Ripoff Report Needs Your Help!
X  |  CLOSE
Report: #1128819

Complaint Review: (((REDACTED BY EDITOR DUE TO ABUSE OF WEBSITE))) -

  • Submitted:
  • Updated:
  • Reported By: Crystal L. Cox —
  • Author Confirmed What's this?
  • Why?
  • (((REDACTED BY EDITOR DUE TO ABUSE OF WEBSITE))) USA

(((REDACTED BY EDITOR DUE TO ABUSE OF WEBSITE))) Posing as a Good Samaritan, Good Investment yet History of Financial Crimes, Perjury and Harassment Maryland

Show customers why they should trust your business over your competitors...

Is this
Report about YOU
listed on other sites?
Those sites steal
Ripoff Report's
content.
We can get those
removed for you!
Find out more here.
How to fix
Ripoff Report
If your business is
willing to make a
commitment to
customer satisfaction
Click here now..

 

MESSAGE FROM THE EDITOR:

 

Ripoff Report is a forum for people to post true complaints that can help other people by informing them about a problem.  It is also a good forum for a business to show the world how it responds to customer complaints.  Ripoff Report is not a forum for people to post false complaints, or personal attacks. And, Ripoff Report is not a place for people to commit extortion.

Ripoff Report has dedicated enormous time and resources to protecting free speech.  Complaints can make businesses people angry.  Complaints that expose scams and frauds make scamming fraudsters very, very angry.  Angry people can put pressure on authors to recant, to take it back, to take it down.  Ripoff Report protects free speech in several ways, including not ever taking down reports so that there is no use to pressure an author about it and every reason to show the world how to resolve a complaint with courtesy and respect.  Ripoff Report also fights lawsuits against taking down reports, and dozens and dozens of times Ripoff Report has defeated lawsuits that attempt to suppress free speech and force the takedown of reports.

Ripoff Report does not take down reports for money.  If there is a false report posted, there are many policies that allow the false statements to be rebutted, disproven, exposed as false, and at times even removed from the website. There is a program sponsored by Ripoff Report, designed to be much much easier and less expensive than a lawsuit, called VIP Arbitration.  It allows a challenge to a statement to prove that it is false, a defense by the author, and a decision by a neutral arbitrator based on the evidence.  False statements can be identified and refuted in this manner.  And, the law allows and encourages the Ripoff Report to use good judgment to show the results of the arbitration, and even to redact the contents that someone posted.

Ripoff Report is taking a stand against abuse of the website, and its carefully designed programs to protect free speech.  Some people abuse the website by using it for personal attacks, or using it as leverage to harm and extort other people.  One of those people is Crystal Cox.  Cox has a pattern of behavior that Ripoff Report finds offensive, harmful and disgusting.  Here is how the Ninth Circuit Court of appeals described this pattern of behavior in an official written opinion:

ABOUT THE RIPOFF REPORT BELOW

“ . . . Crystal Cox published blog posts on several websites that she created, accusing [her victim] of fraud, corruption, money-laundering, and other illegal activities in connection with the Summit bankruptcy. Cox apparently has a history of making similar allegations and seeking payoffs in exchange for retraction.”

That conduct is wrong. It is disgusting.  Ripoff Report is against that kind of thing.

Here is a link to an article on the Ripoff Report that is all about Crystal Cox, and what she does, and how some of it is protected as free speech by the laws of the United States.

http://www.ripoffreport.com/r/REDACTED-BY-EDITOR-DUE-TO-ABUSE-OF-WEBSITE/Las-Vegas-Nevada/Crystal-Cox-lost-case-in-9th-Circuit-Court-of-Appeals-Cox-apparently-has-a-history-of-1112488


Here is a link to the same article posted on another website. http://popehat.com/2014/01/19/protecting-the-free-speech-of-censors-the-crystal-cox-saga/

Protected Free Speech


Well, the law has to protect some speech that is bad speech, in order to protect everyone’s right to free speech.  But, Ripoff Report has freedom of speech too.  And Ripoff Report chooses to exercise its right to free speech by NOT GIVING CRYSTAL COX A VOICE ON RIPOFF REPORT. That’s right.  We did some research and looks like Crystal Cox has used and abused Ripoff Report somewhere around 45 times.  And, Ripoff Report does not respect Crystal Cox or what she does, so she she can’t voice her opinions or post her allegations or say anything at all on Ripoff Report website. If we detect her trying to post things, we will not allow it to post. Ripoff Report believes she has abused the opportunity to post on the website and so she loses the opportunity.  What about the things she already posted? Well, we are going to redact the heck out of it so that it doesn’t hurt anyone, but the world can see just what kind of garbage it is.  And we are posting this statement for everyone to read.

What else?

Ripoff Report will repeat some interesting things written by others about Crystal Cox.  In the opinion of one very intelligent and wise author named Ken White who was speaking about the law (you can see the full article in the links above) “We protect the Nazis’ right to march at Skokie . . . We protect the right of Fred Phelps’ family to protest funerals even though the America of Phelps dreams is a theocratic hellhole . . . So it shouldn’t be any surprise that we protect the free speech rights of the disturbed and vengeful blogger Crystal Cox, even though she abuses the legal system in an effort to censor and retaliate against people for criticizing her. That’s how we roll.”

Mr. White documents several additional examples of reprehensible conduct by Crystal Cox, and his article is an excellent and interesting read about why it is important to protect free speech, even for people who do bad things.

It is also important to exercise free speech rights AGAINST people who do bad things like Cox does.  So, Ripoff Report is standing against Cox and the way she abuses people and the internet.

 

============================

 

Posted here Upon the Knowledge and Belief of Crystal L. Cox

 
(((REDACTED))) of (((REDACTED))) wants you to believe that he Can Be Trusted with your MILLIONS invested in (((REDACTED))) and insists that Crystal Cox, a blogger reporting on (((REDACTED))) and (((REDACTED))), extorted him and cannot be trusted. 

(((REDACTED))) wants you to believe that he is a "Good Samaritan", an innocent guy just trying to start a legitimate company and do good things. So, in order to keep up with the (((REDACTED))) of (((REDACTED))) is "Good Samaritan" facade, (((REDACTED))) needs you to believe that the blogger reporting on him, reviewing him and discussing her true experience with (((REDACTED))) and (((REDACTED))), is somehow a criminal who tired to extort him.

(((REDACTED))) spent 8 years in PRISON for Financial Crimes, the way I understand it. Why do so many believe that (((REDACTED))) is doing good things with their investment money, when it sure looks like (((REDACTED)))(((REDACTED))) is a bully, a perjurer, a flat out liar to federal courts and state agencies in order to attempt to intimidate and silence blogger Crystal Cox. 
 

(((REDACTED))) of (((REDACTED))) threatened me, Crystal Cox. (((REDACTED))) told me that if I contacted the FBI, DOJ, or any "authority" regarding corruption in (((REDACTED))), he would send someone for me. (((REDACTED))) left me threatening voice mails, has perjured himself to federal agencies, state boards and in a (((REDACTED))) Amicus Brief. 

(((REDACTED))) (((REDACTED))) is connected and conspiring with porn industry attorneys, such as (((REDACTED))), Esq. of (((REDACTED))).net, (((REDACTED))) who are part of supporting what seems to be organized crime in the porn industry.

And connected to law firms who support the (((REDACTED))) ( an Adult Industry Trade Association, C(6) nonprofit organization) who supports known pedophiles such as (((REDACTED))) aka (((REDACTED))). And connected to other powerful porn industry law firms who support pedophiles and defend those who write books guiding others on being a pedophile.
 

(((REDACTED))) of (((REDACTED))) continues to lie about Crystal Cox, attack Crystal Cox and pose as a "Good Samaritan". When it seems that (((REDACTED))) and (((REDACTED))) are simply acting out "Pattern and History".

 
Have you Invested your Money with (((REDACTED)))?

Have you done your due diligence?
 


Here is a bit more on the (((REDACTED))) of (((REDACTED))), "posing" as a  
"Good Samaritan" Case out of (((REDACTED))) Courts.

 "In this appeal, we must consider the conduct of (((REDACTED))), appellant, who, in effect, sought to profit from the 9/11 disaster by posing as a good samaritan.   (((REDACTED)))'s conduct led a jury sitting in the Circuit Court for (((REDACTED))) County ((((REDACTED))), J., presiding) to convict him of theft over $500, for which he was subsequently sentenced to eight years' imprisonment. "


Source
(((REDACTED)))

"Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, appellant, who owned (((REDACTED))) in (((REDACTED))), purportedly sought to assist with the relief efforts in New York City. According to (((REDACTED))), the news director for (((REDACTED))) Television, Channel (((REDACTED))), appellant contacted the television station on September 11, 2001, and asked “us to do a news story on his efforts to contribute to the tragedy that happened that very morning․” He explained that “[h]e was collecting donations, any type of thing that could be of assistance to the 9/11 fund and efforts to get everything up to New York.” (((REDACTED))) testified that the story aired on three newscasts that evening.

As part of the story, appellant was interviewed on camera and viewers were told to send donations to (((REDACTED))). The address and telephone number for (((REDACTED))) were also provided.   The following day, September 12, 2001, viewers were told to send donations to (((REDACTED)))."

Source
(((REDACTED)))


"(((REDACTED))), Vice-President of (((REDACTED))), worked at the branch located on (((REDACTED))) Road in (((REDACTED))).   She testified that on September 12, 2001, appellant opened the “(((REDACTED)))” account (the “Account” or the “(((REDACTED))) Account”). "

"From July to September of 2001, (((REDACTED))) worked as a secretary at (((REDACTED))), a sole proprietorship owned by (((REDACTED)))(((REDACTED))) recalled that donations for the relief effort were received at (((REDACTED)))'s business office;  people either “dropped off” checks or mailed them in.   According to Brittingham, the checks were made payable to appellant or (((REDACTED))) and “were handed over” to appellant.   In addition, approximately $300 in cash was received at the office as a donation for the relief effort.  

(((REDACTED))) recalled:  “A mother and some children brought in a bottle-type thing full of change, money that they had collected․ It was counted and left in the office for [appellant].”   (((REDACTED))) did not know what happened to the cash.   She claimed, however, that she had no dealings with the (((REDACTED))) Account at (((REDACTED))) Bank.


Further, (((REDACTED))) stated that appellant's business account was kept at (((REDACTED))) Bank and that appellant was the only one authorized to sign checks on that account.   She maintained that she had no control over the business account, nor did she handle deposits for that account.

(((REDACTED))) was questioned about the endorsements on the backs of the checks issued by (((REDACTED))), (((REDACTED))), and (((REDACTED))).   When asked if she recognized the signatures, (((REDACTED))) testified that although she was “not positive,” the signatures “look like ․ (((REDACTED)))'s.”   And, upon viewing the deposit slips, (((REDACTED))) stated that the handwriting on one “resembles (((REDACTED)))'s.”   However, she was unable to identify the handwriting on a second deposit slip.

The witness was also asked about the receipts obtained during the relief efforts.   She explained:

Sometimes we had volunteers who would go to different places or schools that had had some sort of fund raiser, they would use their own vehicles to go and pick up the donations, bring them back, and if they had to fill up with gas or something like that, (((REDACTED))) would reimburse them.   Or if we had volunteers out, outside organizing the trailers [4], (((REDACTED))) would get them sodas and things like that for them.

According to (((REDACTED))), some individuals or entities donated items, rather than money.   These included socks, t-shirts, toothpaste, razor blades, hard hats, water, canned goods, and a computer.

(((REDACTED))) left (((REDACTED))) in late September of (((REDACTED))), because (((REDACTED))) was experiencing financial problems.   (((REDACTED))) took a computer when she left (((REDACTED))). She explained that she did not see appellant during her last week of employment, but (((REDACTED)))'s sales manager, (((REDACTED))), told her that appellant had indicated that she “could have one of the computers in the office․” 5 She recalled that the computer was sitting, “all taken apart,” on appellant's desk, and she believed it was an office computer, not the one that had been donated.   (((REDACTED))) also testified that (((REDACTED))) gave her permission to take two pagers that had been donated to the relief effort.   Further, she acknowledged that he allowed other employees to “take donated items from the storage trailers.”

(((REDACTED))) maintained that she was given the computer in lieu of part of her pay.   Moreover, she claimed that she did not learn until after she left (((REDACTED))) that the computer she took was the one that had been donated by (((REDACTED))).   (((REDACTED))) contacted her at her new job and told her that she had to return the computer.   Instead, she contacted the donor of the computer and paid for it.   (((REDACTED))) acknowledged that, after appellant discovered that she had taken the computer, he called her “a thief.”

Trooper (((REDACTED))) of the (((REDACTED))) State Police subpoenaed the records for appellant's business account at (((REDACTED))) Bank. Upon reviewing the records from September 12, (((REDACTED))), through December (((REDACTED))), the trooper determined that the checks from (((REDACTED))), (((REDACTED))), (((REDACTED)))(((REDACTED))) Roofing, and (((REDACTED))) had been deposited to (((REDACTED)))'s account, totaling $770.   In particular, the (((REDACTED))) and (((REDACTED))) checks, totaling $120, were deposited to (((REDACTED)))'s account on or about September 14, (((REDACTED))).6  A second deposit was made on September 20, (((REDACTED))), in the amount of $650, consisting of the checks of (((REDACTED))) Roofing, (((REDACTED))), and (((REDACTED))).

The bank records also indicated that only appellant was permitted to sign checks on the account.   During the period of September 12, (((REDACTED))), through December of (((REDACTED))), no checks drawn on the (((REDACTED))) Bank account were made payable to the (((REDACTED))) Account.   In addition, there were no transfers of any kind from appellant's personal accounts or business accounts to the (((REDACTED))) Account.

Defense counsel conceded that donated money had been deposited in appellant's business account.   During cross-examination of the trooper, the following occurred:

[DEFENSE COUNSEL:] I think it's clear from what we see in the bank records that 770 dollars donated by people that should have gone into the (((REDACTED))) account ended up in the (((REDACTED))) account, okay?   No dispute.   Did you or any other law enforcement person ever approach (((REDACTED))) and say, hey, we looked at this stuff and 770 belongs in the other account?

[TROOPER (((REDACTED))):] I attempted to contact Mr. (((REDACTED))). I was unsuccessful, unable to do so․

Appellant was the sole witness for the defense.   He strenuously denied stealing any money that was donated to the 9/11 relief effort. He also denied ever seeing the cash donation of approximately $300.

(((REDACTED))) testified that (((REDACTED))) was in the business of “concrete imprinting, pouring concrete work, curb and gutter.”   Appellant recalled that, when 9/11 happened, he wanted to help, and thought he could use his expertise to “look for survivors and clean up the mess.”   Therefore, he set up the (((REDACTED))) Account.   Moreover, he claimed he had previously been involved in charitable work as a volunteer, and made donations of considerable value, such as the construction of a fountain in an area park.

Appellant explained that he “ran all my job sites,” and was present every time his employees poured concrete.   He did not, however, handle “the business details” for (((REDACTED))). Rather, appellant stated that (((REDACTED))) and (((REDACTED))) were responsible for handling the bank deposit slips and for making (((REDACTED)))'s deposits.   In addition, he stated that (((REDACTED))) “handled most of the bill work, paperwork.”

(((REDACTED))) agreed that several checks totaling $770 and intended for the (((REDACTED))) Account at (((REDACTED))) Bank, had been deposited into (((REDACTED)))'s account at (((REDACTED))) Bank. But, he denied that he was the one who put the funds in the wrong account.   He also denied that he knowingly spent the money.   Moreover, (((REDACTED))) claimed that no one ever contacted him to advise that the monies had been deposited into the wrong account.7"

Source
(((REDACTED)))


"Appellant conceded that he never took any of the material to New York City;  the material was stored in trailers on the site.   However, (((REDACTED))) claimed he attempted to bring the material to New York, explaining:  “They just didn't get back with us as far as I know.”   He insisted:  “I didn't steal any money, and I didn't do anything wrong.”

In October (((REDACTED))), appellant realized that the finances for his business were in “chaos.”   Therefore, he hired a business attorney and filed for bankruptcy.

We shall include additional facts in our discussion.

DISCUSSION

 Appellant maintains that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction for felony theft.   While he concedes that “[t]he evidence showed that Appellant could have misappropriated the money,” he insists that it also showed “that two others at the business had the opportunity to do so.”   Thus, he contends that his “mere presence” or mere access to the money did not establish his guilt.   Although appellant makes no factual argument regarding (((REDACTED))), as to (((REDACTED))) he alleges that she had “access to the cash and business records,” and “she admitted” that appellant “accused” her of stealing a computer and two pagers donated to the relief effort.   Based on his lack of exclusive control as to the finances of (((REDACTED))), appellant contends that the evidence was not sufficient to support the conviction.

In addition, (((REDACTED))) refers us to the argument presented by defense counsel in the motion for judgment of acquittal.   There, his counsel argued that appellant could not be charged with stealing from the (((REDACTED))) Account, because he “would be charged with stealing from himself.   He can steal from people who are making donations to a fund, but he can't steal from his own fund.   It's not a separate corporation or anything else.”

Appellant has failed to preserve his first argument, pertaining to alleged insufficiency of the evidence.   At the close of the State's case, in moving for judgment of acquittal, the defense did not argue that the evidence was insufficient because others had access to the stolen funds.   And, at the close of all the evidence, the defense merely renewed the earlier motion, without further argument.   See (((REDACTED))) v. (((REDACTED))), (((REDACTED))). ((((REDACTED)))) (“A claim of insufficiency of the evidence is ordinarily not preserved if the claim is not made as a part of the motion for judgment of acquittal.”)  (Citations omitted);  (((REDACTED))) (“A defendant may not argue in the trial court that the evidence was insufficient for one reason, then urge a different reason for the insufficiency on appeal in challenging the denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal.”), cert. denied, (((REDACTED))).

Even if preserved, the claim lacks merit.   We turn to consider appellant's contentions.

 “The standard for appellate review of evidentiary sufficiency is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.”  (((REDACTED))) (citations omitted).  “Weighing the credibility of witnesses and resolving any conflicts in the evidence are tasks proper for the fact finder.”  (((REDACTED))) (citation omitted).   In addition, we give “ ‘due regard to the [fact finder's] finding of facts, its resolution of conflicting evidence, and, significantly, its opportunity to observe and assess the credibility of witnesses.’ ” (((REDACTED))) (citations omitted).

Here, (((REDACTED)))'s employees had access to the checks and cash donated to the (((REDACTED))) Account, as they were sent to or dropped off at (((REDACTED))). Nonetheless, the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the State, demonstrated that, upon receipt, all checks and cash were turned over to appellant.   In addition, the State's evidence demonstrated that appellant handled all deposits for both the (((REDACTED))) Account and his business account, and appellant requested the disbursements from the (((REDACTED))) Account.

Moreover, only (((REDACTED)))'s signature was on the business account at (((REDACTED))) Bank. 

Furthermore, the (((REDACTED))) Bank records showed that checks from (((REDACTED))), (((REDACTED))), and (((REDACTED))) were deposited into appellant's business account.   And, it was appellant, not his employees, who stood to gain from the deposits to (((REDACTED)))'s account.   (((REDACTED))) testified that the signature endorsing those checks “looks like” appellant's.   She also stated that the signature on one of the deposit slips “resembles” appellant's.   As a result, even though (((REDACTED))) had access to the donated checks and cash at issue, the evidence was sufficient to demonstrate that appellant was the one who stole those items.

 To be sure, appellant testified that (((REDACTED))) and (((REDACTED))) handled all the business details for his company.   However, the jury was free to discredit his testimony and to accept (((REDACTED)))'s testimony.   See, e.g., (((REDACTED))) (recognizing that “the credibility of witnesses” is “always [a] matter[ ] for the jury to determine when it is the trier of facts”). And, a witness's credibility goes to the weight of the evidence, not its sufficiency.  (((REDACTED))) (citation omitted).

Appellant refers us to (((REDACTED))), to support his contention that his mere access to the donated checks and cash was insufficient to sustain his conviction.   His reliance on (((REDACTED))) is misplaced.   In that case, the evidence demonstrated that the accused housecleaner had worked in the area from which some jewelry was subsequently found missing, and had access to the closet where the jewelry was seen earlier in the day.   (((REDACTED)))'s conviction rested on circumstantial evidence alone.   The Court of Appeals reversed Wilson's conviction, because the evidence demonstrated that several family members also had access to the closet where the jewelry had been stored and that other cleaning personnel might have been in the residence on the date in question.

Concluding that, under these circumstances, (((REDACTED)))'s mere presence was insufficient to sustain his conviction, the Court stated, (((REDACTED))):

There was no other evidence of (((REDACTED)))'s behavior, acts or conduct, that implicated him as the person who stole the rings.   In fact, [a family member's] testimony that (((REDACTED))) was only seen doing his normal duties is evidence that his behavior was consistent with innocence.

Considering the circumstantial evidence adduced in this case, we conclude that it would not permit a rational factfinder to find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that it was inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis of (((REDACTED)))'s innocence.

In appellant's case, there was far more than his mere access to the checks and cash.   As discussed above, all donations of money were given to appellant.   The checks were deposited in appellant's business account, for which only he could sign.   Moreover, appellant's employees were not motivated by any financial incentive with regard to the deposit of the donations in (((REDACTED)))'s account.   And, appellant personally sought the withdrawals of money from the (((REDACTED))) Account.   Appellant was not convicted based upon his mere access to the donated checks and monies.

 Next, we consider appellant's argument that he could not be convicted of theft from the (((REDACTED))) Account, because that is akin to stealing from himself.   This contention is without merit.

Appellant was convicted of theft under (((REDACTED))) which provided, in part:

(a) Obtaining or exerting control.-A person commits the offense of theft when he willfully or knowingly obtains control which is unauthorized or exerts control which is unauthorized over property of the owner, and:

(1) Has the purpose of depriving the owner of the property;  or

(2) Willfully or knowingly uses, conceals, or abandons the property in such manner as to deprive the owner of the property;  or

(3) Uses, conceals, or abandons the property knowing the use, concealment, or abandonment probably will deprive the owner of the property.

(b) Obtaining control by deception.-A person commits the offense of theft when he willfully or knowingly uses deception to obtain and does obtain control over property of the owner, and:

(1) Has the purpose of depriving the owner of the property;  or

(2) Willfully or knowingly uses, conceals, or abandons the property in such manner as to deprive the owner of the property;  or

(3) Uses, conceals, or abandons the property knowing such use, concealment, or abandonment probably will deprive the owner of the property."

Source
(((REDACTED)))

(((REDACTED)))


(((REDACTED)))

 

This report was posted on Ripoff Report on 03/06/2014 04:49 PM and is a permanent record located here: https://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/redacted-by-editor-due-to-abuse-of-website/redacted-by-editor-due-to-abuse-of-website-posing-as-a-good-samaritan-good-investme-1128819. The posting time indicated is Arizona local time. Arizona does not observe daylight savings so the post time may be Mountain or Pacific depending on the time of year. Ripoff Report has an exclusive license to this report. It may not be copied without the written permission of Ripoff Report. READ: Foreign websites steal our content

Search for additional reports

If you would like to see more Rip-off Reports on this company/individual, search here:

Report & Rebuttal
Respond to this report!
What's this?
Also a victim?
What's this?
Repair Your Reputation!
What's this?
Featured Reports

Advertisers above have met our
strict standards for business conduct.

X
What do hackers,
questionable attorneys and
fake court orders have in common?
...Dishonest Reputation Management Investigates Reputation Repair
Free speech rights compromised

WATCH News
Segment Now