Jose Alvarez "Carlos" arrested for Identity Theft

[Cleon]

Originally Posted by NeilC

Where can i get the full, true story of this as it stands right now?

I recommend reading TsarBomba's posts in this thread.

[NeilC]

Thanks. I already read the thread. I'm looking for something more official rather than forum opinion.

I've seen nothing to suggest any fraud relating to JREF which was the guys main claim.

[DrDave]

Originally Posted by NeilC

Thanks. I already read the thread. I'm looking for something more official rather than forum opinion.

I've seen nothing to suggest any fraud relating to JREF which was the guys main claim.

If it's his claim he should be the one you should be asking for evidence, not the forum.

[Antiquehunter]

The only 'official' comments I've seen are the ones posted to this thread by DJ Grothe, and the occasional statement made by James Randi in the media, which have been quoted here.

I've been 'around' the JREF for several years, and at no time has Jose Alvarez been presented as a director of the JREF nor as anything at all associated with the JREF apart from being Randi's partner, and having a small studio at the JREF HQ in Ft Lauderdale.

There was one year where he donated an artwork at a TAM (TAM IV or TAM V) which was auctioned off as a fund-raiser. That is the extent of any financial connection I have seen.

[NeilC]

Originally Posted by DrDave

If it's his claim he should be the one you should be asking for evidence, not the forum.

Needless to say I have done that. Needless to say, none has been forthcoming. Well he linked to a PDF of the plea but that had no relevant info on it.

However I wasn't aware of any of it so I'd like to know if there is anything to it.

[NeilC]

Originally Posted by NeilC

Needless to say I have done that. Needless to say, none has been forthcoming. Well he linked to a PDF of the plea but that had no relevant info on it.

However I wasn't aware of any of it so I'd like to know if there is anything to it.

To be honest the whole debate on that forum has been an eye opener for me as to the type of arguments put forward by anti-skeptics. Whereas here everyone is expected to have some evidence for any claim the other camp appear happy just to muddy the waters, poison the well, attack the people, not answer direct questions but merely to change to a new attack etc. I withdrew from the the discussion once I realised the level of argument was going to stay that low since there is nothing to be gained when two sides cannot even agree what constitutes evidence or that it is even important in the first place.

[NeilC]

I've since discovered that the guy on the forum has a history with JREF and was turned down for a Challenge which explains a lot.

I think the guys who deal with the challenges must be close to being saints if they have to deal with that sort of argument all the time. I couldn't do that.

[davefoc]

Originally Posted by bignickel

Occams' Razor doesn't work that way: it's simplest expression is one of probabilities: of two competing hypothesis, the 'simplest one' (introducing the least number of multiplicities) is probably true.

Occam's Razor wouldn't apply here, because both hypothesis (Randi knew something illegal was going on, Randi did not know something illegal was going on) are equally simple. Actually, the one that says he 'knew' introduces more multiplicities (he would have had to find things out, whereas with the other hypothesis he doesn't have to find out anything). So, if we did apply Occam's here, it leans to Randi not knowing.

I quibble a bit with the logic in the second paragraph. Deciding whether it is a simpler possibility that Randi knew or didn't know something illegal was going on doesn't seem so straightforward to me.

1. Randi is clearly an intelligent, informed individual so it is very likely he would have had knowledge in a general way on rules covering immigration into and the acquisition of US citizenship.

2. Randi seems to have been aware that Alvarez was not a US citizen by birth.

3. Randi seems to have known Alvarez for a long period of time including the time that he came to the US.

For Randi to have not known that something illegal was probably going on with regard to the immigration of Alvarez requires some kind of not obvious explanation as to why in the face of the above he failed to at least believe that the immigration of Alvarez was not legal.

However, there is a bit of a leap between probably knowing that Alvarez's immigration was illegal and knowing that Alvarez's situation was illegal and that distinction would probably prevent prosecution if nothing else did.

And as an unrelated aside, I am truly sorry for the pain these events must have caused Randi and I wish him and Alvarez the best.

[Susan Gerbic]

I've been around the JREF many many years. Been on 3 cruises and don't think Jose has been on any of them, but Randi was. I have seen Jose hanging around at TAM but he has never been a spokesperson or anything. He isn't even mentioned on their Wikipedia page.

He is Randi's partner and that is about it. Oh, as mentioned before Jose has donated some beautiful art to the JREF auction.

[Antiquehunter]

@Susan - quite right, I don't recall Jose being around for either the Alaska cruise or the Bermuda Triangle one.

[Susan Gerbic]

I started to write something that was told to me by email from a banned member. But I see to remember that I'm not allowed to post for a banned member. So I'll just sum up what he told me.

His point was that he has JREF IRS forms from 2003-2007 that lists Jose as the secretary.

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by davefoc

1. Randi is clearly an intelligent, informed individual so it is very likely he would have had knowledge in a general way on rules covering immigration into and the acquisition of US citizenship.

He'd surely have better than average knowledge, given that he was born Canadian and is a naturalised US citizen himself.

[NeilC]

Originally Posted by Susan Gerbic

I started to write something that was told to me by email from a banned member. But I see to remember that I'm not allowed to post for a banned member. So I'll just sum up what he told me.

His point was that he has JREF IRS forms from 2003-2007 that lists Jose as the secretary.

Is that banned person David Koenig?

[GnaGnaMan]

Originally Posted by Susan Gerbic

His point was that he has JREF IRS forms from 2003-2007 that lists Jose as the secretary.

Those forms can be looked up here.
It's true.
Jose Alvarez is listed as a secretary working an average of 5 hours a week without compensation.

[NeilC]

Looks like Randi was paying himself $195,000 a year in 2008. Not too shabby.

[Susan Gerbic]

I believe the last time I looked at JREF financial details, Randi was bringing in a ton of money to the organization. If I remember correctly he donates all his speaking fees back to the JREF. I hope at 83+ I will be able to be so relevant.

No it wasn't Koenig? (never heard of the guy)

Actually since others have found the same info as I got, I don't need to reveal my source. Just thought it was interesting. I wouldn't want people to think we were hiding anything concerning Jose.

If he was listed as a secretary for 50 hours a week (paid) or only 5 hours (unpaid) then it should be out in the open.

[Antiquehunter]

I think Randi's salary of around $200k a year has been discussed widely (and openly).

[NeilC]

Originally Posted by Antiquehunter

I think Randi's salary of around $200k a year has been discussed widely (and openly).

I wasn't aware of it. I'm not making a point. It's first time I've seen those financial statements and I've always wondered what he did for money. I wouldn't say it's hugely excessive and it's in line with many charitable organsiations. Any more than that I'd be raising my eyebrows I guess.

[Beady]

I don't know Randi that well. Having said that, from the few dealings I've had with him, I've found him to be naive, bullheaded, unfailingly kind and honest above reproach. If he did know about Jose in any way or degree, and the odds are that he did, then I believe his own confirmation bias blinded him to the situation much as it can blind anyone to a loved one's wrongdoing.

[Bartmon]

Jose was on the board of directors for a time as well.

[Ian]

Originally Posted by Beady

I don't know Randi that well. Having said that, from the few dealings I've had with him, I've found him to be naive, bullheaded, unfailingly kind and honest above reproach. If he did know about Jose in any way or degree, and the odds are that he did, then I believe his own confirmation bias blinded him to the situation much as it can blind anyone to a loved one's wrongdoing.

That's how I would describe Randi. I just turned in an M.A. thesis to a university where he wrote a letter of recommendation for me to enter graduate studies. I used Randi as a source based on the book he has yet to publish (citing an unpublished source requires some arcane rules). Merrill asked if a copy could go to the library. I have requested that a bound copy be made for the new library back in the old place. When I get the volumes that the university's library and history dept. don't keep, I intend to send one copy to Randi. He was very generous to give copies of his own books to me.

[TsarBomba]

I had not checked pacer.gov for a while, but there is a new document indicating that the sentencing has been continued until May 29 at 10:30 a.m.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally Posted by TsarBomba

I had not checked pacer.gov for a while, but there is a new document indicating that the sentencing has been continued until May 29 at 10:30 a.m.

Randi is in Europe this week, specifically Italy. I assume he might be the essential witness.

[TsarBomba]

The defense has now filed their sentencing memorandum, and an appendix. I have only had a chance to skim them so far, but they seem to answer (from the standpoint of the defense) many of the questions that people on this forum have been asking.

The appendix, so far as I have been able to read, is a series of letters from friends, acquaintances, and admirers of Pena/Alvarez, including James Randi, Penn, Teller, Dawkins, and many others.

Read them and reach your own conclusions.

[arthwollipot]

That's inspiring reading, right there.

[Antiquehunter]

It is certainly gratifying and moving to read so many outpourings of support and personal stories. I'm not sure what their effect will be with the judge, but I hope for Randi's and Deyvi's case they help.

If I follow, it appears that the assumption of a false identity took place many years ago - this doesn't make it any less wrong, however when one examines what Deyvi did with the opportunity this transgression afforded, again one hopes that a judge will consider that the individual used his US citizenship for 'good'.

I didn't note much evidence that Venezuelan homosexuals suffer horrific treatment in their home country in all the letters. Personally, I would've found this testimony to be compelling. I'm not sure I agree that rubbing salt in the wound about Fla. not recognizing same-sex marriage is a good approach, unless the judge is known to be a supporter of that particular issue. But - I'm not a lawyer.

It is truly a tragic situation, and one that I genuinely hope works out as best as possible for both Randi & Deyvi.

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by Antiquehunter

I'm not sure I agree that rubbing salt in the wound about Fla. not recognizing same-sex marriage is a good approach, unless the judge is known to be a supporter of that particular issue. But - I'm not a lawyer.

Actually, I think that makes a good point about his motivations for getting the new identity. Had he and Randi been able to get married legally when they first met, he would never had had to go to these lengths to stay in the US - he would have been allowed to stay legally as Randi's legal spouse.

[Cleon]

Originally Posted by Antiquehunter

I didn't note much evidence that Venezuelan homosexuals suffer horrific treatment in their home country in all the letters. Personally, I would've found this testimony to be compelling.

I noticed the same thing. Things have changed significantly in Venezuela since 1984; the Chavez government has been pushing for more LGBT rights and anti-discrimination legislation, but has faced significant opposition from conservatives and the Catholic Church.

[Antiquehunter]

Originally Posted by Horatius

Actually, I think that makes a good point about his motivations for getting the new identity. Had he and Randi been able to get married legally when they first met, he would never had had to go to these lengths to stay in the US - he would have been allowed to stay legally as Randi's legal spouse.

Well I s'pose, but if I recall in 1984-1987 (I'm a little unclear when the id theft took place) there was hardly any serious discussion about same-sex marriage. So it is somewhat of a red herring to suggest that this is the issue. Presumably even if SSM was legal in Fla, it would've happened after Deyvi was already in the US, under false pretences.

Again - I really have no clue about the legality of this approach, and I certainly am compelled by the vast outpouring of support from such a diverse circle of colleagues who have taken the time to express themselves in defence of Deyvi & Randi. I just hope the judge is, likewise.

[Antiquehunter]

Originally Posted by Cleon

I noticed the same thing. Things have changed significantly in Venezuela since 1984; the Chavez government has been pushing for more LGBT rights and anti-discrimination legislation, but has faced significant opposition from conservatives and the Catholic Church.

As a gay man, married in Canada, who has just moved to Chile - while the environment certainly isn't as 'welcmoning' as perhaps Canada, or some European countries, we've never experienced any problems. While our marriage isn't recognized in Chile, it isn't recognized in many places - we just consider it a work in progress. I haven't been to Venezuela, but I presume they are pretty much on the same path as Chile. As you mention, perhaps things were much different in the early-mid 80's vis a vis anti-gay sentiment. Presumably anti-gay sentiment accompanied by big feathered hair, acid wash jeans & legwarmers.

[Cleon]

Originally Posted by Antiquehunter

As a gay man, married in Canada, who has just moved to Chile - while the environment certainly isn't as 'welcmoning' as perhaps Canada, or some European countries, we've never experienced any problems. While our marriage isn't recognized in Chile, it isn't recognized in many places - we just consider it a work in progress. I haven't been to Venezuela, but I presume they are pretty much on the same path as Chile. As you mention, perhaps things were much different in the early-mid 80's vis a vis anti-gay sentiment. Presumably anti-gay sentiment accompanied by big feathered hair, acid wash jeans & legwarmers.

Well, considering the last place you and he lived together, I imagine Chile seems like a hotbed of tolerance.

[Scopedog]

As much as I support Randi and his partner, I want to remind everyone that an innocent person suffered damage for many years as a result of Deyvi's actions. I hope everything turns out okay from an immigration standpoint, but I hope they throw all the books and their reprints at Deyvi for the identity theft. If he gets to stay here, he has to be punished for that. Even if the victim only suffered a slight inconvenience, even if Deyvi thought the person connected to the identity was dead, under no circumstances should they just slap Deyvi on the wrist.

[NeilC]

If someone was only slightly inconvenienced then why throw the book at him? I like justice to reflect the harm done myself

[Scopedog]

Originally Posted by NeilC

If someone was only slightly inconvenienced then why throw the book at him? I like justice to reflect the harm done myself

I forgot to mention that it would be in the context of a civil trial between him and the victim. I also try to see it from this perspective: what if a similar embarrassing or painful immigration problem happened to the gay lover of someone I don't like like Pat Robertson or John Edward or Sylvia Browne? I'd still want their partner to pay for the identity theft. I'd really rather not get into an U.S. immigration debate, though. In any case, it always bothers me when sympathy for the perpetrator's plight overshadows the trespass against their victim.

[davefoc]

Originally Posted by Scopedog

I forgot to mention that it would be in the context of a civil trial between him and the victim. I also try to see it from this perspective: what if a similar embarrassing or painful immigration problem happened to the gay lover of someone I don't like like Pat Robertson or John Edward or Sylvia Browne? I'd still want their partner to pay for the identity theft. I'd really rather not get into an U.S. immigration debate, though.

The underlying crime here is illegal immigration. I think the government needs to enforce immigration rules but I also sympathize greatly with people who come to this country just trying to make a go of it or to avoid mistreatment in their home country. So in the end, I am somewhat ambivalent about exactly should be done with regard to this and I am never happy to see people punished for illegal immigration all the while I think it is necessary for the stability of the US.

The identification theft, was clearly a part of the illegal immigration crime and as such my sympathies are about the same for people who immigrate illegally and for people who immigrate illegally and use some kind of identification theft to facilitate their crime. If there was the slightest hint of an attempt at gain from the identity theft crime beyond facilitating the illegal immigration I'd be in the camp of seriously punishing that crime, but in this case I haven't seen that. So I would have no problem with judges in these kind of cases using their judicial discretion to reduce penalties for the identity theft to minimal levels.

As to the other point you brought up, bias. Yes bias is one of the things that make illegal immigration cases so hard. We tend to be biased strongly in favor of the people we specifically know or know of than the general class of illegal immigrants. Which is the thing that makes views on illegal immigration subject to a lot of hypocrisy. I don't know that there is any answer. When I hear about a specific person that is an illegal immigrant that has succeeded I am happy for him and his success when I realize that with completely open borders the stability of the US could be undermined I tend to favor enforcement.

[SkepticScott]

I just read http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/bro...tory?track=rss . Jose was sentenced to "six months of house arrest ... to be followed by three years of probation."

[Sideroxylon]

That sounds like a great result for him. Here's to hoping he can avoid deportation.

[AdMan]

Originally Posted by Sideroxylon

That sounds like a great result for him.

IANAL, but I agree--that sounds about as good as could have been expected. It sounds like the testimonials from Pena's friends made a huge difference.

Originally Posted by Sideroxylon

Here's to hoping he can avoid deportation.

Yes--that's not going to be easy either, I expect.

[TsarBomba]

Originally Posted by SkepticScott

I just read www.sun-sentinel.com/news/broward/plantation/fl-amazing-randi-jose-alvarez-20120529,0,6045366.story?track=rss . Jose was sentenced to "six months of house arrest ... to be followed by three years of probation."

Here is the court's sentencing notes from pacer.gov.

[Prometheus]

What is the purpose of the "$100 special assessment"?