[dbasedweeb]

https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-channon-2

Basically he was nailed for wire fraud and his defense was... exotic. Upon conviction he sought a writ of certiorari so that the SCOTUS would hear his case on some pretty weird grounds.

http://mattchannon.org/petition.pdf

At a glance it seems like a situation in which someone thought they found a technicality to enact what amounted to fraud, and are pissed that the law doesn’t work like a compiler. Their response is another “I found a bug in the code” move and again, the law isn’t working like a compiler.

I don’t think making over five thousand accounts and returning tens of thousands of ink cartridges was really behavior that anyone could have thought was honest. It does seems like the government responded pretty harshly, but the system is rough. As to guilt, he would appear to be guilty, and his argument is that despite committing fraud, no one was actually hurt. That might even be true, but also not how breaking the law works.

Edit: tptacek said it better: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16926663

[innocentfelon]

Your first link, while from the case, has little to do with the appeal. To illustrate, that document (#177) happened long before the trial, and now we’re up to #485. The rest of the response makes faulty assumptions.

Amazing how “fabricated evidence” goes in one ear and out the other. “Of course you’re guilty- the fabricated evidence proves it!”

[jcranmer]

When I first clicked through to your website and read its contents, based solely on what you had written, it was hard to come away with any impression that you had committed fraud. Reading the other court documents only reinforces that impression.

In the best possible light, I would assume that you believe yourself to have found a clever hack in a returns policy [1], and that what you're doing can't be fraud since everyone involved is making money off of it. But that's not really the basis of your appeal, especially not the SCOTUS petition. Instead, the thrust is more that the spreadsheet listing the amounts of what you allegedly defrauded was fabricated. Well, actually, that's not what you're appealing directly either. The appeal actually amounts to the spreadsheet could have been fabricated, so it should be excluded as evidence. That the claim being presented here is so narrow strongly prejudices me to believe that you (or at least your attorney) is conceding that you did commit fraud, and that you've got no reasonable basis to claim that the evidence is fabricated.

[1] My personal opinion of the evidence is that you in fact knew you were committing fraud when you did it, but for the sake of argument, let's assume that you were in fact innocent.

[dbasedweeb]

It’s not that I didn’t hear you, it’s that I don’t believe you. Your own behavior and manner of presenting yourself raises manynred flags that are only confirmed by the activities you admitted to.

[duxup]

TY, creative!