Hey, there! Log in / Register
Shirley he must be joking
By adamg on Mon, 05/11/2009 - 12:33pm
Everybody's favorite faux-Rockefeller wants to be called Rockefeller in court because one of the charges against him is giving police a false name, so every time jurors heard him referred to as Herr Gehartsreiter, they would hate him even more, and that's just not fair.
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
??
By that logic, wouldn't it be unfair to mention anything about the alleged kidnapping during his kidnapping trial, since he has yet to be convicted for it?
Strange.
legal name shouldn't be an issue
I mean, I'm inclined to agree that this is kind of a waste of time and tax dollars in this guy's case, because it seems like what name they call him is the least of his issues...
But I do think that a person should be able to choose what name they use regardless of whether they have the money and skills to have it legally changed. I think we'd all agree that someone has the right to use their preferred name if they're transgender or they converted to Islam or wish not to be associated with an abusive ex-spouse or abusive parent (or celebrity parent!). I don't see why it's a big deal to extend the courtesy to anyone who requests it, even if most of us probably think his reason is a little absurd.
The reason why he chose
The reason why he chose Rockefeller goes beyond matters of personal change, though. He deliberately chose it to mislead people and intentionally misrepresent himself to the police. If it weren't for the criminal charge, I'd say go ahead and call him whatever he wants. But in this context, calling him Rockefeller would come off as legitimizing his fraudulent claim.
Anyway, there's a simple solution to this. They already have a name for him in this case, and that is "The Defendant."
Right, but that hasn't been proven
By all accounts, it seems like he'd been going by that name in his daily life, so he must have other reasons in addition to allegedly wanting to mislead people, which I'm not disputing seems like quite a strong possibility. It isn't like it's just the name he gave when arrested or anything. I don't like the idea of denying someone what should be a basic right just because they've been accused (or even convicted) of a crime. People in secure facilities are allowed to go by a chosen name if it's consistent and isn't obscene or anything. Why shouldn't this guy have that same little bit of respect? They're clearly going to lay out the facts of the case that include him being born with another name; it isn't like he's asking that they go along with his alleged erasing of all past history or anything. He's just asking to be addressed as his preferred name.
http://1smootshort.blogspot.com
Fine but then change it
Sorry, but if you want others to call you by a given name, then give it to them. In this case, the State has a name for him. It's the one on all of his official papers and so it's the only one they need go by. If he wanted to change it with the State then he had ample time and opportunity to do so.
The whole point of the crime he's charged with is that he wanted to officially be one name while passing around another which kept him unconnected with past deeds (done under potentially even ANOTHER name).
The State has a name for him on paper, that's the one they use. Next fantasy! Next fantasy!
Is it though?
I assume he has at least some documents with his chosen name, since didn't his wife and various employers and such regard it to be his name? I mean, I gather that they also thought a lot of other stuff about his background that's been proven not to be true, but one can change a name just by use unless the only reason is to be fraudulent. It seems pretty clear that this guy had a lot of stuff going on besides just trying to commit fraud. We don't know that he did commit any fraud, and it seems pretty clear that since he used the name all the time and with everyone, he might well have a dissociative disorder or be a giant conartist, but it just doesn't seem right to say that every single action and relationship in the past several years of his life was ALL a scam. Parts of it will no doubt be proven to involve criminal intent, but I don't think you can say that a guy wasn't genuinely living his life.
http://1smootshort.blogspot.com
Will the Ting Tings Testify?
They call me christian
They call me Clark
That's not my name ...
Clark, have you ever been in a Turkish prison?
The semi-hilarious thing is that, believe it or not, if his request is denied it probably will be raised as an issue on appeal assuming he's convicted. And speaking as a former public defender, I can actually someone doing quite a bit of research to find precedent to support the argument. Don't know if the legal support is out there, though.
Have you ever seen a grown man naked?
What's the vector, Victor?
Your honor, I can translate, I speak jive
He wants to be acquitted.
In jail? What is it?
It's a big building with lots of cells holding arrested people, but that's not important right now.
http://1smootshort.blogspot.com
This is not the thread...
...for Adam to hype when promoting community journalism.
Probably not, now that you
Probably not, now that you brought it up.
(self consciousness alert.)