibility that the warrant was drawn up with the pros. thinking judge A was assigned weekend arrainments. Maybe judge A WAS assigned weekend arraignments that day but got sick and a different judge filled in or maybe the pros. was incorrect and it was really judge B assigned all along. There are other possibilities as well but suffice it to say that because someone thought judge A signed the warrant and judge A said he didn't that doesn't make it a bad warrant.

#9 freemannabis

freemannabis

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 600 posts
  • LocationThe Keweenaw: A Land Where Food Grows On The Waters

Posted 12 November 2010 - 10:19 AM

Just thought I might mention that the core of my intent here is merely declaring and sharing my personal observations that Michigan / America's [allegedly] "lawful" "legal System" is at least as ridiculously full of holes as it is certainly harmfully unbalanced.

FREE The People.

SHARE The Healing

#10 DLD420

DLD420

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 235 posts
  • LocationBattle Creek

Posted 12 November 2010 - 10:21 AM

Why does it appear that according to you (Dentureslost) the Judges, Pros, and Officers can do no wrong because the laws we have to live by don't happen to apply to them? Maybe I'm getting what you are saying wrong but why do we as the public have one set of rules but the authorities have another. I print and use a fake DL and get caught I do time or pay a huge fine, cops do the same and someone else gets arrested. :notfair:

#11 peanutbutter

peanutbutter

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8,093 posts
  • LocationDexter

Posted 12 November 2010 - 10:22 AM

Which is probably because there wasn't an issue. In district courts where there is more than one judge it is entirely possible that when the drawer of the warrant drew it up they printed the judge's name on the signature line that they thought was the arraigning judge for the day in that court.

In some courts only one of the judges will handle arraignments, warrants, etc., all day long and the judges take turns doing that. It can generally be more efficient than dividing up the cases between the other judges to arraign and then making them squeeze in arraignments that come up throughout the day in between the regularly scheduled docket. This is especially true in a very busy court with several judges in it. Rather than scheduling cases on the docket for the day the arraigning judge will do nothing but arraignments, search warrants, arrest warrants, etc. Things that come in without notice and without being scheduled.

So, back to the point. If the prosecutor's office drew up the warrant, thinking judge A was the arraigning judge that day but it was really judge B, then they may have listed judge A's name under the signature line. Then later maybe judge B signed it. That doesn't make the warrant invalid.

So that is among the possibilities.

There is also the possibility that the warrant was drawn up with the pros. thinking judge A was assigned weekend arrainments. Maybe judge A WAS assigned weekend arraignments that day but got sick and a different judge filled in or maybe the pros. was incorrect and it was really judge B assigned all along. There are other possibilities as well but suffice it to say that because someone thought judge A signed the warrant and judge A said he didn't that doesn't make it a bad warrant.


There is also the case where there was no signature and the warrant was presented to the defendant as valid, and used to force entry.

#12 peanutbutter

peanutbutter

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8,093 posts
  • LocationDexter

Posted 12 November 2010 - 10:26 AM

Why does it appear that according to you (Dentureslost) the Judges, Pros, and Officers can do no wrong because the laws we have to live by don't happen to apply to them? Maybe I'm getting what you are saying wrong but why do we as the public have one set of rules but the authorities have another. I print and use a fake DL and get caught I do time or pay a huge fine, cops do the same and someone else gets arrested. :notfair:


I agree. Not just DL, but the entire system.
Can't fault DL for expressing how the entire system functions.

Currently most of the system views laws as things that only apply to civilians. Members of the system are viewed as exempt from the same laws.

We have a cast system. Those in power and those outside.

#13 DenturesLost

DenturesLost

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 447 posts

Posted 12 November 2010 - 10:49 AM

Why does it appear that according to you (Dentureslost) the Judges, Pros, and Officers can do no wrong because the laws we have to live by don't happen to apply to them? Maybe I'm getting what you are saying wrong but why do we as the public have one set of rules but the authorities have another. I print and use a fake DL and get caught I do time or pay a huge fine, cops do the same and someone else gets arrested. :notfair:

First of all I never said they can do no wrong. They can do wrong and have. But to understand our system you have to be willing to accept the facts. Just because I point out when people are wrong that does not mean I think cops can do no wrong. The point here is to educate people on how things are...not how some WISH they were.

Someone could log onto this site for the first time and if there was no balanced or objective voice then I would guess they would, if educated, be immediately turned off by the site. I support the cause 100% but that doesn't mean I am going to just eat up opinions that make no sense and have no basis in fact. Do I WISH it were easier for pts to obtain without worrying so much about whether they were going to be arrested? Yes. But just because I WISH that doesn't mean I am going to pretend like laws don't exist or that they say something they don't.

Whether we like it or not we have to live within the framework of our laws or risk punishment. So I strive to make that framework as clear as possible for the benefit of those who do not know. I could do that or I could take the position, for example, that everyone who sells marijuana has automatic protections under the MMA. Which means I could join the rest of the crowd and agree and then have someone stray onto this site who thinks that since the overwhelming majority of people agree then that means it is legal so they run out and do it. Then get arrested... And who wins in that scenario?

The FACT is that judges and prosecutors operate based, in part, on discretionary functions. That means they have discretion to do things and are not forced to do them by the law unless they are abusing discretion. The fact is that police, or anyone, can only break a criminal law if they also have the requisite intent to do so (except for some "strict liabilty" types of criminal laws which impose affirmative duties). That is just a fact and arguing otherwise won't change anything.

Use your drivers license example. If you print and use one then you have the intent to deceive someone into thinking it is genuine so that you can do something that is breaking the law. Whether it be buying alcohol underage or driving when you don't have a genuine license. If the cops print and use one to buy alcohol underage, and if it was a fairly genuine looking replica, then that is entrapment. The cops printing a fake MM card and using it to buy mj is NOT breaking the law when the intent is not there to defraud the seller. And the law tells us that you cannot defraud someone who is engaged in an illegal activity. The cops position is that you cannot sell to ANY card-carrying pt. but that you have to be connected with them through MDCH and therefore sell to ANY pt is illegal. Therefore, using the card to get you to sell to them is not fraud because they aren't looking to to get you to do something that WOULD be legal IF the card were genuine.

If I say a cop was right to ticket you for driving 100mph does that mean I am on the cop's side? Of course not. That means I am using logical reasoning. Why are you turning this into a witch hunt just because I am trying to explain the state of things to people? Let me guess..i must be a LEO??? Kind of the same thing Joe McCarthy used to argue when someone said something he didn't like...

#14 DenturesLost

DenturesLost

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 447 posts

Posted 12 November 2010 - 10:53 AM

I agree. Not just DL, but the entire system.
Can't fault DL for expressing how the entire system functions.

Currently most of the system views laws as things that only apply to civilians. Members of the system are viewed as exempt from the same laws.

We have a cast system. Those in power and those outside.

Understanding the limits within the law is key in understanding how far any official can go. If you don't understand the limits (eg: discretionary functions, judicial and prosecutorial immunities, intent to commit a crime) then there is no point in having a discussion because you will always take the point of view that you are right and someone else is wrong. It is impossible to effectively explain or argue a point when people do not understand the public policy behind those limits. Impoosible.

#15 peanutbutter

peanutbutter

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8,093 posts
  • LocationDexter

Posted 12 November 2010 - 11:00 AM

It is precisely this attitude of "we're exempt" that is voided in the confidentiality section of the law.

The writers of this law specifically targeted those that think they are exempt.

an employee or official of the department or another state agency or local unit of government, who discloses confidential information in violation of this act is guilty of a misdemeanor



#16 Wayne'sWorld

Wayne'sWorld

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 225 posts

Posted 12 November 2010 - 11:09 AM

My question? Where did all of these legal experts attend and graduate law school? When did they pass the bar? Anywhere? Even Somolia? More importantly. Have they filed criminal and/or civil complaints challenging these alleged violations by LEO and the judiciary in a Michigan courts, judicial ethics committee? If legitimate they have a responsibility to themselve's and this community to do so!

#17 DenturesLost

DenturesLost

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 447 posts

Posted 12 November 2010 - 11:10 AM

It is precisely this attitude of "we're exempt" that is voided in the confidentiality section of the law.

The writers of this law specifically targeted those that think they are exempt.

We've been down that road. Judge's have discretion as to what they allow in court. Judge's also have judicial immunity. The MMA doesn't change that. You can argue until you are blue in the face that it does change it but it simply does not. You don't understand the system. Maybe I'm a bad teacher but I've tried to explain it as best I could and when that didn't work I tried to dumb it down and when that didn't work I gave up.

#18 peanutbutter

peanutbutter

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8,093 posts
  • LocationDexter

Posted 12 November 2010 - 11:38 AM

We've been down that road. Judge's have discretion as to what they allow in court. Judge's also have judicial immunity. The MMA doesn't change that. You can argue until you are blue in the face that it does change it but it simply does not. You don't understand the system. Maybe I'm a bad teacher but I've tried to explain it as best I could and when that didn't work I tried to dumb it down and when that didn't work I gave up.


And you continue to negate the voters of Michigan by promoting that a specific person or office is exempt.

You are promoting the existing cast system.

A judge can commit a crime from the bench. The judge can be arrested for the crime, tried and convicted.

Judges are not exempt from every crime they could possibly commit.

#19 peanutbutter

peanutbutter

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8,093 posts
  • LocationDexter

Posted 12 November 2010 - 11:54 AM

And you continue to negate the voters of Michigan by promoting that a specific person or office is exempt.

You are promoting the existing cast system.

A judge can commit a crime from the bench. The judge can be arrested for the crime, tried and convicted.

Judges are not exempt from every crime they could possibly commit.


A judge does not have immunity from this law.

A judge is one of those that is targeted in this law.

#20 DenturesLost

DenturesLost

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 447 posts

Posted 12 November 2010 - 11:58 AM

And you continue to negate the voters of Michigan by promoting that a specific person or office is exempt.

You are promoting the existing cast system.

A judge can commit a crime from the bench. The judge can be arrested for the crime, tried and convicted.

Judges are not exempt from every crime they could possibly commit.

I am trying to negate the voters? Hell-f ing-O!!! I am pointing out the realitites. I am not trying to "negate" anything.

Seriously man, wake up. Judicial immunity is granted by the US Const. according to the US Sup Ct. How is that ME trying to "negate" ANYTHING?

You flat out do not understand how things work. I quoted Alexander Pope before and it fits again: "A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing." You grasp or glom onto something for dear life but do not understand the interplay of anything in the law. It's useless to explain anymore. You don't understand judicial immunity or how/where it comes into play. You don't understand it, plain and simple. You think that because a public initiative was passed that all of a sudden there are huge changes. You are misinterpreting and misapplying the MMA. I know you don't think you are and I know I cannot convince you of that but slowly, over time, you may come to realize that.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users