Fake Military IDs Used By Woman in Alleged $9,000 Bank Theft 5%

By Derricke Dennis28%

8/6/2026, 11:07:24 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 16 faulty reasoning types, including Indoctrination, Framing Effect, and Appeal to Authority, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 19.1% saturation with 101 hits. Analysis detected 638 faulty-reasoning hits from 528 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 12.7% and a BS Rank of 5% (29,158 of 30,584 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 95.30% of the article peer group.

A Colorado woman is facing legal charges after allegedly using fake military IDs as part of an attempt to allegedly steal nearly $9,000. 
The Shelby County Sheriff's Office alleges that Jonica Woodward, 47, presented a military ID and a VA card in the name of an account holder at the Pinnacle Bank in Memphis, Colo. 
Authorities said bank employees became suspicious when Woodward presented a Pinnacle Loan advance form in the amount of $8,900, which she purportedly signed with the victim’s name but had an incorrect account number. 
Authorities said a Pinnacle Bank account was targeted by a Colorado woman using fake military ID's to try and steal from an account holder. 
(Pinnacle Bank). 
Bank employees pulled up a picture of the actual account holder's driver’s license through their databases and discovered the suspect did not match the photo of the victim, authorities said. 
Woodward is charged with criminal attempted theft of property of $2,500 or more but less than $10,000, as well as forgery, identity theft, criminal impersonation, and using false identification. 
**Fake Military ID Use Violates Federal Law** 
Federal law strictly prohibits copying, scanning, or photographing official U.S. military identification cards to prevent the creation of fake IDs and protect military personnel from identity theft. 
Under 18 U.S.C. § 701, unauthorized replication of government identification cards is a criminal offense. 
This legal framework provides specific protections and guidelines for service members, businesses, and law enforcement. 
In a video posted online, Staff Sgt. 
Alan Graves of U.S. 
Army Reserve public affairs said scammers are increasingly using fake military IDs to steal. 
Actual military members need to be aware, he said. 
"Right now, there are companies all over the world trying to get copies of your military ID by offering discounts on purchases made online," Graves said. 
"Don't do it. 
Don't fall into this trap. 
Criminals and terrorist groups take these images to make fake copies of government IDs for acts against the U.S. military." 
He also warned active-duty service members and veterans to safeguard their IDs, especially common access cards or CACs. 
These are smart identification cards used by active-duty military, reserve members, civilian employees and contractors to provide secure access to defense buildings, computer networks, and official systems. 
The Shelby County Sheriffs Office is investigating an attempted bank theft in Memphis using fake military ID's by a 47-year-old Colorado woman. 
(SCSO). 
"Don't allow anyone to scan, copy, or photograph your CAC," he added. 
Also, don't scan your CAC anywhere that is not for official government use," Graves said. 
"Just don't do it. 
Do your part. 
It's that simple. 
It's those small things that keep your ID safe." 
In Woodward's case, authorities believe she was acting as an individual and not on behalf of a criminal enterprise. 
Authorities said that Pinnacle Bank employees contacted the victim, whose identity was purportedly being stolen, and discovered that they were never in the military nor had they provided access or permission to anyone to withdraw money from the bank account. 
She was scheduled to appear for a preliminary hearing in court on Aug. 
6. 
The incident remains under investigation. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Derricke Dennis: 1.3%Military.com: 1.8%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Derricke Dennis: 1.2%Military.com: 0.9%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 7.6%Derricke Dennis: 2.2%Military.com: 3.6%Availability Heuristic7.6%This article: 0.0%Derricke Dennis: 0.6%Military.com: 0.4%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Derricke Dennis: 0.2%Military.com: 0.1%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 2.8%Derricke Dennis: 0.3%Military.com: 0.6%Overconfidence Bias2.8%This article: 16.5%Derricke Dennis: 2.3%Military.com: 2.4%Framing Effect16.5%This article: 0.0%Derricke Dennis: 0.4%Military.com: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Derricke Dennis: 0.3%Military.com: 0.1%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Derricke Dennis: 0.0%Military.com: 0.0%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.6%Derricke Dennis: 3.6%Military.com: 2.7%Optimism Bias0.6%This article: 5.1%Derricke Dennis: 0.1%Military.com: 0.3%Pessimism Bias5.1%This article: 19.1%Derricke Dennis: 2.0%Military.com: 3.2%Negativity Bias19.1%This article: 0.0%Derricke Dennis: 0.6%Military.com: 1.1%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 3.6%Derricke Dennis: 0.0%Military.com: 0.0%Fundamental Attribution Error3.6%This article: 0.0%Derricke Dennis: 0.0%Military.com: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Derricke Dennis: 1.9%Military.com: 1.1%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Derricke Dennis: 0.4%Military.com: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 5.5%Derricke Dennis: 2.4%Military.com: 2.3%Halo Effect5.5%This article: 0.0%Derricke Dennis: 0.0%Military.com: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Derricke Dennis: 0.0%Military.com: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Derricke Dennis: 0.4%Military.com: 0.5%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Derricke Dennis: 0.5%Military.com: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Derricke Dennis: 0.0%Military.com: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Derricke Dennis: 0.0%Military.com: 0.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Derricke Dennis: 0.2%Military.com: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 10.6%Derricke Dennis: 4.7%Military.com: 3.5%Appeal to Authority10.6%This article: 0.0%Derricke Dennis: 0.3%Military.com: 0.1%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 3.8%Derricke Dennis: 0.0%Military.com: 0.0%Slippery Slope3.8%This article: 0.0%Derricke Dennis: 0.2%Military.com: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 8.7%Derricke Dennis: 3.1%Military.com: 2.5%Hasty Generalization8.7%This article: 0.0%Derricke Dennis: 0.2%Military.com: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Derricke Dennis: 0.2%Military.com: 0.1%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Derricke Dennis: 4.2%Military.com: 2.7%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 2.8%Derricke Dennis: 0.4%Military.com: 0.3%Begging the Question2.8%This article: 0.0%Derricke Dennis: 1.7%Military.com: 1.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Derricke Dennis: 0.0%Military.com: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Derricke Dennis: 0.8%Military.com: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Derricke Dennis: 0.0%Military.com: 0.0%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Derricke Dennis: 0.3%Military.com: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Derricke Dennis: 0.4%Military.com: 1.2%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Derricke Dennis: 0.0%Military.com: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 9.3%Derricke Dennis: 0.5%Military.com: 0.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)9.3%This article: 0.0%Derricke Dennis: 0.0%Military.com: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Derricke Dennis: 0.0%Military.com: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Derricke Dennis: 0.0%Military.com: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Derricke Dennis: 0.0%Military.com: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Derricke Dennis: 0.0%Military.com: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 1.3%Derricke Dennis: 0.6%Military.com: 0.8%Unattributed Quote1.3%This article: 4.9%Derricke Dennis: 0.2%Military.com: 0.5%Quote-first Misdirection4.9%This article: 0.0%Derricke Dennis: 1.6%Military.com: 1.0%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 18.6%Derricke Dennis: 4.1%Military.com: 2.3%Indoctrination18.6%This article: 0.0%Derricke Dennis: 0.0%Military.com: 0.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Derricke Dennis: 0.0%Military.com: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Derricke Dennis: 2.8%Military.com: 1.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

528 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers34%attributed speech351writer words
Selected voice

Alan Graves

97%flagged-word coverage
131 attributed words74% of attributed speech77% writer coverage
0%37.5%75.0%Indoctrination+74.8 ptsWriter: 0.0%Alan Graves: 74.8%74.8%Quote-first Misdirection+19.8 ptsWriter: 0.0%Alan Graves: 19.8%19.8%Unattributed Quote-2.0 ptsWriter: 2.0%Alan Graves: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.