Hope Sanchez, 38, (right below), an adjunct psychology professor at McHenry County College, is at the center new case out of Illinois with a rather bizarre twist. She reportedly told her class about her finding an abandoned boxer puppy inside a duct-taped pillowcase. The incident was ultimately reported it to the police and the police determined that the story was untrue. Police charged her with filing a false report even though it does not appear that she went to the police.
Sanchez told her class that she was riding her motorcycle when she spotted the pillowcase covered in duct tape. Police went to her home and found found nine puppies along with the mother. The puppies were all the same age — about five weeks old. Police say that Sanchez, who is also a therapist, provides services for a child of the family at the residence and given the puppy. Police determined that Sanchez was given the dog but that her partner did not want the pet. The mother of the puppies is a therapy dog for the child and was left at the home.
One report says that it was the family that saw the story on the news and called police. However, another report states that the police were called after a student, MCC student Natalie Kawell, volunteered to take the puppy to a shelter and told the shelter about the alleged dumping. The shelter called police and the story reached the media. Both may be true because it seems like the human development classroom story led to the student taking the puppy to the shelter and that that triggered a week long investigation.
What is interesting is that she is criminally charged even though she did not go to the police. It is not clear if her failure to deny the story or confirmed the story was deemed a police report for the purposes of the charge. However, the law allows a charge if you “cause” a police report to be filed. One report says that Sanchez admitted making up the story and said that she had hoped that her story would convince someone else to adopt him. The investigators said “She was completely embarrassed by it, and remorseful to put everybody through all of this stuff.”
Since she gave up the puppy, I am willing to believe that she told the story to generate sympathy for the puppy. I am also willing to believe that she never intended for the police to get involved. Under those circumstances, is a criminal charge truly warranted for “causing” a report to be filed?
Now, the school appears to be moving against Sanchez. The school issued a statement that “we are addressing this issue in the most appropriate and timely manner, and we are taking every measure to ensure that there will no impact on our students or in the classroom.” The school may view this as a felony charge that stemmed from conduct in a class.
The good news is that all 10 puppies to the Hoof, Woof and Meow Animal Rescue. They are slated for adoption and 40 applications have been received. In meantime, Sanchez is slated for a court appearance on May 12th at the McHenry County Government Center to face a charge of filing or causing the filing of a false police report, a Class 3 felony.
hskiprob – The crime is *knowingly* filing (or causing to be filed) a false police report. If the person who filed the report thought it was true, they didn’t knowingly file a false report. And unless the professor somehow knew that falsely telling her class that she rescued the puppy would cause a police report to be filed, the professor did not knowingly cause a false police report to be filed. There’s no crime here.
hskiprob writes, “Are the Police remiss in accepting the police report based on hearsay? I obviously want her to be convicted if everything the article indicates is true.”
The proper question me thinks has nothing to do with “accepting the police report based upon hearsay.” If hearsay was all they had it is unlikely that they would have brought charges. It is more likely that they have all sorts of admissions from the Professor. She appears to have spoken candidly with them concerning her actions. This is what I gather from reading some of the reports.
She cooked her own goose, so to speak. So many people, probably most, think that they are helping matters to be completely honest when it comes to answering a few questions. But usually answers to those questions become links in a chain that ultimately benefit the prosecution.
If people only understood how to apply the First amendment in cases like this, and why the First should be invoked as opposed to the Fifth.
Finally, I must disagree with you that she should “be convicted”. I don’t think it can be shown that her actions alone (1) were done with any criminal intent, and (2) it cannot be shown that any harm resulted from her speech (which is protected), without which the State should not have any actual standing to proceed.
Got off course a little. Somebody filed a false police report and it appears the Prosecution is willing to proceed.
Are the Police remiss in accepting the police report based on hearsay? I obviously want her to be convicted if everything the article indicates is true.
hskiprob mentioned the economic hitmen.
For more on that watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-a6jzU0YgQ
Randall, Ask them where was the Judiciary when the money clauses were abrogated by FDR and the States? Those pesky checks and balances our three branch democratic Republic is supposed to offer. “No state…… shall make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts. Yet, I trade FRNs for my whiskey and wine and many of the Citizens have been cheated out of their homes by the fiat money lenders and the Judiciary. The recent appellate cases in Florida http://www.attorneyatlawmagazine.com/palm-beach/u-s-bank-v-bartram-incorrect-decision/ and the recent Beauvais case.
Did you ever hear the story about Lincoln putting out an arrest warrant on one of the Supreme Court Justices who had ignored his suspension and issued a writ of habeas corpus? The DC authorities refused to make the arrest but the evidence of the arrest warrant exists. The President and our military basically overthrew our government by force of arms. The Lincoln gatekeepers do not like to tell that and many of the other unconstitutional acts of Lincoln and his political and military allies who literally killed thousands of people in both the north and south in order to take over the southern states who had seceded. I don’t think our founding fathers, even the Federalists had this type government in mind, at it’s inception.
It should remind us all of the significance of the Patriot Act and the 9/11 and other events the oligarchs are willing to put us through to maintain their powers?
What many commonly call Marshall Law has been done many times in the Country using State of Emergency. My understanding is that the war on drugs and terror are both reinstated by each Governor every year through executive orders continuing a State of Emergency. I am trying to find the supporting facts on this.
The rationale behind our Constitution is really brilliant, if people fully understood all the socio-economic and legal complexities. I do understand though why Jefferson had his Constitutional concerns and was ordered to France at the time of the Convention. We might still be under the articles of confederation.
Why have a Constitution when it can be so easily abandoned or abrogated by the few in power? the number of people who have been willing to acquiesce in contrary to their oaths of office is appalling.
I truly believe that if we do not amend the Constitution rather quickly, there will be no nation left to reconstitute. It is fairly easy to argue that we are no longer a legally constituted republic.
Paul Schulte writes, ” it is my understanding that only the Federal court system can adjudicate a bankruptcy. If that is correct, Congress and the President are just wasting ink.”
.
Under the terms of the Banking Relief Act Congress relinquished their authority to terminate the emergency. Only the president has the authority to terminate. Congress remained in the nominal position of maintaining the illusion of normalcy in civil government making policy from time to time with the concession of the President, but in actuality the President holds the sole authority to make all necessary rules and regulations for the continued administration of the economic emergency 12 USC 95(a) and 95(b). See also Banking Relief Act, March 9, 1933, 48 Stat. 1,Public Law 89-719.
.
It is an established fact that the de jure United States Federal Government has been dissolved by one usurpation after another including the Emergency Banking Act, March 9, 1933, 48 Stat. 1,Public Law 89-719; declared by President Roosevelt as being bankrupt and insolvent. H.J.R. 192, 73rd Congress June 5, 1933 – Joint Resolution To Suspend the Gold Standard and Abrogate The Gold Clause dissolved and forfeited by operation of law the Constitutional authority of the United States and the official capacities of all United States Governmental Offices,Officers, and Departments and is further evidence that as a matter of law the United States Federal Government legally exists today in name only.
I’m a deputy prosecutor (not in Illinois). No way I’d file charges based on a false statement she made to her class. If she also lied to the police when they interviewed her, and by doing so caused them to waste even more of their time, then I might.
Paul writes, “I am not sure that anyone has been bankrupted,….” But hskiprob is correct! Except for the distinct fact that it has already occurred.
The American People were bankrupted in 1933.
1933 March 9,“The new money (paper promissory notes) is issued to the banks in return for Government obligations,bills of exchange, drafts, notes, trade acceptances, and banker’s acceptances. The new money will be worth 100 cents on the dollar,because it is backed by the credit of the nation. It will represent a mortgage on all the homes and other property of all the people in the Nation.”Senate Document No. 43, 73rd Congressional Record, 1st Session.
That’s right Paul, you don’t own the property you think you own. Its been pledged.
1933 May 1, gold was transferred[stolen] from U. S. Citizens to the United States by Executive Order 6102.
1933 May 23, Congressman, Louis T.McFadden brought formal charges (Congressional Record May 23,1933 page 4055-4058) against the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Bank system, The Comptroller of the Currency and the Secretary of United States Treasury for numerous criminal acts,including but not limited to, conspiracy, fraud, unlawful conversion and treason. The petition for Articles of Impeachment was thereafter referred to the Judiciary Committee and has yet to be acted on.
1950 Congress declared “bankruptcy and reorganization”. Secretary of Treasury appointed receiver in the bankruptcy. Reorganization Plan, No. 26, 5 U.S.C.A.903; Public Law 94-564; Legislative History, Pg. 5967.
1973 “Since March 9th, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency(bankruptcy)…” Senate Resolution 9, 93d. Congress,1st. Session, Foreward. The president signs [renews] this every year.
Thanks Randall for posting that. I didn’t have all the facts on hand so I didn’t want to go into the bankruptcy of the Federal Government. Great data. I will keep it on hand.
Have we bankrupted Donald Trump’s business’s 6 different times now. Lol
hskiprob – I thought the number was four but even if it is six the correct wording is that six of Trump’s businesses have gone into bankruptcy.
From Wikipedia (which I am sure is not a friend)
The Trump Organization has interests in real estate development, investing, brokerage, sales and marketing, and property management. The company owns, operates, invests, and develops residential real estate, hotels, resorts, residential towers, and golf courses in different countries, as well as owning several hundred thousand square feet of prime Manhattan real estate. It lists involvement in 515 subsidiaries and entities with 264 of them bearing Trump’s name and another 54 including his initials.[4][5][6][7][8] With investments within the United States and globally, The Trump Organization spans a wide variety of industries including real estate, construction, hospitality, entertainment, book and magazine publishing, media, model management, retail, financial services, board game development, food and beverages, business education, online travel, airlines, helicopter air services and beauty pageants.[4][9] It owns a New York television production company that produces television programs including the reality television program, The Apprentice.[10] The Miss Universe Organization is also owned by the Trump Organization and together with the National Broadcasting Company it produces the Miss Universe, Miss USA, and Miss Teen USA pageants.[11][12] Furthermore, the company engages in retailing providing fashion apparel, home furnishings, jewelry and accessories, books, chocolate bars, furniture, lighting products, bath textiles and accessories, bedding and home fragrance products, small leather goods, crystal stemware, barware and gifts, and bottled spring water
Paul, I forgot the ? at the end of the sentence. Have we bankrupted Donald Trump’s business’s 6 different times now? Insinuated that it was not Trump’s poor business acumen but the system that is causing so many of his businesses to fail. I was of course being sarcastic. I fear Trump because he has been allowed to prosper so greatly during these times when the majority has struggled. This makes me consider the notion that he may in fact be a part of the problem and not the solution. His rhetoric is so patronizing to the uninformed that I suspect him to be an oligarch in populous clothing.
Interesting that most people are fairly broke when they bankrupt that many times. The Donald seems to get richer. It must be his really entertaining realty show.
hskiprob – Trump’s holding company has never filed bankruptcy. He has 500+ businesses in his portfolio, 6 of those have filed bankruptcy. Since the average is 1 in 3 businesses in the U.S. files bankruptcy every year, I would say Trump is doing above average.
Randall Lee – it is my understanding that only the Federal court system can adjudicate a bankruptcy. If that is correct, Congress and the President are just wasting ink.
This is great! Hope this application of the statute is upheld all the way to the Supreme Court of the State (and U.S.).
Then it would be an extremely simple matter to have every judge, every prosecutor, every lawyer, every police officer, and every other government agent, (who operates under their oath to the Constitution), charged and proven to be in violation. It would however require making a citizens arrest and report. This would inevitably be the most difficult part. It would require more than a populace made up primarily of Manginas with noodles between their ears.
For instance, all government officials take an oath to the Constitution requiring that “No State shall …… make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in payment of Debts;” and yet these same usurpers have promoted and allowed the banking elite, via their privately owned Federal Reserve banking institution to circulate Marxist scrip in lieu of the Constitutional medium.
.
Now this is just one clause of the Constitution (space and time precludes pointing out the myriad of others) that is routinely violated by these oath breaking usurpers and the lawyers that aid them, and in so doing they have debauched the essential economic engine of what now masquerades as a free market.
So if the application of the reporting statute mentioned by the OP was applied even-handedly then I could have felony charges brought against these usurpers for “causing” my criminal report of their lies and crimes to be filed. But while we are at it, this felony charge could be tacked on to the charges brought against anyone for anything. This would create much more business for the Courts and more plea bargaining power for the prosecutors.
Why, this application of the statute is almost as insanely broad as the other routine measures utilized by the government on a regular basis. Its no wonder they would try this! Tyrants of the past would stand in awe.
hskiprob
I don’t doubt what she did was wrong, but it is a matter of what constitutes “reporting” that is a problem for the state’s case. She did not personally file a report with the police, but the element the state is claiming is that she “caused” a police report to be filed, that is the state claims that she directly induced a third party to file the report. The state is going to be required to prove causation sufficiently to a criminal level of culpability. I don’t think the state can do this.
The state would have a better chance of proving nexus between the defendant’s actions and a false police report being filed in a case where the defendant specifically instructed a third person to file the police report on her behalf. I suspect this is more of what the legislative intent is for enacting a False Reporting statute. From what I have read the defendant did not specifically instruct a person to make a report later determined to be false. I don’t see an element of intent on behalf of the defendant, which I suspect is a principal of liability required for such a prosecution. At the very best culpability would be Negligence which I don’t believe is sufficient to sustain this charge.
Steve – From the article, The investigators said “She was completely embarrassed by it, and remorseful to put everybody through all of this stuff.”
Sorry, I wasn’t thinking about there being a difference between lying and perjury when I wrote it. I was thinking that in court, if she decided to deny her actions, she could be charged with perjury. She obviously lied to here classroom, causing the whole incident to occur. How is she going to get around that unless she would commit perjury. If you lie about lying, in a court of law, it’s perjury. Is that better?
Cross my heart and hope too die, I’m telling the truth. Lol
It reminds me of pro se vs inpropria persona. One is, you are representing yourself, the other is acting as yourself, yet they are treated the same in court.
Since we are a society of liars with the head of the fish seldom speaking the truth, I think it is a worthy case to prosecute especially of a psychology professor. But I do understand why attorneys would not want it to be.
hskiprob:
The reason I brought up the perjury issue is not so much actual perjury but the general feeling of empathy toward her when she lied. I had written a paragraph about that in my previous post because it’s almost our national zeitgeist to lie. However, I redacted the paragraph after thinking of other circumstances in which one might lie and receive public accolades.
I could see how. rather than explain something during exigent circumstances where time is critical, one would be hard pressed to penalize a liar in good conscience or, as here, one who might want to find a good home with a student for a puppy who might be very difficult to place and otherwise abused or put down. Let’s just assume she wasn’t trying to gouge a price from her students because there’s no mention of that in the blog post. If she were, I might change my view of her. I’ll give her the benefit until I learn more.
I never knew that pro se and in propria persona had different meanings. Live and learn.
Darren, Do I understand you correctly, in that you don’t think this case should go forward because you believe it might harm future prosecutions of filing false police reports?
I. She committed perjury and has admitted it.
2. Someone filed a false police report because of her perjury and thus someone should be prosecuted under the law, just as they prosecute poor young people every day for driving while under a suspended drivers license because the couldn’t afford to pay a previously traffic fine ever though no one was really harmed, thus having their driver license suspended. I know this, because it happened to me.
Do you see the hypocrisy?
hskiprob – if you were driving with a suspended license, that’s on you. That is not the fault of the government.
However, considering your claim that you were poor and could not afford to pay the fine, I have proposed that traffic fines be based on the adjusted gross income of the offender. The more you make, the higher the fine. It would have to be something that smarts on both ends of the financial spectrum.
Paul, as I often write about, I am trying to bring up the social importance that the political and professional classes are bankrupting the majority in this country and there are a huge number of incarcerations as a result of the means used. Malum prohibitum vs. malum in se laws and their negative impacts on society. I believe Licensure laws are unconstitutional at least under Article IX but others as well. Driving a car, as is traveling on a horse should be a right and not a privilege unless one is involved in commerce and even then I believe the right to travel should not be regulated. I am not sure of the intent of our founding fathers on this issue, so any facts would be interesting.
That if we are going to have so many malum prohibitum laws in effect, that it should be an all or nothing. I am arguing against malum prohibitum laws and in truth, I find the prosecution of her just as ignorant as her lie. However, see my additional thoughts below.
With our current Judiciary there are no bad laws, as long as they extract money through some sort of redistribution scheme so the crony capitalists can end up with the money; you know the folks that are the shareholders of the multitude of military and other government contractors. Have you ever heard the monetary figure of the amounts of money extracted by the Judiciary under just the auto driving regulations? That legislation had to be enacted here in Florida to stop the cops of numerous Cities from issuing so many traffic tickets. Some corrupt cop speed trapped me and I couldn’t afford to pay the fine. So incarcerate me or take away my alleged privilege!!!! I use the phrase “speed trapping” as having a lower posted speed limit in an area where it is reasonably safe to drive at higher speeds. There are specific requirement for the posting of speed limit signs, but the various governments like with many things, try to get away with it, unless they are challenged. You should see what they did to me when I tried to challenge the system. They would make me wait until the very last person heard every friggin time. I had asked for a trial by jury. I finally got the case dismissed after two years of driving without a license and four “alleged” hearings. Almost four full day in courts trying to beat a bogus ticket. They obviously don’t like dissenters.
Paul, I should not have to argue the negative ramification of licensure laws and/or such issues as drug prohibitions and why malum prohibitum laws do more harm than good.
Stevegroen. I think it is the idea that we take lying so lightly and that an educator, especially a psychologist should understand the effects that we have on one another by lying. It is just so hard for me to fathom the potential thoughts this women had in concocting the fallacious story. I remember a recent post on Facebook. My young niece posted that when a man makes a women cry, God counts the tears. I commented back to her, that it has been my experience that many women will lie, like children, if they do not get own way, so be careful ladies, God will hold those fake tears against you.
The motive to me in this case is irrelevant. The idea that she “allegedly” told a blatant lie to her entire classroom of college students is just appalling to me. The idea that it was a “white” lie, as I like to call them, is even more interesting because of the affects it had on others. It’s just like telling our children there is a Santa Clause when they are young. Do we do this to teach them that their parents and other adults are not trustworthy. I guess I am also trying to bring up the notion that our society has to some large degree, lost it’s integrity, if it really even had one.
You may be right. your argument is very persuasive.
I am not sure that anyone has been bankrupted, except those who took money or property from others. However, there is the old saying “If you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime.”
Paul, check out the local courthouse and see how many foreclosures and personal and business bankruptcies there have been in the last 10 years in your county alone. Some 44,000 factories in the US have close in just the last 12 years. The either moved, closed their doors or went bankrupt.
100 million people are now living at or near the poverty line in America and the poverty line as the government contends is really quite low for what I consider a survivable level. Do the math and see what you think it takes to survive at the minimal level of income. You can only live on Ramen Noddles for so long.
The last count I read is that there are 48.5 million people on food stamps. The military defense budget alone is $600,400,000,000 annually, more the the entire US governments budget of $314 billion was in 1950. Guns or Butter? Ah, let’s just fiance it by issuing more debt instruments, I mean money.
hskiprob – few businesses have been bankrupted because they were fined into bankruptcy. That was the point I was trying to make and clearly did not.
Paul, I keep writing “taxes, regulatory fees and now I’ve added fines” to usher in the discussion on malum prohibitum laws and their effects on society, both individually and for businesses. But yes, companies have been find out of business and the corruption behind these actions are unconscionable but you are correct in that it is not very often. How many times have I posted that it is not that any one social policy is bad, it the massive accumulation that is/has bankrupted the middle class. It’s even worst then that though. The oligarchs will institute an SEC investigation or IRS investigation to place companies into bankruptcy so they can buy them out at pennies on the dollar. They will even send in the economic hitmen to take out governments.
What is the overall tax rate for businesses in the US. First you have property taxes, state income taxes, federal income taxes, sales taxes, SS taxes, osha fees, fines if you don’t pass ohsa, drivers licenses, license tags, permits, fire inspections fees, development impact fees, intangible taxes, telephone taxes, penalties for not filing your correct tax amounts, fishing licenses, gasoline taxes etc. etc. etc etc etc etc to the tune of about 115 different taxes and or regulatory fees, excluding the fines and penalties, which I don’t think any one has ever accumulated the data for. Have you seen or read what they charge a prisoner to make a phone call and how much they are paid to work at?
The oligarchs have placed most of their business holding companies in jurisdictions like Panama where there is no income taxes and the voluminous other regulatory fees and potential fines.
Those in power do just about any thing they want and if you stand in their way they will crush you in a varieties of ways.
Hey Paul I’m sorry, I really should be using the term insolvency rather than bankruptcy. Sort of like the difference between lying and perjury. Lol
For a young man trying to raise a family, a traffic fine of $80 or $100 meant a lot. The idea that I was speed traps added to my dislike of government and all the malum prohbitum laws.
hskiprob: When did she commit perjury? She was sworn in under oath, lied to a cop, or filed a false report under penalty of perjury?
The stupidity of our lawyers.
I do not believe this case should survive a motion to dismiss by the defendant. Causation in this case is more akin to The Butterfly Effect than it is toward a state of culpability required to secure a conviction for filing a false police report.
In my view the state would be folly to allow this case into the appellate level since it is certain to receive an opinion very unfavorable to the state–restraining it considerably in future prosecutions for violations of the false reporting statutes.
The lie could send the police looking for human turd who dropped the dog – a waste of their time and worth a citation. If she ‘fessed up, a lecture from investigator about lying to kids. The good part of the story are those who believed her and wanted human turd found.
All social policies have negative ramifications. In this case, having to use the taxpayers money to pay for the enforcement of a white lie. As I see it, the primary issue at large, did she harm somebody or create an eminent danger or not? If we are to continue to enforce the voluminous amounts of malum prohibitum laws that have been enacted by the various levels of government, where no harm or eminent danger occurs, yet are prosecuted, then she should be prosecuted as everyone should be treated equally under the law. Or can we trust the legal system and courts to correctly and without bias, determine between the grey areas of our malum in se and prohibitum laws. We now have a couple of hundred years under our judicial belts, so anyone that still believes the Judiciary will be fair and unbiased has never studied law.
Under the voluminous malum prohibitum laws, both perjury and causing the filing of a false police report, both crimes. Are you sure she is not a state of county prosecutor? The thought of a women lying to gain sympathy is unimaginable. I am feeling less and less proud of our higher education system every day. No wonder there are so many dems and repubs who think they can determine the lesser of two evils. I am obviously feeling quite sarcastic today.
Can you imagine the cop who was put in charge of the investigation. What did I do to deserve this Captain? Lol
She looks more like a spooky cat lady.
That law is constitutionally valid perhaps in Trump-Clinton World, but as it’s being applied it has no relationship to any rational government interest other than allowing police to detain anyone when he or she is the basis of a police report. I imagine separated spouses going through a heated divorce proceeding have fun with that one.
Is this case an appropriate use of police, law enfordcement, and criminal justice time and effort, not to mention cost to the taxpayer? She was trying to do good by creating sympathy for the puppy so that it could be adopted. She erred in judgement, but for a good, forgiveable, and understandable reason. Are we going to make a criminal of her? She should have simply called the shelter and said, “Come and get ’em!”
But, she didn’t. Can we ask at this stage what ever happened to the concept of “proscutorial discretion?” Or, does that only ever happen to the Clintons and the Sandy Bergers of the World?
I agree with Paul.
Also: why is it good news that the puppies are all in the animal shelter?
I would ask for a jury trial and hope for jury nullification. Actuality she had nothing to do with the false report being filed.
Sounds like she needs to see a psychologist, not to be one!