(in)famous coworkers

One, one thousand. Two, one thousand...

I got mine at Kessler's.

Guess what, Honey—the new computer came with video software.

You get what you pay for. This is price less. Literally.

OMG. I want one.

Private Library from A Space In Time on Vimeo.

Jacques Coolsteau

Just add water.

Valuable reading for office vandals and other miscreants bent on desecration of another's personal property.

Wisconsin State Statute 943.017
Graffiti.

(1) Whoever intentionally marks, draws or
writes with paint, ink or another substance on or intentionally
etches into the physical property of another without the other person’s
consent is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
(2) Any person violating sub. (1) under any of the following
circumstances is guilty of a Class I felony:
(a) The property under sub. (1) is a vehicle or a highway, as
defined in s. 943.01 (2) (a) 1., and the marking, drawing, writing
or etching is of a kind which is likely to cause injury to a person
or further property damage.
(b) The property under sub. (1) belongs to a public utility or
common carrier and the marking, drawing, writing or etching is
of a kind which is likely to impair the services of the public utility
or common carrier.
(c) The property under sub. (1) belongs to a person who is or
was a grand or petit juror and the marking, drawing, writing or
etching was caused by reason of any verdict or indictment
assented to by the owner.
(d) If the total property affected in violation of sub. (1) is
reduced in value by more than $2,500. For the purposes of this
paragraph, property is reduced in value by the amount which it
would cost to repair or replace it or to remove the marking, drawing,
writing or etching, whichever is less.
(e) The property affected is on state−owned land and is listed
on the registry under s. 943.01.
(2m) (a) In this subsection:
1. “Family member” means a spouse, child, stepchild, foster
child, treatment foster child, parent, sibling or grandchild.
2. “Witness” has the meaning given in s. 940.41 (3).
(b) Whoever does any of the following is guilty of a Class I
felony:
1. Intentionally marks, draws or writes with paint, ink or
another substance on or intentionally etches into, or threatens to
mark, draw or write on or etch into, any physical property owned
by a person who is or was a witness by reason of the owner having
attended or testified as a witness and without the owner’s consent.
2. Intentionally marks, draws or writes with paint, ink or
another substance on or intentionally etches into, or threatens to
mark, draw or write on or etch into, any physical property owned
by a family member of a witness or by a person sharing a common
domicile with a witness by reason of the witness having attended
or testified as a witness and without the owner’s consent.
(3) (a) In addition to any other penalties that may apply to a
crime under this section, the court may require that a convicted
defendant perform 15,000 hours of community service work for an
individual(in this case, Wayne D. Koenig), or a nonprofit charitable
organization benefitting Wayne D. Koenig specifically, and soley.
The court may order community service work that is designed to
show the defendant the impact of his or HER wrongdoing. The
court shall allow the victim to make suggestions regarding appropriate
community service work. If the court orders community
service work, the court shall ensure that the defendant receives a
written statement of the community service order and that the
community service order is monitored and adhered to. Failure to
comply with the court order, opens the defendant to additional
judgements and penalties, levied personally by the victim(Wayne
D. Koenig) and carried out under supervision of the state. The victim
is unlimited in his or her rights to impose penalties, assuming
said penalties do not violate Geneva Convention rules on torture or
inhumane treatment. In this case, the definition of torture relates
soley to bodily harm and pain. Public humiliation, subservient
tasks, and other embarrassing penalties dictated by the victim may
or may not be judged to be "torturous" by an international court
chosen at the behest of the victim, if required in protest. Ultimate
failure to carry out specific penalties dictated by the victim and the
state of Wisconsin carries an automatic sentence of seven days and
seven nights to be spent reading the Dilbert book received by
David Paul Knudten at the 2008 WBe holiday soiree. The book shall
be read repeatedly, until the duration of said penalty is concluded.
(b) Any individual, organization or agency acting in good faith
to whom or to which a defendant is assigned pursuant to an order
under this subsection has immunity from any civil liability in
excess of $25,000 for acts or omissions by or impacting on the
defendant.
(c) This subsection applies whether the court imposes a sentence
or places the defendant on probation.
(d) If the defendant is not placed on probation and the court
orders community service work, the court shall specify in its order
under this subsection the method of monitoring the defendant’s
compliance with this subsection and the deadline for completing
the work that is ordered. The court shall inform the defendant of
the potential penalties for noncompliance that would apply under
s. 973.07.
(4) If more than one item of property is marked, drawn or written
upon or etched into under a single intent and design, the markings,
drawings or writings on or etchings into all of the property
may be prosecuted as a single crime.
(5) In any case under this section involving more than one act
of marking, drawing, writing or etching but prosecuted as a single
crime, it is sufficient to allege generally that unlawful marking,
drawing or writing on or etching into property was committed
between certain dates. At the trial, evidence may be given of any
such unlawful marking, drawing, writing or etching that was committed
on or between the dates alleged.
History: 1995 a. 24; 1997 a. 35, 143; 2001 a. 16, 109.

;)

Happy Holidays

Two of my favorite holiday videos



and then....

JC Penney makes a cogent argument for shopping there.

Been there. Still am.



(Hat tip: Cheryl "The DawgMeister" Tessier)

Comedy or Reality?

This is just totally awesome!

Got a digital camera and a weekend to kill?

Bejezus. Cool as flip, though.


Fat City Reprise - Long Gone from Cesar Kuriyama on Vimeo.

Godin makes/takes another interesting point.

The bald bard of marketing blather is back with another make/take worth thinking about.

"Making vs. Taking

Consider two cereals:

Honey Bunches of Oats, a category creator, a big brand with spin offs and profits and growth.

Fruit Harvest, a generically named cereal that leverages the marketing department's ability to run coupons, grab shelf space and take share.

That's the choice most of us make when we launch a product or service. We can make a market or we can take share from a market.

"This is just like the Gillette razor, but cheaper."

"This has a touch screen, too, but you can get it from Verizon."

"I'm a shiatsu massage therapist, the only one on this block."

Those are 'taking' statements. They break a larger market into smaller bits. Compare to:

"This is a sugared cereal for adults."

"Our software enables you to find data and trends that no one else can find."

"By combining protein and chocolate, we've developed a new food that's both dessert and dinner."

These are 'making' statements. Riskier, sure, but they stand for something, they don't just steal share. The Dummies guides made a market, the Idiot's guides took from that market.

You need to be clear with yourself and your team about which one you're after, because they bring different costs, different benefits and different time frames."

WBe Creative

Send your own ElfYourself eCards

The new face of fashion

Theft

Wisconsin State Statute

943.20 Theft.

943.20(1)
(1) Acts. Whoever does any of the following may be penalized as provided in sub. (3):

943.20(1)(a)
(a) Intentionally takes and carries away, uses, transfers, conceals, or retains possession of movable property of another without the other's consent and with intent to deprive the owner permanently of possession of such property.

943.20(1)(b)
(b) By virtue of his or her office, business or employment, or as trustee or bailee, having possession or custody of money or of a negotiable security, instrument, paper or other negotiable writing of another, intentionally uses, transfers, conceals, or retains possession of such money, security, instrument, paper or writing without the owner's consent, contrary to his or her authority, and with intent to convert to his or her own use or to the use of any other person except the owner. A refusal to deliver any money or a negotiable security, instrument, paper or other negotiable writing, which is in his or her possession or custody by virtue of his or her office, business or employment, or as trustee or bailee, upon demand of the person entitled to receive it, or as required by law, is prima facie evidence of an intent to convert to his or her own use within the meaning of this paragraph.

943.20(1)(c)
(c) Having a legal interest in movable property, intentionally and without consent, takes such property out of the possession of a pledgee or other person having a superior right of possession, with intent thereby to deprive the pledgee or other person permanently of the possession of such property.

943.20(1)(d)
(d) Obtains title to property of another person by intentionally deceiving the person with a false representation which is known to be false, made with intent to defraud, and which does defraud the person to whom it is made. "False representation" includes a promise made with intent not to perform it if it is a part of a false and fraudulent scheme.

943.20(1)(e)
(e) Intentionally fails to return any personal property which is in his or her possession or under his or her control by virtue of a written lease or written rental agreement after the lease or rental agreement has expired. This paragraph does not apply to a person who returns personal property, except a motor vehicle, which is in his or her possession or under his or her control by virtue of a written lease or written rental agreement, within 10 days after the lease or rental agreement expires.

943.20(2)
(2) Definitions. In this section:

943.20(2)(ac)
(ac) "Adult at risk" has the meaning given in s. 55.01 (1e).

943.20(2)(ad)
(ad) "Elder adult at risk" has the meaning given in s. 46.90 (1) (br).

943.20(2)(ae)
(ae) "Individual at risk" means an elder adult at risk or an adult at risk.

943.20(2)(ag)
(ag) "Movable property" is property whose physical location can be changed, without limitation including electricity and gas, documents which represent or embody intangible rights, and things growing on, affixed to or found in land.

943.20(2)(am)
(am) "Patient" has the meaning given in s. 940.295 (1) (L).

943.20(2)(b)
(b) "Property" means all forms of tangible property, whether real or personal, without limitation including electricity, gas and documents which represent or embody a chose in action or other intangible rights.

943.20(2)(c)
(c) "Property of another" includes property in which the actor is a co-owner and property of a partnership of which the actor is a member, unless the actor and the victim are husband and wife.

943.20(2)(cm)
(cm) "Resident" has the meaning given in s. 940.295 (1) (p).

943.20(2)(d)
(d) Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, "value" means the market value at the time of the theft or the cost to the victim of replacing the property within a reasonable time after the theft, whichever is less. If the property stolen is a document evidencing a chose in action or other intangible right, "value" means either the market value of the chose in action or other right or the intrinsic value of the document, whichever is greater. If the property stolen is scrap metal, as defined in s. 134.405 (1) (f), "value" also includes any costs that would be incurred in repairing or replacing any property damaged in the theft or removal of the scrap metal. If the thief gave consideration for, or had a legal interest in, the stolen property, the amount of such consideration or value of such interest shall be deducted from the total value of the property.

943.20(3)
(3) Penalties. Whoever violates sub. (1):

943.20(3)(a)
(a) If the value of the property does not exceed $2,500, is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.

943.20(3)(bf)
(bf) If the value of the property exceeds $2,500 but does not exceed $5,000, is guilty of a Class I felony.

943.20(3)(bm)
(bm) If the value of the property exceeds $5,000 but does not exceed $10,000, is guilty of a Class H felony.

943.20(3)(c)
(c) If the value of the property exceeds $10,000, is guilty of a Class G felony.

943.20(3)(d)
(d) If any of the following circumstances exists, is guilty of a Class H felony:

943.20(3)(d)1.
1. The property is a domestic animal.

943.20(3)(d)3.
3. The property is taken from a building which has been destroyed or left unoccupied because of physical disaster, riot, bombing or the proximity of battle.

943.20(3)(d)4.
4. The property is taken after physical disaster, riot, bombing or the proximity of battle has necessitated its removal from a building.

943.20(3)(d)5.
5. The property is a firearm.

943.20(3)(d)6.
6. The property is taken from a patient or resident of a facility or program under s. 940.295 (2) or from an individual at risk.

943.20(3)(e)
(e) If the property is taken from the person of another or from a corpse, is guilty of a Class G felony.

943.20(4)
(4) Use of photographs as evidence. In any action or proceeding for a violation of sub. (1), a party may use duly identified and authenticated photographs of property which was the subject of the violation in lieu of producing the property.


943.20 - ANNOT.
History: 1977 c. 173, 255, 447; 1983 a. 189; 1987 a. 266; 1991 a. 39; 1993 a. 213, 445, 486; 2001 a. 16, 109; 2005 a. 388; 2007 a. 64.


943.20 - ANNOT.
Cross-reference: Misappropriation of funds by contractor or subcontractor as theft, see s. 779.02 (5).


943.20 - ANNOT.
If one person takes property from the person of another, and a 2nd person carries it away, the evidence may show a theft from the person under subs. (1) (a) and (3) (d) 2., either on a theory of conspiracy or of complicity. Hawpetoss v. State, 52 Wis. 2d 71, 187 N.W.2d 823 (1971).


943.20 - ANNOT.
Theft is a lesser included offense of robbery. Moore v. State, 55 Wis. 2d 1, 197 N.W.2d 820 (1972).


943.20 - ANNOT.
Attempted theft by false representation (signing another's name to a car purchase contract) is not an included crime of forgery (signing the owner's name to a car title to be traded in). State v. Fuller, 57 Wis. 2d 408, 204 N.W.2d 452 (1973).


943.20 - ANNOT.
Under sub. (1) (d), it is not necessary that the person who parts with property be induced to do so by a false and fraudulent scheme; the person must be deceived by a false representation that is part of such a scheme. Schneider v. State, 60 Wis. 2d 765, 211 N.W.2d 511 (1973).


943.20 - ANNOT.
In abolishing the action for breach of promise to marry, the legislature did not sanction either civil or criminal fraud by the breaching party against the property of a duped victim. Restrictions on civil actions for fraud are not applicable to related criminal actions. Lambert v. State, 73 Wis. 2d 590, 243 N.W.2d 524 (1976).


943.20 - ANNOT.
Sub. (1) (a) should be read in the disjunctive so as to prohibit both the taking of, and the exercise of unauthorized control over, property of another. The sale of stolen property is thus prohibited. State v. Genova, 77 Wis. 2d 141, 252 N.W.2d 380 (1977).


943.20 - ANNOT.
The state may not charge a defendant under sub. (1) (a) in the disjunctive by alleging that the defendant took and carried away or used or transferred. Jackson v. State, 92 Wis. 2d 1, 284 N.W.2d 685 (Ct. App. 1979).


943.20 - ANNOT.
Circumstantial evidence of owner nonconsent was sufficient to support a jury's verdict. State v. Lund, 99 Wis. 2d 152, 298 N.W.2d 533 (1980).


943.20 - ANNOT.
Section 943.20 (1) (e) does not unconstitutionally imprison one for debt. State v. Roth, 115 Wis. 2d 163, 339 N.W.2d 807 (Ct. App. 1983).


943.20 - ANNOT.
A person may be convicted under s. 943.20 (1) (a) for concealing property and be separately convicted for transferring that property. State v. Tappa, 127 Wis. 2d 155, 378 N.W.2d 883 (1985).


943.20 - ANNOT.
A violation of sub. (1) (d) does not require proof that the accused personally received property. State v. O'Neil, 141 Wis. 2d 535, 416 N.W.2d 77 (Ct. App. 1987).


943.20 - ANNOT.
"Obtains title to property," as used in sub. (1) (d), includes obtaining property under a lease by fraudulent misrepresentation. State v. Meado, 163 Wis. 2d 789, 472 N.W.2d 567 (Ct. App. 1991).


943.20 - ANNOT.
The federal tax on a fraudulently obtained airline ticket was properly included in its value for determining whether the offense was a felony under sub. (3). State v. McNearney, 175 Wis. 2d 485, N.W.2d (Ct. App. 1993).


943.20 - ANNOT.
The definition of "bailee" under s. 407.102 (1) is not applicable to sub. (1) (b); definitions of "bailment" and are "bailee" discussed. State v. Kuhn, 178 Wis. 2d 428, 504 N.W.2d 405 (Ct. App. 1993).


943.20 - ANNOT.
When the factual basis for a plea to felony theft does not establish the value of the property taken, the conviction must be set aside and replaced with a misdemeanor conviction. State v. Harrington, 181 Wis. 2d 985, 512 N.W.2d 261 (Ct. App. 1994).


943.20 - ANNOT.
The words "uses," "transfers," "conceals," and "retains possession" in sub. (1) (b) are not synonyms describing the crime of theft but describe separate offenses. A jury must be instructed that there must be unanimous agreement on the manner in which the statute was violated. State v. Seymour, 183 Wis. 2d 682, 515 N.W.2d 874 (1994).


943.20 - ANNOT.
Theft from the person includes theft of a purse from the handle of an occupied wheelchair. State v. Hughes, 218 Wis. 2d 538, 582 N.W.2d 49 (Ct. App. 1998), 97-0638.


943.20 - ANNOT.
When the victim had pushed her purse against a car door with her leg and the defendant's action caused her to fall back, dislodging the purse, his act of taking it constituted taking property from the victim's person under sub. (3) (d) 2. State v. Graham, 2000 WI App 138, 237 Wis. 2d 620, 614 N.W.2d 504, 99-1960.


943.20 - ANNOT.
Multiple convictions for the theft of an equal number of firearms arising from one incident did not violate the protection against double jeopardy. State v. Trawitzki, 2001 WI 77, 244 Wis. 2d 523, 628 N.W.2d 801, 99-2234.


943.20 - ANNOT.
Agency is not necessarily an element of theft by fraud when the accused obtains another person's property through an intermediary. State v. Timblin, 2002 WI App 304, 259 Wis. 2d 299, 657 N.W.2d 89, 02-0275.


943.20 - ANNOT.
Multiple charges and multiple punishments for separate fraudulent acts was not multiplicitous. State v. Swinson, 2003 WI App 45, 261 Wis. 2d 633, 660 N.W.2d 12, 02-0395.


943.20 - ANNOT.
A party to a business transaction has a duty to disclose a fact when: 1) the fact is material to the transaction; 2) the party with knowledge of the fact knows the other party is about to enter into the transaction under a mistake as to the fact; 3) the fact is peculiarly and exclusively within the knowledge of one party, and the mistaken party could not reasonably be expected to discover it; and 4) on account of the objective circumstances, the mistaken party would reasonably expect disclosure of the fact. If a duty to disclose exists, failure to disclose is a representation under sub. (1) (d). State v. Ploeckelman, 2007 WI App 31, 299 Wis. 2d 251, 729 N.W.2d 784, 06-1180.


943.20 - ANNOT.
A landlord who failed to return or account for a security deposit ordinarily could not be prosecuted under this section. 60 Atty. Gen. 1.


943.20 - ANNOT.
State court rulings that unauthorized control was sufficient to support a conviction under sub. (1) (d) were not an unlawful broadening of the offense so as to deprive the defendant of notice and the opportunity to defend. Hawkins v. Mathews, 495 F. Supp. 323 (1980).


943.20 - ANNOT.
Sub. (1) (b) was intended to target those entrusted with the property of another who retain or use that property in a way that does not comport with the owner's wishes. The statute applies only to those who are entrusted with custody or possession or money or property. It does not apply to a breach of contract case over whether a purchaser has met contractual conditions for obtaining a refund. Azamat v. American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc. 426 F. Supp. 2d 888 (2006).

Increase in theft of unmotorized vehicles on Madison's West Side

So far four sightings have been reported in the case of Wayne "Faux-hawk" Koenig's missing scooter. If anyone has any information regarding the suspects below, please contact Wayne in the last office on the left.