tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21633793.post113908322607839839..comments2023-12-12T03:19:42.467-05:00Comments on CYB3RCRIM3: Susan Brennerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17575138839291052258noreply@blogger.comBlogger26125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21633793.post-18843747314379715782017-08-07T13:18:54.207-04:002017-08-07T13:18:54.207-04:00On March 4, of 2000, the Court of Appeals of Georg...On March 4, of 2000, the Court of Appeals of Georgia published its opinion in Fugarino v. State, 243 Ga.App. 268, 531 S.E.2d 187. The Court begins its opinion by explaining that<br /><br />Sam Emile Fugarino was convicted by a jury of computer trespass, Code of Georgia § 16-9-93(b), for using a computer with the intention of deleting or removing data from that computer without authority of the computer's owner. Fugarino appeals from the trial court's order denying his motion for new trial, arguing the general grounds and that a mistrial should have been granted due to juror misconduct. We affirm.<br /><br />The Court of Appeals, Ellington, J., held that: (1) evidence was sufficient to support conviction, and (2) defendant was not entitled to mistrial based on alleged juror misconduct.<br /><br />The Court of Appeals’ decision in this case is available here:<br /><br />http://www.leagle.com/decision/2000718531SE2d187_1688.xml/FUGARINO%20v.%20STATE<br />Susan Brennerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17575138839291052258noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21633793.post-927887859795430902017-08-07T12:01:30.693-04:002017-08-07T12:01:30.693-04:00You cost me a job that I held for 8 years. I was l...You cost me a job that I held for 8 years. I was let go for failing a background check (that I didn't authorize). I have not by Georgia law been convicted of anything. Someone googles my name and comes up with your erroneous blog and I lose my job.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03161023684029685268noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21633793.post-20541668336105362732008-09-15T19:01:00.000-04:002008-09-15T19:01:00.000-04:00Two more job opportunities down the tubes even tho...Two more job opportunities down the tubes even though I have sucessfully completed my first offender's probation and according to Georgia law I have been exonerated and the case can not be held against me in regards to employment decisions.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21633793.post-83424608258203443162007-10-21T14:10:00.000-04:002007-10-21T14:10:00.000-04:00Case Number: 97-B-02635-6 Case Date: Friday, ...Case Number: 97-B-02635-6 <BR/>Case Date: Friday, August 29, 1997<BR/>Case Type: Indictment<BR/>Case Category: <BR/>Case Description:<BR/>Disposition Date: Thursday, May 07, 1998<BR/>Disposition: Judgment Withheld<BR/>Disposition Manner:<BR/>Jury Trial Demand:<BR/>Filing Type: General CriminalAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21633793.post-5967177222272653342007-08-31T17:55:00.000-04:002007-08-31T17:55:00.000-04:00Lost another job today because of my "record." Ove...Lost another job today because of my "record." Over 10 years since the incident and 9 since the trial. I was working on a four month contract. Month into it, my background check comes back with a felony. Now, I am exceeding the job's requirements. I have work done that is supposed to be done in November and it's the end of September. It's funny, I had a background check in 2003 for Accenture that came back clean. Now I'm in my mid forties with less than a year left on my probation and it's coming up. The judge told me at sentencing that I could truthfully say that I hadn't been convicted of a felony because of the first offender status, but I guess not. Doesn't matter that the case's disposition is listed as judgement withheld. The good people at Agco couldn't deal with a felon in their pious midst. Buy John Deere Tractors!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21633793.post-1156286846811698322006-08-22T18:47:00.000-04:002006-08-22T18:47:00.000-04:00You not going to post my assetion that the prosecu...You not going to post my assetion that the prosecutor willfully lied to the jury about the dates on the printouts? He we go again. Suppression of evidence that should be included while including garbage that shouldn't. <BR/><BR/>My incompetent lawyer was counting on all counts being thrown out. He never put up one witness and didn't call me or my wife. In other words, he put up no defense at all. Now I have to put up with incompetent law professors using this disgraceful example of American "justices" to establish precedence to railroad other lesser suckers as myself. <BR/><BR/>Charlatans! As Mr. Chesterton says, "There are two kinds of charlatan: the man who is called a charlatan, and the man who really is one. The first is the quack who cures you; the second is the highly qualified person who doesn't." What sort of quack are you?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21633793.post-1156194264777221542006-08-21T17:04:00.000-04:002006-08-21T17:04:00.000-04:00The manner in which I have added comments that dem...The manner in which I have added comments that demand a response from you is very consistent with my treatment in this case. Every legitimate point made fell on deaf ears.<BR/><BR/>I especially love the term "massive" in the way it is used. Especially in the appealate courts decision. Go through the evidence, you won't find massive anything except the massive neglect of my rights. When the DA stood in front of the jury, he had a massive list of nothing. Pages upon pages of files in basically three directories, the root, the recycle bin, and the WinFAX directory. Not one page from the C:\Devel direcetory. Not One. There may have been a C++ file (extension .cpp), but not that many and even if there were, there presences means nothing without looking in c:\devel. I do know there were pages and pages of .obj files. Files created and deleted by the Microsoft compile I used and not really worth much after compilation. So, in reality, the prosecutor lied to the jury.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21633793.post-1154378725523346782006-07-31T16:45:00.000-04:002006-07-31T16:45:00.000-04:00Just so there isn't any confusion. Under the first...Just so there isn't any confusion. Under the first offender's act, I am under no obligation to say on any application that I have been convicted of a crime. As I have tried to point out to you, convictions for non-violent crimes under the first offender act are set aside in lieu of probation. The records are sealed at the successful completion of probation. Therefore, I have been done irreparable damage by the appellate court, by you, and by Owen Kerr, etc. There is no legal remedy for me, so, I guess, I am the prototypical man without a voice. No rights in court and no right to be treated with common decency afterward. The message, fight back and we will make your life that much more difficult.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21633793.post-1154377409146423962006-07-31T16:23:00.000-04:002006-07-31T16:23:00.000-04:00I have done nothing that would alter search engine...I have done nothing that would alter search engine retrieval of this article.<BR/><BR/>I assume the comments you keep posting have no doubt had an effect and may account for this phenomenon, if, indeed, it is occurring.Susan Brennerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17575138839291052258noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21633793.post-1154376984965855302006-07-31T16:16:00.000-04:002006-07-31T16:16:00.000-04:00I was able for a few days to push this article bac...I was able for a few days to push this article back from the top spot when a search for Sam Fugarino was done. I wonder why it's back at number one. Maybe you are resubmitting it to the search engines. Given that I have advised you of the error in your article, if you are resubmitting this page, and whether you are can be proven, it would be an indicator of malice on your part.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21633793.post-1154230683109842642006-07-29T23:38:00.000-04:002006-07-29T23:38:00.000-04:00From my perspective, letting me correct ignorance ...From my perspective, letting me correct ignorance of my first time offenders status does not suffice. You should have known. Leaving this post online even after I have told you. Again, where is your sense of fairness? Why do you insist on leaving this article on your web site? Given the information that I have provided you, even if you don't believe me, you should at least investigate it. That is, if you intend on leaving these post up. Anything less, indicates that you shouldn't be teaching law, because it indicates that you would be knowingly willing to teach error. What bothers me so much about this case is that everyone wanting to prosecute me seem to only have give respect to the parts of the law that suited their agenda. Before the appeal, I had a hearing concering a motion for a new trial. I bought a computer book with me that clearly stated that the tools used by the detective who did the forensic search of the computer gave the date deleted files were last modified not the date they were deleted. I wasn't even allowed to show the judge. The assistant DA replied, "he doesn't have the presumption of innocense now." I'm tryin to show them that they allowed false testimony, because the detective had said the dates were the dates the files were deleted. Furthermore, the assistant DA hammered his version of what the dates meant during his closing arguements. The proper response would have been to seek the truth. I never had a presumption of innocense. There's more, much more. There were printouts of some files that were in a zip file. Goodman had given them to the police to use to look for files that called functions shown on the printouts. They were supposed to be from the old code base, a code base that was never in question. Funny, they contained the C?C++ declaration syntax of _declspec(dllexport). They were printouts of files that I had written. _declspec(dllexport) is used to declare a function that will be exported in a Windows dynamic link library dll. In otherwords, they were from a file that was supposed to be deleted. Were not talking about a file fragment that the detective found and asked the company about. Were talking about code that the company told the detective to look for. Now if the only place the code was stored was on my workstation and I deleted all of it, where did this pritout come from. It never came up at court, but I have a copy of the letter. Again, you have the company directing the investigation. It was critical that the detective make a printout of the DEVEL directory, but it was in the printouts.The printout of the root directory clearly show c:\devel as being on the drive and not being deleted. Why didn't the company tell the detective to look in that directory. It's beyond explanation.<BR/><BR/>Before you ask, my lawyer was aware of all of this.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21633793.post-1154145740846924592006-07-29T00:02:00.000-04:002006-07-29T00:02:00.000-04:00According to Cowherd, what made me a disgruntled e...According to Cowherd, what made me a disgruntled employee was the death of my son. That makes no sense and as I have said before, shows a certain callousness that is beyond any humanity. I will tell you this, after my son's death, I used programming as an escape. A way to kill the pain I was experiencing. They were putting an extreme amount of pressure on someone who had lost a child only a year before coming to work for them. I was crushed that night when he took my work away. But that was that night, when I came back to work. Not that afternoon when they would later say they saw me deleting the "code." I know and my God knows that when I left that afternoon, my work was on the computer. The rest is just smoke to cover up the fact that the company didn't have a Windows version of their software in 1997. They were telling their customers that one would be out soon. Had been for over a year. The work I had competed needed at least another year. This company had been in business for 18 years and they were able to convince everyone that I was able to put them in a position of bankrupsy. At that time I had about 20 months experience. All of it at their company. They paid me 30K/year. That's below entry level. I had never written a line of code in C++ before coming to the company. I had spent the first year and a half of my tenure with them<BR/>working on the AutoCAD product which was written in C not in object oriented C++. When was I supposed to have learned enough to put them in that sort of position. <BR/><BR/>They tried to sue me before in 1997. Before the criminal charges were tried. Talk about bullying. We had recieved a small settlement from my son's death. All of 57K. Cowherd turned around and tied to sue me for it. He wanted 10K. Ironically, the same amount AutoDesk wanted upfront for their AutoCAD engine. We were using VersiCAD which had been purchased by Corel and that eventually went away. Cowherd wouldn't pay Autodesk the 10K. I've always felt that the only reason he hired me was that he was looking for investment capital. I bet they got their 10K from the victim's rights people.<BR/><BR/>They also tried to have me injoined from ever writting software. In reality, they were trying to keep me from ever competing with them.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21633793.post-1154142051639051512006-07-28T23:00:00.000-04:002006-07-28T23:00:00.000-04:00To quote you in yor article "History Lesson"The bo...To quote you in yor article "History Lesson"<BR/><BR/>The book has what seems, to me, to be a peculiar chapter on "infiltration by organized crime." As far as I know, the Mafia (which is what the book means by "organized crime") has never been a player in computer crime.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21633793.post-1154141928355588672006-07-28T22:58:00.000-04:002006-07-28T22:58:00.000-04:00By I find your instance that the Mafia is what Aug...By I find your instance that the Mafia is what August Bequai meant by orginized crime in his book "How to Prevent Computer Crime" insulting. It's on par with the juror in my case that concluded before the trial began that I was a hot-headed Italian and must have done it. Organized crime has roots in almost every immigrant group that has come inmasse to the United States; including the Jewish immagrants. You know, guys like Mayer Lanske and Bugsy Siegle. As far as Italian Americans go, they bought not only the Mafia, the bought people like Enrico Fermi. They had children and grandchildren like my father who was the best man I have known and had absolutly no connection with the mafia. He was a chemist.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21633793.post-1154141046699564952006-07-28T22:44:00.000-04:002006-07-28T22:44:00.000-04:00No one differntiate between a source file or any o...No one differntiate between a source file or any other file that appeared in the printouts of deleted files. Every deleted file in the computers root directory, the recycle bin, and for some reason, the WinFax directory were presented to the jury in an inch and one half stack of meaningless paper. The pritout did show that c:\devel existed and wasn't deleted. Why then wasn't there a printout of that directory? That's the directory where the source code would have been.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21633793.post-1154140379091113972006-07-28T22:32:00.000-04:002006-07-28T22:32:00.000-04:00By the way I did have a key to the building. When ...By the way I did have a key to the building. When I left that afternoon, I still had the key. The said they saw me delete files that afternoon, so why didn't they take away my key at that time?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21633793.post-1154140060679632872006-07-28T22:27:00.000-04:002006-07-28T22:27:00.000-04:00The case was set aside at sentencing not after the...The case was set aside at sentencing not after the appeal. That's what I have been trying to tell you. What you are doing, especially since you are an officer of the court, is circumventing the First Time Offenders act. I request that you remove the complete blog. I have no other way to communicate with you except through this blog. The email address posted doesn't work.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21633793.post-1154108643217563242006-07-28T13:44:00.000-04:002006-07-28T13:44:00.000-04:00I was never accused of deleting files on the netwo...I was never accused of deleting files on the network or from the company's source control repository.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21633793.post-1154108441039986302006-07-28T13:40:00.000-04:002006-07-28T13:40:00.000-04:00Not to bother you with more tedious details. I was...Not to bother you with more tedious details. I was accused of deleting files on my local machine not the company network. This is a point that seems to be lost to the appelate court. I had access to the network and the companies source control repository. I was, however, never accused of deleting anything on the network. Kinda funny huh. You can't even find mention of the companies network in the trial, just in the appelate court brief. Do you think the appealate court was led astray? Absolutley! The case is presented in a manner intended to give the impression that I went beserk and started deleting everything. Why then would I leave anything in source control? If I had been working on this project for so long with Cowherds knowledge, why wasn't the code in source control. The police didn't check the source control repository. Why not? I worked on other projects, for example the AutoCad version of the software. Why wouldn't I delete it also. Seems like I would have started there. Seems like the police would have done a "forensic" search on the company's servers. Source Safe keeps an audit log. Why wasn't it presented. No the police went to the computer that Cowherd told them I worked on. The looked only in the directories they were told by Cowherd to look in. And they did this one week after I left the company. They didn't lock the computer up, they gave it back to Cowherd. That's why I asked earlier about how Cowherd recovered the "deleted" files. That's why the files that were created and deleted after I left were important. And, that's why the "evidence" should have never made it to court. Instead, the DA stood up in front of the jury with an inch and a half thick copy of deleted file, some of which were in the WinFax directory, and told the jury that they were proof positive that I had deleted files. Horse Hockey!<BR/><BR/>Another bothersome point.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21633793.post-1154101934964822382006-07-28T11:52:00.000-04:002006-07-28T11:52:00.000-04:00Sure, but as a law professor, you should have rese...Sure, but as a law professor, you should have researched the trial record. You are using my case to make a point. In reality, my case doesn't apply. You are filtering the information in a manner that is intended to justify the thesis of your blog. Furthermore, if you didn't know I had first offender status, you do now. You talk a lot about fairness in your article. Are those just words? <BR/><BR/>I did not give up my first offender status by appealing the case. I would have taken this case even further, but I didn't have a job and I had 3 children to feed. I have been used by the system to create case law. The lawyers involved had an obligation to find the truth, not to pad the law books. Your adding my comments as a way of balancing out the appealate courts, and your, disregard for my first time offender status is par for the course. Don't you realize that I actually had to serve a longer probation because I opted for the FTO treatment of my case. So how is the case ever going to be sealed now?<BR/><BR/>Finally, where is the out cry over my rights being violated. The police ran a sloppy forensic search on the computer. It wasn't even a forensic search. The detective used Norton Disk Doctor. He didn't check the directories where my work would have been. Worse, he gave the computer back to Cowherd some three weeks before I was arrested. The evidence should have been throw out, but wasn't. No chain of custudy was observed. The minute Cowherd used the computer the evidence was changed. This case is a bad case. The handling of it is just plain scarey. It certainly shouldn't be used to establish law through case law. <BR/><BR/>I don't think people realize just how sloppy the system is.<BR/><BR/>Sam FugarinoAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21633793.post-1154081666520253672006-07-28T06:14:00.000-04:002006-07-28T06:14:00.000-04:00Everything I said in this post comes from the deci...Everything I said in this post comes from the decision I cited in the post. If you have problems with that, you need to contact the court.<BR/><BR/>As to the conviction's being set aside, I checked on Lexis and did not find any information about what happened afterward. The omission was therefore not deliberate. Indeed, I would have been happy to include that fact in the post . . . and have now done so, in effect, by posting your comment.<BR/><BR/>If you want to post any further comments as to errors in the court's opinion and/or in my post, I will post them once I receive them.Susan Brennerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17575138839291052258noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21633793.post-1154045111802259612006-07-27T20:05:00.000-04:002006-07-27T20:05:00.000-04:00I was convicted, but the conviction was set aside ...I was convicted, but the conviction was set aside under Georgia's first offenders act. I wonder if I could sue for the if not diliberate, obmission of this important fact. Isn't this a case of should have known.<BR/><BR/>Sam FugarinoAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21633793.post-1154044411740819242006-07-27T19:53:00.000-04:002006-07-27T19:53:00.000-04:00You first obligation should be to the truth, but t...You first obligation should be to the truth, but then again, you are a lwayer.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21633793.post-1154044180937317382006-07-27T19:49:00.000-04:002006-07-27T19:49:00.000-04:00After review, I have concluded that you are someon...After review, I have concluded that you are someone I should stay clear of. Whenever I do a web search on my name, your blog is number one on the list. Do you realize you are causeing me and my family harm. You are costing me job opportunities and much more. <BR/><BR/>Furthermore, you haven't even researched the case well. You talk about "should have known"in your article. We given that you are a law professor, you should have know that I have first offenders status and not blogged ny name all over the internet. To do so is malicious. <BR/><BR/>Sam FugarinoAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21633793.post-1154039924952630642006-07-27T18:38:00.000-04:002006-07-27T18:38:00.000-04:00You know you are the first thing that comes up whe...You know you are the first thing that comes up when I goole my name. No care for the harm you do, just as long as you have something to blog about. Sam FugarinoAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com