Slashdot Mirror
Wells Fargo Sued By 63-Year-Old Pastor They Wrongfully Accused of Forging Checks (nj.com)
Wells Fargo has been hit with a lawsuit from a 63-year-old pastor at the United Methodist Church of Parsippany. Wells Fargo sent his ATM photos to the police, which he says led to false arrest, malicious prosecution -- and humiliation. NJ.com reports:
In the lawsuit filed Thursday in Morris County Superior Court, attorneys for the 63-year-old pastor sought unspecified damages against Wells Fargo, which has come under fire over a series of scandals in recent years. Also named were the State Police detectives who originally brought the charges against him last year after bank security officials allegedly mistakenly identified a photo of Edwards taken at an ATM machine as a suspect in a series of fraudulent check deposits....
In the lawsuit, Edwards' attorney wrote that Wells Fargo notified the State Police when it discovered the bogus transactions, and the bank was asked to provide any still photos or video images taken from the ATM at Parsippany where some of the checks were deposited and later cashed out. The bank sent photos of Edwards, who had made his own deposit of checks at the same ATM the very same day, according to the complaint...
The pastor said he first discovered he was the focus of a criminal investigation last year after a parishioner texted him a State Police Facebook posting requesting the public's help identifying a man suspected of depositing fraudulent checks at an ATM... In an interview, Edwards said after seeing the post, he called the detectives and shared a copy of his banking transactions to show he had not deposited the fraudulent checks. "I thought it would clear things up," he said. "They said all their information was from Wells Fargo..." Last September, Edwards said he was asked to come down to the State Police station in Holmdel. After he got there, he said he was shocked to find out he was being arrested and charged with third degree forgery. When he protested and said somebody made an error, he said one of the investigators asked him if the case did go to trial, who would the jury believe -- a bank security expert or him?
"They fingerprinted me. Took my mug shot and gave me a court date," he said.
The case fell apart, but the 63-year-old pastor says he never received an apology from the police, or from Wells Fargo. "The carelessness of both Wells Fargo and the State Police is kind of appalling, and I wonder what happens to somebody who might not have the resources to defend themselves," the pastor told NJ.com. "I told them yes that was my picture and yes I was in the bank that day. That's all they needed to arrest me."
A spokesman for Wells Fargo told the reporter they'd be unable to comment "since this is a pending legal matter." But the story was submitted to Slashdot by someone claiming to be pastor Jeff Edwards. "Wells Fargo carelessly provided ATM pictures [of] me to the state police in a fraudulent check investigation that led to my arrest," reads the original submission.
"The case was dismissed when it was demonstrated that Wells Fargo had been grossly irresponsible."
In the lawsuit, Edwards' attorney wrote that Wells Fargo notified the State Police when it discovered the bogus transactions, and the bank was asked to provide any still photos or video images taken from the ATM at Parsippany where some of the checks were deposited and later cashed out. The bank sent photos of Edwards, who had made his own deposit of checks at the same ATM the very same day, according to the complaint...
The pastor said he first discovered he was the focus of a criminal investigation last year after a parishioner texted him a State Police Facebook posting requesting the public's help identifying a man suspected of depositing fraudulent checks at an ATM... In an interview, Edwards said after seeing the post, he called the detectives and shared a copy of his banking transactions to show he had not deposited the fraudulent checks. "I thought it would clear things up," he said. "They said all their information was from Wells Fargo..." Last September, Edwards said he was asked to come down to the State Police station in Holmdel. After he got there, he said he was shocked to find out he was being arrested and charged with third degree forgery. When he protested and said somebody made an error, he said one of the investigators asked him if the case did go to trial, who would the jury believe -- a bank security expert or him?
"They fingerprinted me. Took my mug shot and gave me a court date," he said.
The case fell apart, but the 63-year-old pastor says he never received an apology from the police, or from Wells Fargo. "The carelessness of both Wells Fargo and the State Police is kind of appalling, and I wonder what happens to somebody who might not have the resources to defend themselves," the pastor told NJ.com. "I told them yes that was my picture and yes I was in the bank that day. That's all they needed to arrest me."
A spokesman for Wells Fargo told the reporter they'd be unable to comment "since this is a pending legal matter." But the story was submitted to Slashdot by someone claiming to be pastor Jeff Edwards. "Wells Fargo carelessly provided ATM pictures [of] me to the state police in a fraudulent check investigation that led to my arrest," reads the original submission.
"The case was dismissed when it was demonstrated that Wells Fargo had been grossly irresponsible."
The guy's first mistake was thinking he could somehow talk to the police himself and "clear things up". You will never, ever succeed at that. Always consult a lawyer first, and always have your lawyer talk to the police on your behalf. And I haven't seen a link to James Duane's famous Don't Talk to the Police video in a while, which explains why this is the case a lot better than I could in a couple of paragraphs.
Because wells fargo provided wrong pictures and the police just went on with it with the premise that he should confess EVEN IF HE WAS INNOCENT because if it went to court he would be railroaded anyways and would get higher charges. he didn't do it but they were so ready to assume that it was him that they probably went more than a little bit too far with just trying to get him to confess.
it's worth suing both the police and wells fargo really, since it's in the usa. that it's in the usa is also why it can cause personal loss worth suing over as well as .. well, that's just what you gotta do in usa.
it's pinpointing a thing that is majorly wrong with the usa legal system at the moment and as such well worth suing for. It is the system trying to coerce you to give up your right for a fair trial(by pleading guilt on whatever they randomly choose as the crime that time) by pressuring on the fear that you will not receive a fair trial.
"you better plead guilty because otherwise you'll be convicted on stuff you didn't do anyways".
a lot of why that system got into the place at is today is the notion that "it only happens to people who deserve it" or that they did something anyways, so who cares, just convict them of something. it's barbaric and stupid. but somehow americans keep voting in people who base their campaigns on just doubling down on the stupidity.
---
and it is mugshot not a comparison photo, that it was him in the photo was never contested. it's not for that purpose. the mugshot and publishing them (before trial) is for shaming purposes, which again seems like a good idea as long as it never happens to you.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
It's the 'Guilty until proven innocent' game again.
Yes, and it would appear that being a man of the cloth provides you absolutely zero credibility these days with regards to that as well.
Police officers are encouraged to get a confession anyway they can, including lying.
Sadly, I agree wholeheartedly.
Since many prisons are now "for profit", and budgets are so tight, the police have shown they can no longer be trusted to properly or fairly do their jobs, and corporations never were trustworthy to start with....
Here in the UK - on which much of your American system is based - we have varying levels of "being spoken to" by the police.
Often, the first thing that police will do is ask you down to the station to "assist with their enquiries". This is very much understood to mean that the person could well be a witness, an expert, or just someone who happens to be helpful to the case. If the police say that someone is "helping with their enquiries", it's usually because they either don't have the evidence to actually *point the finger* at someone, or because that person is genuinely helping them.
However, if the police think they've got something on you, they will arrest you and proceed to *interview you under caution*. This is very different to the above; if you're a journalist, you'll be smelling blood at this point.
So for us in the UK, being arrested implies a certain level of guilt, or belief of guilt by the police, even if that doesn't include handcuffs and a prison cell. With that in mind, he's quite right to be upset; the cops didn't even do the most basic of checks before they went from "helping us with enquiries" to "this dude is clearly guilty"
As a side note, plenty of people are arrested here everyday without having to be held captive; in fact most experienced criminals will "come gently", because they will usually be treated as a human being, no matter how bad their crime. Put up a fight on the other hand, and it's the handcuffs and the rough treatment.
Since there is at least one case of bribing judges to send kids to privately run detention centers,, it's not a stretch to think that a private prison operator might bribe LEOs.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
The timestamps have to be in sync because ATM transactions interact with other servers at the bank
Two clocks are never perfectly in sync -- there is always some tolerance for clock skew, even with SSL, etc; most likely 3 to 5 minutes.
In any event, there's no technical requirement that the Cameras timestamps be in sync with the Bank network for the ATMs to function --- the timestamp on the camera could be X minutes ahead or behind the ATM's timestamp.