Ask a Hipster — Advice you didn't know you needed
Big Screen — Movie commentary
Blurt — Music's inside track
Booze News — San Diego spirits
Classical Music — Immortal beauty
Classifieds — Free and easy
Cover Stories — Front-page features
Drinks All Around — Bartenders' drink recipes
Excerpts — Literary and spiritual excerpts
Feast! — Food & drink reviews
Feature Stories — Local news & stories
Fishing Report — What’s getting hooked from ship and shore
From the Archives — Spotlight on the past
Golden Dreams — Talk of the town
The Gonzo Report — Making the musical scene, or at least reporting from it
Letters — Our inbox
Movies@Home — Local movie buffs share favorites
Movie Reviews — Our critics' picks and pans
Musician Interviews — Up close with local artists
Neighborhood News from Stringers — Hyperlocal news
News Ticker — News & politics
Obermeyer — San Diego politics illustrated
Outdoors — Weekly changes in flora and fauna
Overheard in San Diego — Eavesdropping illustrated
Poetry — The old and the new
Reader Travel — Travel section built by travelers
Reading — The hunt for intellectuals
Roam-O-Rama — SoCal's best hiking/biking trails
San Diego Beer — Inside San Diego suds
SD on the QT — Almost factual news
Sheep and Goats — Places of worship
Special Issues — The best of
Street Style — San Diego streets have style
Surf Diego — Real stories from those braving the waves
Theater — On stage in San Diego this week
Tin Fork — Silver spoon alternative
Under the Radar — Matt Potter's undercover work
Unforgettable — Long-ago San Diego
Unreal Estate — San Diego's priciest pads
Your Week — Daily event picks
Less than two years for swiping $1 million
As a caveat to the statement in my aforementioned email "This is a case where an EA who was caught in the middle of a corporate financial process ended up taking the fall for financial wrongdoing by culpable upper echelons who had left the company and gotten away unfettered.", I change the statement to "This appears to be a case....."— August 27, 2015 9:58 a.m.
Less than two years for swiping $1 million
Don: You're right, her life will never be the same. The reason that she did not fight it was because the fight became clearly futile and lopsided. She was raided and charged 2 years hence with who knows what had transpired since then, upper echelons had left, she didn't have the money to take it to trial nor wouldn't take the slightest chance at a minimum 5-10 year trial sentence, and agreed to a lesser plea deal of 2-3 years with likely less time. Prior to being charged under the plea, she offered and provided copious evidence of others in her approval chain which was flatly refused and who were never questioned as well as her last SVP who apparently was questioned but conveniently couldn't recall anything, not even the stellar performance reviews she had bequeathed on the defendant. Further one of the defendants key SVP whom she worked for from 1999-2007 and who would attest to her innocence actually offered to be deposed by the prosecution during the presentence investigation and they again flatly refused his offer!!! Under those seeming witch-hunt conditions, which deal would you have taken?? She was advised under the clear investigatory disparity to take the plea deal as it was "the best deal she was going to get". She basically had zero choice in the matter. The evidence was presented to the judge as part of her counsel's copious objections just prior to and during the 24 Aug sentencing hearing but over a year after she was basically ramrodded to "voluntarily accept" the guilty plea deal.— August 26, 2015 3:53 p.m.
Less than two years for swiping $1 million
Don, Additionally, yes, she was afforded the ability to use the company cards to purchase personal items and did so at the recommendation of her superiors. Items which she reimbursed the company for and provided the cradle-to-grave accounting spreadsheets (which she saved btw) to the prosecution and the judge proving said personal reimbursement. Despite that, the prosecution continued to push those purchases as illegitimate and unauthorized at the hearing and the judge seeng the evidence provided flatly threw their ill-founded accusations out and told them to sit down!!! Talk about arrogant and autonomous government overreach.— August 26, 2015 7:12 a.m.
Less than two years for swiping $1 million
Don, Right on about the underlings. Happens all the time. The judge only scolded her based on a trumped up plea bargain that she had to plea to as guilty under the duress/max sentence/cost of a pending trial. The things cited in the FBI press release, the LaCosta/PB resorts, airfare, clothing, and Apple stuff, etc. were actually all legitimate business affair expenses that she coordinated for the company and not on herself. She submitted the accounting spreadsheets and names of other employees who were at said functions and who the various items were purchased for as defense evidence but they were flatly ignored and key spreadsheet tabs that showed payment were deleted. She was part of an internal process that required her to often look the other way and given her name was on the transactions as one of the signatories, she was nailed for everything as other upper echelons bailed and left her holding the bag. And again, although their names were provided, they were purposely not investigated. And you're exactly right and hit the antithetical nail on the head - the judge "scolds" her but then delivered a light sentence. Reason being because of the many solid objections that the defense raised regarding the prosecution flatly ignoring evidence provided of others that were directly complicit in the overall financial mismanagement that they stuck her alone for. So despite the guilty plea made under the aforementioned duress and the judges "scolding" for show, the judge could not ignore said solid and very relevant defense objections, knew she was truly not guilty/soley complicit, and gave her the lightest sentence possible while maintaining some level of federal legal decorum. The prosecution was actually going for 4+ years so the judges sentence was actually a direct slap in their face to clean up their act and exert investigatory parity hence and across the board. Unfortunately, this womans life will be forever damaged as a result of their intentional oversight.— August 26, 2015 7:02 a.m.
Less than two years for swiping $1 million
The fed was remiss in not pursuing all the wrongdoers?? You're right, they were and they typically are. That's the point!!! Yet sadly, it happens all the time and the wrong people are incarcerated. Nothing but a CF by overzealous prosecutors who are looking to make a name for themselves and pad their cv's so they can get out of the gov and into private practice. I'm not interested in your skepticism nor the stories that you hear. Myself having been involved in over 250 court cases over 30 years, the simple truth is that there is always much more to the story than what you read on a trumped up FBI press release.— August 25, 2015 2:56 p.m.
Less than two years for swiping $1 million
Hi Don. No defense counsel or close to it. Just a friend who knows this person, has read the case file, and who knows many extant aspects of the defense of this case. The point is that she was only one small segment of a corporate financial process and hierarchy, a process that certainly included multiple signatories and approvals beyond just her and emails. A process that would have required physical checkups on unanswered questions or suspect emails that didn't conform to the normal course of events and long-established knowledge and patterns of corporate spending. Been there, done that, and seen it in the large corp's I have worked for. As far as falling on the sword for others, well when you're employed, have been at a place for 14 years, have garnered a respectable position, and need your job, making waves and becoming a whistleblower is really not the place you want to be. As far as going to trial, well not many amongst us can afford anywhere between the 250-500K in trial legal fees nor remotely take the chance of incurring a minimum 5-10 year sentence via trial versus opting out via a lesser 1-3 year plea deal. So the crime is the same in either arena but you get less time for keeping it out of the overly bogged down trial system. Now that's fair isn't it?? So while you make your plea deal voluntarily, it is still made under the overwhelming duress of both the cost and potential maximum incarceration of a trial. As Visduh states, corporate chicanery happens all the time and folks in lower echelon positions who are unaware of the legal risk they incur under the very nature of their financial positions are often the ones that become ensnared in the web. Bottom line, many other names were provided here and were simply not investigated for whatever reason. And the damages unfairly and exorbitantly grew to the stated magnitude that required incarceration versus probation for a what should have been a much lesser amount. Nuf said.— August 25, 2015 12:20 p.m.
Less than two years for swiping $1 million
Being familiar with this case/person, this is a mockery of justice from the get-go. This woman could've no more obsconded with almost 1M from HP and any suggestion to the contrary is ludicrous! Given her many upward promotions and stellar performance reviews while working for HP for 14 years (1999-2012), she became an EA at the senior and executive VP levels. Her duties here included being in charge of large expensive corporate/client functions at resorts such as LaCosta, Pebble Beach, and The Masters in Augusta amongst others. She also purchased client gifts, often had to "look the other way" with unscrupulous practices for "certain clients, and sat amidst the middle of money streams as a signatory. As such, this woman was ensconced in a financial chain-of-command with required multiple signatories and within a corporate financial hierarchy whose fiscal inquisitions would have certainly extended beyond mere email checks/responses, especially to the tune of 1M. This is a case where an EA who was caught in the middle of a corporate financial process ended up taking the fall for financial wrongdoing by culpable upper echelons who had left the company and gotten away unfettered. And most importantly, whom the FBI refused to investigate as part of defense evidence provided to them in what should have been a much larger case. When raided in her home by the FBI 2 years after she left HP and was then as suddenly blamed for an alleged crime and a 954K theft via a plea bargain with a 2-3 year incarceration, this woman was forced to plead guilty to sustain a lesser charge, despite the fact that she was innocent. Forced to plead guilty to avoid the case going to trial with a much longer 5-10 year sentence. In evidence, this woman provided the FBI with all personnel who were involved in the corporate functions that she set up as well as correlating the different accounting spreadsheets that showed financial accountability for all gifts and functions that the FBI claimed were embezzled. This is further corraborated by the fact that after careful scrutiny of this woman's bank records, home belongings, and all possessions, the FBI DID NOT sieze any of this woman's personal assets, given they were all honorably purchased with her hard-earned money. Beyond this, if this woman went to as many spa and resorts visits correlative with the trumped amounts the FBI claimed, she would have never been at work. This fact was also entered into defense evidence that showed no such leave debits and that the FBI also refused to investigate. So where is the judicial and investigatory parity here on the part of the fed?? The prosecution pads their side but virtually ignores the defense?? They say the law is like a spider web. It ensnares the poor and the weak and is torn to shreds by the rich and the powerful. Nowhere is this statement better represented than with this case. And this woman's life will be forever challenged because of it.— August 25, 2015 7:36 a.m.