ArmyESports.com
This website and accompanying domain name are not affiliated with the United States Army whatsoever
The express purpose of this website is to investigate all of the facts and to make a determination as to who is responsible for any felony criminal acts perpetrated against the owner, and to establish which, if any and how many crimes may have actually been committed, and to bring to justice the individual and/or individuals within the United States Army hierarchy who may have allowed, authorized, condoned, permitted and/or ordered these crimes and civil torts to take place.
This is an ongoing and evolving investigation and additional facts and revelations will be included as time goes on so you are invited to visit often. This is also intended to inform the general public and soldiers of the US Army to help prevent situations such as these to occur in the future and to act as a deterrent to any guilty parties.
All crime related information contained within this website has not yet been established by being proven in a court of law but is maintained as an evidentiary discovery mechanism which may need to be conducted under the auspices of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and which has yet to be determined.
All parties are presumed innocent until judged guilty by a jury of their peers, either beyond a reasonable doubt or by a preponderance of the evidence, depending on the particular situation, and thus proven in a proper court of jurisdiction.
***WARNING - WARNING***
***Women Beware - Women Beware***
There is a large number of officers and enlisted personnel in the US Army who are Sexual Predators and Sexual Deviants attacking and raping women at will and Secretary of the Army Mark T. Esper is unable and apparently too inept and inexperienced to control the rampant sexual violence taking place within the ranks and does not have the necessary desire or wherewithal to prevent the unabated attacks on women in service of their country which is increasing at an alarming rate and any woman who considers enlisting in the Army should think long and hard whether she wants to risk the high probability that she will be sexually attacked or raped while a member of the United States Army as you do so knowing full well that the chances are quite high that you will be in harm’s way by entrusting your body to the hierarchy of the Army since they do not appear to be concerned enough to protect you from their own soldiers!!!
Take heed ladies that the risk of Sexual Violence is significant and you enlist at your own peril and joining the US Army to play ESports isn’t sufficient justification to become a victim of rape or worse as the supposed leaders of the Army refuse to eliminate the Sexual Predators from the service since allowing them to remain may affect their ability to retain their jobs and high incomes since the number of members may be one of the main factors why they continually allow the soldiers under their command and control to violate women daily!!
The US Army is trying to trick you by utilizing subterfuge in the form of playing video games, ergo ESports, to camouflage the pervasive Sexual Behavior transpiring within the Army as a whole so you won’t notice the deviant behavior until after enlistment, which by then it will be too late to escape the Sexual Predators prevalent in the entire US military of which the US Army has the highest concentration.
***WARNING - WARNING***
Attempted Extortion, Conversion, Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, Deceit, Elder Financial Abuse, Extortion, Fraud, Fraudulent and Intentional Misrepresentation, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Intent to Commit Grand Theft, Theft by False Pretenses, Theft by Trick, Undue Influence and both state of California and Federal Wire Fraud (since the crime/s were perpetrated via email) are some of the specific crimes and civil torts under investigation.
A non commissioned officer, Sergeant 1st Class John A. Brooks HRC, currently stationed at Fort Knox, Kentucky under command of Major General Jason T. Evans to the best of my knowledge, was the initial person who performed the original criminal act using threats and intimidation, under the color of official right, to obtain property not legally owned by him or his employer using the authority of the United States Army as its implied rightful owner, an untruth, which under California law has many facets immersed within it, and in conducting the considerable research indicates that numerous felonies are attached thereto, which carries severe punishment including but not limited to incarceration in prison, and there is a distinct possibility that the US Army facility at Ft. Leavenworth, Kansas might be the location where the convicted person or persons will be housed given that they are a member of the Armed Forces rather than a civilian. This particular soldier also accused the website owner of a crime as part of his process to steal the owner’s property by instilling fear of possible prosecution for that crime!
This person, aka “public official” sent an email identifying himself as being a soldier of and representing the United States Army accusing the owner of a serious crime, without “individualized suspicion of wrongdoing” — “the touchstone of reasonableness standard” and demanding that his order be carried out within 72 hours or suffer the severe consequences. What sane and rational 70+ something year old senior citizen civilian, totally unfamiliar with US Army procedures or protocol, being confronted by someone affiliated with the greatest fighting force known to mankind, who is trained to kill by a plethora of methods as their normal routine and whose 1+ Million members, tens of thousands of who suffer from PTSD among other ailments, who defeated the likes of Hitler, Mussolini, Hirohito, Sadam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden and fought against the Vietnam Cong and North Koreans and currently engaging the Taliban and ISIS among so many more would not be in absolute fear of their life and property if they did not comply! The United States Army knows how to instill fear like no other organization in the world, and this situation was no exception. And the worst part of this fear is that this soldier knows my location and I have no idea how dangerous he could possibly be nor of those who may have ordered him to issue the threat.
One of the worst concerns and fears is that rather than the prospect of a single soldier being the culprit solely acting on his own volition, that the possibility exists that a conspiracy involving others in the chain of command may have been part and parcel in the scheme to defraud and engage in the attempted extortion also.
The next question requiring an answer would be who, and how many, and how high of a rank within the US Army the alleged conspiracy might reach.
Does the disdain for honesty and fair dealing with civilians pervade the entire organization or is dishonesty a facet of army training which might explain why a soldier would conduct such egregious and outrageous behavior towards an unsuspecting civilian with assurances from the top brass echelon that it would be approved, condoned and unpunished.
Criminal behavior is a threat to society but one would hope that within our Armed Forces assigned to protect Americans from harm would not be the driving force to subject us to the violations of trust and honesty so prevalent in the community as a whole.
The United States Constitution is the single greatest document in existence and along with the 1st Amendment contained in the Bill of Rights affords every American the legal ability to speak the truth regardless of any threats to the contrary, or retaliation for exposing the individual/s who perpetrated the crimes, and this investigation will continue until the wrongs have been righted and all parties involved with the criminal actions including the conspiracy if that is the case, have received their just punishment notwithstanding whether they are high ranking government officials.
UCMJ Article 127: Extortion
A service member of the United States Armed Forces who, with intent to secure some leverage or item of value, threatens another person with force, with the release of secrets, or by any other means, may face conviction and sentencing under Article 127 of the UCMJ. To convict a service member of extortion, prosecutors must prove that the accused threatened another person and that this threat was made with the goal of benefiting the accused in some fashion.
For service members convicted of extortion, Article 127 suggests a maximum punishment which includes:
Reduction in rank to E-1, Forfeiture of all pay and allowances, Confinement for 3 years and Dishonorable discharge
UCMJ Article 77 - Principles
Article 77 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice defines no offense and specifies no punitive charges that may be brought against a service member. It’s sole purpose is to make clear that a person need not personally perform the acts necessary to constitute an offense to be guilty of it.
A person who aids, abets, counsels, commands or procures the commission of an offense or who causes an act to be done which, if done by that person directly would be an offense is equally as guilty of the offense as the one who commits it directly and may be punished to the same extent.
UCMJ Article 80 - Attempts
a) An act, done with specific intent to commit an offense under this chapter, amounting to more than mere preparation and tending, even though failing, to effect its commission, is an attempt to commit that offense.
b) Any person subject to this chapter who attempts to commit any offense punishable by this chapter shall be punished as a court-martial may direct unless otherwise specifically prescribed.
c) Any person subject to this chapter may be convicted of an attempt to commit an offense although it appears on the trial that the offense was consummated.
UCMJ Article 121 - Attempted Larceny and Wrongful Appropriation
(a) Any person subject to this chapter who wrongfully takes, obtains, or withholds, by any means, from the possession of the owner or of any other person any money, personal property or article of value of any kind
(1) with intent permanently to deprive or defraud another person of the use and benefit of property or appropriate it to his own use or the use of any person other than the owner, steals that property and is guilty of larceny
(2) with intent temporarily to deprive or defraud another person of the use and benefit of property or appropriate it to his own use or any person other than the owner is guilty of wrongful appropriation
(b) Any person found guilty of larceny or wrongful appropriation shall be punished as a court-martial may direct
UCMJ Article 134 - Threat Communicating
Any person subject to this chapter who wrongfully communicates a threat to injure the person, property or reputation of another shall be punished as a court-martial may direct
The 4th letter of the UCMJ, ‘J’ supposedly represents the word “Justice” and that is exactly what I seek from the efforts of this website.
In California, attempted extortion is codified under Penal Code §524 making it a crime when someone attempts, by means of any threat, to extort money or property from another.
Under California Penal Code PC §525, it is an aggravating factor if the victim of extortion was an elder or dependent person. An elder is any person who is 65 years of age or older.
Obviously the United States Army does not truly believe in discipline nor what they refer to as their "7 Core Army Values", Loyalty, Duty, Respect, Selfless Service, Honor, Integrity and Personal Courage!
If they did value these above referenced characteristics they would not permit a soldier to violate, with impunity, the rights of others and commit the crimes alluded to herein.
U.S. Army potential recruits, BEWARE, enlisting in the army and participating in Esports may thrust you in harms way and lead you into serious repercussions and possibly cause you to be involved with criminal activity for which you could be subject to incarceration in a civilian or military prison in a similar manner as the aforementioned Sergeant has become entangled with by his pervasive behavior of illegal intimidation in threatening an elderly civilian to obtain property through extortion not belonging to either himself or the United States Army!
Before all is said and done, this criminal behavior conducted by US Army personell will reach those in the highest command authority at the Pentagon will all be made fully aware of the entire scenario and hopefully they will create whatever new military procedures necessary to prevent future activity such as these to occur and to ensure no further damage and pain and suffering is caused by the US Army.
Violation of the Federal statute, the Hobbs Act, codified at 18 U.S.C. §1951, criminalizes both robbery and extortion, meaning the obtaining of property induced by threat, even an economic one under color of right is another situation to investigate.
Prosecuting this case is a substantial undertaking through the legal court system however an additional method to utilize is via the court of public opinion which requires less time and effort yet could possibly yield a different yet viable experience and might accomplish a unique type of success in garnering a public awareness heretofore uncharted, only time will tell.
The United States Army must instill honesty and discipline amongst its ranks and hold its members accountable for their inappropriate actions, and punish them severely, against honest law abiding civilians or anarchy will prevail and will surely become the new rule of law.
If the current Secretary of the Army, Mark T. Esper, is unable or unwilling to right the wrongs perpetrated by soldiers under his command and control, or does not possess the necessary intestinal fortitude to accomplish this goal then no one does, and another individual who does have the gumption and power must be installed by Congress to assume those duties before it’s too late and all the newly enacted recruitment efforts will be in vain and no amount of soldiers playing video games and/or ESports will save the integrity of this military organization.
It’s a sad state of affairs when a global behemoth such as the US Army allows criminals within their midst to wreck havoc and inflict pain and suffering directly upon American citizens with impunity knowing that those individuals harmed have minimal options available to defend themselves against tyranny caused by the very entity sworn to uphold the laws they have violated and to protect them at any cost including laying down their lives if need be.
The men who’s names appear on this website should all, each and every one of them, should be utterly ashamed of themselves for their inaction to enforce not only the letter, but also and more importantly the spirit of the UCMJ, which is their sworn duty to upload to the best of their ability. They are a disgrace to the United States Army and every service member who wore the uniform and who dedicated their lives to honor the UCMJ and all that it stands for.
These individuals know full well that Sergeant 1st Class John A. Brooks HRC committed the indiscretions alluded to within this discourse and should be held accountable for damaging a senior citizen and the US Army hierarchy listed herein should also have to answer to the Commander and Chief of the Armed Forces of this great country for their lack of integrity in not pursuing a court-martial against Sergeant Brooks, which in my opinion is mandatory, considering the heinous actions he so willfully and with malice perpetrated on an elder a couple of months ago. Enough time has passed since the threat and the criminal accusation was enacted to have come to the appropriate conclusion of facts and so should be so obvious to those in charge that they can not possibly deny.
The Uniform Code of Military Justice is a worthless instrument if not enforced by those individuals chosen to uphold the standards intended and these military officers named herein at the very least should be reprimanded by the President of the United States and if they still turn their back on the offenses perpetrated by Sergeant Brooks then they need to be replaced by more honorable people who will seek to follow the laws entrusted to their office and rank. Absolutely reprehensible and atrocious the lackluster attitude displayed by Secretary of the Army Mark T. Esper and his subordinates... I will not rest until justice has been rendered and this website will continue ad infinitum or until Secretary of the Army Esper has issued a contrite formal written apology acknowledging the deplorable and despicable actions of Sergeant John A. Brooks, I will not be deterred in this endeavor.
This website will also be a repository and news reporting agency about all of the criminal activity of the United States Army who is led by no other than Secretary of the Army Mark T. Esper et al
**Sexual Predators permeate the United States Army and the leaders of the greatest fighting force in the world is either unable or unwilling to remove them which could safeguard women who enlist to have a better life but instead subject themselves to Sexual Attacks or Rape by their fellow soldiers or officers.**
This just came in May 2, 2019
It appears that this website owner is only one of many thousands damaged by the likes of Secretary of the Army Mark T. Esper and his fellow cronies in their total disregard for the safety of soldiers under their command in their inadequacy to police members of the Army in a manner that will protect them from their fellow soldiers who obviously run rampant in their quest to sexually attack and assault those individuals who were promised protection from their fellow officers and enlisted personnel.
The US Army is but one branch of the military in America however I will focus my efforts on this particular branch since this is the specific one that committed crimes and threats against me.
Criminal activity in the United States Army is literally out of control and the Army brass are incapable, unprepared and totally useless in enforcing the UCMJ as well and soldiers are inundated with Sexual Attacks and Rape constantly.
Due to the fact that all soldiers within the US Army are required to obey all orders emanating from superiors and any refusal of same could, if they do not acquiesce, not only jeopardize their military careers, and more importantly their very freedom from court-martial and incarceration, subjects them to blatant unwanted sexual behavior from officers and enlisted individuals and puts them in compromising positions which in and of itself promulgates the very Sexual Attacks and Rape they try to elude.
US Army Generals Mark Milley, James McConville, Frank Muth, David Glaser and Jason Evans along with Colonel Dwight Griffith are no less culpable in allowing the predatory sexual behavior to continue and thrive under their (sic) leadership since they are all part and parcel of the command hierarchy whose duty to safeguard and protect the military personnel under their command is paramount in enforcing and upholding the UCMJ and required under those laws.
They should be admonished severely for failing to protect the very soldiers they are sworn to safeguard as chaos in the military leads to anarchy and insubordination within the ranks and surely if these men do not fulfill their duties they should be reprimanded, punished and removed from active service by whatever method and manner designated by the UCMJ and this unacceptable behavior should be their consummate military legacy ad infinitum!
I can’t even imagine how these individual’s friends or family members could possibly be enamored with them or their ineptitude to command or lead an organization with such an esteemed and proud history for the past two+ millennium as they merely pretend to protect and serve the 1+ million soldiers under their watch because the numbers the Department of Defense reports has been sexually attacked or raped is atrocious and obviously unacceptable in a non third world country with laws on the books to prevent such atrocities!
In addition, when this unabated Sexual Deviancy is allowed to flourish, the negative impact creates unrelenting anxiety amongst the ranks, which then leads to PTSD and an unacceptable number of suicides by soldiers which when related to the Army hierarchy’s failure to protect and safeguard those under their command constitutes malfeasance in my opinion and thus becomes an enemy combatant maiming and killing those they swore to protect at all costs thereby making these high ranking executives and officers derelict in their duty to say the least and should be held accountable for their destructive and abhorrent leadership, if you could call it that, which establishes a forlorn future for the United States Army members and their families. Basically joining the US Army is a detriment to a morally and physically healthy life without ever engaging an enemy on foreign soil.
REUTERS reported May 2, 2019:
Sexual Assaults Spike in the U.S. Military Despite Attempts by the Pentagon to Crackdown!
The U.S. Defense Department said on Thursday the estimated number of sexual assaults in the military climbed 38% in 2018... many more crimes will be listed...
Secretary of the US Army Mark T. Esper
US Army Chief of Staff General Mark A. Milley
US Army Vice Chief of Staff General James C. McConville
US Army Major General Frank M. Muth Recruiting
“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety”
— Benjamin Franklin 1775
California Civil Codes and California Penal Codes
California Civil Code §1572 - Fraudulent Misrepresentation - Intentional Misrepresentation
Actual fraud, within the meaning of this Chapter, consists in any of the following acts, committed by a party to the contract, or with his connivance, with intent to deceive another party thereto, or to induce him to enter into the contract:
California Civil Code section §1709 §1710 - Deceit
Civil Code section §1709 defines “deceit" generally: “One who willfully deceives another with intent to induce him to alter his position to his injury or risk, is liable for any damage which he thereby suffers.”
Civil Code section §1710 specifies, A deceit, within the meaning of the last section, is either:
1. The suggestion, as a fact, of that which is not true, by one who does not believe it to be true [intentional misrepresentation of fact];
2. The positive assertion, in a manner not warranted by the information of the person making it as a fact, of that which is not true, by one who has no reasonable ground for believing it to be true [negligent misrepresentation of fact];
3. The suppression of a fact, by one who is bound to disclose it, or who gives information of other facts which are likely to mislead for want of communication of that fact [concealment or suppression of fact]; or,
4. A promise, made without any intention of performing it [promissory fraud].
5. Any other act fitted to deceive.
Civil Code section §1712 states One who obtains a thing without the consent of its owner, or by a consent afterwards rescinded, or by an unlawful exaction which the owner could not at the time prudently refuse, must restore it to the person from whom it was thus obtained, unless he has acquired a title thereto superior to that of such other person, or unless the transaction was corrupt and unlawful on both sides.
Civil Code section §1713 states The restoration required by the last section must be made without demand, except where a thing is obtained by mutual mistake, in which case the party obtaining the thing is not bound to return it until he has notice of the mistake.
Points and Authority
“Fraud” and “deceit” are defined in Civil Code sections §§ 1572, 1709, and 1710. Courts appear to refer to the terms interchangeably, though technically “fraud” applies to only contract actions.
Points and Authorities
Civil Code section §1572, dealing specifically with fraud in the making of contracts, restates these definitions in slightly differing language, with the addition of a fifth kind of deceit, described generally as “[a]ny other act fitted to deceive.” Fraud in the context of contract formation is covered by other instructions.
The tort of deceit or fraud requires: “ ‘(a) misrepresentation (false representation, concealment, or nondisclosure); (b) knowledge of falsity (or ‘scienter’); (c) intent to defraud, i.e., to induce reliance; (d) justifiable reliance; and (e) resulting damage.’ ” (Engalla v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 951, 974 [64 Cal.Rptr.2d 843, 938 P.2d 903], internal quotation marks omitted; see also Molko v. Holy Spirit Ass’n (1988) 46 Cal.3d 1092, 1108 (252 Cal.Rptr. 122, 762 P
Sometimes this tort is stated with four elements instead of five: “(1) a knowingly false representation by the defendant; (2) an intent to deceive or induce reliance; (3) justifiable reliance by the plaintiff; and (4) resulting damages.” (Service by Medallion, Inc. v. Clorox Co. (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1807, 1816 (52 Cal.Rptr.2d 650).)
The representation must ordinarily be an affirmation of fact, as opposed to an opinion. Under the Restatement Second of Torts section 538A, a representation is an opinion “if it expresses only (a) the belief of the maker, without certainty, as to the existence of a fact; or (b) his judgment as to quality, value, authenticity, or other matters of judgment.” Opinions are addressed in CACI No. 1904, Opinions as Statements of Fact.
“Fraud is an intentional tort; it is the element of fraudulent intent, or intent to deceive, that distinguishes it from actionable negligent misrepresentation and from nonactionable innocent misrepresentation. It is the element of intent which makes fraud actionable, irrespective of any contractual or fiduciary duty one party might owe to the other.” (City of Atascadero v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 445, 482 [80 Cal.Rptr.2d 329], internal citations omitted.)
“A misrepresentation need not be oral; it may be implied by conduct.” (Thrifty-Tel, Inc. v. Bezenek (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1559, 1567 (54 Cal.Rptr.2d 468), internal citations omitted.)
“ ‘[F]alse representations made recklessly and without regard for their truth in order to induce action by another are the equivalent of misrepresentations knowingly and intentionally uttered.’ ” (Engalla, supra, 15 Cal.4th at p. 974, quoting Yellow Creek Logging Corp. v. Dare (1963) 216 Cal.App.2d 50, 55 (30 Cal.Rptr. 629).)
“Actual reliance occurs when a misrepresentation is “ ‘an immediate cause of [a plaintiff’s] conduct, which alters his legal relations,’ ” and when, absent such representation, “ ‘he would not, in all reasonable probability, have entered into the contract or other transaction.’ ” ‘It is not . . . necessary that [a plaintiff’s] reliance upon the truth of the fraudulent misrepresentation be the sole or even the predominant or decisive factor in influencing his conduct… It is enough that the representation has played a substantial part, and so has been a substantial factor, in influencing his decision.’ ” (Engalla, supra, 15 Cal.4th at pp. 976—977, internal citations omitted.)
“Justifiable reliance is an essential element of a claim for fraudulent misrepresentation, and the reasonableness of the reliance is ordinarily a question of fact.” (Guido v. Koopman (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 837, 843 [2 Cal.Rptr.2d 437] internal citations omitted.)
“A ‘complete causal relationship’ between the fraud or deceit and the plaintiff’s damages is required… Causation requires proof that the defendant’s conduct was a “ ‘substantial factor’ ” in bringing about the harm to the plaintiff.” (Williams v. Wraxall (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 120, 132 (39 Cal.Rptr.2d 658), internal citations omitted.)
“This is not merely a case where the defendants made false representations of matters within their personal knowledge which they had no reasonable grounds for believing to be true. Such acts clearly would constitute actual fraud under California law. In such situations the defendant believes the representations to be true but is without reasonable grounds for such belief. His liability is based on negligent misrepresentation which has been made a form of actionable deceit. On the contrary, in the instant case, the court found that the defendants did not believe in the truth of the statements. Where a person makes statements which he does not believe to be true, in a reckless manner without knowing whether they are true or false, the element of scienter is satisfied and he is liable for intentional misrepresentation.” (Yellow Creek Logging Corp. v. Dare (1963) 216 Cal.App.2d 50, 57 [30 Cal.Rptr. 629], original italics, internal citations omitted.)
“ ‘To be actionable deceit, the representation need not be made with knowledge of actual falsity, but need only be an “assertion, as a fact, of that which is not true, by one who has no reasonable ground for believing it to be true” and made “with intent to induce [the recipient] to alter his position to his injury or his risk…’ ” The elements of negligent misrepresentation also include justifiable reliance on the representation, and resulting damage.” (B.L.M. v. Sabo & Deitsch (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 823, 834 [64 Cal.Rptr.2d 335], internal citations omitted.)
“As is true of negligence, responsibility for negligent misrepresentation rests upon the existence of a legal duty, imposed by contract, statute or otherwise, owed by a defendant to the injured person. The determination of whether a duty exists is primarily a question of law.” (Eddy v. Sharp (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 858, 864 [245 Cal.Rptr. 211], internal citations omitted.)
“A misrepresentation of fact is material if it induced the plaintiff to alter his position to his detriment. Stated in terms of reliance, materiality means that without the misrepresentation, the plaintiff would not have acted as he did. ‘It must be shown that the plaintiff actually relied upon the misrepresentation; i.e., that the representation was “an immediate cause of his conduct which alters his legal relations,” and that without such representation, “he would not, in all reasonable probability, have entered into the contract or other transaction.” ’ ” (Okun v. Morton (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 805, 828 [250 Cal.Rptr. 220], internal citations omitted.)
California Penal Code Section §532 PC - Theft by False Pretenses
California Penal Code Section §532 PC - False pretenses; obtaining money, labor or property; punishment; evidence necessary to support conviction. ("(a) Every person who knowingly and designedly, by any false or fraudulent representation or pretense, defrauds any other person of money, labor, or property, whether real or personal, or who causes or procures others to report falsely of his or her wealth or mercantile character, and by thus imposing upon any person obtains credit, and thereby fraudulently gets possession of money or property, or obtains the labor or service of another, is punishable in the same manner and to the same extent as for larceny of the money or property so obtained.")
A false pretense is any act, word, symbol, or token the purpose of which is to deceive.
Theft by false pretenses can be either petty theft or grand theft, depending on the value of the property that is taken.
If the property stolen is worth more than nine hundred fifty dollars ($950), or is a firearm or a car, then it is grand theft. The maximum penalty for grand theft is either up to one (1) year in county jail, OR sixteen (16) months, two (2) years, or three (3) years in prison, depending on how the prosecutor chooses to charge the crime.
Points and Authorities
To have the requisite intent for theft, the thief must either intend to deprive the owner permanently or to deprive the owner of a major portion of the property's value or enjoyment. (See People v. Avery (2002) 27 Cal.4th 49, 57-58 [115 Cal.Rptr.2d 403, 38 P.3d 1].)
Intent to Deprive Owner of Main Value. People v. Avery (2002) 27 Cal.4th 49, 57-59 [115 Cal.Rptr.2d 403, 38 P.3d 1], disapproving, to extent it is inconsistent, People v. Marquez (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 115, 123 [20 Cal.Rptr.2d 365].
Reliance on the false pretense need not be proved for a person to be guilty of attempted theft by false pretense. (People v. Fujita (1974) 43 Cal.App.3d 454, 467 [117 Cal.Rptr. 757].)
Although fraud is used to obtain the property in both theft by trick and theft by false pretense, in theft by false pretense, the thief obtains both possession and title to the property. For theft by trick, the thief gains only possession of the property. (People v. Ashley (1954) 42 Cal.2d 246, 258 [267 P.2d 271]; People v. Randono (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 164, 172 [108 Cal.Rptr. 326].) False pretenses does not require that the title pass perfectly and the victim may even retain a security interest in the property transferred to the defendant. (People v. Counts (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 785, 789-792 [37 Cal.Rptr.2d 425].)
The misrepresentation does not have to be made in an express statement; it may be implied from behavior or other circumstances. (People v. Mace (1925) 71 Cal.App. 10, 21 [234 P. 841]; People v. Randono (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 164, 174-175 [108 Cal.Rptr. 326] [analogizing to the law of implied contracts].)
California Civil Code §1575 - Undue Influence
Undue Influence consists:
1. In the use, by one in whom a confidence is reposed by another, or who holds a real or apparent authority over him, of such confidence or authority for the purpose of obtaining an unfair advantage over him;
2. In taking an unfair advantage of another's weakness of mind; or,
3. In taking a grossly oppressive and unfair advantage of another's necessities or distress.
Points and Authorities
The Civil Code provides that consent is not free when obtained through duress, menace, fraud, undue influence, or mistake, and is deemed to have been so obtained when it would not have been given but for such fraud or mistake. (Civ. Code, §§ 1567, 1568.)
Civil Code section 1575 provides three circumstances that support a finding of undue influence.
The question of undue influence is decided as a question of fact: “[D]irect evidence of undue influence is rarely obtainable and, thus the court is normally relegated to determination by inference from the totality of facts and circumstances. Indeed, there are no fixed definitions or inflexible formulas. Rather, we are concerned with whether from the entire context it appears that one’s will was overborne and he was induced to do or forbear to do an act which he would not do, or would do, if left to act freely.” (Keithley v. Civil Service Bd. of the City of Oakland (1970) 11 Cal.App.3d 443, 451 [89 Cal.Rptr. 809], internal citations omitted.)
“In essence, undue influence consists of the use of excessive pressure by a dominant person over a servient person resulting in the apparent will of the servient person being in fact the will of the dominant person. The undue susceptibility to such overpersuasive influence may be the product of physical or emotional exhaustion or anguish which results in one’s inability to act with unencumbered volition.” (Keithley, supra, 11 Cal.App.3d at p. 451.)
Whether or not the parties have a confidential relationship is a question of fact: “It is, of course, well settled that while the mere fact that a relationship is friendly and intimate does not necessarily amount to a confidential relationship, such relationship may be said to exist whenever trust and confidence is reposed by one person in the integrity and fidelity of another. It is likewise frequently emphasized that the existence of a confidential relationship presents a question of fact which, of necessity, may be determined only on a case by case basis.” (O’Neil v. Spillane (1975) 45 Cal.App.3d 147, 153 [119 Cal.Rptr. 245], internal citations omitted.)
California Penal Code §368 - Elder Financial Abuse
Under California Penal Code Section §368 PC, the crime of elder abuse can involve a variety of criminal behavior that is targeted at people who are 65 years old or older. ... The defendant willfully or with criminal negligence subjected an elderly person to unjustifiable physical pain or mental suffering.
Under Penal Code §368, elder abuse can be prosecuted as either a felony or a misdemeanor...it's the prosecutor's choice, depending on the defendant's criminal history and the facts of the case.
When elder abuse is prosecuted as a misdemeanor, potential penalties include up to one (1) year in county jail and a fine of thousands of dollars. If it is prosecuted as a felony, the defendant may be sentenced to state prison for two (2) to four (4) years.
California Penal Code 484 - Conversion
Any person who uses fraud or deceit to obtain possession to money, labor, or real personal property is guilt of theft by trick.
California Penal Code §518 - Extortion (also known as Blackmail)
Extortion is the obtaining of property or other consideration from another, with his or her consent, or the obtaining of an official act of a public officer, induced by a wrongful use of force or fear, or under color of official right.
(b) For purposes of this chapter, “consideration” means anything of value, including sexual conduct as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 311.3, or an image of an intimate body part as defined in subparagraph (C) of paragraph (4) of subdivision (j) of Section 647.
(c) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), this section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who has obtained consideration consisting of sexual conduct or an image of an intimate body part.
(Amended by Stats. 2017, Ch. 518, Sec. 1. (SB 500) Effective January 1, 2018.)
Extortion occurs when a person does any of the following:
1. uses force or threats to compel another person to give you money or other property,
2. uses force or threats to compel a public officer to perform an official act, or
3. if it is a public official, acts under color of official right to compel another person to give up money or other property.
Extortion in most cases is a California felony. The penalties are two (2), three (3) or four (4) years in county jail, and/or a ten thousand dollar ($10,000) fine.
Victims who pay the money or property extorted can also bring a lawsuit to recover damages for "civil extortion" in California.
In California, attempted extortion is codified under Penal Code §524 making it a crime when someone attempts, by means of any threat, to extort money or property from another.
Fear can include fear of physical harm to an individual, their family, or even a family pet. Fear can also include threatening to do some action that would be harmful or damaging to a person's job or reputation, such as exposing explicit photos or an affair.
Under California Penal Code PC §519, “fear, such as will constitute extortion, may be induced by a threat of any of the following:
To do an unlawful injury to the person or property of the individual threatened or of a third person.
To accuse the individual threatened, or a relative of his or her, or a member of his or her family, of a crime.
To expose, or to impute to him, her, or them a deformity, disgrace, or crime.
To expose a secret affecting him, her, or them.
To report his, her, or their immigration status or suspected immigration status.”
Making Threats in Writing
Making threats to extort money does not require face-to-face threats or use of force. Under California Penal Code PC §523, “every person who, with intent to extort any money or other property from another, sends or delivers to any person any letter or other writing, whether subscribed or not, expressing or implying, or adapted to imply, any threat such as is specified in Section §519 is punishable in the same manner as if such money or property were actually obtained by means of such threat.”
Extortion in California is a felony offense. Under California Penal Code PC §520, a conviction for extortion can result in imprisonment for 2, 3, or 4 years, and a substantial fine.
18 U.S. Code 1343, Fraud by Wire, Radio or Television (email also included)
Whoever having devised, or intending to devise a scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining any money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations or promises, transmits or causes to be transmited by means of wire, radio or television communications in interstate or foreign commerce any writings, signs, pictures or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
Criminal sentencing involves the court reviewing aggravating and mitigating factors. Mitigating factors weigh in favor of the defendant and can lead to reduced sentencing. Aggravating factors weigh against the defendant and can increase the criminal sentence or add additional penalties.
Under California Penal Code PC §525, it is an aggravating factor if the victim of extortion was an elder or dependent person. An elder is any person who is 65 years of age or older.
California Penal Code 21a PC and 664 PC - Attempted Crimes
Under 21a PC an individual can be convicted of an attempted crime in the California Criminal Court process if both of the following are true:
1. You specifically intended to commit a certain crime; and
2. You performed a direct (but ineffective) act toward committing that crime.
A direct step must:
1. Indicate a definite and unambiguous intent to commit the target offense; and
2. Be an immediate step that puts the plan to commit the offense into motion, so that the plan would have been completed if some outside circumstance had not interrupted it.
The Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) is a federal law that allows plaintiffs injured by the negligent acts of federal employees to file claims against the United States for damages. To bring legal action against a federal agency, one must begin by contacting the agency directly. The agency will provide information and forms, and attempt to settle the problem in-house. If unable to resolve an issue with a federal government agency, one must contact the office of the Inspector General (IG) of that agency who appears to be Col. Dwight Rutle J. Griffith at (502) 626-8210 and/or (502) 624-0051. If a plaintiff can demonstrate that the government's action was done in bad faith, the plaintiff can receive damages despite sovereign immunity. Typically if a party can demonstrate that the government intentionally acted wrongly with the sole purpose of causing damages, that party can recover for injury or economic losses.
With research and investigation still ongoing it would appear that the next step, if satisfaction hasn’t occurred, would be to engage the United States Army Criminal Investigation Command (USACIDC) commanding general who reports directly to the Chief of Staff of the Army and then to the Secretary of the Army. Next in the chain of command to become involved would be the Provost Marshal General of the United States Army Major General David P. Glaser.
It is important to note that this website and its accompanying and lengthy investigation will continue in full force and effect for all the world, and hopefully every soldier and every individual considering enlisting in this army, to see and recognize the harm caused for as long as is absolutely necessary to ensure that the U.S. Army takes full responsibility for the illegal actions of its service member/s and to initiate appropriate measures designed to alleviate the problems and it’s egregious inappropriate conduct and undertake their own in depth internal investigation and to punish those responsible and to openly and publicly acknowledge the willful malicious wrongdoing and issue a formal apology in writing to the aggrieved signed by all senior officers referred to herein. This is the purpose of the website and the legal discussion aforementioned.
An email was sent to all of the US Army officers whose names appear herein on March 15, 2019 to eliminate even the remotest possibility that any of them could claim “plausible deniability” regarding the circumstances of impropriety of one of their soldiers and I have received no response from any of these people, either denying the existence of the actions of Sergeant Brooks, nor the formal apology that I have demanded. That being said if the information contained within this website, or in the emails I have sent them, were untruthful then I would assume that the United States Army and/or the individual I contend damaged me would sue me for Libel which they have not. Given this scenario a reasonable person would conclude that the content of this website is accurate and therefore the lack thereof of any legal actions brought against me by any of them attests to the facts as presented are both “Prima Facie” evidence of the crimes indicated here and that the legal verbiage “Res Ipsa Loquitur” says it all! All of these supposed gentlemen and pillars of the US Army who are portrayed as protectors of Democracy have failed miserably in their duties and represent exactly what potential enlistees should refrain from emulating and in deference to their titles do not adhere to the meaning of what we formally thought of as men to be admired but individuals who are only out for themselves instead of people we could be proud of sad to say.
I can’t imagine any parent of a son or daughter, viewing this website and knowing this pathetic inaction of the US Army hiearchy of one of their own committing such egregious behavior would instill any confidence that their children would be protected from unnecessary harm from within the military in the states, let alone the enemies on foreign soil, when those individuals supposedly in charge turn a blind eye to what a soldier under their command negatively does to a senior citizen of this country.
This does not exemplify conduct that America stands for nor anything they would want their sons and daughters to foster.
ArmyESports.com, Army ESports, ArmyESports.com, Army Esports Team Army ESports Team