I do believe someone from halfway around the world has tried to scam this reporter. I could be mistaken, but when someone asks you to "please send your Account number and name of your bank," that's a red flag. If that's the case, they've really gone to an effort to scam me.
It started with a very poorly written e-mail from someone claiming to be the father-in-law of a guy I wrote about. He was ultimately convicted of criminal charges and made some news for himself during the court process. The e-mail seemed legitimate enough, so I sent back a short response (from my new "office" known as Starbucks, incidentally). Well, I just checked my work e-mail and had a response.
I'm still not sure if it's just a language barrier, of if it really is a scam. If it is, that will be a new one for me. Sure, I've been yelled at, cussed at, targeted for hate mail, etc, but personally scammed? Nope.
I'm still waiting for verdicts in the terrorism case; today marked the sixth and seventh days of deliberations for the two juries. Some of us journalists (and a lawyer-turned-TV-commentator) have basically turned a Starbucks into our office, since it's across the street from the courthouse and gives us access to Internet, coffee and plenty of time to get to the 13th floor of the courthouse when we get word of a jury question.
A couple of us, myself included, file stories daily and have to work on other things. Some don't do that because they work for big papers that don't want daily stories. Either way, we make time for plenty of jokes, legal discussions and ruminations on news stories. I think it just goes without saying that journalists are news junkies, and a lot of us soak up legal news, too. We also tend to come up with a lot of jokes (if the trial involves talk of masked pole-vaulters in a basement, how can you not make jokes?), and some trial lyrics have also been created.
But sometimes the jokes find us. Yesterday, for instance, a girl seated near us happened to be talking to a friend about how she "doesn't like water." The LA Times photographer and I just looked at each other, stared some more and never did say much. We were just too speechless. The photographer later commented that he expected her to also say, "I don't like air."
And today, we ventured a little farther away for lunch and drove (so we could fly back to the courthouse in time). We parked in a garage, walked to the elevator and waited for the doors to open. They soon did so, and revealed a young man with his back to us, sitting cross-legged while cleaning the elevator. He didn't realize it, but he was almost giving us a full moon. Again, the Times photographer and I just stared, but this time we quickly tried NOT to look again for the four-floor ride. Thankfully, the man was gone by the time we returned.
My blog's third birthday came and went a couple weeks ago, and I didn't even notice. What I do notice now, though, is that I've averaged about eight blog entries a month since March 2003. That number does not impress me, even when I consider the couple months I basically boycotted my own blog due to spam issues. Those issues stopped when I closed comments, but that daily frustrates me because I like feedback and interaction, whether good or bad.
I've been thinking recently about the fact that my blogging is irregular, and that I don't even post about the big things going on in my life. Instead, I post about things like Ferrari crashes (that guy is still in custody, by the way) and Starbucks' marketing, which is a daily sight for me now that I've set up temporary shop in a Starbucks across from federal court.
For instance, it's been over a month since I last mentioned the terrorism trial I've been covering. The case has a lot of national implications, and even the judge said there is no precedent for the case. Most of my last nine weeks have been spent commuting several days a week to and from Sacramento in rush-hour traffic, meaning that I have to leave around 7:45 a.m. to be on the safe side. Now the schedule is being set by jurors who are in deliberations. If their latest questions and requests are any indication, the verdicts won't come quickly.
Covering the case has certainly been a new experience for me. Until now, I had very little federal criminal knowledge, and my only federal courtroom coverage had involved a civil case. Of course, a lot of it is very similar to state court, but it's not the same. State rules are on a completely different numbering system, as are charges. And, as I've certainly learned from this case, it's a federal crime to lie to the FBI, while that's not a state crime. In other words, if you're going to talk to law enforcement, it's better to talk to local police.
I'll end this post with one more link, this one to an LA Times editorial (use BugMeNot if you need free registration) about the ongoing Zacarias Moussaoui trial and terrorism in general. In case you live under a log, or you're reading this years after his name has faded from the public spotlight, he's the only person to have been charged in connection with the 9/11 attacks. He pleaded guilty, but then went on trial for a jury to determine if he should get the death penalty or life in prison. The editorial compares Moussaoui's trial to other cases that have been delayed for any number of reasons, some of which led to lawsuits regarding a defendant's right to a speedy trial.
As the Times points out, Moussaoui got his trial and his day in court, just as every defendant should. Despite all sorts of kinks in the case, it has followed the law and our country's security is none the worse. The government should give the detainees their day in court, so the public can see what's really at stake. If the cases are as serious as the government says they are, that will speak more loudly for the war on terror than any politician ever can.
Three months after I got a Sprint telemarketer to hang up on me, I just improved my record to 2-0. This guy had an almost identical speech ready, though he said my number had been "selected," not "preselected."
He got that far in his pitch before I interrupted him and started in on the debate of whether my number had been selected or targeted. Like the previous telemarketer, this guy said no, my number had been selected.
"Now, the last time you guys called, we went around in circles on this issue until I got that caller to hang up," I said. "So can I get you to do the same thing?"
Amazingly enough, the man said, "OK." The line was silent for a minute, and then I heard a click. Another win for me.
The headline read: "Man arrested in Malibu crash that destroyed rare Ferrari." So, being the inquisitive crime writing/reading reporter that I am, I clicked on the link while making my way through the Sunday morning news. The story was an Associated Press brief, so I knew there had to be more to it. In fact, there's a lot more to it, including rare cars, Scotland Yard and a gaming company whose executives apparently drained it of cash.
I was soon reading a San Francisco Chronicle story that explained a lot more. Stefan Eriksson, of Sweden, was in a rare $1 million Ferrari Enzo that split in half during a 160 mph crash on Feb. 21. He was not injured in the crash, which unveiled a host of other strange questions. As Chronicle writer James Sterngold put it, "Eriksson, 44, was or was not behind the wheel of the Ferrari the morning it crashed, does or does not actually own the wrecked Enzo, is or is not connected to a loaded gun clip found the morning of the crash, and may or may not be an anti-terrorism leader with a shadowy police force."
Ironically, that article was published today, hours after Eriksson was arrested. I imagine the Chronicle reporter is more than a little frustrated at the timing, because his researched, well-written story is missing the latest, most significant development. Had the story been published Saturday (and, knowing how newspapers work, it's obvious to me that the story was ready in time), it would have been a case of beautiful, perfect timing.
But I'll get back to the story. Police, ranging from Los Angeles to Scotland Yard, have been investigating the case since February. In the meantime, they confiscated another one of Eriksson's cars last month because it had a foreign license plate, wasn't registered in the U.S. and his wife was behind the wheel but had no driver's license. Luckily for Eriksson, this was only a $400,000 Mercedez, not his other $1 million Ferrari.
Just to add icing to the cake, that act was caught on video by a 13-year-old car fan whose first name is Spyder.
So now Mr. Eriksson is sitting in jail without bail -- because he's been arrested for a crime, that automatically triggers an immigration hold -- while gamers and car enthusiasts track the story. A certain reporter, who happens to run a blog you might currently be reading, is also officially intrigued.
I'll leave you with one more link, which is quite possibly the most thorough log of the events and includes all sorts of photos. And, just in case you needed further proof of my nerdiness, I've bookmarked that site.
Starbucks is moving one step closer to taking over the world: They're launching an all-out advertisement/endorsement campaign for a movie about a spelling bee. The deal includes everything from hard-to-spell words being printed on millions of cups to baristas who, after getting an early viewing of the movie, are "encouraged" to talk to customers about the movie. The coffee giant is marketing the movie so much that, rather than paying to have their brand in the film the way most advertisers do, Starbucks gets a cut of the film.
Now all they need is to get Google in on it, and then the world will be theirs.
Attempted scam?
I do believe someone from halfway around the world has tried to scam this reporter. I could be mistaken, but when someone asks you to "please send your Account number and name of your bank," that's a red flag. If that's the case, they've really gone to an effort to scam me.It started with a very poorly written e-mail from someone claiming to be the father-in-law of a guy I wrote about. He was ultimately convicted of criminal charges and made some news for himself during the court process. The e-mail seemed legitimate enough, so I sent back a short response (from my new "office" known as Starbucks, incidentally). Well, I just checked my work e-mail and had a response.
I'm still not sure if it's just a language barrier, of if it really is a scam. If it is, that will be a new one for me. Sure, I've been yelled at, cussed at, targeted for hate mail, etc, but personally scammed? Nope.
Posted by Layla at 12:27 AM, April 23, 2006.