These Sums of Monies had to be to his own use because the Defendant did not testify as to what official use he employed the Funds for. He is found to have converted theOriginal Sum from its Official Purpose to his own, for a benefit. By his Oral Directives, Receiving without Accountability and by his tolerance to the bypass of Due Process, he misappropriated the above Sums in a manner that can only appropriately described as dishonest, contrary to the Oath of Office he undertook and the Financial Guidelines of his State Government. The Prosecution is found to have proven these Counts of Offences Beyond Reasonable Doubt and the Defendant is found Guilty in regard to the Offence of Criminal Breach of Trust in Counts 16, 18, 20, 27, 29, 30, 31, 33 and 36. As regards Counts 22, 24, 26, 28, 32,34, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40 and 41 the Prosecution failed to establish these Counts of Offence, and therefore are found to be unmeritorious and are accordingly dismissed. CRIMINAL MISAPPROPRIATION, COUNTS 3, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23 AND 25 Now, Criminal Misappropriation is a Lesser Pedigree Offence of Criminal Breach of Trust and Certain Ingredients distinguishes it from Criminal Breach of Trust. Criminal Misappropriation, does not Particularize Certain Categories of Persons, rather, it is all encompassing to include ALL Persons, regardless of Status or Office held or occupied. Further, Criminal Misappropriation does not require any form of, Entrustment created or Dominion controlled, over a Property either by way of Contract, Law or Directive and the Violation of the Law or Contract is not a factor. Finally, ONLY Duplex Modes suffice for this Offence of Criminal Misappropriation, which are Misappropriation and/or Conversion. Section 308 of the Penal Code defines Criminal Misappropriation in this manner: - 241