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

• FIRM anticipates NTP for 700 MW portfolio of Hybrid (Wind, Solar & Storage) Generation
• F.A.I.T.H. Announces Industry-Defining Standard to Resolve the Pharmaceutical Replication Crisis
• AG Landscape Helps San Diego County Homeowners Build Water-Smart Yards
• Jack Fallows & PostCurious Fund The Stormlamp Rituals, An Illustrated Puzzle Book, in 17 Minutes
• Attention Lawyers, Legislators, Humans and Robots re Life in a World with Humanoid Robots

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

• AI Is Making It Easier for API-First Platforms to Connect, Partner, Reach Customers, and Grow Revenue Faster
• 2026 Editorial Freelancers Association Conference Focuses on Building Sustainable Careers
• Terminally-Ill Santa Cruz Woman's Dream to Come True in Hawaii
• Blue Planet – Red Tide Now Available Worldwide in Kindle, Paperback, and Hardcover Editions
• netElastic Powers LigaT's High-Performance Broadband Expansion and IPv6 Modernization in Portugal

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