CJKC
| This is CJKC's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
Hello, thanks for registering
editI've posted a welcome box below, they are usually handy for quick links to policies and sources of help. In response to your messages on my talk page - I don't anyone is specifically trying to prevent you from including mention if the civil recovery laws and civil sanctions for shoplifting. We have many issues on Wikipedia with editors who we describe as single purpose accounts. These are folks who have a specific agenda in mind, i.e. insertion of a particular type of information into one or a set of related articles. Sometimes, IP editors are identified as showing this type of disruptive activity when they intended to be constructive and are simply unaware of the 'way things are done around these parts.'
I would suggest starting off with small edits and discussing the information you would like to add on a talk page. It is essential that you provide specific citations to where you find particular information - it needs to be from a reliable third party source, like a newspaper/magazine/book/journal etc. The directions on creating a citation are at this page. If you believe that the phenomena of civil recovery demands is important enough to warrant its own article, you might consider creating Civil Recovery Demands or Civil Recovery Demands (Shoplifting) and including a "See also" in the shoplifting article. Let me know if this helps or if you have difficulties with this sort of thing. Avruchtalk 18:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Avruch! I really think that Wikipedia needs an article on Civil Recovery for Shoplifting but I think that it should be written by an attorney who knows how to research the current laws on civil recovery or who could get the current research from someone like Civil Demand Associates in California. Maybe Civil Demand Associates would write an article for Wikipedia as a public service. It is difficult for attorneys to talk about Civil Recovery for Shoplifting beyond what a specific state's laws indicate and you see that all of the Internet Sites are not terribly specific about the mixed practice of criminal and civil sanctions, etc... and the laws are changing as we see by the Tennessee Statute http://www.attorneygeneral.org/shoplift.html (DAG, 7th JD, TN:Shoplifting) Not being an attorney, I'm not sure that this statute, in practice, in any way prevents the local police from arresting or ticketing shoplifting suspects on probable cause for larceny shoplifting if this is the policy of the city. It may be that cities can continue to ticket or arrest shoplifters on probable cause for theft but just can't prosecute the defendant for larceny if the defendant agrees to pay a civil demand to the retailer. All very complicated. Maybe the Prosecutor drops the criminal charges or never files them or there is a Plea Bargain, or Rehabilitation, etc.. and the bond is forfeited to the city? And, there is big business in the expungement of arrest records. I am not qualified to write this article because I am not an attorney but it needs to be written in the interests of protecting the rights promised under our Constitution. It needs to be written in a neutral manner that doesn't disguise the purpose and the affect of civil demand letters, the subsidy, given to US retailers.
CJKC 16:15 30 Jan 08
- Well, you could create a stub about the article and include what you can prove to be true (i.e. whatever you can find, even if not much, that is well supported by sources). And then you could tag it for expert expansion by the Law WikiProject (found here). Avruchtalk 22:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hello CJKC - its been pointed out that some of your recent edits have been reverted because they make unreferenced claims. Perhaps you should first try listing your sources on the talk page, propose small pieces of language you would like to add and then see if the other page editors agree or have suggestions. Avruchtalk 21:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Avruch! I see all of my attempts to edit today have been removed. I understand I am bucking a long-standing status quo to keep the knowledge of civil demand letters and civil recovery law from the general public. The National Retail Federation is a huge, powerful, and rich lobby who managed to get Civil Recovery Laws passed in all of the State Legislatures and they were successful in getting and helping to establish new case law throughout the United States that treats apprehended shoplifting, even first offenses, as the crime of misdemeanor or felony larceny in the state and federal courts if the shoplifter will not plead guilty or be diverted in the lower city courts to a plea bargain or rehabilitation. This subsidy for the retailers is probably why Leandro Andrade is doing what amounts to life in a California prison for shoplifting six children's videos that were returned to stock and sold. Civil Recovery is perhaps a billion dollar business in this country, or more, when you add in the collection fees of the attorneys permitted under the state statutues ----and the retailers are not paying taxes on these recoveries because they are allowed to apply them to their overhead costs for security???? ---another subsidy that goes to improve their bottom line. The LP Industry and Research report the recoveries but indicate that as losses when talking about statistics, etc..
You indicate that nobody is stopping me or preventing me from trying to talk about civil recovery demands and civil recovery laws but, of course, this isn't true. I find it strange that Wikipedia, that prides itself on talking about everything, somehow has never talked about civil recovery or civil demands in relation to shoplifting in its articles. Apparently, until there is some kind of consensus among editors and administrators, this subject matter will not be talked about. The cities started ticketing shoplifters for "stealing" back in the 80's and the civil demand letters came into being about the same time. The cooperation of the state and city governments to give this subsidy to the retailers is not surprising but the failure of vehicles like Wikipedia to talk about civil demands for money damages from retailers to arrested and ticketed shoplifters is troubling. --CJKC (talk) 22:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
PS --There is more at stake here than one realizes at first view! If you research "Civil Recovery" and "Civil Demand Laws" you will understand that there was cooperation between the retailers as represented by the National Retail Federation and the State and City officials and authorities to find a way to help the retailers and to protect them, and to help the cities and towns who would have to close the lower courts to any defense to a ticket for stealing ---if "first offenders" with no criminal records would not admit their guilt and be diverted from the court or to a plea bargain for an offense that is not a crime, etc.. The public records indicate that there is clearly no defense to a ticket or a citation for stealing in the lowest courts. Trial de novas in a higher court are expensive for defendants and if the defendant has a good case, the matter will be dismissed and settled out of court. There is a little case law here and there on "civil redovery for shoplifting" that, of course, protects the laws and the retailers.
The public records bear out the truth of my statements and any good investigative reporter could uncover this but, of course, it is public policy and anything concerning "police matters" at city, state, or federal level is by tradition considered "off limits" because any appearance of aiding the criminal element is to be avoided. This has worked greatly to the advantage of civil- demands- for- shoplifting law that was developed and worked out perhaps with federal grant money for community policing organizations. When the first state adopted the practice in the late 70's and it was so successful, the NRF could lobby state legislatures on the basis of how successful it was for this state, and then more and more state legislatures could not refuse the lobbyists and more and more signed up and then, as said by the LP industry, the last state that held out, Deleware, finally came aboard.
The manipulation of the law and process to provide this subsidy for the retailers has, of course, resulted in great injustices for criminal types and the poor and disadvantaged in society. (Consider Leandro Andrade and his "Life" Sentence) Government is very aware that "shoplifting" is a democratic crime and that the manner in which retailers merchandise and sell to the public ENCOURAGES attempted theft "shoplifting" but public policy, as developed, appears to relieve the retailers of any burden to protect their merchandise from theft and to get it paid for before shoplifters carry the merchandise past the final checkout points.
Civil Recovery Laws would not be possible or look feasible if attempted theft was not to be prosecuted in the courts as a completed misdemeanor or felony larceny. The matter of restitution concerning merchandise recovered by the retailer in merchantable condition on the store premises would not permit the judge to order restitution, etc..for the merchandise or the costs to the retailer of his loss prevention personnel. But, the Civil Recovery Statutes do provide damages for the retailers even when they routinely recover the merchandise and return it to stock to be sold. Civil Recovery Statutes have had some difficulty in identifying the nature of the damages that are authorized to be collected under the law, and there is nothing available on the Internet concerning taxation of these civil demands by the state or federal authorities. Civil Demand Associates of California has indicated that some Attorney Generals have been amenable to considering these damages "restitution" for the costs of security personnel and not "profits" upon which the retailer will have to pay taxes.
The cities had no desire to prosecute citizens with no criminal record for "first offense" shoplifting and juries would not be sypathetic to the prosecution of the citizens for petit larceny, if first offenders would not plead guilty and wanted a trial. Juries would wonder why for just a low-dollar item the cities and big corporations would prosecute a first offender when the offender claimed innocence and wanted to pay for the item. Especially, this would be true when the jury would realize that there was NO actual loss to the corporate retailer, whose privately paid LP personnel had recovered the "surrendered" the stolen merchandise in merchantable condition and had refused to sell it to the defendant.
The prosecution, therefore, of "first offenders" would have to be avoided and first offenders would have to be diverted or otherwise deterred from trial, or be found guilty by the lowest court. This would not be difficult because the guilty amateur "first offender" would be very intimidated when the great power of government was brought to bear when the defendant was ticketed or cited for "stealing" by the commissioned police. All guilty first-offenders would be happy to hire an attorney, if they could afford one, and plea bargain with the lower court for a lesser charge and rehabilitation.
This use of legal process and the city's police resourses would be justified and rationalized by cities as a means of providing deterrence of second asttempts to steal by amateur shoplifters who would avoid a criminal record, if not an arrest record in government files. I submit, however, that is the cities really wanted to deter shoplifting, they would know that prominent notice or warning of the consequences of the State Law governing the civil demand and notice of the State Law concerning "larceny" would deter FIRST attempts to shoplift by amateur shoplifters. The cities rationalize the deterrence of shoplifting as serving the "public good" because deterrence of shoplifting should reduce the costs of merchandise to the public by reducing the incidence of shoplifting, and, thus, the costs to retailer who will share his profits in the form of lower costs for the merchandise sold to the public.
Apparently, because the retailers want to be free to use either a civil or a criminal sanction, or both, if allowed or mandated under the state law, they post few warnings. The warnings that are posted are generally confined to "shoplifting is against the law" or "we prosecute shoplifting" and the amateur or opportunistic shoplifters ignore these warning signs because they know that it is against the law but they believe that they will be stopped and warned if store security or management see them conceal merchandise or do something that looks like "an attempt to steal."
The probable cause evidence upon which shoplifters are arrested/ticketed does permit government to charge shoplifters with "larceny" under case law that has been developed these last 30 or more years.
I come to this subject matter out of my great shock and disappointment that the Department of Defense copied the "scheme" of the cities concerning civil recovery and that the DOD is demanding $200 (the highest minimum) from the troops in government retail stores for their offense of shoplifting or for the offense of a dependent, even a child as young as ten (7 as indicated by one federal LP poster). The government is then sending the troop or his dependent to the Federal Magistrate Court to defend against a charge of larceny.
The offense of shoplifting was taken out from under the purview of the Uniform Code of Military Justice that treats "shoplifting" as larceny under the federal statute for larceny. I feel sure that the commanders only went along with this because they felt that it would keep "first offense" shoplifting off of the military records and that this "risky" behavior would allow the DOD to allow the federal court system to rehabilitate active duty "first offender" shoplifters but I'm sure they had no idea that DOD would permit a $200 Administative Fee to be extracted under the threat of a criminal prosecution for larceny in the federal courts. This $200 Administrative Fee could not be extracted from an active-duty troop if the offense was dealt with under the UCMJ. The $200 stands with a few of the States as one of the highest minimum recoveries now demanded under civil recovery laws and the troops are punished to a much greater extent than they would be for "first offense" shoplifting in a retail store in the private sector.
It is obvious, of course, that the Lobbyists for the Civil Demand Collection Corporations and the Security Corporations who provide secret police surveillance in the government stores would have claim to much of the $200 that would be taken out of the pockets of the troops. The Air Force announced soon after the DOD implemented Civil Demand Letters that they had hired Civil Demand Associates of California who would have the Demand Letters for $200 in the mail within 48 hours after the citation was made by the military police. I tried to find out through the FOIA how much the AAFES was paying the contractor but was not successful in my efforts. I went up as far as the President's Integrity Committee, that I found lacking in integrity because they merely returned my FOIA complaint to the DOD who advised through their Hotline Administrator that I would have to ask the Congress to change the law if I didn't like it. I went public with a report to the Bad Business Bureau Rip Off Report Site with the hope that I could get others to contact the Congress about Civil Recovery, and, of course, I Emailed and spoke with a staff representative of the Committee of the Congress that "slipped" the amendment to Treasury Law into the 2001 Defense Authorization Bill.
My efforts to get something on Wikipedia have not been successful but, perhaps, Wikipedia is not really meant to be any kind of voice for "democracy" or "social change" and it is time for me to leave. Civil Demand Law has tainted our lowest court and our highest court who has ruled that it is not cruel and unusual punishment under The Constitution of the United States to imprison a human being for what amounts to "life" for the theft of six children's videos that were returned to stock to be sold.
Thank you for trying to help me. I'm sure Wikipedia editors and administrators are capable of producing an article on Civil Demands and Civil Recovery Law for shoplifting if this is in Wikipedia's best interests.
I will continue my march elsewhere!
Welcome
edit
Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.
If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.
Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...
Finding your way around:
Need help?
|
|
How you can help:
|
|
Additional tips...
|
|
January 2008
edit
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. nat.utoronto 21:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Your recent edits
editHi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 17:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Unsourced information
edit Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Shoplifting, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. This is especially important when dealing with biographies of living people, but applies to all Wikipedia articles. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are already familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add your reference to the article. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 20:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Please do not add content without citing reliable sources, as you did to Shoplifting. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add your reference to the article. Contact me if you need assistance adding references. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 20:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)