Apple security chief Thomas Moyer indicted in concealed firearm permit bribery case

245

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 83
    I’m sure the sheriff’s office was just trying to avoid having all the guns lost in a horrible boating accident
    longpath
  • Reply 22 of 83
    tylersdad said:
    flydog said:

    mobird said:
    Is the Apple Chief Security Officer Thomas Moyer still employed at Apple?
    Why wouldn't he be?  Did he steal something from Apple?  Jerk off in his office? Not show up for work?   There's nothing here to suggest he committed any misconduct while in the scope of his employment. 
    He attempted to bribe a public official. I can't think of a single company that would allow someone to stay on their roster of employees after that. 


    “We expect all of our employees to conduct themselves with integrity. After learning of the allegations, we conducted a thorough internal investigation and found no wrongdoing,” an Apple spokesperson said in a statement.


    ronnlongpathrandominternetpersonjony0
  • Reply 23 of 83
    chasmchasm Posts: 3,342member
    I feel like Nikon1 in particular and some others here did not manage to read the entire article, or if they did they didn't understand it.

    There are FOUR defendants in this case: Moyer and Chadha (who were COERCED into offering bribes in order to get the CCWs, even though they had already paid the fees), and Sung and Jensen, the corrupt police officials who created the bribery scheme since it was at their discretion who got the CCWs and who didn't. Moyer and Sung scrapped their arrangement before anything material happened due to the investigation, so no actual malfeasance was committed. The DA issued an admirable statement pointing out that bribe seekers should be reported, but ... in the real world, there's often little reason to believe that the DA isn't as corrupt as the police department, so I think a lot of people would reasonably assume that reporting Sung and Jensen would have only brought hard retribution from the "blue lives matter" types within and outside the police department.

    WRT to Moyer, if he didn't need it for work then I still think he should receive a light penalty as he was an unwilling accomplice. Given his background, he was very aware of the risks to his employment and record -- so he may well have had reasons for believing that such corruption was widespread, given the incredibly stupid flaw in California's statute on the matter. Those corrupt policemen should certainly have the book thrown at them to thwart any possibility of similar bribery schemes in other departments, at least until the law can be changed.
    edited November 2020 ronnlongpathbeowulfschmidt
  • Reply 24 of 83
    vmarks said:
    tylersdad said:
    flydog said:

    mobird said:
    Is the Apple Chief Security Officer Thomas Moyer still employed at Apple?
    Why wouldn't he be?  Did he steal something from Apple?  Jerk off in his office? Not show up for work?   There's nothing here to suggest he committed any misconduct while in the scope of his employment. 
    He attempted to bribe a public official. I can't think of a single company that would allow someone to stay on their roster of employees after that. 


    “We expect all of our employees to conduct themselves with integrity. After learning of the allegations, we conducted a thorough internal investigation and found no wrongdoing,” an Apple spokesperson said in a statement.


    The mind boggles at how Apple managed to clear them, while a Grand Jury chose to indict. If they are found guilty will Apple change their mind? I don't see how they could at this point, but this just looks like Apple protecting Apple employees who have clearly done wrong. 

    Bribing a public official is wrong. But Apple is somehow totally fine with that? 
  • Reply 25 of 83
    vmarksvmarks Posts: 762editor
    tylersdad said:
    vmarks said:
    tylersdad said:
    flydog said:

    mobird said:
    Is the Apple Chief Security Officer Thomas Moyer still employed at Apple?
    Why wouldn't he be?  Did he steal something from Apple?  Jerk off in his office? Not show up for work?   There's nothing here to suggest he committed any misconduct while in the scope of his employment. 
    He attempted to bribe a public official. I can't think of a single company that would allow someone to stay on their roster of employees after that. 


    “We expect all of our employees to conduct themselves with integrity. After learning of the allegations, we conducted a thorough internal investigation and found no wrongdoing,” an Apple spokesperson said in a statement.


    The mind boggles at how Apple managed to clear them, while a Grand Jury chose to indict. If they are found guilty will Apple change their mind? I don't see how they could at this point, but this just looks like Apple protecting Apple employees who have clearly done wrong. 

    Bribing a public official is wrong. But Apple is somehow totally fine with that? 

    Grand Juries tend to go with what the prosecutor wants. "New York State chief judge Sol Wachtler was famously quoted by Tom Wolfe in The Bonfire of the Vanities that "a grand jury would 'indict a ham sandwich,' if that's what you wanted." - https://www.barrypopik.com/index.php/new_york_city/entry/indict_a_ham_sandwich/

    I think Apple would not be totally fine with an employee bribing anyone (public official, vendor, supplier, retail partner, you name it.) But perhaps Apple's internal investigation didn't reveal any bribery. Just because the DA files charges doesn't mean they're guilty, it just means the DA thinks they can win. That may be a bit too cynical for some.

    Some outlets are reporting this as a feud between the Sherrif and the DA, and Apple's security officer happens to be caught in between.


    edited November 2020 ronnDogpersonrandominternetpersondewmelongpathjony0
  • Reply 26 of 83
    When a politician (in this case the elected Sheriff) has the statutory and discretionary power to grant or issue something of value (in this case a permit to carry a concealed handgun) there is always the possibility that corruption can creep into the process.  The first wave of indictments in this story involved people who wanted and got CCW's  in exchange for cash donations to the re-election of the Sheriff who is the ultimate authority to issue them.  That is pure corruption.  This second wave of indictments shows more of the wholesale greed of the those involved.  Even the issuing a CCW to a County Supervisor to cement support for the Sheriff raises questions.  Just what "good cause" do all these deep pocket and "connected" people have to justify the need for carrying a concealed pistol that would differ from that of the average Joe or Jane citizen? It's corruption plain and simple and has been going on for years.  Although I'm no fan of DA Rosen, his taking on this cancer of corruption is to be commended and should not be interpreted as a political hit job as several of the defendant's attorneys have publicly declared.
  • Reply 27 of 83
    mobird said:
    Lots of unanswered questions. Did he really need a CCW? If so, why didn’t corporate use their influence into getting him one, unless it wasn’t for his job and was personal. 

    I am amused that San Jose has a “Hall of Justice” and reading that made me miss Ted Knight and his narration of the Superfriends cartoon. 
    It's called the Constitution - 2nd Amendment. Nowhere does it state that you have to have a reason to purchase a gun.

    Glad I live in a state that upholds the 2nd Amendment instead of trampling on it.
    The 2nd Amendment:  “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” 

    If it was not for the last comma, I would agree with you that the people can keep and bear arms. Unfortunately, I read it as a well-regulated Militia, such as the National Guard, shall not be infringed.
    Dogperson
  • Reply 28 of 83
    nikon1 said:
    So these 2 CLOWNS (Moyer & Chadha) risked their careers and wanted to avoid paying between $200 & $400 to legitimately get their CCW legally?  They should be imprisioned for pure greed and stupidity.

    What a pair of Morons!
    Reading comprehension and knowledge of the process is important if you're going to personally attack someone by calling them a moron. In many places the local law enforcement entity is required to approve the issuance of a concealed carry permit. Moyer and Chadha were not trying to avoid paying the fee, as you claim. In this case Undersheriff Sung held up issuing CCW licenses until Moyer and Chadha paid him a bribe. Who's the moron now?
    ronnrandominternetperson
  • Reply 29 of 83
    fahlman said:
    nikon1 said:
    So these 2 CLOWNS (Moyer & Chadha) risked their careers and wanted to avoid paying between $200 & $400 to legitimately get their CCW legally?  They should be imprisioned for pure greed and stupidity.

    What a pair of Morons!
    Reading comprehension and knowledge of the process is important if you're going to personally attack someone by calling them a moron. In many places the local law enforcement entity is required to approve the issuance of a concealed carry permit. Moyer and Chadha were not trying to avoid paying the fee, as you claim. In this case Undersheriff Sung held up issuing CCW licenses until Moyer and Chadha paid him a bribe. Who's the moron now?
    They both participated in a conspiracy and bribe with a public official with the clear understanding that their "payment or merchandise" would result in them receiving ccw permits that would not normally be issued. It's an illegal quid pro quo and the Grand Jury found it to be a felony criminal act. 
  • Reply 30 of 83
    davidwdavidw Posts: 2,073member
    flippysch said:
    mobird said:
    Lots of unanswered questions. Did he really need a CCW? If so, why didn’t corporate use their influence into getting him one, unless it wasn’t for his job and was personal. 

    I am amused that San Jose has a “Hall of Justice” and reading that made me miss Ted Knight and his narration of the Superfriends cartoon. 
    It's called the Constitution - 2nd Amendment. Nowhere does it state that you have to have a reason to purchase a gun.

    Glad I live in a state that upholds the 2nd Amendment instead of trampling on it.
    The 2nd Amendment:  “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” 

    If it was not for the last comma, I would agree with you that the people can keep and bear arms. Unfortunately, I read it as a well-regulated Militia, such as the National Guard, shall not be infringed.
    The National Guard is not a "militia", by any definition. A militia is a group of private citizens that will offer their service to protect, what ever needs protecting, in a minute notice, during a time of an emergency. These private citizens are not paid for their service by the government and are not required to join any government military arm forces or attend any form of required government military training. At the time the Constitution was written, there was no such organization that might even resemble the National Guard. The "militia" in the Constitution was more in reference to the minutemen.  
    longpathchristophbrandominternetpersonrazorpitmobirdTerminator402
  • Reply 31 of 83
    tylersdad said:
    marsorry said:
    Unbelievable, happens to the best of them I suppose. Wouldn’t it have been cheaper and safer to just get a permit???
    They weren't trying to avoid the fees. California is a "may issue" state. The legislature left it up to the local Sheriff or Chief of Police to decide who does or doesn't get one. The majority of Californians are denied this basic right that the majority of the rest of the country enjoy. 

    When I had mine, I paid nearly $500 (to cover the 16-hour class, range time, and the permit fees). I paid $250 every other year to renew. In WA state, I paid $50 for a 5-year permit. And unless you have a criminal record, you cannot be denied a permit. 

    Wow, for us Europeans it's very difficult to understand the mindset that sees carrying a concealed weapon a 'basic right'!  You certainly live in a different world to us! So happy not to be in that world.
    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 32 of 83
    tylersdad said:
    vmarks said:
    tylersdad said:
    flydog said:

    mobird said:
    Is the Apple Chief Security Officer Thomas Moyer still employed at Apple?
    Why wouldn't he be?  Did he steal something from Apple?  Jerk off in his office? Not show up for work?   There's nothing here to suggest he committed any misconduct while in the scope of his employment. 
    He attempted to bribe a public official. I can't think of a single company that would allow someone to stay on their roster of employees after that. 


    “We expect all of our employees to conduct themselves with integrity. After learning of the allegations, we conducted a thorough internal investigation and found no wrongdoing,” an Apple spokesperson said in a statement.


    The mind boggles at how Apple managed to clear them, while a Grand Jury chose to indict. If they are found guilty will Apple change their mind? I don't see how they could at this point, but this just looks like Apple protecting Apple employees who have clearly done wrong. 

    Bribing a public official is wrong. But Apple is somehow totally fine with that? 
    You are jumping multiple conclusions. The first u in a that the grand jury wasn’t manipulated by the prosecution in order to prepare a patsy at trial. If you know anything about Grand Jury operation, you should understand the obvious conflict of interest prosecution faces when seeking an indictment against law enforcement, whether for corruption of criminal negligence, such as the negligent discharge that killed sleeping 7 year old Aiyana Stanley-Jones.

    Your second assumption is that Apple came to the wrong conclusion and that their employee wasn’t merely a victim of an extortion scheme.

    That you presume, based on the facts presented, that Apple erred and that the prosecution is somehow not facing a conflict of interest “boggles” the mind.
    Dogpersonronnsailorpaul
  • Reply 33 of 83
    fahlman said:
    nikon1 said:
    So these 2 CLOWNS (Moyer & Chadha) risked their careers and wanted to avoid paying between $200 & $400 to legitimately get their CCW legally?  They should be imprisioned for pure greed and stupidity.

    What a pair of Morons!
    Reading comprehension and knowledge of the process is important if you're going to personally attack someone by calling them a moron. In many places the local law enforcement entity is required to approve the issuance of a concealed carry permit. Moyer and Chadha were not trying to avoid paying the fee, as you claim. In this case Undersheriff Sung held up issuing CCW licenses until Moyer and Chadha paid him a bribe. Who's the moron now?
    They both participated in a conspiracy and bribe with a public official with the clear understanding that their "payment or merchandise" would result in them receiving ccw permits that would not normally be issued. It's an illegal quid pro quo and the Grand Jury found it to be a felony criminal act. 
    You are conflating being victimized by an extortion scheme with wrongdoing, simply because an artful prosecutor with a clear conflict of interest regarding the prosecution of law enforcement was able to manipulate a grand jury that heard no other evidence besides what the prosecutor presented into making the victims into patsies.

    As a point on the character of the two indicted law enforcement members:
     Jensen was indicted earlier this year on similar felony bribery and conspiracy charges in a $90,000 scandal tied to Sheriff Laurie Smith’s re-election campaign. Smith, who has been sheriff since 1998, has not been charged.” (source: 9-to-5-Mac)
    edited November 2020 Dogpersonronn
  • Reply 34 of 83
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,286member
    davidw said:
    flippysch said:
    mobird said:
    Lots of unanswered questions. Did he really need a CCW? If so, why didn’t corporate use their influence into getting him one, unless it wasn’t for his job and was personal. 

    I am amused that San Jose has a “Hall of Justice” and reading that made me miss Ted Knight and his narration of the Superfriends cartoon. 
    It's called the Constitution - 2nd Amendment. Nowhere does it state that you have to have a reason to purchase a gun.

    Glad I live in a state that upholds the 2nd Amendment instead of trampling on it.
    The 2nd Amendment:  “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” 

    If it was not for the last comma, I would agree with you that the people can keep and bear arms. Unfortunately, I read it as a well-regulated Militia, such as the National Guard, shall not be infringed.
    The National Guard is not a "militia", by any definition. A militia is a group of private citizens that will offer their service to protect, what ever needs protecting, in a minute notice, during a time of an emergency. These private citizens are not paid for their service by the government and are not required to join any government military arm forces or attend any form of required government military training. At the time the Constitution was written, there was no such organization that might even resemble the National Guard. The "militia" in the Constitution was more in reference to the minutemen.  
    @davidw You would have done well to do a bit more research before declaring "The National Guard is not a "militia", by any definition", because they absolutely are according to Constitutional law.

    Militia Clause 16: 
    The Congress shall have Power... To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.

    If in doubt this paper will explain it for you: 
    https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-1/58-the-militia-clauses.html

    edited November 2020 ronn
  • Reply 35 of 83
    alanh said:
    tylersdad said:
    marsorry said:
    Unbelievable, happens to the best of them I suppose. Wouldn’t it have been cheaper and safer to just get a permit???
    They weren't trying to avoid the fees. California is a "may issue" state. The legislature left it up to the local Sheriff or Chief of Police to decide who does or doesn't get one. The majority of Californians are denied this basic right that the majority of the rest of the country enjoy. 

    When I had mine, I paid nearly $500 (to cover the 16-hour class, range time, and the permit fees). I paid $250 every other year to renew. In WA state, I paid $50 for a 5-year permit. And unless you have a criminal record, you cannot be denied a permit. 

    Wow, for us Europeans it's very difficult to understand the mindset that sees carrying a concealed weapon a 'basic right'!  You certainly live in a different world to us! So happy not to be in that world.
    We are equally happy you are not in our world. We prefer freedom over the illusion of safety. 
    mobirdmrsteprazorpitboltsfan17beowulfschmidt
  • Reply 36 of 83
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 5,686member
    iPads don't magically appear out of nowhere. More than just one person had to have been involved at Apple. Will Thomas Moyer name names in in exchange for a lighter sentence?
    Well they are not necessarily involved. He just asked someone to send some iPads to a sheriff's office. Could be totally legit as far as that guy is concerned.
    sailorpaul
  • Reply 37 of 83
    maestro64maestro64 Posts: 5,043member
    flippysch said:
    mobird said:
    Lots of unanswered questions. Did he really need a CCW? If so, why didn’t corporate use their influence into getting him one, unless it wasn’t for his job and was personal. 

    I am amused that San Jose has a “Hall of Justice” and reading that made me miss Ted Knight and his narration of the Superfriends cartoon. 
    It's called the Constitution - 2nd Amendment. Nowhere does it state that you have to have a reason to purchase a gun.

    Glad I live in a state that upholds the 2nd Amendment instead of trampling on it.
    The 2nd Amendment:  “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” 

    If it was not for the last comma, I would agree with you that the people can keep and bear arms. Unfortunately, I read it as a well-regulated Militia, such as the National Guard, shall not be infringed.
    actually, both a Militia and the people's right shall not be infringe. I find it interesting skipped over the part between the two commas.

    This is not my analysis of the language this is the analysis of people who understand the US constitution far better than anyone on any forum. So the individual has right to have arms whether a person is part of a Militia or not and no law can be pass to infringe on either of those rights.

    Yes, I know there are a bunch a people who feel this right is out dated and modern society does not require any of this. However every person has a right to defined themselves by any mean available to them this has not change and is not out dated. Keep in mind the police only show up to document the facts after someone has already killed you.
    edited November 2020 mobirdrandominternetpersondiplication
  • Reply 38 of 83
    maestro64maestro64 Posts: 5,043member
    tylersdad said:
    Lots of unanswered questions. Did he really need a CCW? If so, why didn’t corporate use their influence into getting him one, unless it wasn’t for his job and was personal. 

    I am amused that San Jose has a “Hall of Justice” and reading that made me miss Ted Knight and his narration of the Superfriends cartoon. 
    There are no unanswered questions. When we leave decisions such as who does or doesn't need a CCW up to human beings, it makes the decisions arbitrary. California law states you must have "good cause" to obtain a permit. No place in the law does it define what "good cause" is. It's just not there. So good cause will depend upon the issuing authority. These decisions should not be left up to humans. Rather, objective criteria should be used to determine who should or shouldn't obtain a permit. This is called shall issue. In the absence of criminal activity on the part of the applicant, a permit shall be issued. 

    This is what the vast majority of other states have done. Florida has been "shall issue" since the early 90's. There were claims that there would be blood in the streets. That hasn't happened in Florida or any other state that is shall issue. 
    This is just another example of you think you have a problem now, wait to you see the solution the government comes up with.

    You nail it the government created a situation that was prefect for abuse, it put the control in the hands of a single individual and allow them to abuse the situation. You know the people who could afford it got the permit and those who have nothing of value to offer lost out. The government official who came up with this law as always did not consider the effect of this decision. But they create a law which will put law abiding citizen in jail just because the were trying to exercise their rights and someone was put in the middle who though they could profit from it.

    If any person who got a permit from this Sheriff is found guilt they will be bared from ever owning a gun. If think about it, the government won since they accomplished what the set out to do which was criminalizing gun owner ship.
    mrstep
  • Reply 39 of 83
    maestro64maestro64 Posts: 5,043member
    tylersdad said:
    flydog said:

    mobird said:
    Is the Apple Chief Security Officer Thomas Moyer still employed at Apple?
    Why wouldn't he be?  Did he steal something from Apple?  Jerk off in his office? Not show up for work?   There's nothing here to suggest he committed any misconduct while in the scope of his employment. 
    He attempted to bribe a public official. I can't think of a single company that would allow someone to stay on their roster of employees after that. 
    I do not think any information has been presented to back this up, the information said the Sheriff ask for compensation in the way of iPads. 

    No where does it say Moyer told the sheriff he could give him iPads or whether anything of value actually changed hands. It was not clear to me why he was charged other than good headlines. If Apple saying in their investigation they found no wrong doing, I doubt Apple would cover this guy, it is easier to part ways even if appears to be questionable. You could question the motives of the DA, he could be trying to make an example of everyone involve, and reason I say that is the statement about "Bribe seekers should be reported to the District Attorney's Office, not rewarded with compliance." I take this as they going after anyone who did not report the Sheriff's activities immediately, and they said more indictments are coming.  
    sailorpaul
  • Reply 40 of 83
    mrstepmrstep Posts: 516member
    tylersdad said:
    alanh said:
    tylersdad said:
    marsorry said:
    Unbelievable, happens to the best of them I suppose. Wouldn’t it have been cheaper and safer to just get a permit???
    They weren't trying to avoid the fees. California is a "may issue" state. The legislature left it up to the local Sheriff or Chief of Police to decide who does or doesn't get one. The majority of Californians are denied this basic right that the majority of the rest of the country enjoy. 

    When I had mine, I paid nearly $500 (to cover the 16-hour class, range time, and the permit fees). I paid $250 every other year to renew. In WA state, I paid $50 for a 5-year permit. And unless you have a criminal record, you cannot be denied a permit. 

    Wow, for us Europeans it's very difficult to understand the mindset that sees carrying a concealed weapon a 'basic right'!  You certainly live in a different world to us! So happy not to be in that world.
    We are equally happy you are not in our world. We prefer freedom over the illusion of safety. 
    "So glad my government decides what my rights are!" - Europeans?

    Totally agree, tylersdad. The US was founded on the overthrow of tyranny, and the goal was to guarantee the rights of its citizens vs. allowing bureaucrats to define what they are.  Celebrating your own lack of rights (or marching to have them removed) comes off as a naive when you look at how governments have behaved throughout history.
    GG1longpath
Sign In or Register to comment.