Dirty deeds in Denver: Ex-prosecutor faked texts, destroyed devices to frame colleague
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
As noted, taking any action that could be even potentially adverse against a pending complainant is illegal retaliation
Upvote
-3
(7
/
-10)
Same thing. A computer is just a phone that doesn't make phone calls. It's a matter of the resources needed to obtain a result. If you were willing to invest FBI levels of resources, you could recover jsut about any system.
Upvote
36
(37
/
-1)
Destruction of evidence, even in a civil case, can result in prosecution, especially when it involves a government employee. She also lied to investigators, also generally a crime. They probably won't actually pursue charges, figuring that her losing her license is sufficient punishment, but if the DA's office wanted to they could definitely find charges to bring.
Upvote
74
(75
/
-1)
It's actually a required course and there is a separate "Ethics Bar Exam" that is required in many states. The problem is that teaching ethics is VERY different from teaching someone to be ethical. Frankly, if you have the personal ethics of a Rudy Giuliani or Syndey Powell, no amount of classes or exams will make you act ethically.
Upvote
65
(67
/
-2)
Did anyone bother to tell her that iPhones are designed to be able to survive being submerged in a bathtub for 30 minutes? The whole “Oopsy! I dropped my phone in the water and it immediately stopped working!” thing hasn‘t been a likely excuse for nearly a decade now.
Upvote
75
(76
/
-1)
Upvote
53
(53
/
0)
When someone brings criminal charges, prison time will be on the table. The question was why she isn't facing prison; that's why.
Upvote
13
(14
/
-1)
She was texting herself in such a simplistic manner that Verizon were able to immediately say "she texted herself?"
As police procedurals have shown, you must have at least three firewalls.
As police procedurals have shown, you must have at least three firewalls.
I remember in a different Arsticle, someone stated it's illogical to ask someone to prove something did not happen. Here, we see that it is possible!Nate Anderson said:
Upvote
15
(17
/
-2)
Well, whatever happened to the phone and laptop it does seem to have destroyed the data on them.
Twice now, I've put thumb drives through both washer and dryer, full cycle, and they worked just fine afterward, no data loss, so I agree it's pretty damn hard to destroy data just with water, or even hot water and detergent. So I'm guessing she did something a lot more aggressive, like flat-out erasure. She just forgot about cloud storage, or didn't know about it to begin with.
See also: GoPro SDCards recovered after being underwater for weeks or months that still worked just fine - although GoPros have a degree of water resistance to begin with.
Upvote
30
(30
/
0)
"Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned."
We're not getting all the story here, especially as to her motives. That she picked it up again two years latter speaks to a very deep hatred going on for some (unknown to us) reason.
Upvote
11
(29
/
-18)
As one of the supporting articles linked in this story said, the case was referred for potential criminal charges. None were filed. It would have to be proven that her water-based escapades were deliberate.
Upvote
16
(16
/
0)
"After I accidentally dumped the bottle, I drilled a hole in the bottom to let all the water out and accidentally hit the SSD controller"...
Upvote
56
(56
/
0)
"Your honor, as part of inspecting the hard drive to be sure it was in good condition for the plaintiff's attorney, I noticed one of the platters had a smudge on it, and I accidentally broke it in the act of polishing it with a hammer."
It's almost as good as Tom Brady's defense being he ALWAYS destroyed his phones when replacing them after having a guy in a bathroom reduce the pressure in his balls.
Upvote
20
(26
/
-6)
You didn't "prove" anything. Where is your evidence that "all y'all fell for it"? That I posted a one-liner based on current events? But don't waste time answering that question in your rush to congratulate yourself.
Upvote
30
(33
/
-3)
She's ruined many people's lives. Her own, the victim, his relationships with friends or significant others, and possibly others she manipulated. Imagine being the friend who was supportive of her -- and now find out it was all a fabrication? Wow. And for what? What did she hope to accomplish?
Everyone loses here.
Everyone loses here.
Last edited:
Upvote
64
(64
/
0)
A prosecutor, eh?
I wonder if a look at her case history would turn up anything interesting. If you'll try to frame a colleague it wouldn't be too much of s surprise if you are...flexible...in your approach to railroading little people.
I wonder if a look at her case history would turn up anything interesting. If you'll try to frame a colleague it wouldn't be too much of s surprise if you are...flexible...in your approach to railroading little people.
Upvote
77
(77
/
0)
You can be sure that defense attorneys who've had her as opposition are scrutinizing their case histories with exactly this in mind.
Upvote
66
(67
/
-1)
Reading up other articles, questions came about as soon as she showed people screen shots:
"The first text had a time stamp that was about 40 minutes after Ms. Choi had already reported it to her superiors, according to the ruling."
Then, she tried to call 'backsies':
"She said that she did not want a formal investigation and did not cooperate with it, the ruling said, but the prosecutor’s office felt obligated to move forward with an inquiry."
Still, no reason given except in her defense she claimed she hadn't been a lawyer long and was under financial distress.
"The first text had a time stamp that was about 40 minutes after Ms. Choi had already reported it to her superiors, according to the ruling."
Then, she tried to call 'backsies':
"She said that she did not want a formal investigation and did not cooperate with it, the ruling said, but the prosecutor’s office felt obligated to move forward with an inquiry."
Still, no reason given except in her defense she claimed she hadn't been a lawyer long and was under financial distress.
Upvote
48
(48
/
0)
The AI already made a video of the alleged harassment. Unfortunately, everyone has 12 not-evenly-distributed fingers.
Upvote
11
(11
/
0)
If someone is acting suspiciously to an objective third party then they SHOULD face additional scrutiny. Real harassment is a thing, but so are false claims. One side is no more deserving of the presumption of innocence than the other without a history of claims to the contrary existing for one of them.
Upvote
27
(29
/
-2)
Your Honor, the dog ate my evidence. No, I do not know why my laptop was slathered in beef jerky at the time. Possibly a solar eclipse?
Upvote
18
(18
/
0)
Just following the lead of the Business schools. Ethics are the antithesis of Good Practices in these professions.
Upvote
-11
(5
/
-16)
Id temporarily forgotten about the superbowl deal and was aghast at that last line.
Upvote
17
(17
/
0)
Emphasis added. What evidence is this based on? It could be low. It could be high. Nobody knows because, generally, we don't have data about the private moments of he-said-she-said encounters. It is generally difficult to prove a false claim, just as it is often difficult to prove a legitimate claim. Any answer we declare is a reflection of our own bias. I don't mean that to defend the incel culture and their crazy anger issues, as they also guilty of this.
Upvote
37
(41
/
-4)
And that’s the thing. If you are good at studying, you can get through almost anything. You don’t have to be smart.
I’ve met plenty of dumb lawyers. Plenty of dumb doctors. Plenty of dumb professors.
Way less than dumb “average Joes”, but the creature for sure exists and is not a unicorn. Or even a blue moon.
As more often are ARROGANT people in those professions. Of course sometimes it is arrogant dumb people, but also arrogant smart people, who are maybe worse than arrogant dumb people. Certainly worse than humble dumb people in those jobs.
Upvote
34
(35
/
-1)
Keith Tanner
Ars Tribunus Militum
This is a great example of how HR is there to protect the company, not employees. Moving the accused is the most logical move from that standpoint, as illustrated.
It can easily look like "guilty until proven innocent", though. The accused will have the stigma of being accused, proven or not. There's still the potential for a lawsuit - but that's only because the accused was actually able to prove his innocence here, which is a lot harder to do usually in the sort of he said, she said situation that characterizes this kind of accusation. And damages will likely be much lower than they would have been if the accuser had been moved. The real lawsuit will be against Choi, who is financially challenged and now has no job, career, phone or laptop.
Upvote
30
(31
/
-1)
Why did she do what she did? It’s unclear to me. WAS there a “ romantic” angle? Was this just a piece of whole cloth that really had to do with public attention?
Upvote
15
(15
/
0)
The DA probably worried that if they moved Choi that Choi could contend it was retaliation for making the complaint, which can be very costly in court.
Upvote
25
(26
/
-1)
Be sure to maintain digital sanitation standards by wiping the drives, like with a cloth or something.
Upvote
9
(9
/
0)
Evidence?
From the studies I've previously looked at, there isn't actually much difference in the statistics between M on F or F on M domestic violence in western countries, even though arrests and prosecutions are heavily skewed towards arresting and prosecuting men. I don't know why women accusers would tend to be so much more honest with respect to false claims than men, especially with common knowledge being that courts statistically find more often in favor of women in DV cases.
Edit: If you wang more info about the above, I encourage you to watch The Red Pill by Casey Jaye. She started out making a different documentary as a self-described feminist, and ended up losing a lot of her like-minded friends and relationships when she produced a movie about the evolution of her thinking as she followed the data.
Last edited:
Upvote
9
(21
/
-12)
Any speculation on our part would be just that. In my time managing people, many such circumstances arose out of once mutual flings from which one side or the other withdrew, after which the friction and resentment might come from either party or both. I am in no way suggesting that is the case here.
Upvote
9
(9
/
0)
I actually had Dershowitz for legal ethics, and the class was a joke. People called it "Story time with Dersh", and the class was largely focused on all the famous people Dershowitz was connected to and legal work he had done. It really felt like the class was more about stroking his ego than teaching us anything. (Hilariously, despite having worked on the side of OJ Simpson he strongly implied that he thought Simpson was guilty.) His sole final exam question was literally "write about a legal ethics rule you would change".
Upvote
29
(30
/
-1)
A lot of smart people convince themselves of their own cleverness. Also many many smart people are clueless to the extents of technology.
Upvote
16
(17
/
-1)
Actually society has a terrible track record on that. I'm not sure why you would think that we were more aware as a whole of bias in the past.
Upvote
18
(19
/
-1)
But they were stupid. Instead of relying on evidence they transferred him to another department anyway. Okay, sure, maybe it was more of a "let's just separate them" exercise, but I have to believe he also suffered undue scrutiny after that. Then she compounded his suffering again, which he was able to refute. I'm not sure why she targeted the guy in the first place, could just have been opportunistic (that's just speculation) but regardless they didn't have anything in place to actually verify the facts of the first instance. Odd that they're a legal agency probably used to dealing with harassment claims (although likely of others) and they didn't bother to put in procedures that work.
Upvote
4
(13
/
-9)
No bias, but you clearly have a reading comprehension problem. I was decrying the fact that male's rights assholes will use this as "proof" that women are all out to get men by filing false sexual harassment claims and use it to further attack women and insist that sexual harassment is non-existent.
The rate of false claims is very low, you don't have to take my word for it. Studies have found that the rate of false claims is between 2% and 4.5%. Men who insist it's higher make it harder for real victims of sexual harassment to speak up and get justice. And sexual harassment of women, just like sexual assault and rape, is vastly underreported already. Anything that makes that worse is not good for society. Unless you think it's cool for women to be sexually harassed, assaulted and raped I guess.
Absolutely nothing I said suggested the victim here, was the problem or that he was a male's rights advocate. Not only did nothing I say agree with male's rights advocates, I even called them assholes. I am offended that you suggested I said either of those things. You can disagree with what I said all you want, but you don't get to say I said things I didn't say. Especially when you're suggesting I said things I find just as morally reprehensible as sexual harassment. Perhaps the one with a bias is you?
Upvote
-19
(18
/
-37)