About Robert Paisola Expertise Before we start, take a moment to visit www.RobertPaisola.com to learn about what I do!
Robert Paisola is perhaps one of the most informed "non-attorneys" on AllExperts.com and is a national activist for prisoners rights. Robert will answer your questions about the criminal justice system in America. If you have been puled into this system, Robert will tell you how it is and what you MUST DO to protect yourself. Robert Paisola is the CEO of Western Capital and has established a foundation to rehabilitate former inmates and speaks to offenders in correctional institutions around the world creating change on a worldwide scale. Robert Paisola is the person that the worldwide media looks to when inmate and prisoner issues get hot! Robert Paisola has established a foundation at www.WesternCapitalFoundation.com to assist former offenders and a Venture Capital Fund at www.RobertPaisola.org to fund ex felon business ventures. Also watch the VIDEO on www.WesternCapitalFoundation.com to see Robert Live on MSNBC defending inmate and ex-prisoners rights.
Experience Robert Paisola has the experience to simply tell it like it is. He is a national motivational speaker and is a current senior member of AllExperts.com
Organizations I am the CEO of a foundation that was created to assist past offenders in moving on with their lifem and am routinely interviewed by the media on Prisoners Rights, and the Federal Justice System.
Publications Robert Paisola has appeared as a guest on CNN, ABC NEWS and Many other media outlets and is a recognized expert in the Media Blue Book at www.expertclick.com/19-2637 and is listed on Allexperts athttp://www.allexperts.com/displayExpert.asp?Expert=38419 or visit www.RobertPaisola.com
Routinely Distinguished by The National Speakers Forum, Robert is also a regular contributor to Business Week Magazine, CNN, CNNFN, XM Satellite Radio, The Wall Street Journal, Telemundo International, National Public Radio and many other organizations.
If you are looking for personalized service, Robert now has a reduced fee schedule for AllExperts.com members at:
http://www.mycollector.com/news_vipservices.html
Do you want to see Live Video Results? Click Here!
http://kdka.com/video/?id=17721@kdka.dayport.com
For more information on Robert Paisola's unique training programs, contact Robert at Western Capital at robert@mycollector.com or at 1-877-517-9555
Education/Credentials Education has NOTHING to do with this topic. When the Feds pick up your son or daughter you want FACTS, Not a bunch of case sites. But yes, I have the education to assist even the hardest cases.
Awards and Honors Too many to list, but I do not do this for the prestige. I do this to ensure that the families that are effected by the actions of their loved ones can be counseled correctly PRIOR to paying an attorney a 25-100K retainer, that in many cases means absoultely nothing, especially in the federal system.
See www.Criminon.com
Read this also, http://www.collectionindustrylive.com/news_offenderassistance.html
URGENT OCTOBER 2008 NEWS UPDATE- THIS IS THE KIND OF QUESTIONS THAT I RECEIVE... I WANT EVERYONE WHO READS THIS TO NOTICE WHAT IS HAPPENING WITH OUR YOUTH TODAY... NOTICE HOW THEY ARE PLANNING TO COVER THEIR ASS BEFORE THEY COMMIT THE CRIME? YOU AS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN HAVE A VOICE..... USE IT! WHAT WOULD YOU DO IF YOUR SON WROTE ME? SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT.... IF YOU ARE IN THE NATIONAL MEDIA, GIVE ME AIRTIME TO DISCUSS THIS TOPIC. THESE KIDS CAN BE SAVED, IT IS UP TO ALL OF US... *DISCLOSURE-THE LANGUAGE IS HARSH- BUT THAT IS WHAT IS NEEDED TO REACH THESE KIDS- IF YOU CAN NOT HANDLE THE FOUL LANGUAGE, FIND A LOCAL ATTORNEY WHO WILL CHARGE YOU 5K TO DO NOTHING!
Name: nate
Subject: armed robbery
Question:
Dear Mr. Paisola, I have a friend who is above the age of 18 who needs some advice. He and another person are planning on robbing a store. possibly a 7-11 type store. Guns could be involved. We all live in Maryland. If they are caught, what is the maximum and minimum punishment they can receive. I know that it all depends on their previous records which i don't know and who the judge might be and other specifics like that. i would just like to know the worst and best case scenario. thank you very much
Answer: NATE-
LISTEN TO ME CLEARLY..... I AM NOT COMING OUT OF LEFT FIELD ON THIS ISSUE AND YOU NEED TO LISTEN TO ME CLEARLY.
YOU ARE FUCKING AROUND WITH THE FEDS. THEY WILL NAIL YOUR ASS TO THE WALL FOR 5-10 YEARS. THIS IS NOT A GAME.
NATE, DO NOT DO THIS. IT IS NOT WORTH IT. WHATEVER YOU NEED, I CAN HELP YOU IN ANY WAY THAT I CAN, BUT DO NOT USE A GUN IN THE COMMISSION OF A FELONY.
TRUST ME BROTHER, I HAVE SEEN PEOPLE GET LOCKED UP FOR A LONG TIME FOR STUFF LIKE THIS. THE FEDS DO NOT SCREW AROUND.
YOU WILL BE AT A PARTY GETTING HIGH, AND THE UNITED STATES MARSHALS WILL BREAK DOWN THE DOOR AND TAKE YOU TO COUNTY JAIL, WHERE YOU WILL GET NO DRUGS, NO WITHDRAW MEDICATION AND WHEN IT IS ALL OVER YOU WILL BE IN PRISON.
DO YOU HEAR ME?
IF YOU NEED TO TALK, CALL ME AT MY OFFICE
YOU GUYS ARE NO LONGER KIDS, THE COURTS WILL EAT YOU ALIVE. TRUST ME ON THIS.
NOW, TAKE 2 MINUTES AND LEAVE FEEDBACK ON THIS SITE, AS I JUST KEPT YOUR ASS OUT OF JAIL.
NOW, THAT IS KEEPING IT REAL, AND I PROMISE THAT YOUR PARENTS NOR AN ATTORNEY WOULD TELL IT LIKE IT IS, JUST LIKE THAT!
WITH DEEPEST REGARDS,
Robert Paisola
Chief Executive Officer
Western Capital Financial Services and
The Success Training Network
www.MyCollector.com
www.MySpace.com/westerncapital
www.WesternCapitalFinancial.com
www.tstndirect.com
www.WesternCapitalCredit.com
www.RobertPaisola.Net
www.RobertPaisola.Com
www.RobertPaisola.Org
Also, because of the large volume of mail that I receive from around the world, it may take up to a week to get back to you, PLEASE UNDERSTAND THIS!!! I do seminars and travel all over the world, so Please be kind in your ratings of Timeliness! If you have an emergency, go to www.WesternCapitalVip.com Immediately!
Criminal Law - The Charge of Knowingly receivng stolen property- Robert Paisola Responds
Expert: Robert Paisola - 9/22/2007
Question Can you tell me the specifics of this particular charge?
Answer Hello TW,
Thank you for taking the time to write to me and I want to let you know that the answer that I am about to provide to you is variable upon specific laws within each state.
You are asking what the Criminal Definition of The Receipt of Stolen Property. In order to answer this all you need to do is research various State Laws, which is what I do. As you know if you have been a reader of the Robert Paiola responses on Allexperts, I take this very seriously, as many lives depend on these answers that I impart.
So, in the state of New Jersey, (it could be any State) the law is as follows:
2C:20-7. Receiving Stolen Property. a. Receiving. A person is guilty of theft if he knowingly receives or brings into this State movable property of another knowing that it has been stolen, or believing that it is probably stolen. It is an affirmative defense that the property was received with purpose to restore it to the owner. "Receiving" means acquiring possession, control or title, or lending on the security of the property.
b. Presumption of knowledge. The requisite knowledge or belief is presumed in the case of a person who:
(1) Is found in possession or control of two or more items of property stolen on two or more separate occasions; or
(2) Has received stolen property in another transaction within the year preceding the transaction charged; or
(3) Being a person in the business of buying or selling property of the sort received, acquires the property without having ascertained by reasonable inquiry that the person from whom he obtained it had a legal right to possess and dispose of it ;or
(4) Is found in possession of two or more defaced access devices.
AT THE END OF THE TRIAL, THE JUDGE WILL READ THE FOLLOWING INSTRUCTIONS AND LAW TO THE JURY:
RECEIVING STOLEN PROPERTY
(N.J.S.A. 2C:20-7(a))
The defendant is charged with the crime of receiving stolen property. [Describe the property allegedly involved] This charge is based on a statute which reads:
"A person is guilty of theft if he knowingly receives (or brings into this State) movable property of another knowing that it has been stolen, or believing that it has probably been stolen."1
Under this statute the State must prove 3 elements to establish that a defendant is guilty of receiving stolen property. These elements are: 1. That the defendant received (or brought into this State) movable property of another; 2. That the defendant acted knowingly when he/she received (or brought into this State) the movable property of another; 3. That the defendant either knew that the property had been stolen or believed that it had probably been stolen2 at the time he/she received the property (or brought the property into this State).
The first element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the defendant received (or brought into this State) movable property of another. The term "receive" means toacquire possession, control, or title (or to lend on the security) of the property.3
(Charge Model Charge on Possession, N.J.S.A. 2C:2-1c)
The term "movable property" means property, the location of which can be changed (including things growing on, affixed to, or found in land, and documents, although the rights represented thereby have no physical location).4 The term "property" means anything of value.5 "Property of another" means property in which the defendant does not have a lawful interest.6 The State need not, however, prove the identity of the owner, the identity of the original thief,7 or the identity of the person from whom the defendant received the property. The second element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the defendant acted knowingly when (he/she) received (or brought into this State) the movable property of another.
A person acts knowingly with respect to the nature of (his/her) conduct or the attendantcircumstances if (he/she) is aware that (his/her) conduct is of that nature, or that such circumstances exist, or (he/she) is aware of a high probability of their existence. A person acts knowingly with respect to a result of (his/her) conduct if (he/she) is aware that it is practically certain that (his/her) conduct will cause such a result. "Knowing," "with knowledge" or equivalent terms have the same meaning.8
The third element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the defendant either knew that the property had been stolen or believed that it had probably been stolen at the time the defendant received the property (or brought the property into this State). Stolen property means property that has been the subject of any unlawful taking. An unlawful taking occurs when a person takes or exercises unlawful control over the property of another with the purpose, that is, the conscious object, of depriving the other of it permanently or for so extended a period as to appropriate a substantial portion of its economic value.9 I have already defined the term "knowing" to you in discussing the second element and I will not repeat it here. The State is not required to prove that the property, in fact, had been stolen. On the other hand, mere proof that the property was stolen is not sufficient to establish this element. Rather, what the State must prove is that the defendant either knew that the property was stolen or believed that it had probably been stolen. A belief that property has probably been stolen is a belief that it is more likely than not that the property had been stolen. You must realize that knowledge and belief are states of mind which cannot be seen but can only be determined by drawing inferences from one's conduct, words or actions, and from all of the surrounding circumstances. It therefore is not necessary that the State produce witnesses to testify that the defendant said (he/she) knew or believed the property was stolen. (His/her) state of mind is to be determined by you after you examine (his/her) conduct and actions, all that was said or doneat that particular time and place, and all the surrounding circumstances.10
To reiterate, the three elements which the State must prove are: 1. That the defendant received (or brought into this State) movable property of another; 2. That in so doing the defendant acted knowingly; and 3. That the defendant either knew that the property had been stolen or believed that it had probably been stolen when (he/she) received it (or brought it into this State).11
If you conclude the State has proven all three elements of this offense beyond a reasonable doubt, you must find the defendant guilty. On the other hand, if you find that the State has failed to prove any element beyond a reasonable doubt, you must find the defendant not guilty.
(NOTE: Do not charge the following for certain types of property such as an automobile or
firearm. See N.J.S.A. 2C:20-2b(2)(b) and (c).)
Since the value of the property involved determines the degree or severity of the crime, the State must also prove its value beyond a reasonable doubt. If you find the defendant guilty, then youmust indicate whether you find the value of the property involved:
(1) exceeds $500, (2) is at least $200 but does not exceed $500, or (3) is less than $200.
Value is to be determined by the fair market value of the property at the time the defendant is alleged to have received or brought into this State the movable property of another. Fair market value means the price that a buyer would be willing to pay and a seller would be willing to accept if both parties were aware of all the relevant surrounding circumstances and neither party were under any compulsion to buy or sell.
1 The language "or brings into this State" is placed in parentheses to suggest that in a case where there is nothing to indicate that this language applies, consideration might be given to deleting the language and thereby eliminating unnecessary verbiage.
2 Where the defendant is also the person who took the property, the third element must be modified. State v. Underwood, 286 N.J. Super. 129 (App. Div. 1995). In such cases, "the State must prove that the defendant intended an unlawful taking," id. at 135; that is, the defendant acted with the purpose to permanently deprive the owner of the property. Id. at 138. Thus, in such cases the third element could be phrased as follows: "The property was stolen by the defendant. In order for you to find that the defendant stole the property, the State must prove that the defendant acted with the purpose to deprive the owner of the property. To deprive means to withhold or cause to be withheld property of another permanently or for so extended a period as to appropriate a substantial portion of its economic value..." (N.J.S.A. 2C:20-1a) A person acts purposely with respect to the nature of his conduct or a result thereof if it is his or her conscious object to engage in conduct of that nature or cause such a result. (N.J.S.A. 2C:2-2b(1)).
3 N.J.S.A. 2C:20-7a. It is suggested that the language "or to lend on the security" only be charged when it applies to the facts of the case.
4 N.J.S.A. 2C:20-1e. It is suggested that the language relating to things on land or documents be charged only when it applies to the facts of the case.
5 N.J.S.A. 2C:20-1g. The statutory definition gives examples of various types of property as being included in the definition, such as trade secrets and choses in action. Reference should be made to the statutory definition in particular cases to determine whether additional language should be charged.
6 N.J.S.A. 2C:20-1h. This is not the complete definition of "property of another," but should be sufficient in the usual case. The definition goes on to address joint ownership issues, contraband, and security interests. When applicable under the facts of a case, this language should be included.
7 Consideration should be given to deleting the language as to the identity of the thief in an Underwood situation. See fn. 2, supra.
8 N.J.S.A. 2C:2-2b(2).
9 N.J.S.A. 2C:20-1a and p; State v. Underwood, supra, 286 N.J. Super. at 135-136.
10 In the appropriate case, the jury may be advised that such knowledge or belief may be inferred from the presence of the factors set forth in N.J.S.A. 2C:20-7b if the evidence provides a factual basis for such an instruction. See State v. Humphrey, 183 N.J. Super. 580 (Law Div. 1982); N.J.R.E. 303; N.J.S.A. 2C:1-13e.
If the jury is instructed as to an inference permitted by N.J.S.A. 2C:20-7b, care should be taken to avoid the use of the term "presumption" and it should be clearly stated that the inference is only permissive in nature. Thus, language such as the following should be charged:
However, you are never required or compelled to draw this inference. It is your exclusive province to determine whether the facts and circumstances shown by the evidence support any inference and you are always free to accept them or reject them if you wish.
It should also be noted that aside from the inference authorized by the statute, there is a question as to whether recent unexplained possession of stolen property permits an inference of guilty knowledge. The former receiving stolen property statute (N.J.S.A. 2A:139-1) provided for such an inference (see State v. DiRienzo, 53 N.J. 360 (1969) and one trial level court has held that a common law inference still may be drawn even in the absence of a specific statutory authorization. State in the Interest of L.L.A., 178 N.J. Super. 555 (J. & D.R. Ct. 1980); cf. State v. Burch, 179 N.J. Super. 336 (App. Div. 1981) certif. den. 89 N.J. 396 (1981) (applying inference in theft by unlawful taking prosecution under N.J.S.A. 2C:20-3.); see also State v. Ippolito, 287 N.J. Super. 375, 383 (App. Div. 1996) (holding in theft by unlawful taking case that "{t}he inference charge is given when there is a dispute concerning the identity of the person who physically took the property," but "is inappropriate where . . . defendant admits that he took the property and possessed it from the time it was taken until it was recovered but he has explained his possession as a claim of right.")
In contrast, one commentator has suggested that the "common law inference does not appear to have survived the enactment of the Code," at least with respect to receiving, as opposed to unlawful taking, prosecutions. Cannel, Title 2C: CRIMINAL CODE ANNOTATED, COMMENT TO N.J.S.A. 2C:20-7 at p. 437.
If the inference of guilty knowledge from recent, unexplained possession of stolen property is to be charged, care should be taken not to charge it in such a manner or under such circumstances as to violate a non-testifying defendant's right to remain silent. This issue is discussed in State v. Burch, supra, 179 N.J. Super. 336. There, the court stated that "when it isclear from the record that defendant is the only source to supply (an) explanation, the instruction is prejudicial and should not be given." Id. However, the court also noted that in a stolen property case some evidence, other than the defendant's testimony, "such as a sales slip or sales clerk," is usually available to the defense "to account for innocent possession." Id. at 343. Thus, the court concluded that the instruction concerning the inference was proper even though "there (was) an absence of a specific showing in the record as to the availability of an evidence source other than the defendant's own testimony . . ." Id. at 343-44; see also State v. DiRienzo, 53 N.J. 360 (1969) and State v. Dent, 51 N.J. 428 (1968) which are discussed in Burch.
11 If the evidence requires, any affirmative defenses should be charged at this point. See e.g. N.J.S.A. 2C:20-2c. With respect to a "claim of right defense" pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:20-2c(2), see State v. Ippolito, supra, 287 N.J. Super. 375 and separate model jury charge.
NOTE ALSO that N.J.S.A. 2C:20-7a specifically says that it is an affirmative defense that the property was received with the purpose to restore it to the owner. This defense must be charged when there is a basis for it in the evidence. State v. Underwood, supra, 286 N.J. Super. at 138.
I know this sounds like overkill, but that is why so many people write to me and are willing to wait a few days for a reply, as I am constantly traveling doing seminars.
Please take a second to leave positive feedback so that people in your similar situation can learn from your experience!
Regards,
Robert Paisola
CEO
www.MyCollector.com
www.CollectonIndustryLive.com
www.RobertPaisola.com
www.RobertPaisola.net
www.RobertPaisola.org
www.RCITrainings.com
ABOUT YOUR AUTHOR
Robert Paisola is driven by a passion for people--motivating them to reach for the highest standards of success. As founder and president of many International Corporations including Western Capital and The Success Training Network, Robert trains sales and marketing professionals who want to strive to get to the top...and stay there.
He is a Nationally Recognized Criminal Rights Activist and is very involved with assisting inmates and their families who have been abused by the justice system. See www.PrisonPartners.com
His innovative, no-nonsense approach is based on applying what he has observed in his fifteen-plus years in sales, motivational speaking and debt collection training, thus revealing the common business habits of the top 20% of sales performers in all organizations.
While in Mexico, he uncovered a large time share "fractional sales" scam at the Playa Del Sol Grand Hotel. His report is located at:
Robert's approach works...that's why New York-based Success Magazine has rated Robert Paisola as one of the top-five most effective sales-training professional in the market today.
Robert Paisola's newest book was just released and is available on Amazon.com. Simply type PAISOLA in the main search field on Amazon.com. CONVERSATIONS ON SUCCESS was co-authored with famed author Dr. John Gray and Mr. Tom Hopkins.
Robert Paisola speaks on an International Basis to support his foundation, The Western Capital Foundation. He is also a noted speaker on the topic of Real Estate and Investments, and is currently underwriting a full scale investigation into the Franklin Squires Organization for equity skimming. You can learn more about this at www.FranklinSquiresLawsuit.com and the blog at franklinsquires.blogspot.com
Routinely Distinguished by The National Speakers Forum, Robert is also a regular contributor to Business Week Magazine, CNN, CNNFN, XM Satellite Radio, The Wall Street Journal, Telemundo International, National Public Radio and many other organizations. Robert Paisola is also an International Travel Writer and Certified Expert for magazines such as Conde Nast Publications and The National Geographic Society. His award winning investigative reporting articles have gained him worldwide recognition.
He continues to look deep into the world of his 78 year old nemesis Bill Bauer AKA CreditWrench or Billie Bauer in Oklahoma at www.BillBauerFacts.com . Read this report for yourself and you decide.
Robert is also a philanthropist, donating much of the money that he receives for his services working with Business Clients to assist in full business turnaround services, to charity. See www.WesternCapitalCharities.com
For more information on Robert Paisola's unique training programs, contact Robert at Western Capital at robert@mycollector.com or at 1-877-517-9555 or visit http://www.allexperts.com/displayExpert.asp?Expert=74749 or visit www.RobertPaisola.net. If you are in the debt collection business and have not had a certified FDCPA Debt Collector Training, you could be headed for legal trouble.
