INGRAM UPDATE 25 May [Re: Criminal & Civil Liability]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----



     1.   Mr. Ingram's Possible Criminal Liability for Theft.


     One should not assume that Gene Ingram cannot be charged
with felony theft under RCW 9A.56.010, 9A.56.040, or gross
misdemeanor theft under RCW 9A.56.010, 9A.56.050, just because
the photographs were returned to Rubye K. Ward, Grady Ward's
mother.  On the contrary, the general rule is that the return of
stolen property is not a defense to a charge of theft.  The
treatise American Jurisprudence observes that:


          "If the essential elements of the crime are
     present, it is no defense to a charge of larceny
     [i.e., theft] that the defendant . . . offers to
     restore the property or make compensation, or that he
     subsequently returns the property, or its equivalent,
     to the owner."


50 Am.Jur.2d, Larceny sec. 137 (footnotes omitted, bracket
added).  The treatise Corpus Juris Secundum states:


          "It is not a defense to a charge of larceny
     [i.e., theft] that the owner has recovered the stolen
     property or its value.  So the making of restitution
     by the thief, or this promise thereof, will not
     absolve him of guilt."


52A C.J.S., Larceny sec. 72 (footnotes omitted, bracket added).


     American Jurisprudence and Corpus Juris Secundum are what
is referred to as "secondary authorities."  They are treatises
which summarize the law in most jurisdictions.  They are neither
definitive, exhaustive, nor binding on any given court.  However,
I did some *quick* research under Washington law.  The Washington
Supreme Court and Court of Appeal decisions referred to below
indicate that: (a) in Washington the return of stolen property
is not a defense to a charge of theft; and therefore
(b) Mr. Ingram is not immune from prosecution merely because the
photographs were returned.


     In State v. Burnham, 19 Wash.App. 442, 576 P.2d 917 (1978),
review denied, State v. Burnham, 90 Wash. 2d 1020 (1978), the
Washington Court of Appeal explained:


          "Finally, we need hardly note that if defendant
     had the requisite intent at the time he took them, a
     subsequent return of the radios is no defense. 
     However laudable repentance may be, a later change of
     heart is no defense to a completed theft.  50 Am. Jur.
     2d Larceny [sec.] 15 (1970)."


Burnham, 19 Wash.App. at 446, 576 P.2d at 919.


     In State v. Carr, 160 Wash. 83, 294 P. 1016 (1931), the
Washington Supreme Court stated:


          "Appellant places particular stress on the giving
     of instruction No. 2 by the court, and claims error. 
     The instruction was proper.  It was: 'If you find from
     the evidence in this case, beyond a reasonable doubt,
     that the defendant did commit the crimes, or either of
     them, as charged in the several counts in the
     information, then any payment or offer of payment of
     the amount of such checks by the defendant, or any
     other person, afterwards, cannot be considered as any
     defense in this case.
          This court said, in State v. Shears, 119 Wash.
     275, 205 P. 417, 419, that: 'Reparation, or simply the
     return of property stolen when one finds his crime has
     been discovered, is no defense to a prosecution for
     the larceny.'
          In State v. Craddick, 61 Wash. 425, 112 P. 491,
     494, this court said: 'A thief will not be accorded
     immunity by the law by simply returning the stolen
     property when he finds that his crime has been
     discovered.'"


Carr, 160 Wash. 83, 87-88, 294 P. 1016, 1018.


     In State v. Shears, 119 Wash. 275, 205 P. 417 (1922), the
defendant's relatives offered to repay the money the defendant
had stolen.  The Court explained that:


     "the argument for [the defendant] in the trial court
     was that his relatives having 'attempted to effect an
     adjustment and entered into negotiations for the
     purpose of making an adjustment, all of the criminal
     intent which would attach to the original taking of
     the money was absolutely obliterated.'
          The law is to the contrary.  Reparation, or
     simply the return of property stolen when one finds
     his crime has been discovered, is no defense to a
     prosecution for the larceny. State v. Craddick,
     61 Wash. 425, 112 Pac. 491."


Shears, 119 Wash. at 279, 205 P. at 419.




     2.   Possible Criminal Liability Of Mr. Ingram's Employer.


     Assuming, for the sake of argument, that Mr. Ingram's
employer was a corporation, RCW 9A.08.030 provides in pertinent
part:


     "Criminal liability of corporations and persons acting
     or under a duty to act in their behalf.


     (1) As used in this section:


          (a) "Agent" means any director, officer, or
     employee of a corporation, or any other person who is
     authorized to act on behalf of the  corporation; 
          * * *
          (c) "High managerial agent" means an officer or
     director of a  corporation  or any other agent in a
     position of comparable authority with respect to the
     formulation of  corporate  policy or the supervision
     in a managerial capacity of subordinate employees.


     (2) A corporation  is guilty of an offense when:
          * * *
          (b) The conduct constituting the offense is
     engaged in, authorized, solicited, requested,
     commanded, or tolerated by the board of directors or
     by a high managerial agent acting within the scope of
     his employment and on behalf of the corporation; or
          (c) The conduct constituting the offense is
     engaged in by an agent of the corporation, other than
     a high managerial agent, while acting within the scope
     of his employment and in behalf of the corporation 
     and (i) the offense is a gross misdemeanor or
     misdemeanor, or (ii) the offense is one defined by a
     statute which clearly indicates a legislative intent
     to impose such criminal liability on a corporation. 


     * * * *"


RCW 9A.08.030.  Under this section, it appears Mr. Ingram's
employer might be criminally liable for Mr. Ingram's alleged
conduct if either: (a) Mr. Ingram was acting within the scope of
his employment and the offense was a gross misdemeanor or
misdemeanor, such as gross misdemeanor theft under RCW 9A.56.010,
9A.56.050 or gross misdemeanor criminal impersonation under
RCW 9A.60.040(a) (see RCW 9A.08.030(2)(a)); or (b) the conduct
constituting the offense was "authorized, solicited, requested,
commanded, or tolerated by the board of directors or by a high
managerial agent acting within the scope of his employment and
on behalf of the corporation" (see RCW 9A.08.030(2)(b)).


     3.   Possible Civil Liability for Mr. Ingram and His
          Employer.


     Mrs. Ward may want to consult an attorney and consider
filing a civil action against Mr. Ingram for fraud, conversion
of the photographs, intentional infliction of emotional distress,
negligent infliction of emotional distress, trespass to real
property (on the theory that her consent for Mr. Ingram to enter
and remain in her home was induced, and thus vitiated, by
Mr. Ingram's alleged misrepresentations), trespass to chattels
(i.e., the pictures, in the event the conversion claim is
defective for any reason), and/or other claims.  Since
Mr. Ingram's alleged conduct was arguably willful and
reprehensible, Mrs. Ward may be able to obtain an award of
punitive damages.  It may be possible for Mrs. Ward to sue
Mr. Ingram's employer on the theories of agency and respondeat
superior.  If a defendant is properly served and does not appear
to defend the action, Mrs. Ward may be able to obtain a default
judgment against that defendant.


     Mrs. Ward's possible claims for intentional and negligent
infliction of emotional distress *might* be quite valuable.  I
would not surprised if Mrs. Ward, a 74 year old widow, suffered
severe emotional distress, possibly resulting in physical damage
and/or symptoms, when she learned she had been duped by a person
who was investigating her son, possibly on behalf of a hostile
entity, and that she had delivered to that person not only a
photograph of her son, but also of her grandchildren.  Mrs. Ward
may wish to keep a complete record of all medical and
psychological care she has received as a result of this trauma,
as well as the cost thereof.




     4.   Closing Comments.


     Mrs. Ward may want to keep the envelope in which the
photographs were returned.  Even if it is not possible to obtain
fingerprints [or hair, fibers, DNA, etc. :) ] from the envelope,
it is excellent physical evidence that the pictures were in fact
stolen.


     The standard disclaimers apply.  I am not purporting to act
as legal counsel for Mr. Ward, Mrs. Ward or any other person. 
The arguments made above are solely for the purpose of
discussion.  My research has not been exhaustive.  I express no
opinion on whether Mr. Ingram, his employer, or some other
person, has in fact committed any of the crimes and torts
discussed.  I welcome commentary and correction by others. 
Obviously, Grady Ward, Rubye Ward, and all other interested
persons should confer with legal counsel before taking any
action, or deciding to refrain from taking any action.


[ENDNOTE #1:  At common law, and before the revision of
Washington's Criminal Code in 1975, what is now known as "theft"
was known as "larceny."  As a result, the Washington decisions
prior to 1975 and many treatises use the term "larceny" instead
of "theft."]


[ENDNOTE #2: I added the newsgroup alt.law-enforcement to the
newsgroups line.  I believe the people in that newsgroup may be
interested in, and able to contribute to, this discussion.]




- -- Elvis Cole




- ----------------------------------------------------------------
     By way of background, in message #70445, dated May 21, 1995,
grady@netcom.com (Grady Ward) wrote:


>Here is an update on the crime reported by my mother

>Here is an update on the crime reported by my mother
>in Tacoma, WA on Wednesday, 10 May 1995 at her home.

>in Tacoma, WA on Wednesday, 10 May 1995 at her home.
>

>
>A man came to her home claiming to be a person called

>A man came to her home claiming to be a person called
>"Jack Hoff" of "1234-40th Pl., Portland, OR" who claimed

>"Jack Hoff" of "1234-40th Pl., Portland, OR" who claimed
>to be a friend of me in high school in Tacoma.  He left

>to be a friend of me in high school in Tacoma.  He left
>with a photograph of me and my children.

>with a photograph of me and my children.
>

>
>She and another adult have positively identified the intruder

>She and another adult have positively identified the intruder
>as

>as
>

>
>Eugene Martin Ingram DOB 2/24/46.

>Eugene Martin Ingram DOB 2/24/46.
>[Tampa, FL case # 94-12262, warrant # 94-051479]

>[Tampa, FL case # 94-12262, warrant # 94-051479]
>

>
>

>
>According [to] the Revised Code of Washington, available at

>According [to] the Revised Code of Washington, available at
>

>
>ftp://leginfo.leg.wa.gov/pub/
><a href="ftp://leginfo.leg.wa.gov/pub/">ftp://leginfo.leg.wa.gov/pub/</a>>

>
>my mother is reporting a "Class C" felony of theft

>my mother is reporting a "Class C" felony of theft
>"by color or aid of deception."  The photograph that

>"by color or aid of deception."  The photograph that
>two witnesses saw Gene Ingram take is of course priceless,

>two witnesses saw Gene Ingram take is of course priceless,
>but reasonably could be recreated for several hundred dollars

>but reasonably could be recreated for several hundred dollars
>of expense:

>of expense:
>

>
>[Definition of "Theft"]

>[Definition of "Theft"]
>     RCW 9A.56.010  Definitions.  The following definitions are

>     RCW 9A.56.010  Definitions.  The following definitions are
>applicable in this chapter unless the context otherwise

>applicable in this chapter unless the context otherwise
>requires:

>requires:
>    ...

>    ...
>     (2) "By color or aid of deception" means that the deception

>     (2) "By color or aid of deception" means that the deception
>operated to bring about the obtaining of the property or

>operated to bring about the obtaining of the property or
>services; it is not necessary that deception be the sole means

>services; it is not necessary that deception be the sole means
>of obtaining the property or services;

>of obtaining the property or services;
>

>
>

>
>

>
>     RCW 9A.56.040  Theft in the second degree.  (1) A person

>     RCW 9A.56.040  Theft in the second degree.  (1) A person
>is guilty of theft in the second degree if he or she commits

>is guilty of theft in the second degree if he or she commits
>theft of:

>theft of:
>     (a) Property or services which exceed(s) two hundred and

>     (a) Property or services which exceed(s) two hundred and
>fifty dollars in value, but does not exceed one thousand five

>fifty dollars in value, but does not exceed one thousand five
>hundred dollars in value; or

>hundred dollars in value; or
>     ...

>     ...
>     (2) Theft in the second degree is a class C felony.  [1994

>     (2) Theft in the second degree is a class C felony.  [1994
>1st sp.s. c 7 ' 433; 1987 c 140 ' 2; 1982 1st ex.s. c 47 ' 15;

>1st sp.s. c 7 ' 433; 1987 c 140 ' 2; 1982 1st ex.s. c 47 ' 15;
>1975 1st ex.s. c 260 ' 9A.56.040.]

>1975 1st ex.s. c 260 ' 9A.56.040.]
>

>
>My mother will, of course, urge that this felony be referred to

>My mother will, of course, urge that this felony be referred to
>the District Attorney for formal charging before a Judge.

>the District Attorney for formal charging before a Judge.
>

>
>I will post the case and warrant numbers when or if issued.

>I will post the case and warrant numbers when or if issued.
>

>
>Maybe Gene can collect felony warrants in all fifty states!

>Maybe Gene can collect felony warrants in all fifty states!
>Another BIG WIN for the criminal cult!

>Another BIG WIN for the criminal cult!
>

>
>--

>--

In message #72041, dated May 25, 1995, grady@netcom.com (Grady Ward) later wrote:

]A *new* blunder by Gene Ingram and accomplices today. ] ]After my posting to the net the possibility of his being charged ]under Washington State law with the Class C felony of obtaining ]property by or under color of deception, an envelope arrived at ]my mother's today (25 May 1995) in Tacoma, WA containing the ]photographs fraudulently taken by Eugene Martin Ingram. ] ]Returning the property does not mitigate the distinct crime ]of criminal impersonation, however: ] ] RCW 9A.60.040 Criminal impersonation. (1) A person is ]guilty of criminal impersonation in the first degree if the ]person: ] (a) Assumes a false identity and does an act in his or her ]assumed character with intent to defraud another or for any ]other unlawful purpose; or ] (b) Pretends to be a representative of some person or ]organization or a public servant and does an act in his or her ]pretended capacity with intent to defraud another or for any ]other ]unlawful purpose. ] (2) Criminal impersonation in the first degree is a gross ]misdemeanor. ] (3) A person is guilty of criminal impersonation in the ]second degree if the person: ] (a) Claims to be a law enforcement officer or creates an ]impression that he or she is a law enforcement officer; and ] (b) Under circumstances not amounting to criminal ]impersonation in the first degree, does an act with intent to ]convey the impression that he or she is acting in an official ]capacity and a reasonable person would believe the person is a ]law enforcement officer. ] (4) Criminal impersonation in the second degree is a ]misdemeanor. [1993 c 457 ' 1; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 ' ]9A.60.040.] ] ] ]Since the postmark of the envelope (no return address) contains ]a postmark from *Portland, OR* (last three digits 721), the ]fraud becomes the *federal* crime of interstate transportation ]of stolen property, a base offense crime of 4 with a lot of ]possible sentencing "enhancements" depending upon value and ]other coeval acts. ] ]My mother noted that the address was addressed to 'Ruby K. Ward' ]while Eugene Martin Ingram made a point of spelling it correctly ]as 'Rubye' on 10 May. It sure looks like a conspiracy is ]involved here, which essentially doubles the base value of the underlying offense. ] ]Also federal racketeering or continuing criminal enterprise ]statutes may begin to come into play. ] ]Another BIG WIN for the criminal cult! ]

]--

]Grady Ward  +1 707 826 7715 (voice / 24hr FAX)  grady@netcom.com


- ----------------------------------------------------------------






-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQCVAwUBL9KF6TU+2OZrHxKBAQHFLAP/SD7gXfBKbkfUchEN3U43r0SZ6vXyexo0 ZKnhu2kNoKSGj1cdchVRPAGP8DdgrqckR9kuLxlrbNhVArD4fPgWoto2nuZORVqF

1.0 alt.current-events.net-abuse:9119 alt.censorship:16410 alt.law-enforcement:7156