Just to (maybe) put this to bed, here are a few articles on the subject of
unauthorized access to communications as they pertain to divorce
proceedings.
I believe they are all written by divorce attorneys. Trust me when I tell
you that if a divorce attorney thought that accessing a spouse's email
without authorization, thereby obtaining evidence that could potentially
crucify the other spouse in court, they wouldn't be strenuously advising
potential clients not to do it.
http://www.memphisdivorce.com/taping.htmlhttp://www.rosen.com/faq/siteserve/faq.asp?cat=14http://www.divorcesource.com/NJ/ARTICLES/gruber27.html
Jim
-----Original Message-----
From: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com [mailto:infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Jim Parker
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 7:58 PM
To: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [infoguys-list] An Interesting Article.....
<<< It is "fair game" not because it has anything to do with cyberspace but
rather because it is a shared computer where, if Amy so desired, she had the
opportunity to secure the information. >>>
Again, Sue... Just because Amy failed to adequately protect her e-mail
account, doesn't explicitly or implicitly imply authorization to access it.
"Unauthorized" access to stored communications is a crime.
<<< if the baker leaves the shop door wide open with a "Help Yourself"
sign, get behind me because I'm getting my favorites first. >>>
A "Help Yourself" sign would expressly give consent to enter the store, but
Amy didn't have a "Help Yourself" sign on her e-mail account. This clearly
isn't a very persuasive argument.
<<< Then you said, "The communications between Amy and Christina were
clearly intended to be private, otherwise, Amy wouldn't be suing now." Well,
again, if they were intended to be, she should have protected them. >>>>
Should have, doesn't make a difference. It was evidently her intent that the
communications be private, and it seems clear that she did not authorize her
husband to read them. Once again, failure to adequately protect something
doesn't imply an open invitation for someone to enter and take what they
want. Leave your door unlocked on night, and when someone in a black mask is
unplugging your stereo, we'll see if you still think that your failure to
secure your property exculpates any responsibility from the intruder.
<<< His/their house. His/their computer. His/their bank account[s].
His/their assets. >>>
You're making the mistake that most people make: confusing ownership of
tangible property laws with privacy of communications laws. They are two
entirely separate beasts. You may have bought your phone from RadioShack,
you may pay every cent of the phone bill, but you cannot legally record your
spouse's private communications on that phone absent her consent and/or
authorization (and in some states, the authorization of whoever he/she is
communicating with)
Jim
-----Original Message-----
From: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com <mailto:infoguys-list%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:infoguys-list%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of suesarkis@...
<mailto:suesarkis%40aol.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 7:17 PM
To: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com <mailto:infoguys-list%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [infoguys-list] An Interesting Article.....
Jim -
It is "fair game" not because it has anything to do with cyberspace but
rather because it is a shared computer where, if Amy so desired, she had the
opportunity to secure the information. She chose not to. Since there was no
hacking, no password invasion or anything remotely similar, it was the same
as reading mail sprawled out on someone's table.
When has a court ever truly ruled a contract "morally unconscionable" having
anything to do with invasion of privacy or something similar? Contracts are
unconscionable when they are, for instance, "contracts of adhesion" with the
"take it or leave it" mentality such as was recently ruled against PayPal.
I'm just curious as I've never had the opportunity to read such a legal
determination.
I'm also curious as to why you believe the communications in the computer
which, presumably, was acquired during the marriage and not password
protected contain legally protected communications.
Then you said, "The communications between Amy and Christina were clearly
intended to be private, otherwise, Amy wouldn't be suing now." Well, again,
if they were intended to be, she should have protected them. Nothing was
broken into unless I read the original article incorrectly. I'll say the
same thing I said to all of you when the Larry Ropp matter was pending - you
can sue all you want, that doesn't mean you'll prevail. She didn't. Most of
you assured me he was going to be convicted. When he was victorious at the
District level, you rammed it down my throat that it wasn't over until the
fat lady sang. Well, I sang a long time ago and I can assure you it will
never be revisited by anyone, anywhere.
Then you said, "If a baker drops the key to his bakery on the way to his
car, that doesn't imply authority for you to use the key to enter the
premises and eat all his pies." You are so correct and such conduct should
be considered morally repugnant. However, if the baker leaves the shop door
wide open with a "Help Yourself" sign, get behind me because I'm getting my
favorites first.
But Bob, I must ask, why do you consider the conduct morally wrong? He
suspects his wife is having an affair. He might even suspect she's about to
try and take him to the cleaners. His/their house. His/their computer.
His/their bank account[s]. His/their assets. I think Darwin said it best.
Yes, you are right, the law is not absolute. The Constitution is a leaving,
breathing document which involves a "cumulative" analysis of the
implications and attitudes of the existing society. What's accepted today
might not be so tomorrow and with the current trend towards secular humanism
gearing up for socialism, that will be the case more often than not.
Bob, you knew or should have known that I wouldn't let you two dance alone
!!
Sincerely yours,
Sue
________________________
Sue Sarkis
Sarkis Detective Agency
(est. 1976)
PI 6564
_www.sarkispi.com_ (http://www.sarkispi.com/ <http://www.sarkispi.com/>
<http://www.sarkispi.com/ <http://www.sarkispi.com/> > )
1346 Ethel Street
Glendale, CA 91207-1826
818-242-2505
818-242-9824 FAX
"one Nation under God"
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you can read it in English, thank
a military veteran !
<BR><BR><BR>**************************************<BR> AOL now offers free
email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at
http://www.aol.com. <http://www.aol.com.> <http://www.aol.com.
<http://www.aol.com.> >
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
<<<< "her consent"? Sue; what's up with that? ;o) >>>>
You didn't know?
:o)
-----Original Message-----
From: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com [mailto:infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Ricky Gurley
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 8:36 PM
To: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [infoguys-list] An Interesting Article.....
A quote from Jim: "You're making the mistake that most people make:
confusing ownership of tangible property laws with privacy of communications
laws. They are two entirely separate beasts. You may have bought your phone
from RadioShack, you may pay every cent of the phone bill, but you cannot
legally record your spouse's private communications on that phone absent her
consent and/or authorization (and in some states, the authorization of
whoever he/she is communicating with)"
One sentence in particular: "but you cannot legally record your spouse's
private communications on that phone absent her consent and/or
authorization"
"her consent"? Sue; what's up with that? ;o)
Rick.
Risk Management Research & Investments, Inc.
"He Who Forgets, Will Be Destined To Remember"
MAILING ADDRESS: 2101 W. Broadway PMB 326, Columbia, MO. 65203 OFFICE
ADDRESS: 607 N. Providence, Columbia, MO. 65203
Phone: (888) 571-0958
Fax: (877) 795-9800
Cell: (573) 529-0808
Email
RMRI-Inc@... <mailto:RMRI-Inc%40mchsi.com>
RMRI, Inc. Blogs
http://rmriinc.blogspot.com/ <http://rmriinc.blogspot.com/>
http://rmriincspace.spaces.live.com/blog/
<http://rmriincspace.spaces.live.com/blog/>
Webpage
http://www.rmriinc.com <http://www.rmriinc.com>
----- Original Message ----
From: Jim Parker <Jim@...
<mailto:Jim%40FloridaDetectives.com> >
To: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com <mailto:infoguys-list%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2007 6:57:35 PM
Subject: RE: [infoguys-list] An Interesting Article.....
<<< It is "fair game" not because it has anything to do with cyberspace but
rather because it is a shared computer where, if Amy so desired, she had the
opportunity to secure the information. >>>
Again, Sue... Just because Amy failed to adequately protect her e-mail
account, doesn't explicitly or implicitly imply authorization to access it.
"Unauthorized" access to stored communications is a crime.
<<< if the baker leaves the shop door wide open with a "Help Yourself"
sign, get behind me because I'm getting my favorites first. >>>
A "Help Yourself" sign would expressly give consent to enter the store, but
Amy didn't have a "Help Yourself" sign on her e-mail account. This clearly
isn't a very persuasive argument.
<<< Then you said, "The communications between Amy and Christina were
clearly intended to be private, otherwise, Amy wouldn't be suing now." Well,
again, if they were intended to be, she should have protected them. >>>>
Should have, doesn't make a difference. It was evidently her intent that the
communications be private, and it seems clear that she did not authorize her
husband to read them. Once again, failure to adequately protect something
doesn't imply an open invitation for someone to enter and take what they
want. Leave your door unlocked on night, and when someone in a black mask is
unplugging your stereo, we'll see if you still think that your failure to
secure your property exculpates any responsibility from the intruder.
<<< His/their house. His/their computer. His/their bank account[s].
His/their assets. >>>
You're making the mistake that most people make: confusing ownership of
tangible property laws with privacy of communications laws. They are two
entirely separate beasts. You may have bought your phone from RadioShack,
you may pay every cent of the phone bill, but you cannot legally record your
spouse's private communications on that phone absent her consent and/or
authorization (and in some states, the authorization of whoever he/she is
communicating with)
Jim
-----Original Message-----
From: infoguys-list@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:infoguys-list@ yahoogroups.
com] On Behalf Of suesarkis@aol. com
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 7:17 PM
To: infoguys-list@ yahoogroups. com
Subject: Re: [infoguys-list] An Interesting Article.....
Jim -
It is "fair game" not because it has anything to do with cyberspace but
rather because it is a shared computer where, if Amy so desired, she had the
opportunity to secure the information. She chose not to. Since there was no
hacking, no password invasion or anything remotely similar, it was the same
as reading mail sprawled out on someone's table.
When has a court ever truly ruled a contract "morally unconscionable" having
anything to do with invasion of privacy or something similar? Contracts are
unconscionable when they are, for instance, "contracts of adhesion" with the
"take it or leave it" mentality such as was recently ruled against PayPal.
I'm just curious as I've never had the opportunity to read such a legal
determination.
I'm also curious as to why you believe the communications in the computer
which, presumably, was acquired during the marriage and not password
protected contain legally protected communications.
Then you said, "The communications between Amy and Christina were clearly
intended to be private, otherwise, Amy wouldn't be suing now." Well, again,
if they were intended to be, she should have protected them. Nothing was
broken into unless I read the original article incorrectly. I'll say the
same thing I said to all of you when the Larry Ropp matter was pending - you
can sue all you want, that doesn't mean you'll prevail. She didn't. Most of
you assured me he was going to be convicted. When he was victorious at the
District level, you rammed it down my throat that it wasn't over until the
fat lady sang. Well, I sang a long time ago and I can assure you it will
never be revisited by anyone, anywhere.
Then you said, "If a baker drops the key to his bakery on the way to his
car, that doesn't imply authority for you to use the key to enter the
premises and eat all his pies." You are so correct and such conduct should
be considered morally repugnant. However, if the baker leaves the shop door
wide open with a "Help Yourself" sign, get behind me because I'm getting my
favorites first.
But Bob, I must ask, why do you consider the conduct morally wrong? He
suspects his wife is having an affair. He might even suspect she's about to
try and take him to the cleaners. His/their house. His/their computer.
His/their bank account[s]. His/their assets. I think Darwin said it best.
Yes, you are right, the law is not absolute. The Constitution is a leaving,
breathing document which involves a "cumulative" analysis of the
implications and attitudes of the existing society. What's accepted today
might not be so tomorrow and with the current trend towards secular humanism
gearing up for socialism, that will be the case more often than not.
Bob, you knew or should have known that I wouldn't let you two dance alone
!!
Sincerely yours,
Sue
____________ _________ ___
Sue Sarkis
Sarkis Detective Agency
(est. 1976)
PI 6564
_www.sarkispi. com_ (http://www.sarkispi .com/ <http://www.sarkispi .com/> )
1346 Ethel Street
Glendale, CA 91207-1826
818-242-2505
818-242-9824 FAX
"one Nation under God"
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you can read it in English, thank
a military veteran !
<BR><BR><BR> ********* ********* ********* ********* **<BR> AOL now offers
free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at
http://www.aol. com. <http://www.aol. com.>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
__________________________________________________________
TV dinner still cooling?
Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV.
http://tv.yahoo.com/ <http://tv.yahoo.com/>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
<<<< Trust me when I tell you that if a divorce attorney thought that
accessing a spouse's email without authorization, thereby obtaining evidence
that could potentially crucify the other spouse in court, they wouldn't be
strenuously advising potential clients not to do it. >>>>
Well, that sounded stupid.
Let's try again:
Trust me when I tell you that if a divorce attorney thought that accessing a
spouse's email without authorization, thereby obtaining evidence that could
potentially crucify the other spouse in court WAS A GOOD IDEA, they wouldn't
be strenuously advising potential clients not to do it.
Jim
-----Original Message-----
From: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com [mailto:infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Jim Parker
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 8:42 PM
To: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [infoguys-list] An Interesting Article.....
Just to (maybe) put this to bed, here are a few articles on the subject of
unauthorized access to communications as they pertain to divorce
proceedings.
I believe they are all written by divorce attorneys. Trust me when I tell
you that if a divorce attorney thought that accessing a spouse's email
without authorization, thereby obtaining evidence that could potentially
crucify the other spouse in court, they wouldn't be strenuously advising
potential clients not to do it.
http://www.memphisdivorce.com/taping.html
<http://www.memphisdivorce.com/taping.html>
http://www.rosen.com/faq/siteserve/faq.asp?cat=14
<http://www.rosen.com/faq/siteserve/faq.asp?cat=14>
http://www.divorcesource.com/NJ/ARTICLES/gruber27.html
<http://www.divorcesource.com/NJ/ARTICLES/gruber27.html>
Jim
-----Original Message-----
From: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com <mailto:infoguys-list%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:infoguys-list%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of Jim Parker
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 7:58 PM
To: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com <mailto:infoguys-list%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: RE: [infoguys-list] An Interesting Article.....
<<< It is "fair game" not because it has anything to do with cyberspace but
rather because it is a shared computer where, if Amy so desired, she had the
opportunity to secure the information. >>>
Again, Sue... Just because Amy failed to adequately protect her e-mail
account, doesn't explicitly or implicitly imply authorization to access it.
"Unauthorized" access to stored communications is a crime.
<<< if the baker leaves the shop door wide open with a "Help Yourself"
sign, get behind me because I'm getting my favorites first. >>>
A "Help Yourself" sign would expressly give consent to enter the store, but
Amy didn't have a "Help Yourself" sign on her e-mail account. This clearly
isn't a very persuasive argument.
<<< Then you said, "The communications between Amy and Christina were
clearly intended to be private, otherwise, Amy wouldn't be suing now." Well,
again, if they were intended to be, she should have protected them. >>>>
Should have, doesn't make a difference. It was evidently her intent that the
communications be private, and it seems clear that she did not authorize her
husband to read them. Once again, failure to adequately protect something
doesn't imply an open invitation for someone to enter and take what they
want. Leave your door unlocked on night, and when someone in a black mask is
unplugging your stereo, we'll see if you still think that your failure to
secure your property exculpates any responsibility from the intruder.
<<< His/their house. His/their computer. His/their bank account[s].
His/their assets. >>>
You're making the mistake that most people make: confusing ownership of
tangible property laws with privacy of communications laws. They are two
entirely separate beasts. You may have bought your phone from RadioShack,
you may pay every cent of the phone bill, but you cannot legally record your
spouse's private communications on that phone absent her consent and/or
authorization (and in some states, the authorization of whoever he/she is
communicating with)
Jim
-----Original Message-----
From: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com <mailto:infoguys-list%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:infoguys-list%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:infoguys-list%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:infoguys-list%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of suesarkis@...
<mailto:suesarkis%40aol.com> <mailto:suesarkis%40aol.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 7:17 PM
To: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com <mailto:infoguys-list%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:infoguys-list%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [infoguys-list] An Interesting Article.....
Jim -
It is "fair game" not because it has anything to do with cyberspace but
rather because it is a shared computer where, if Amy so desired, she had the
opportunity to secure the information. She chose not to. Since there was no
hacking, no password invasion or anything remotely similar, it was the same
as reading mail sprawled out on someone's table.
When has a court ever truly ruled a contract "morally unconscionable" having
anything to do with invasion of privacy or something similar? Contracts are
unconscionable when they are, for instance, "contracts of adhesion" with the
"take it or leave it" mentality such as was recently ruled against PayPal.
I'm just curious as I've never had the opportunity to read such a legal
determination.
I'm also curious as to why you believe the communications in the computer
which, presumably, was acquired during the marriage and not password
protected contain legally protected communications.
Then you said, "The communications between Amy and Christina were clearly
intended to be private, otherwise, Amy wouldn't be suing now." Well, again,
if they were intended to be, she should have protected them. Nothing was
broken into unless I read the original article incorrectly. I'll say the
same thing I said to all of you when the Larry Ropp matter was pending - you
can sue all you want, that doesn't mean you'll prevail. She didn't. Most of
you assured me he was going to be convicted. When he was victorious at the
District level, you rammed it down my throat that it wasn't over until the
fat lady sang. Well, I sang a long time ago and I can assure you it will
never be revisited by anyone, anywhere.
Then you said, "If a baker drops the key to his bakery on the way to his
car, that doesn't imply authority for you to use the key to enter the
premises and eat all his pies." You are so correct and such conduct should
be considered morally repugnant. However, if the baker leaves the shop door
wide open with a "Help Yourself" sign, get behind me because I'm getting my
favorites first.
But Bob, I must ask, why do you consider the conduct morally wrong? He
suspects his wife is having an affair. He might even suspect she's about to
try and take him to the cleaners. His/their house. His/their computer.
His/their bank account[s]. His/their assets. I think Darwin said it best.
Yes, you are right, the law is not absolute. The Constitution is a leaving,
breathing document which involves a "cumulative" analysis of the
implications and attitudes of the existing society. What's accepted today
might not be so tomorrow and with the current trend towards secular humanism
gearing up for socialism, that will be the case more often than not.
Bob, you knew or should have known that I wouldn't let you two dance alone
!!
Sincerely yours,
Sue
________________________
Sue Sarkis
Sarkis Detective Agency
(est. 1976)
PI 6564
_www.sarkispi.com_ (http://www.sarkispi.com/ <http://www.sarkispi.com/>
<http://www.sarkispi.com/ <http://www.sarkispi.com/> >
<http://www.sarkispi.com/ <http://www.sarkispi.com/>
<http://www.sarkispi.com/ <http://www.sarkispi.com/> > > )
1346 Ethel Street
Glendale, CA 91207-1826
818-242-2505
818-242-9824 FAX
"one Nation under God"
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you can read it in English, thank
a military veteran !
<BR><BR><BR>**************************************<BR> AOL now offers free
email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at
http://www.aol.com. <http://www.aol.com.> <http://www.aol.com.
<http://www.aol.com.> > <http://www.aol.com. <http://www.aol.com.>
<http://www.aol.com. <http://www.aol.com.> > >
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
In a message dated 3/1/2007 4:28:46 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
rmriinc@... writes:
LEAVING breathing document
Did I really type that? You know what I meant - LIVING
ss
<BR><BR><BR>**************************************<BR> AOL now offers free
email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at
http://www.aol.com.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
<<<< Did I really type that? >>>>
Looks like we're BOTH going senile.
:o)
-----Original Message-----
From: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com [mailto:infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of suesarkis@...
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 8:59 PM
To: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [infoguys-list] OOPS !!
In a message dated 3/1/2007 4:28:46 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
rmriinc@... <mailto:rmriinc%40yahoo.com> writes:
LEAVING breathing document
Did I really type that? You know what I meant - LIVING
ss
<BR><BR><BR>**************************************<BR> AOL now offers free
email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at
http://www.aol.com. <http://www.aol.com.>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
In a message dated 3/1/2007 5:36:55 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
rmriinc@... writes:
"her consent"? Sue; what's up with that? ;o)
Rick, That was not me !!!! ss
This new yahoogroups format sometimes disguises who is saying what. I don't
care for it myself.
Sue
<BR><BR><BR>**************************************<BR> AOL now offers free
email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at
http://www.aol.com.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
In a message dated 3/1/2007 6:06:35 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
Jim@... writes:
Looks like we're BOTH going senile.
What do you mean "going"? ss
<BR><BR><BR>**************************************<BR> AOL now offers free
email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at
http://www.aol.com.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I think Jim got it, Sue. It was a joke... ;o)
Risk Management Research & Investments, Inc.
"He Who Forgets, Will Be Destined To Remember"
MAILING ADDRESS: 2101 W. Broadway PMB 326, Columbia, MO. 65203
OFFICE ADDRESS: 607 N. Providence, Columbia, MO. 65203
Phone: (888) 571-0958
Fax: (877) 795-9800
Cell: (573) 529-0808
Email
RMRI-Inc@...
RMRI, Inc. Blogs
http://rmriinc.blogspot.com/http://rmriincspace.spaces.live.com/blog/
Webpage
http://www.rmriinc.com
----- Original Message ----
From: "suesarkis@..." <suesarkis@...>
To: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2007 8:08:25 PM
Subject: Re: [infoguys-list] An Interesting Article.....
In a message dated 3/1/2007 5:36:55 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
rmriinc@yahoo. com writes:
"her consent"? Sue; what's up with that? ;o)
Rick, That was not me !!!! ss
This new yahoogroups format sometimes disguises who is saying what. I don't
care for it myself.
Sue
<BR><BR><BR> ********* ********* ********* ********* **<BR> AOL now offers free
email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at
http://www.aol. com.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
________________________________________________________________________________\
____
Cheap talk?
Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates.
http://voice.yahoo.com
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sgt. Smith pled guilty to sexual misconduct through intimidation. >>>>
I guess I'm missing the part about the actual law suit. I'm assuming Jane
Doe is suing the state for damages based on her mental health problems after
being raped (more than once) by a guard in prison? Smith pled guilty to raping
her, and now the state is saying "well, she was screwed up before he raped her,
so it's not our problem".
Does that sum it up?
<yup>
If so, I'd give Jane whatever she's seeking, and have Smith locked up in a
women's prison (general population). If you think male prisoners can be rough
on rapists and scum-bags, just wait 'til you see what these women will do to
him.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I am looking for a reputable PI in Cancun Mexico. Please email me privately
if you can assist me.
with best regards
Keith Rounsavall
Rounsavall Investigations
#151 17200 Chenal Parkway, Suite 300
Little Rock, Arkansas 72223
1-800-825-9372 - (501) 219-0200 Fax (501) 223-3969
Cell phone (501) 529-8546
Arkansas PI license D96023
_www.privatesnoop.com_ (http://privatesnoop101@aol.com/)
_Keith@..._ (http://Keith@privatesnoop.com/)
<BR><BR><BR>**************************************<BR> AOL now offers free
email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at
http://www.aol.com.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
815.04 Offenses against intellectual property; public records exemption.--
(1) Whoever willfully, knowingly, and without authorization modifies data,
programs, or supporting documentation residing or existing internal or
external to a computer, computer system, or computer network commits an
offense against intellectual property.
(2) Whoever willfully, knowingly, and without authorization destroys data,
programs, or supporting documentation residing or existing internal or
external to a computer, computer system, or computer network commits an
offense against intellectual property.
(3)(a) Data, programs, or supporting documentation which is a trade secret
as defined in s. 812.081 which resides or exists internal or external to a
computer, computer system, or computer network which is held by an agency as
defined in chapter 119 is confidential and exempt from the provisions of s.
119.07(1) and s. 24(a), Art. I of the State Constitution.
(b) Whoever willfully, knowingly, and without authorization discloses or
takes data, programs, or supporting documentation which is a trade secret as
defined in s. 812.081 or is confidential as provided by law residing or
existing internal or external to a computer, computer system, or computer
network commits an offense against intellectual property.
(4)(a) Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, an offense against
intellectual property is a felony of the third degree, punishable as
provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(b) If the offense is committed for the purpose of devising or executing
any scheme or artifice to defraud or to obtain any property, then the
offender is guilty of a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided
in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
I cant site the section, but the courts have held that unopened emails hold
the standing as unopened us mail.to get them the cops need a search warrant,
whereas opened email, you only need a subpoena.during service of a search
warrant, unopened us mail can not be opened without being specified in the
search warrant, while opened mail can be seized and usually is to establish
dominion and control..so if these emails could be argued to be "confidential
as provided by law" and he admits he did so to obtain an advantage in the
divorce proceeding he could in theory be looking at a second degree felony
in florida.
This whole area is the wild west and will be for a few more years..and yes
that is why I tread with caution.don't want the fame of being associated
with the "Eskridge Doctrine".
Tom Eskridge, Chief Operations Officer
High Tech Crime Institute
28100 US Hwy 19 N, suite 204
Clearwater Florida 33761
727-499-7215
888-300-9789
www.gohtci.com
_____
From: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com [mailto:infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Ricky Gurley
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 7:14 PM
To: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [infoguys-list] An Interesting Article.....
Jim you quote: "Even if the wife had GIVEN her husband her password in the
past for some reason, the general rule is that the husband can use that
password for that reason, but no other, as that is all he's "authorized" to
do."
I say the Estoppel Doctine can possibly come into play here. If she sues him
over this, he might easily "cry" Estoppel. IF Jeffrey can show a pattern of
checking Amy's email with her knowledge and that she has never complained
about it.
Estoppel is a doctrine in common law jurisdictions recognised both at law
and in equity in various forms. In general it protects a party who would
suffer detriment if:
The defendant has done or said something to induce an expectation
The plaintiff relied (reasonably) on the expectation...
...and would suffer detriment if that expectation were false.
Unconscionability by the defendant has been recognised as another element by
courts, in an attempt to unify the many individual rules of estoppel. In
most cases, it is only a defense that prevents a plaintiff from enforcing
legal rights, or from relying on a set of facts that would give rise to
enforceable rights (e.g. words said or actions performed) if that
enforcement or reliance would be unfair to the defendant. Because its effect
is to defeat generally enforceable legal rights, the scope of the remedy is
often limited.
For an example of estoppel, think about the case of a debtor and a creditor.
The creditor might unofficially inform the debtor that the debt has been
forgiven. Even if the original contract was not terminated, the creditor may
be estopped from collecting the debt if he changes his mind later. It would
be unfair to allow the creditor to change his mind in light of the
unofficial agreement he made with the debtor beforehand. In the same way, a
landlord might inform a tenant that rent has been reduced, for example, if
there is construction or a lapse in utility services. If the tenant relies
on this advice, the landlord could be estopped from collecting rent
retroactively.
Estoppel is closely related to the doctrines of waiver, variation, and
election and is applied in many areas of law, including insurance, banking,
employment, international trade, etc. In English law, the concept of
Legitimate expectation in the realm of administrative law and judicial
review is estoppel's counterpart in public law, albeit subtle but important
differences exist.
This term appears to come from the French estoupail or a variation, which
meant "stopper plug", referring to placing a halt on the imbalance of the
situation. Ultimately, it comes from the Latin stopare, "to stop".
See venire contra factum proprium in legal systems based on civil law.
This has been a valid defense many times in civil suits..
Rick.
Risk Management Research & Investments, Inc.
"He Who Forgets, Will Be Destined To Remember"
MAILING ADDRESS: 2101 W. Broadway PMB 326, Columbia, MO. 65203
OFFICE ADDRESS: 607 N. Providence, Columbia, MO. 65203
Phone: (888) 571-0958
Fax: (877) 795-9800
Cell: (573) 529-0808
Email
RMRI-Inc@mchsi. <mailto:RMRI-Inc%40mchsi.com> com
RMRI, Inc. Blogs
http://rmriinc. <http://rmriinc.blogspot.com/> blogspot.com/
http://rmriincspace <http://rmriincspace.spaces.live.com/blog/>
.spaces.live.com/blog/
Webpage
http://www.rmriinc. <http://www.rmriinc.com> com
----- Original Message ----
From: Jim Parker <Jim@FloridaDetectiv <mailto:Jim%40FloridaDetectives.com>
es.com>
To: infoguys-list@ <mailto:infoguys-list%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2007 4:58:50 PM
Subject: RE: [infoguys-list] An Interesting Article.....
<<<< There is no break-in as you refer to with the bakery or unlocked car
since both parties have lawful access and use of the computer. If she had
not used "remember me" we would not be having this discussion. But she did
and so we will and, likely, just have to agree to disagree. >>>>
The wife's failure to secure her account from unauthorized access does not
absolve the husband's actions, no more than failing to put steel bars on
your window absolves some punk from his actions of entering the open window
and stealing your DVD player. The law makes "unauthorized access" of
communications illegal, and unless Amy expressly authorized her hubby to
access the account, the husband exceeded his authority in doing so.
Even if the wife had GIVEN her husband her password in the past for some
reason, the general rule is that the husband can use that password for that
reason, but no other, as that is all he's "authorized" to do.
Here's a good FAQ on the subject from an attorney firm in NC, which
specializes in divorce law. The author certainly seems to have a good
understanding of the subject:
http://www.rosen. com/faq/siteserv e/faq.asp? cat=14
<<<< Wanna take this private before we get assaulted by the gruesome
twosome? >>>>
Screw 'em! Some people might just find this stuff interesting, and maybe
someone out there might even find it educational. No whiney assed nitwit is
going to determine what lists I can write to and what I can write.
Love and kisses
:o)
Jim
-----Original Message-----
From: infoguys-list@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:infoguys-list@ yahoogroups.
com]
On Behalf Of Bob Hrodey
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 5:37 PM
To: infoguys-list@ yahoogroups. com
Subject: Re: [infoguys-list] An Interesting Article.....
Jim Parker, wrote the following at or about 3/1/2007 4:06 PM:
> <<<< The webmail account is more troubling than the computer, at least
> it is in my mind. The computer with shared usage, lack of password,
> etc. is fair game. >>>>
>
> Just because something takes place in cyberspace doesn't make it "fair
> game". There is no special privilege accorded to legally protected
> communications solely on the basis of where the communication took
> place, except of course conversations that are directed at the public.
> The communications between Amy and Christina were clearly intended to
> be private, otherwise, Amy wouldn't be suing now.
>
>
> <<< You help yourself to the mail, read my bank statements, etc. What
> law have you broken? >>>
>
> Probably none, but there's a big difference between something that is
> in plain sight and something that you have to 'break in' to steal. If
> a baker drops the key to his bakery on the way to his car, that
> doesn't imply authority for you to use the key to enter the premises and
eat all his pies.
>
This analogy is flawed by the fact that Jeffrey & Amy both had access to the
computer. He didn't break in to access it, he had every right (unless you
can show me to the contrary in the article) to access it. I don't know where
this webmail account was situated but I'm looking at this - probably more
generously than I should but to play the devil's advocate... - as a
situation where Jeffrey goes into the computer, looks at the web history and
sees www.womeninsensible shoes.com. He clicks that link and goes to the
site.
Lo and behold there's a link there for "Sexymail" He clicks on that and
since Amy is too lazy to enter her user ID and password each time, he clicks
on it. Wowsa! The list of emails and subject content is right before his
eyes. That's why I liken this to scanning the mail sitting unprotected on my
table by a person who has every right to be where he/she is.
I contend that there is absolutely no question, under the facts outlined
above, that Jeffrey has done nothing wrong up to that point. It only starts
to get runny when he clicks on that email to read it and whether or not it
rises to the level of a crime under these particular circumstance is
questionable, that's all that I'm saying.
There is no break-in as you refer to with the bakery or unlocked car since
both parties have lawful access and use of the computer. If she had not used
"remember me" we would not be having this discussion. But she did and so we
will and, likely, just have to agree to disagree.
Wanna take this private before we get assaulted by the gruesome twosome?
>
> <<< I'm not going to argue the moral issue with you. We both consider
> it wrong but... illegal? >>>>
>
> Oh, but moral principals apply to the law too.
Agreed
--
Enjoy,
Bob
____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _
Hrodey & Associates Established 1977
Post Office Box 366 Member of NALI, ASIS, FBINAA, NAPPS Woodstock, IL
60098-0366 NCISS, Assoc Det of IL & P.A.W.L.I.
Licensed in IL & WI (815) 337-4636 Voice 337-4638 Fax
e-mail: inquiry@hrodey. com <mailto:inquiry% 40hrodey. com> or
rth@... <mailto:rth%40hrodey.com>
<mailto:rth% 40hrodey. com> Illinois License 115-000783 Wisconsin 8045-063
__________________________________________________________
8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time
with the Yahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut.
http://tools. <http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#news>
search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#news
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Florida law
815.06 Offenses against computer users.--
(e) Introduces any computer contaminant into any computer, computer
system, or computer network,
From definition section:
3) "Computer contaminant" means any set of computer instructions
designed to modify, damage, destroy, record, or transmit information within
a computer, computer system, or computer network without the intent or
permission of the owner of the information. The term includes, but is not
limited to, a group of computer instructions commonly called viruses or
worms which are self-replicating or self-propagating and which are designed
to contaminate other computer programs or computer data; consume computer
resources; modify, destroy, record, or transmit data; or in some other
fashion usurp the normal operation of the computer, computer system, or
computer network.
Keyword loggers are software (computer instructions) driven..
Like someone said earlier.matter was in front of a federal judge on federal
questions.these would be state questions.
Tom Eskridge, Chief Operations Officer
High Tech Crime Institute
28100 US Hwy 19 N, suite 204
Clearwater Florida 33761
727-499-7215
888-300-9789
www.gohtci.com
_____
From: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com [mailto:infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Ricky Gurley
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 7:14 PM
To: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [infoguys-list] An Interesting Article.....
Jim you quote: "Even if the wife had GIVEN her husband her password in the
past for some reason, the general rule is that the husband can use that
password for that reason, but no other, as that is all he's "authorized" to
do."
I say the Estoppel Doctine can possibly come into play here. If she sues him
over this, he might easily "cry" Estoppel. IF Jeffrey can show a pattern of
checking Amy's email with her knowledge and that she has never complained
about it.
Estoppel is a doctrine in common law jurisdictions recognised both at law
and in equity in various forms. In general it protects a party who would
suffer detriment if:
The defendant has done or said something to induce an expectation
The plaintiff relied (reasonably) on the expectation...
...and would suffer detriment if that expectation were false.
Unconscionability by the defendant has been recognised as another element by
courts, in an attempt to unify the many individual rules of estoppel. In
most cases, it is only a defense that prevents a plaintiff from enforcing
legal rights, or from relying on a set of facts that would give rise to
enforceable rights (e.g. words said or actions performed) if that
enforcement or reliance would be unfair to the defendant. Because its effect
is to defeat generally enforceable legal rights, the scope of the remedy is
often limited.
For an example of estoppel, think about the case of a debtor and a creditor.
The creditor might unofficially inform the debtor that the debt has been
forgiven. Even if the original contract was not terminated, the creditor may
be estopped from collecting the debt if he changes his mind later. It would
be unfair to allow the creditor to change his mind in light of the
unofficial agreement he made with the debtor beforehand. In the same way, a
landlord might inform a tenant that rent has been reduced, for example, if
there is construction or a lapse in utility services. If the tenant relies
on this advice, the landlord could be estopped from collecting rent
retroactively.
Estoppel is closely related to the doctrines of waiver, variation, and
election and is applied in many areas of law, including insurance, banking,
employment, international trade, etc. In English law, the concept of
Legitimate expectation in the realm of administrative law and judicial
review is estoppel's counterpart in public law, albeit subtle but important
differences exist.
This term appears to come from the French estoupail or a variation, which
meant "stopper plug", referring to placing a halt on the imbalance of the
situation. Ultimately, it comes from the Latin stopare, "to stop".
See venire contra factum proprium in legal systems based on civil law.
This has been a valid defense many times in civil suits..
Rick.
Risk Management Research & Investments, Inc.
"He Who Forgets, Will Be Destined To Remember"
MAILING ADDRESS: 2101 W. Broadway PMB 326, Columbia, MO. 65203
OFFICE ADDRESS: 607 N. Providence, Columbia, MO. 65203
Phone: (888) 571-0958
Fax: (877) 795-9800
Cell: (573) 529-0808
Email
RMRI-Inc@mchsi. <mailto:RMRI-Inc%40mchsi.com> com
RMRI, Inc. Blogs
http://rmriinc. <http://rmriinc.blogspot.com/> blogspot.com/
http://rmriincspace <http://rmriincspace.spaces.live.com/blog/>
.spaces.live.com/blog/
Webpage
http://www.rmriinc. <http://www.rmriinc.com> com
----- Original Message ----
From: Jim Parker <Jim@FloridaDetectiv <mailto:Jim%40FloridaDetectives.com>
es.com>
To: infoguys-list@ <mailto:infoguys-list%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2007 4:58:50 PM
Subject: RE: [infoguys-list] An Interesting Article.....
<<<< There is no break-in as you refer to with the bakery or unlocked car
since both parties have lawful access and use of the computer. If she had
not used "remember me" we would not be having this discussion. But she did
and so we will and, likely, just have to agree to disagree. >>>>
The wife's failure to secure her account from unauthorized access does not
absolve the husband's actions, no more than failing to put steel bars on
your window absolves some punk from his actions of entering the open window
and stealing your DVD player. The law makes "unauthorized access" of
communications illegal, and unless Amy expressly authorized her hubby to
access the account, the husband exceeded his authority in doing so.
Even if the wife had GIVEN her husband her password in the past for some
reason, the general rule is that the husband can use that password for that
reason, but no other, as that is all he's "authorized" to do.
Here's a good FAQ on the subject from an attorney firm in NC, which
specializes in divorce law. The author certainly seems to have a good
understanding of the subject:
http://www.rosen. com/faq/siteserv e/faq.asp? cat=14
<<<< Wanna take this private before we get assaulted by the gruesome
twosome? >>>>
Screw 'em! Some people might just find this stuff interesting, and maybe
someone out there might even find it educational. No whiney assed nitwit is
going to determine what lists I can write to and what I can write.
Love and kisses
:o)
Jim
-----Original Message-----
From: infoguys-list@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:infoguys-list@ yahoogroups.
com]
On Behalf Of Bob Hrodey
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 5:37 PM
To: infoguys-list@ yahoogroups. com
Subject: Re: [infoguys-list] An Interesting Article.....
Jim Parker, wrote the following at or about 3/1/2007 4:06 PM:
> <<<< The webmail account is more troubling than the computer, at least
> it is in my mind. The computer with shared usage, lack of password,
> etc. is fair game. >>>>
>
> Just because something takes place in cyberspace doesn't make it "fair
> game". There is no special privilege accorded to legally protected
> communications solely on the basis of where the communication took
> place, except of course conversations that are directed at the public.
> The communications between Amy and Christina were clearly intended to
> be private, otherwise, Amy wouldn't be suing now.
>
>
> <<< You help yourself to the mail, read my bank statements, etc. What
> law have you broken? >>>
>
> Probably none, but there's a big difference between something that is
> in plain sight and something that you have to 'break in' to steal. If
> a baker drops the key to his bakery on the way to his car, that
> doesn't imply authority for you to use the key to enter the premises and
eat all his pies.
>
This analogy is flawed by the fact that Jeffrey & Amy both had access to the
computer. He didn't break in to access it, he had every right (unless you
can show me to the contrary in the article) to access it. I don't know where
this webmail account was situated but I'm looking at this - probably more
generously than I should but to play the devil's advocate... - as a
situation where Jeffrey goes into the computer, looks at the web history and
sees www.womeninsensible shoes.com. He clicks that link and goes to the
site.
Lo and behold there's a link there for "Sexymail" He clicks on that and
since Amy is too lazy to enter her user ID and password each time, he clicks
on it. Wowsa! The list of emails and subject content is right before his
eyes. That's why I liken this to scanning the mail sitting unprotected on my
table by a person who has every right to be where he/she is.
I contend that there is absolutely no question, under the facts outlined
above, that Jeffrey has done nothing wrong up to that point. It only starts
to get runny when he clicks on that email to read it and whether or not it
rises to the level of a crime under these particular circumstance is
questionable, that's all that I'm saying.
There is no break-in as you refer to with the bakery or unlocked car since
both parties have lawful access and use of the computer. If she had not used
"remember me" we would not be having this discussion. But she did and so we
will and, likely, just have to agree to disagree.
Wanna take this private before we get assaulted by the gruesome twosome?
>
> <<< I'm not going to argue the moral issue with you. We both consider
> it wrong but... illegal? >>>>
>
> Oh, but moral principals apply to the law too.
Agreed
--
Enjoy,
Bob
____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _
Hrodey & Associates Established 1977
Post Office Box 366 Member of NALI, ASIS, FBINAA, NAPPS Woodstock, IL
60098-0366 NCISS, Assoc Det of IL & P.A.W.L.I.
Licensed in IL & WI (815) 337-4636 Voice 337-4638 Fax
e-mail: inquiry@hrodey. com <mailto:inquiry% 40hrodey. com> or
rth@... <mailto:rth%40hrodey.com>
<mailto:rth% 40hrodey. com> Illinois License 115-000783 Wisconsin 8045-063
__________________________________________________________
8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time
with the Yahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut.
http://tools. <http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#news>
search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#news
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
As to florida and I know there is virtually identical in California.the
reasonably question is of course, when I auto store a pw, does that imply
that i give the world permission to access the program?...i would think
not..
The 2006 Florida Statutes
815.06 Offenses against computer users.--
(1) Whoever willfully, knowingly, and without authorization:
(a) Accesses or causes to be accessed any computer, computer system, or
computer network;
Much more redacted for this email..
815.03 Definitions.--As used in this chapter, unless the context clearly
indicates otherwise:
(1) "Access" means to approach, instruct, communicate with, store data in,
retrieve data from, or otherwise make use of any resources of a computer,
computer system, or computer network.
(2) "Computer" means an internally programmed, automatic device that
performs data processing.
(3) "Computer contaminant" means any set of computer instructions designed
to modify, damage, destroy, record, or transmit information within a
computer, computer system, or computer network without the intent or
permission of the owner of the information. The term includes, but is not
limited to, a group of computer instructions commonly called viruses or
worms which are self-replicating or self-propagating and which are designed
to contaminate other computer programs or computer data; consume computer
resources; modify, destroy, record, or transmit data; or in some other
fashion usurp the normal operation of the computer, computer system, or
computer network.
(4) "Computer network" means any system that provides communications
between one or more computer systems and its input or output devices,
including, but not limited to, display terminals and printers that are
connected by telecommunication facilities.
(5) "Computer program or computer software" means a set of instructions or
statements and related data which, when executed in actual or modified form,
cause a computer, computer system, or computer network to perform specified
functions.
(6) "Computer services" include, but are not limited to, computer time;
data processing or storage functions; or other uses of a computer, computer
system, or computer network.
(7) "Computer system" means a device or collection of devices, including
support devices, one or more of which contain computer programs, electronic
instructions, or input data and output data, and which perform functions,
including, but not limited to, logic, arithmetic, data storage, retrieval,
communication, or control. The term does not include calculators that are
not programmable and that are not capable of being used in conjunction with
external files.
(8) "Data" means a representation of information, knowledge, facts,
concepts, computer software, computer programs, or instructions. Data may be
in any form, in storage media or stored in the memory of the computer, or in
transit or presented on a display device.
(9) "Financial instrument" means any check, draft, money order, certificate
of deposit, letter of credit, bill of exchange, credit card, or marketable
security.
(10) "Intellectual property" means data, including programs.
(11) "Property" means anything of value as defined in 1s. 812.011 and
includes, but is not limited to, financial instruments, information,
including electronically produced data and computer software and programs in
either machine-readable or human-readable form, and any other tangible or
intangible item of value.
History.--s. 1, ch. 78-92; s. 9, ch. 2001-54.
Copyright C 1995-2006 The Florida Legislature . Privacy
<http://www.leg.state.fl.us/cgi-bin/View_Page.pl?File=privacy.html&Directory
=welcome/&Location=app&Tab=info_center&Submenu=4> Statement . C
<http://www.leg.state.fl.us/cgi-bin/View_Page.pl?File=contact.html&Directory
=Info_Center/help/&Location=app&Tab=info_center&Submenu=4>
Tom Eskridge, Chief Operations Officer
High Tech Crime Institute
28100 US Hwy 19 N, suite 204
Clearwater Florida 33761
727-499-7215
888-300-9789
www.gohtci.com
_____
From: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com [mailto:infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Bob Hrodey
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 5:37 PM
To: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [infoguys-list] An Interesting Article.....
Jim Parker, wrote the following at or about 3/1/2007 4:06 PM:
> <<<< The webmail account is more troubling than the computer, at least it
> is in my mind. The computer with shared usage, lack of password, etc. is
> fair game. >>>>
>
> Just because something takes place in cyberspace doesn't make it "fair
> game". There is no special privilege accorded to legally protected
> communications solely on the basis of where the communication took place,
> except of course conversations that are directed at the public. The
> communications between Amy and Christina were clearly intended to be
> private, otherwise, Amy wouldn't be suing now.
>
>
> <<< You help yourself to the mail, read my bank statements, etc. What law
> have you broken? >>>
>
> Probably none, but there's a big difference between something that is in
> plain sight and something that you have to 'break in' to steal. If a baker
> drops the key to his bakery on the way to his car, that doesn't imply
> authority for you to use the key to enter the premises and eat all his
pies.
>
This analogy is flawed by the fact that Jeffrey & Amy both had access to
the computer. He didn't break in to access it, he had every right
(unless you can show me to the contrary in the article) to access it. I
don't know where this webmail account was situated but I'm looking at
this - probably more generously than I should but to play the devil's
advocate... - as a situation where Jeffrey goes into the computer, looks
at the web history and sees www.womeninsensibleshoes.com. He clicks
that link and goes to the site. Lo and behold there's a link there for
"Sexymail" He clicks on that and since Amy is too lazy to enter her
user ID and password each time, he clicks on it. Wowsa! The list of
emails and subject content is right before his eyes. That's why I liken
this to scanning the mail sitting unprotected on my table by a person
who has every right to be where he/she is.
I contend that there is absolutely no question, under the facts outlined
above, that Jeffrey has done nothing wrong up to that point. It only
starts to get runny when he clicks on that email to read it and whether
or not it rises to the level of a crime under these particular
circumstance is questionable, that's all that I'm saying.
There is no break-in as you refer to with the bakery or unlocked car
since both parties have lawful access and use of the computer. If she
had not used "remember me" we would not be having this discussion. But
she did and so we will and, likely, just have to agree to disagree.
Wanna take this private before we get assaulted by the gruesome twosome?
>
> <<< I'm not going to argue the moral issue with you. We both consider it
> wrong but... illegal? >>>>
>
> Oh, but moral principals apply to the law too.
Agreed
--
Enjoy,
Bob
__________________________________________________________
Hrodey & Associates Established 1977
Post Office Box 366 Member of NALI, ASIS, FBINAA, NAPPS
Woodstock, IL 60098-0366 NCISS, Assoc Det of IL & P.A.W.L.I.
Licensed in IL & WI (815) 337-4636 Voice 337-4638 Fax
e-mail: inquiry@hrodey. <mailto:inquiry%40hrodey.com> com or rth@...
<mailto:rth%40hrodey.com>
Illinois License 115-000783 Wisconsin 8045-063
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
We have a 1, possibly 2 day surveillance near Dayton, Ohio. If
interested please email with cost & availability. Weekday surveillance
only. Sub rates apply.
Jeff Kaplan
K and K Confidential
CA PI #24884
www.kandkconfidential.com
jeff@...
skyler17@...
Mobile: 925-586-5996
FAX: 925-969-9620
Michigan took care of this problem by removing men from the housing areas. Men
are allowed to work in Administrative duties such as wardens, secretaries,
prison yards, food services, and inmate stores.Men are not assigned to areas
where they are given the opportunity to be alone with a female. This might be
the deep pocket lawsuit for this female.
bb
----- Original Message -----
From: Jim Parker
To: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 7:02 PM
Subject: RE: [infoguys-list] Re: sexual abuse in prison -more info
<<<< Sgt. Smith pled guilty to sexual misconduct through intimidation. >>>>
I guess I'm missing the part about the actual law suit. I'm assuming Jane Doe
is suing the state for damages based on her mental health problems after being
raped (more than once) by a guard in prison? Smith pled guilty to raping her,
and now the state is saying "well, she was screwed up before he raped her, so
it's not our problem".
Does that sum it up?
If so, I'd give Jane whatever she's seeking, and have Smith locked up in a
women's prison (general population). If you think male prisoners can be rough on
rapists and scum-bags, just wait 'til you see what these women will do to him.
Jim
-----Original Message-----
From: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com [mailto:infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Jurydoctor@...
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 6:45 PM
To: courttv_2@yahoogroups.com; insidecourttv@yahoogroups.com;
forensic-debate@yahoogroups.com; thegreatestdebates@yahoogroups.com
Cc: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com; legalinvestigation@yahoogroups.com;
opinions-chapel@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [infoguys-list] Re: sexual abuse in prison -more info
$5 donation for each opinion to Healing horses. Ireally need comments ASAP,
please thanks, Amy
Jane Doe, 24, was convicted of check deception and sent to the Women’s
Prison for intake evaluation. She has prior crimes of dishonesty, e.g. check
deception; Some more information about Jane:
Jane had never exhibited any signs of PTSD until the sexual assaults from Sgt.
Smith
1. Prior sexual abuse by step-grandfather (fondling); 2. Controlling/abusive
relationship with boyfriend of several years.
(physical
altercations. No sexual abuse);
3. Gaps in counseling services provided by psychologist; 4. Prior
alcohol/substance abuse; 5. Mother was prostitute and drug addict; 6. Father was
a pimp and drug addict;
This intake evaluation took about 3 weeks to process. While going though the
evaluation process, a correctional officer with a rank of Sargeant sexually
assaulted Jane Doe on 2 different occasions. Due to the nature of his rank and
job, Sgt. Smith was given a wide latitude to move about throughout the prison.
During this time, Sgt. Smith approached some of the female prisoners and
attempted to fraternize with them. Fraternization is a violation of prison
procedures. Other correctional officers chose not to report these violations to
the appropriate supervisors. As a result, Sgt. Smith was able to remove Jane Doe
from the recreational room under false pretense of taking her to the infirmary.
Sgt. Smith took Jane Doe to an isolated building where 2 other correctional
officers stood guard while he sexually assaulted her. Jane Doe was afraid to
scream or protest for fear of retribution.
A few days later, Sgt. Smith went into Jane Doe’s dormitory at 2 a.m. and
took her to a stairwell where he ordered her to have sex with him again. Jane
Doe lied and said that she was on her period. Sgt. Smith then ordered Jane Doe
to commit fellatio upon him.
Jane didn’t scream during either (May 7 and 10, 2002) sexual incidents; She
did not report sexual incidents until May 13, 2002; She made statement to
another inmate about pursuing money damages; There were no physical injuries,
only diagnosed with post traumatic stress disorder and depression;
One of the correctional officers was aware that Sgt. Smith had been
fraternizing with the prisoners and knew that the infirmary had not called for
Jane Doe but failed to questions Sgt. Smith’s authority to remove the
prisoner.
A few days after the sexual assault, Jane Doe was assigned to another prison
where she reported the sexual assault. When Jane was initially interviewed at
new facility, she denied symptoms of mental illness.
After reporting the assault, other offenders were upset that Jane Doe had
reported Sgt. Smith to the authorities.
On 7/23/02, at Jane’s request, she was seen by a prison psychologist. Jane
reported to the psychologist that she was raped by a correctional officer while
at IWP. On 7/29/92, she was severely beaten by a disgruntled prisoner who was
upset that she had “squealed on Sgt. smith.†who raped her. After being
beaten, Jane chose to be in segregation (solitary confinement) for her own
safety. The prison psychologist report in August and Sept that Jane had
nightmares (but decreasing) and her mood was mildly dysphoric with no diagnosis.
There as an entry made in August (not from psychologist) that Jane was “
attention seekingâ€.
There were threats made on her life and eventually she was attacked and beaten
up by an offender. Jane doe was forced to spend the rest of seven months of
incarceration in solitary confinement. Defense claims that the extended stay in
solitary confinement was to accommodate Jane at her request (for protection at
being beat up again by other inmates) and not for punishment
In October 2002, it was reported that Jane was focusing on past events, dreams
and that her mood was dysphoric. Assessment: depressive disorder.
Thereafter, the prison psychologist report that Jane’s mood improved and
encouraged Janeto focus on choices. Jane’s mood continued to improve and she
released herself from solitary confinement. Jane continued to have concerns
about prisoners derogatory comments, but she successfully completed her prison
term on
12/17/02 and prison psychologist’s assessment was “no diagnosisâ€.
Sgt. Smith pled guilty to sexual misconduct through intimidation. It is
determined, as a matter of law, that the State of X is liable for the sexual
assaults of Sgt. Smith upon Jane Doe.
After Jane Doe was released from prison, she sought treatment for her alcohol
and substance abuse which had previously led her to committing criminal acts of
check deception.
She went back to Utah in Feb 2003. She worked at Walmart and took care of her
grandmother (dying ffrom cancer) until her passing in June 2004. Jane continued
to drink and got into trouble with the law and pled guilty to “accepting
stolen goodsâ€. She served 4 months in prison (Sept 2004 to Jan 2005).
Therefore, Jane got out of prison in Feb 2003 but did not seek treatment for
PTSD until Jan 2005 While in jail, Jane realized that most of the crimes she
committed was while she was on alcohol. She made the decision to seek counseling
for her alcohol and substance abuse when she got out of jail. It was at this
time that she realized that she was suffering from more than just alcohol and it
was recommended at she seek treatment at UWAR (Utah Women Against Rape), Second
Chance, Inc. which then led to her treatment with Dr. Hager.
Through this counseling, Jane Doe learned that she suffered from post
traumatic stress disorder (“PTSDâ€). Jane had not exhibited any signs of PTSD
until the sexual assaults from Sgt. Smith
Today, Jane suffers from consistent problems with sleep, nightmares and
socializing with men. In some of her nightmares, Jane would see a bushel basket
of severed penises or, she would be climbing a fence to get away from Barlow.
Her Grandfather would come out and be horrible to her. Barlow appeared
friendly sometimes, but would rape her viciously. Grandfather would be nice
sometimes and then turn around and be vicious the next moment.
Jane avoids many everyday activities because of her fear of men. Jane remains
easily startled and has random crying fits. Jane is confronting the memories of
her sexual assaults through counseling with a psychologist. The psychologist has
diagnosed her as suffering from PTSD, acute, and major depression, single
episode, moderate. Psychologist believes that Jane’s conditions were caused by
her multiple sexual assaults and the long period of solitary confinement at the
Rockville Correctional Facility.
Previous to her incarceration, Jane had been sexually molested by a
step-grandfather and had been in an abusive relationship with a boyfriend. Jane
had never exhibited any signs of PTSD until the sexual assaults from Sgt. Smith
Psychologist is of the opinion that the effects of the multiple assaults and
solitary confinement on Jane are most likely permanent. Further, Psychologists
states it is questionable whether Jane will ever be able to have intimate
relationships again. The psychologist has indicated Jane will likely be on
Prozac and Wellbutrin the rest of her life.
Taxpayers will foot bill for any damages awarded to Jane.
â€.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
<<<< when I auto store a pw, does that imply that i give the world
permission to access the program?...i would think not.. >>>>
Dammit!
First it was Rick Gurley, then Sue Sarkis, and now me and Tom Eskridge are
agreeing with one another. Pretty soon I'm going to have no one left to
fight with.
:o)
-----Original Message-----
From: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com [mailto:infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Thomas Eskridge
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 7:14 PM
To: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [infoguys-list] An Interesting Article.....
As to florida and I know there is virtually identical in California.the
reasonably question is of course, when I auto store a pw, does that imply
that i give the world permission to access the program?...i would think
not..
The 2006 Florida Statutes
815.06 Offenses against computer users.--
(1) Whoever willfully, knowingly, and without authorization:
(a) Accesses or causes to be accessed any computer, computer system, or
computer network;
Much more redacted for this email..
815.03 Definitions.--As used in this chapter, unless the context clearly
indicates otherwise:
(1) "Access" means to approach, instruct, communicate with, store data in,
retrieve data from, or otherwise make use of any resources of a computer,
computer system, or computer network.
(2) "Computer" means an internally programmed, automatic device that
performs data processing.
(3) "Computer contaminant" means any set of computer instructions designed
to modify, damage, destroy, record, or transmit information within a
computer, computer system, or computer network without the intent or
permission of the owner of the information. The term includes, but is not
limited to, a group of computer instructions commonly called viruses or
worms which are self-replicating or self-propagating and which are designed
to contaminate other computer programs or computer data; consume computer
resources; modify, destroy, record, or transmit data; or in some other
fashion usurp the normal operation of the computer, computer system, or
computer network.
(4) "Computer network" means any system that provides communications between
one or more computer systems and its input or output devices, including, but
not limited to, display terminals and printers that are connected by
telecommunication facilities.
(5) "Computer program or computer software" means a set of instructions or
statements and related data which, when executed in actual or modified form,
cause a computer, computer system, or computer network to perform specified
functions.
(6) "Computer services" include, but are not limited to, computer time; data
processing or storage functions; or other uses of a computer, computer
system, or computer network.
(7) "Computer system" means a device or collection of devices, including
support devices, one or more of which contain computer programs, electronic
instructions, or input data and output data, and which perform functions,
including, but not limited to, logic, arithmetic, data storage, retrieval,
communication, or control. The term does not include calculators that are
not programmable and that are not capable of being used in conjunction with
external files.
(8) "Data" means a representation of information, knowledge, facts,
concepts, computer software, computer programs, or instructions. Data may be
in any form, in storage media or stored in the memory of the computer, or in
transit or presented on a display device.
(9) "Financial instrument" means any check, draft, money order, certificate
of deposit, letter of credit, bill of exchange, credit card, or marketable
security.
(10) "Intellectual property" means data, including programs.
(11) "Property" means anything of value as defined in 1s. 812.011 and
includes, but is not limited to, financial instruments, information,
including electronically produced data and computer software and programs in
either machine-readable or human-readable form, and any other tangible or
intangible item of value.
History.--s. 1, ch. 78-92; s. 9, ch. 2001-54.
Copyright C 1995-2006 The Florida Legislature . Privacy
<http://www.leg.state.fl.us/cgi-bin/View_Page.pl?File=privacy.html&Directory
<http://www.leg.state.fl.us/cgi-bin/View_Page.pl?File=privacy.html&Directory
>
=welcome/&Location=app&Tab=info_center&Submenu=4> Statement . C
<http://www.leg.state.fl.us/cgi-bin/View_Page.pl?File=contact.html&Directory
<http://www.leg.state.fl.us/cgi-bin/View_Page.pl?File=contact.html&Directory
>
=Info_Center/help/&Location=app&Tab=info_center&Submenu=4>
Tom Eskridge, Chief Operations Officer
High Tech Crime Institute
28100 US Hwy 19 N, suite 204
Clearwater Florida 33761
727-499-7215
888-300-9789
www.gohtci.com
_____
From: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com <mailto:infoguys-list%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:infoguys-list%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of Bob Hrodey
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 5:37 PM
To: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com <mailto:infoguys-list%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [infoguys-list] An Interesting Article.....
Jim Parker, wrote the following at or about 3/1/2007 4:06 PM:
> <<<< The webmail account is more troubling than the computer, at least
> it is in my mind. The computer with shared usage, lack of password,
> etc. is fair game. >>>>
>
> Just because something takes place in cyberspace doesn't make it "fair
> game". There is no special privilege accorded to legally protected
> communications solely on the basis of where the communication took
> place, except of course conversations that are directed at the public.
> The communications between Amy and Christina were clearly intended to
> be private, otherwise, Amy wouldn't be suing now.
>
>
> <<< You help yourself to the mail, read my bank statements, etc. What
> law have you broken? >>>
>
> Probably none, but there's a big difference between something that is
> in plain sight and something that you have to 'break in' to steal. If
> a baker drops the key to his bakery on the way to his car, that
> doesn't imply authority for you to use the key to enter the premises
> and eat all his
pies.
>
This analogy is flawed by the fact that Jeffrey & Amy both had access to the
computer. He didn't break in to access it, he had every right (unless you
can show me to the contrary in the article) to access it. I don't know where
this webmail account was situated but I'm looking at this - probably more
generously than I should but to play the devil's advocate... - as a
situation where Jeffrey goes into the computer, looks at the web history and
sees www.womeninsensibleshoes.com. He clicks that link and goes to the site.
Lo and behold there's a link there for "Sexymail" He clicks on that and
since Amy is too lazy to enter her user ID and password each time, he clicks
on it. Wowsa! The list of emails and subject content is right before his
eyes. That's why I liken this to scanning the mail sitting unprotected on my
table by a person who has every right to be where he/she is.
I contend that there is absolutely no question, under the facts outlined
above, that Jeffrey has done nothing wrong up to that point. It only starts
to get runny when he clicks on that email to read it and whether or not it
rises to the level of a crime under these particular circumstance is
questionable, that's all that I'm saying.
There is no break-in as you refer to with the bakery or unlocked car since
both parties have lawful access and use of the computer. If she had not used
"remember me" we would not be having this discussion. But she did and so we
will and, likely, just have to agree to disagree.
Wanna take this private before we get assaulted by the gruesome twosome?
>
> <<< I'm not going to argue the moral issue with you. We both consider
> it wrong but... illegal? >>>>
>
> Oh, but moral principals apply to the law too.
Agreed
--
Enjoy,
Bob
__________________________________________________________
Hrodey & Associates Established 1977
Post Office Box 366 Member of NALI, ASIS, FBINAA, NAPPS Woodstock, IL
60098-0366 NCISS, Assoc Det of IL & P.A.W.L.I.
Licensed in IL & WI (815) 337-4636 Voice 337-4638 Fax
e-mail: inquiry@hrodey. <mailto:inquiry%40hrodey.com> com or rth@...
<mailto:rth%40hrodey.com> <mailto:rth%40hrodey.com> Illinois License
115-000783 Wisconsin 8045-063
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Tom Eskridge, Chief Operations Officer
High Tech Crime Institute
28100 US Hwy 19 N, suite 204
Clearwater Florida 33761
727-499-7215
888-300-9789
www.gohtci.com
_____
From: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com [mailto:infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Jim Parker
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 8:51 PM
To: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [infoguys-list] An Interesting Article.....
<<<< Trust me when I tell you that if a divorce attorney thought that
accessing a spouse's email without authorization, thereby obtaining evidence
that could potentially crucify the other spouse in court, they wouldn't be
strenuously advising potential clients not to do it. >>>>
Well, that sounded stupid.
Who am I to disagree.:-)... :) ..:-)...
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
--- In infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com, "Jim Parker" <Jim@...> wrote:
> Dammit!
>
> First it was Rick Gurley, then Sue Sarkis, and now me and Tom
Eskridge are
> agreeing with one another. Pretty soon I'm going to have no one
left to
> fight with.
And then life won't be worth living... LOL.
Rick.
Risk Management Research & Investments, Inc.
"He Who Forgets, Will Be Destined To Remember"
MAIL BOX: 2101 W. Broadway PMB 326, Columbia, MO. 65203
OFFICE ADDRESS: 607 N. Providence, Columbia, MO. 65203
Phone: (888) 571-0958
Fax: (877) 795-9800
Cell: (573) 529-0808
Email
RMRI-Inc@...
Webpage
http://www.rmriinc.com
Blogs
http://rmriincspace.spaces.live.com/http://rmriinc.blogspot.com/
In Sgt. Smith pled guilty to sexual misconduct through intimidation. >>>>
I guess I'm missing the part about the actual law suit. I'm assuming Jane
Doe is suing the state for damages based on her mental health problems after
being raped (more than once) by a guard in prison? Smith pled guilty to raping
her, and now the state is saying "well, she was screwed up before he raped her,
so it's not our problem".
Does that sum it up?
__________
The defense would never expressly say that in a trial, but they would try to
bring in the prior abuse so that the jury could make the inference on its
own. If the Plaintiff couldn't keep prior pain out as irrelevant to present
pain,
the answer for the Plaintiff would be to alert the jury to the prior pain,
and distinguish it, so that when Defendant brought it up it wouldn't be as
impressive.
__________________________
Very interesting case. Some comments.
(1) You end by saying the taxpayers will foot the bill for any damages
awarded Jane. This, actually goes without saying. Taxpayers ALWAYS foot
the bill when government entities lose lawsuits. This should have no
effect on jury decision or awards.
(2) There is evidently no doubt that Jane was indeed assaulted in prison
by the Sgt. and that the State is liable for damages. The state:
(a) Is definitely responsible for the actions of the Sgt and the prison
personnel that failed to report the Sgt.
(b) failed to provide adequate protection from other inmates who beat
her because she had made proper complaints about the Sgt's sexual
misconduct. It failed to provide proper protection to such an extent
that she had to ask to be housed in solitary confinement.
(3) The only question is how much should she be awarded.
Here it gets dicey. Regardless of what the plaintiff is trying to say, I
find it hard to believe that the abuse by her stepfather and the fact her
mother was a prostitute and her father a pimp do not contribute to her
acute depression. This may very well have contributed to her alcohol and
substance abuse and certainly her choice of abusive boyfriend. Do not
the substance abuse and crimes of dishonesty indicate psychological
problems caused by her upbringing (or lack thereof)?
Certainly, however, what she went through in prison was very severe,
especially when she was there for charges of theft and fraud, not
violence. If I were plaintiff I would argue that before the abuse in
prison she might have been able to go through successful counseling /
treatment but now successful treatment and complete enjoyment of life is
almost impossible.
I can't put a dollar amount on the ability to fall in love, have intimacy
or be happy. I just wouldn't know how to do it. Besides the fact I
wouldn't know how much her treatment by family and boyfriends before
prison contributed to her mental condition.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<......................would you award over 1
million?-------------------->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
But the State should be punished, in my opinion, and the only way to do
that is by punitive damages. A couple of million for a ruined life? As
a juror I'd probably say yes. Let the State overhaul its system or let
go bankrupt.
______________
I agree that Jane was somehow damaged by her prison rape but she was damaged
before. I'm not in favor of taxpayers footing all the bill for her
depression. If the taxpayer must pay (and pay they must since it's been
clear she has been raped by an official), then let it be a reasonable
amount. Not in the millions of $, but something, maybe, like $50,000.
By the way, has Sgt Smith been fired? In any case, some money ought to be
taken out of his paychecks by the State as a re-payment of the debt. He
ought to be made responsible.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<-----------......................you make an excellent point,
unfortunately because he is an employee of the state, the state
pays.............................>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I will try and find out if smith has been
firerd.....................................
_____________________________________
I have mixed feelings. I am completely distrustful of the diagnosis as I
have worked psychiatric abuse cases and feel that most psychiatrists will
keep a patient in "treatment," which often consists of drugging them and
little else, because it is financially to their advantage, rather than for
the good of the patient. I have also seen patients implanted or coached to
appear to have conditions, memories, feelings, etc. that are not really
their own.
That said, I also know that sexual assaults of this nature are not all that
unusual, and the good old boy network is at its best in military, police and
jail/prison environments. I have seen this happen in hospitals with mental
patients as well, where, like a prisoner, the victim has no way to report,
and will not be believed in any case. I find this sort of assault to be of
the worst kind. I find it credible that she would have survived reasonably
well her earlier experiences, although she seems to have self medicated,
which could relate to her earlier abuses, as well as her entire environment
and upbringing. It also makes perfect sense that the subsequent beatings,
as well as prolonged isolation with nothing to do but brood, would
exacerbate the effects of the assaults. What she experienced at the hands
of Smith (and I think that those who know and looked away are very much to
blame as well) was far worse than what had gone before, and understandably
more traumatic.
I would definitely find in her favor. I don't have enough information to
tell you how much she should be awarded. I'd love to see Smith (Barlow?)
face criminal charges for this one. My only concern is that the
psychiatrist is now giving her drugs to replace the alchohol, but not
remedying her real problems. He's in a position to profit as much as she
is, any has every incentive to keep her drugged and on the books forever,
with the state paying the way. This could very well be victimizing Jane yet
again. I am also concerned that whatever award she gets could actually harm
her, as she is unlikely to handle money well, and could get into more
trouble with it than without it unless she is given help in managing it.
I'd love to think that she could buy her way into a better life, but we've
all seen what happens to lottery winners.
__________________________________________________________
I gotta say it: Conduct like this makes me absolutely sick! "Due to
the nature of his rank and job, Sgt. Smith was given a wide latitude
to move about throughout the prison…" Red flag, and a big one. It
would be interesting (tho not relevant to the matter here) to know
if Smith has ever had any sort of psych eval done, and the results
thereof. Jane Doe might well be a "twisted sister" of sorts, but
this Neanderthal is worse!
"Sgt. Smith took Jane Doe to an isolated building where 2 other
correctional officers stood guard while he sexually assaulted her.
Jane Doe was afraid to scream or protest for fear of retribution."
Ugh… Are the other two subject to any charges? (irrelevant here but
curiosity begs the question.)
If I count correctly Smith perp'd assaults on Jane Doe four
different times. Accordingly, I would assess fair compensation to
her of an amount not less than $20 million dollars, nor more than
$50 million dollars.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Hello,
We are based in Mexico City but have agents near the are you need: Cancun,
Cozumel and Playa del Carmen.
Let me know the details of your need to suggest you how to proceed.
Yours truly,
Fernando Molina, Director
Incomer Internacional SA
fernando@...
Mexico mobile + 52 55 5331 8067
USA phone + 1(305) 432 2420
Nextel DC: 52*3604*9
Empresa 186-302, Col. Extremadura Insurgentes, México DF CP03740, México
Tel. (52) 55 5563 7081 Fax (52) 55 5563 6849, www.incomer.com.mx
Proud member of: WAD, CALI, CII, NALI, WIN and NAPPS
Fernando Molina
-----Original Message-----
From: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com [mailto:infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of privatesnoop101@...
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 8:34 AM
To: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com; newpi@yahoogroups.com;
picases@yahoogroups.com; spiesonline@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [infoguys-list] Looking for a PI Cancun, Mexico
I am looking for a reputable PI in Cancun Mexico. Please email me privately
if you can assist me.
with best regards
Keith Rounsavall
Rounsavall Investigations
#151 17200 Chenal Parkway, Suite 300
Little Rock, Arkansas 72223
1-800-825-9372 - (501) 219-0200 Fax (501) 223-3969
Cell phone (501) 529-8546
Arkansas PI license D96023
_www.privatesnoop.com_ (http://privatesnoop101@aol.com/)
_Keith@..._ (http://Keith@privatesnoop.com/)
<BR><BR><BR>**************************************<BR> AOL now offers free
email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at
http://www.aol.com.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
<p><hr></p>
To subscribe, send an empty message to <a
href="mailto:infoguys-list-subscribe@yahoogroups.com">infoguys-list-subscribe@ya
hoogroups.com</a><br/>
To unsubscribe, send a message to <a
href="mailto:infoguys-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com">infoguys-list-unsubscrib
e@yahoogroups.com</a><br/>
<p><hr></p>
Yahoo! Groups Links
We are looking for an experience bug sweeper / electronic detection in
Los Angeles County for a rush assignment. Please contact Mike Hakimi
at 310.433.5332. This case must be done ASAP
Empire Pacific Investigative Services
P.O. BOX 17002
BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90209
WEB: WWW.EPIS.US
EMAIL: INFO@...
DIRECT: 1-310-433-5332
FAX: 1-888-FAX-EPIS (329-3747)
They are both SICK! and he is more of a criminal than
she is. He is the one who should be locked up behind
bars and punished and every person in that prison who
was a party to covering for him should be punished as
well.
I do, however, have a real problem with the fact that
she just "allowed" this to happen, did not scream, did
not do anything, did not report it IMMEDIATELY after
the first time it happened (perhaps it would have
prevented it from occurring again)and this may have
something to do with the way she reacted in her
previous dealings with sexual abuse (she was "just
plain scared" and I don't blame her.
As far as her damages go, whether this stems from
something in her past, something that happened in
prison or from the trauma of the death of her
grandmother (and it could be a snowball effect that
just got triggered when "enough became enough", I
couldn't actually put ALL the blame on what happened
in prison but she certainly deserves to be compensated
for the mental anguish and physical abuse she suffered
while in prison, and for not being protected while in
the care of the state - how much, no clue. I am
afraid that awarding her too much will put her back in
the throes of alcohol and possible drug abuse and give
her the opportunity to be able to afford it.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Look at how many people know what he was doing, and looked the other way.
Do you think he's the only one? What do you think would have happened to
her if she had reported it, or even tried to? As I said, a prisoner,
mental health patient, many elderly, handicapped, or children either cannot,
or feel they cannot safely report abuse. They are at the complete mercy of
their abusers. Reporting in a situation like that is often not an option.
I've seen this time and again. That's PART OF the abuse. The feeling of
helplessness, hopelessness, of being nothing. If you try to report they'll
just do worse to you.
Vicki Siedow
Siedow & Associates Investigations
& Legal Support Services
2629 Foothill Blvd. #262
La Crescenta, CA 91214
Los Angeles County
CA PI License # 22852
800.448.6431 toll free
818.242.0130 local
818.688.3295 fax
<http://siedow.lawandorder.com/> http://Siedow.LawAndOrder.com
<mailto:Siedow@...> Siedow@...
Member NCISS, IWWA
Need economical legal help?
Concerned about Identity Theft?
Check the links on my site, or contact me directly.
_____
From: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com [mailto:infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Jurydoctor@...
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 12:49 PM
To: undisclosed-recipients:
Subject: [infoguys-list] Re: sexual abuse in prison comment
They are both SICK! and he is more of a criminal than
she is. He is the one who should be locked up behind
bars and punished and every person in that prison who
was a party to covering for him should be punished as
well.
I do, however, have a real problem with the fact that
she just "allowed" this to happen, did not scream, did
not do anything, did not report it IMMEDIATELY after
the first time it happened (perhaps it would have
prevented it from occurring again)and this may have
something to do with the way she reacted in her
previous dealings with sexual abuse (she was "just
plain scared" and I don't blame her.
As far as her damages go, whether this stems from
something in her past, something that happened in
prison or from the trauma of the death of her
grandmother (and it could be a snowball effect that
just got triggered when "enough became enough", I
couldn't actually put ALL the blame on what happened
in prison but she certainly deserves to be compensated
for the mental anguish and physical abuse she suffered
while in prison, and for not being protected while in
the care of the state - how much, no clue. I am
afraid that awarding her too much will put her back in
the throes of alcohol and possible drug abuse and give
her the opportunity to be able to afford it.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I'm here for you, Jimmy! ;)
Vicki Siedow
Siedow & Associates Investigations
& Legal Support Services
2629 Foothill Blvd. #262
La Crescenta, CA 91214
Los Angeles County
CA PI License # 22852
800.448.6431 toll free
818.242.0130 local
818.688.3295 fax
<http://siedow.lawandorder.com/> http://Siedow.LawAndOrder.com
<mailto:Siedow@...> Siedow@...
Member NCISS, IWWA
Need economical legal help?
Concerned about Identity Theft?
Check the links on my site, or contact me directly.
_____
From: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com [mailto:infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Jim Parker
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 7:30 AM
To: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [infoguys-list] An Interesting Article.....
<<<< when I auto store a pw, does that imply that i give the world
permission to access the program?...i would think not.. >>>>
Dammit!
First it was Rick Gurley, then Sue Sarkis, and now me and Tom Eskridge are
agreeing with one another. Pretty soon I'm going to have no one left to
fight with.
:o)
-----Original Message-----
From: infoguys-list@ <mailto:infoguys-list%40yahoogroups.com>
yahoogroups.com [mailto:infoguys-list@
<mailto:infoguys-list%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Thomas Eskridge
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 7:14 PM
To: infoguys-list@ <mailto:infoguys-list%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [infoguys-list] An Interesting Article.....
As to florida and I know there is virtually identical in California.the
reasonably question is of course, when I auto store a pw, does that imply
that i give the world permission to access the program?...i would think
not..
The 2006 Florida Statutes
815.06 Offenses against computer users.--
(1) Whoever willfully, knowingly, and without authorization:
(a) Accesses or causes to be accessed any computer, computer system, or
computer network;
Much more redacted for this email..
815.03 Definitions.--As used in this chapter, unless the context clearly
indicates otherwise:
(1) "Access" means to approach, instruct, communicate with, store data in,
retrieve data from, or otherwise make use of any resources of a computer,
computer system, or computer network.
(2) "Computer" means an internally programmed, automatic device that
performs data processing.
(3) "Computer contaminant" means any set of computer instructions designed
to modify, damage, destroy, record, or transmit information within a
computer, computer system, or computer network without the intent or
permission of the owner of the information. The term includes, but is not
limited to, a group of computer instructions commonly called viruses or
worms which are self-replicating or self-propagating and which are designed
to contaminate other computer programs or computer data; consume computer
resources; modify, destroy, record, or transmit data; or in some other
fashion usurp the normal operation of the computer, computer system, or
computer network.
(4) "Computer network" means any system that provides communications between
one or more computer systems and its input or output devices, including, but
not limited to, display terminals and printers that are connected by
telecommunication facilities.
(5) "Computer program or computer software" means a set of instructions or
statements and related data which, when executed in actual or modified form,
cause a computer, computer system, or computer network to perform specified
functions.
(6) "Computer services" include, but are not limited to, computer time; data
processing or storage functions; or other uses of a computer, computer
system, or computer network.
(7) "Computer system" means a device or collection of devices, including
support devices, one or more of which contain computer programs, electronic
instructions, or input data and output data, and which perform functions,
including, but not limited to, logic, arithmetic, data storage, retrieval,
communication, or control. The term does not include calculators that are
not programmable and that are not capable of being used in conjunction with
external files.
(8) "Data" means a representation of information, knowledge, facts,
concepts, computer software, computer programs, or instructions. Data may be
in any form, in storage media or stored in the memory of the computer, or in
transit or presented on a display device.
(9) "Financial instrument" means any check, draft, money order, certificate
of deposit, letter of credit, bill of exchange, credit card, or marketable
security.
(10) "Intellectual property" means data, including programs.
(11) "Property" means anything of value as defined in 1s. 812.011 and
includes, but is not limited to, financial instruments, information,
including electronically produced data and computer software and programs in
either machine-readable or human-readable form, and any other tangible or
intangible item of value.
History.--s. 1, ch. 78-92; s. 9, ch. 2001-54.
Copyright C 1995-2006 The Florida Legislature . Privacy
<http://www.leg.
<http://www.leg.state.fl.us/cgi-bin/View_Page.pl?File=privacy.html&Directory
> state.fl.us/cgi-bin/View_Page.pl?File=privacy.html&Directory
<http://www.leg.
<http://www.leg.state.fl.us/cgi-bin/View_Page.pl?File=privacy.html&Directory
> state.fl.us/cgi-bin/View_Page.pl?File=privacy.html&Directory
>
=welcome/&Location=app&Tab=info_center&Submenu=4> Statement . C
<http://www.leg.
<http://www.leg.state.fl.us/cgi-bin/View_Page.pl?File=contact.html&Directory
> state.fl.us/cgi-bin/View_Page.pl?File=contact.html&Directory
<http://www.leg.
<http://www.leg.state.fl.us/cgi-bin/View_Page.pl?File=contact.html&Directory
> state.fl.us/cgi-bin/View_Page.pl?File=contact.html&Directory
>
=Info_Center/help/&Location=app&Tab=info_center&Submenu=4>
Tom Eskridge, Chief Operations Officer
High Tech Crime Institute
28100 US Hwy 19 N, suite 204
Clearwater Florida 33761
727-499-7215
888-300-9789
www.gohtci.com
_____
From: infoguys-list@ <mailto:infoguys-list%40yahoogroups.com>
yahoogroups.com <mailto:infoguys-list%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:infoguys-list@ <mailto:infoguys-list%40yahoogroups.com>
yahoogroups.com
<mailto:infoguys-list%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of Bob Hrodey
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 5:37 PM
To: infoguys-list@ <mailto:infoguys-list%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com
<mailto:infoguys-list%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [infoguys-list] An Interesting Article.....
Jim Parker, wrote the following at or about 3/1/2007 4:06 PM:
> <<<< The webmail account is more troubling than the computer, at least
> it is in my mind. The computer with shared usage, lack of password,
> etc. is fair game. >>>>
>
> Just because something takes place in cyberspace doesn't make it "fair
> game". There is no special privilege accorded to legally protected
> communications solely on the basis of where the communication took
> place, except of course conversations that are directed at the public.
> The communications between Amy and Christina were clearly intended to
> be private, otherwise, Amy wouldn't be suing now.
>
>
> <<< You help yourself to the mail, read my bank statements, etc. What
> law have you broken? >>>
>
> Probably none, but there's a big difference between something that is
> in plain sight and something that you have to 'break in' to steal. If
> a baker drops the key to his bakery on the way to his car, that
> doesn't imply authority for you to use the key to enter the premises
> and eat all his
pies.
>
This analogy is flawed by the fact that Jeffrey & Amy both had access to the
computer. He didn't break in to access it, he had every right (unless you
can show me to the contrary in the article) to access it. I don't know where
this webmail account was situated but I'm looking at this - probably more
generously than I should but to play the devil's advocate... - as a
situation where Jeffrey goes into the computer, looks at the web history and
sees www.womeninsensibleshoes.com. He clicks that link and goes to the site.
Lo and behold there's a link there for "Sexymail" He clicks on that and
since Amy is too lazy to enter her user ID and password each time, he clicks
on it. Wowsa! The list of emails and subject content is right before his
eyes. That's why I liken this to scanning the mail sitting unprotected on my
table by a person who has every right to be where he/she is.
I contend that there is absolutely no question, under the facts outlined
above, that Jeffrey has done nothing wrong up to that point. It only starts
to get runny when he clicks on that email to read it and whether or not it
rises to the level of a crime under these particular circumstance is
questionable, that's all that I'm saying.
There is no break-in as you refer to with the bakery or unlocked car since
both parties have lawful access and use of the computer. If she had not used
"remember me" we would not be having this discussion. But she did and so we
will and, likely, just have to agree to disagree.
Wanna take this private before we get assaulted by the gruesome twosome?
>
> <<< I'm not going to argue the moral issue with you. We both consider
> it wrong but... illegal? >>>>
>
> Oh, but moral principals apply to the law too.
Agreed
--
Enjoy,
Bob
__________________________________________________________
Hrodey & Associates Established 1977
Post Office Box 366 Member of NALI, ASIS, FBINAA, NAPPS Woodstock, IL
60098-0366 NCISS, Assoc Det of IL & P.A.W.L.I.
Licensed in IL & WI (815) 337-4636 Voice 337-4638 Fax
e-mail: inquiry@hrodey. <mailto:inquiry%40hrodey.com> com or rth@...
<mailto:rth%40hrodey.com>
<mailto:rth%40hrodey.com> <mailto:rth%40hrodey.com> Illinois License
115-000783 Wisconsin 8045-063
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
--- In infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com, "nadrasw1" <nadrasw1@...> wrote:
>
>
> security-writers@yahoogroups.com is for private professionals who
like
> writing about their profession!!!!
>
> -Nadra Enzi,
> Security Writers Founder.
>
I agree with the Psychologist. She appears to of been able to handle the
pre-prison part of her
negative life relative to her current mental health. I would break the
contributing factors as such.
Pre-prison life 20% because this was the primer to the main cause. 20% for
being in confinement
when she was raped. 60% for the rapist. Problematic with this analysis is
that the first two factors
by themselves may not of trigger the mental health problems. Hence, the
rapist becomes 100%
contributing. Another thought is that the confinement may of been helpful
without the abusive events
which would change the analysis.
_____________________________
vWhat you have to understand is that rapist or attacker
has accessed his potential victim before they attack. The attacker
has figured out that target. They don't just select and pick some
random target. They pick target that would yeild to their perceptional
presentation. FEAR!!!!
Here are some examples. My oldest sister would rip his body
to hell before he even knew to attack. My next sister would be a
little slower but would nail his balls at the attack. My lady needs
an education. She would of froze by an attacker. Now she knows to
run, or attack the THING. The FEAR is in the attacker. {{ususally}}
In the very rare case the attack is ex-Patho. she knows to yield to
survive.
Most of the attacker are lost ego wimps. Just smart enough
to read their victims. OR just smart enough to be a prison guard.
IN response to:
They are both SICK! and he is more of a criminal than
she is. He is the one who should be locked up behind
bars and punished and every person in that prison who
was a party to covering for him should be punished as
well.
I do, however, have a real problem with the fact that
she just "allowed" this to happen, did not scream, did
not do anything, did not report it IMMEDIATELY after
the first time it happened (perhaps it would have
prevented it from occurring again)and this may have
something to do with the way she reacted in her
previous dealings with sexual abuse (she was "just
plain scared" and I don't blame her.
As far as her damages go, whether this stems from
something in her past, something that happened in
prison or from the trauma of the death of her
grandmother (and it could be a snowball effect that
just got triggered when "enough became enough", I
couldn't actually put ALL the blame on what happened
in prison but she certainly deserves to be compensated
for the mental anguish and physical abuse she suffered
while in prison, and for not being protected while in
the care of the state - how much, no clue. I am
afraid that awarding her too much will put her back in
the throes of alcohol and possible drug abuse and give
her the opportunity to be able to afford it.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I'm looking for P.I.s and lawyers who have handled First Amendment
defense work. I edit www.bannedmagazine.com, the online journal of
censorship and secrecy. I want to write profiles of attorneys and
private investigators who have handled free speech cases. Maybe you
worked for someone who was arrested at a protest, or had their
internet business raided. Maybe you helped a government employee who
was fired because they spoke out on a controversial topic. Visuals
help, so if you have a case with pictures or video, that's a plus.
Please contact me by email.
Joshua B. Good, editor
editor@...
Thanks.
If anyone on the list has or knows of someone with LE connections in
Atlanta, I would appreciate it if you would contact me asap,
Thank You
Gil Whitlock
Associated Investigations, LTD
800 720 8955
Fax 860 352 2184
www.associated-research.com
<BR><BR><BR>**************************************<BR> AOL now offers free
email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at
http://www.aol.com.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
It seems that some old email address have gotten back into
circulation. I have the list set in some cases to approve a member's
post because they have been a member since the beginning. So (as some
of you have noticed) we get a garbage post, that I never see. Is there
a way to find recently deleted emails? I mean many lists like this one
depend on a email to dictate actions on posts and RE:'s. So we end up
with junk that either people don't know they are sending to the list
because the just forward to everyone in their address book or is it
more sinister? I have looked into some moderator forums with this
question But..... I seem to be the only one who has this problem. They
do tell me I am paranoid and should wear a tin foil hat to keep the
aliens out.
Leif "Krang"
Proud owner of the hardest working couch in Ameraica.
ARE YOU SICK AND TIRED OF THE SAME KIND OF PIRACY AUDITING?
SIGNAL AUDITING IS EXCLUSIVELY OFFERING ASSIGNMENTS FOR
6 FULL DAYS OF AUDITING
NCAA MEGA MARCH MADNESS !!!!!
Piracy Assignment
March 15, 16, 17 , 18,
March 22, 23
Signal Auditing Is the Nation's Leading Company in the Fight Against
Signal Piracy and DirecTV's exclusive vendor for combatting DirecTV
fraud!!!!
Territories still available throughout the United States,
SIGN UP NOW!!!!
Mega March Madness Is Directv's Exclusive Programming and Provides
Subscribers All Tournament Games in Their Entirety on Multiple Channels
The National Semifinals of the Mens College Basketball Championships has
become one of the most watched and wagered upon sporting events of the
year. Many restaurants and bars will be pirating this event through a
fraudulently designated DirecTV account.
Signal Auditing Is the Nation's Leading Company in the Fight Against
Signal Piracy and DirecTV's exclusive vendor for combatting DirecTV
fraud!!!!
We offer our auditors guaranteed piracy work throughout the year for our
various clients and some of our piracy assignments include 17 weeks of
NFL Sunday Ticket 2007, All UFC matches, heavyweight and title boxing,
NCAA March Madness for 6 days of auditing nationwide, World Cup
qualifying soccer matches, world cup rugby and Nascar Hotpass.
Visit our website www.signalauditing.com
<http://www.signalauditing.com/> and read testimonials from some of our
auditors and sign up now!!!!
Steven Levine
Signal Auditing, Inc.
PO Box 466
Ellenville, NY 12428
845-647-1262
www.signalauditing.com
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Send Email
