[tptacek]

So, that indictment doesn't just describe an elaborate scheme for cashing in more printer cartridges than OfficeMax allowed individuals to recycle, but also a scheme where you claimed the unrelated purchases of strangers as your own to earn store credits.

[innocentfelon]

The evidence in this case to support that indictment was fabricated (its author even disavowed its authorship under oath).

Many judges feel that if a computer is used to produce evidence, it is self-authenticating. This is the issue we plan to take up, since we (and our experts) were never allowed access to the evidence against us.

[tptacek]

According to your appeals case, you were convicted for both, the fraudulent scheme to bypass OfficeMax's limits on the number of printer cartridges you could sell them, and the use of bogus accounts to claim the purchases of strangers as your own.

I'm not sure publicizing this whole story was your best move here.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=188754768436510...

[innocentfelon]

Given the limitations of this messaging forum and your interest in the discussion, I hope it’s all right if I continue this discussion directly. For the benefit of everyone else on the thread, they can likewise reach me directly.

I understand the coder’s urge to distill the argument down to a missed OR operator, but it wrongly oversimplifies a matter that can take hours to fully get across.

As to the wisdom of the publicity, it remains to be seen. If you were wrongfully convicted, how quiet would you be?