Are judges above the law? Really Judge Richard Martin? Appeals court dismayed in unbelief
The Californer/10126094

LAKEPORT, Calif. - Californer -- The People v. Glenn Andrew Neasham (http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/A13...), he sat down, calmed himself and opened the PDF.  Justice Stuart Pollak point-by-point (https://insurancenewsnet.com/innarticle/2013/10...) showed the prosecution hadn't even come close to proving Neasham committed theft and that the judge erred so badly in his instructions to the jury that the mistake had "constitutional significance." Pollak seemed to be perplexed even by the prosecution's definition of theft.

More on The Californer

• Utah Metal Fabricator Titan Forge Builds Momentum with Custom Steel Projects and Spiral Staircases
• Jason Koch: Pioneering the Future of Real Estate Development in New Jersey
• Amid Trump's assault on public lands, California conserves over one million acres of land and coastal waters in just one year
• California: Governor Newsom announces appointments 7.7.25
• City of Long Beach to Upgrade Its Internet Infrastructure to Enhance City Network Reliability and Performance

At the conclusion of trial, the jury was instructed that to find defendant guilty of violating Penal Code3 section 368 the prosecution must prove, among other elements, that ―the defendant committed theft.‖ To find defendant guilty of ―grand theft by larceny in violation of . . . section 484,‖ it was necessary that the prosecution prove the following: ―1. The defendant took possession of property owned by someone else; 2. The defendant took the property without the owner's consent; 3. When the defendant took the property he intended to deprive the owner of it permanently; or removed it from the owner's possession for so extended a period of time that the owner would be deprived of a major portion of the value or enjoyment of the property; and 4. The defendant moved t4. The defendant moved the property, even a small distance, and kept it for any period of time, however brief.‖ The jury was also instructed that ―to consent to an act or transaction, a person (1) must act freely and voluntarily and not under the influence of threats, force or duress; (2) must have knowledge of the true nature of the act or transaction involved; and (3) must possess the mental capacity to make an intelligent choice whether or not to do something proposed by another person. Merely being passive does not amount to consent.

More on The Californer

• Groflex Named One of the Top 100 Manufacturing Startups in San Francisco by F6S
• BofA Directs Additional $1 Million to Los Angeles Nonprofits for Evolving Fire Recovery Needs
• Introducing LK Blue: The Cool-Girl Denim Brand That's Redefining LA Style Launches E-Commerce
• THINKWARE Announces Prime Day Deals on Best-Selling Dash Cams
• Zeta Sky Strengthens Cybersecurity Support for Ontario Businesses Facing Rising Identity & Complian

The local publisher who wrote this article asked the community;

https://www.record-bee.com/2011/10/28/press-on-wheres-the-crime/

https://insurancenewsnet.com/glenn-neasham-trial

file:///C:/Users/Me/Downloads/Glenns%20Appeal%20(2).pdf

https://structuredsettlements.typepad.com/struc...

Ask Glenn for appeal opinion from 1stDCA if you'd like to read it, and ask for full story. Look's like nothing but a railroad job.
www.neashaminsuranceagency.com