Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [infoguys-list] The Trojan Check

Expand Messages
  • suesarkis@aol.com
    Rick - Of course using a Trojan Check is a violation of federal law. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which many of us vigorously and vehemently fought, left no
    Message 1 of 13 , Feb 8, 2011
      Rick -

      Of course using a Trojan Check is a violation of federal law. The
      Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which many of us vigorously and vehemently fought, left no
      loopholes for us to hide behind.

      15 USC 6821 clearly states that it is a felony (15 USC 6823) to attempt to
      obtain or successfully obtain customer information using any false
      pretense. It can't be much clearer than that. Remember, it was members of our
      own industry that educated Congress and the FTC the various ways we discover
      such information. They (Congress), in turn, made sure they covered every
      loophole.

      Now, if anyone here believes for one second that a Trojan Check is not a
      false pretense, go get your head examined. Better yet, buy my bridge. All
      ruses and pretexts are forbidden.

      If my memory serves me correctly, however, there are exemptions for "child
      support" back payment recovery but even for those cases, I believe a
      specific court order is required.


      Sincerely yours,
      Sue
      ________________________
      Sue Sarkis
      Sarkis Detective Agency

      (est. 1976)
      PI 6564
      _www.sarkispi.com_ (http://www.sarkispi.com/)

      1346 Ethel Street
      Glendale, CA 91207-1826
      818-242-2505

      "one Nation under God" and "in GOD we TRUST"

      If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you can read it in English,
      thank a military veteran


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • oracleintl@aol.com
      Thanks for your opinion Sue, but it s just an opinion and I disagree. I can tell you that a diligent search reveals no GLB related cases having anything to
      Message 2 of 13 , Feb 8, 2011
        Thanks for your opinion Sue, but it's just an opinion and I disagree.

        I can tell you that a diligent search reveals no GLB related cases having
        anything to do with trojan checks.

        Now, if you think you can get the government to make a case, I'll just
        confess. Really, tell them that you have identified a habitual offender with
        no intention of changing his ways - I'll sign a confession.

        You are entitled to your interpretation of "pretext" but I see no support
        for it. If I send you a check, there is nothing pretextual about it and
        you cash it, or not, knowing that if you do I will be able to see where it
        was cashed as part of the normal course of business.

        Bill E. Branscum, Investigator
        Oracle International
        Naples, FL 34101
        (239) 304-1639 V
        (239) 304-1640 F
        (239) 641-6782 C
        _www.FraudsAndScams.com_ (http://www.FraudsAndScams.com)





        In a message dated 2/8/2011 3:39:01 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
        suesarkis@... writes:





        Rick -

        Of course using a Trojan Check is a violation of federal law. The
        Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which many of us vigorously and vehemently fought,
        left no
        loopholes for us to hide behind.

        15 USC 6821 clearly states that it is a felony (15 USC 6823) to attempt to
        obtain or successfully obtain customer information using any false
        pretense. It can't be much clearer than that. Remember, it was members of
        our
        own industry that educated Congress and the FTC the various ways we
        discover
        such information. They (Congress), in turn, made sure they covered every
        loophole.

        Now, if anyone here believes for one second that a Trojan Check is not a
        false pretense, go get your head examined. Better yet, buy my bridge. All
        ruses and pretexts are forbidden.

        If my memory serves me correctly, however, there are exemptions for "child
        support" back payment recovery but even for those cases, I believe a
        specific court order is required.


        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

        "one Nation under God" and "in GOD we TRUST"

        If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you can read it in English,
        thank a military veteran

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • RickyG
        Sue, I am just looking for opinions.. Not really trying to start a debate (and we all know that most of the time I AM trying to start a debate when I post
        Message 3 of 13 , Feb 8, 2011
          Sue,

          I am just looking for opinions.. Not really trying to start a debate (and we all know that most of the time I AM trying to start a debate when I post here). Of course though, a debate on this topic may actually be beneficial to some people. But I'd like to inject some information as we go along here, anyway...

          First, Most people "quote" GLB and have never read it... To me, the proof of that is when someone says or posts something like this: "Well GLB states that you can not use a pretext for a customer's financial information". And I know, because I HAVE read GLB that the word "pretext" is nowhere in GLB. But, the word "False Pretenses" IS.

          Second, GLB DOES clearly outline the definition of "False Pretenses":
          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtitle B, Section 521(a)(2), which states:

          SEC. 521. PRIVACY PROTECTION FOR CUSTOMER INFORMATION OF FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS.

          (a) PROHIBITION ON OBTAINING CUSTOMER INFORMATION BY FALSE PRETENSES.—It shall be a violation of this subtitle for any person to obtain or attempt to obtain, or cause to be disclosed or attempt to cause to be disclosed to any person, customer information of a financial institution relating to another person—

          (1) by making a false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation to an officer, employee, or agent of a financial institution;

          (2) by making a false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation to a customer of a financial institution; or

          (3) by providing any document to an officer, employee, or agent of a financial institution, knowing that the document is forged, counterfeit, lost, or stolen, was fraudulently obtained, or contains a false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation.
          -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


          And third, the Federal Government has in fact known about the "Trojan Check" since at least 2005, and I can find no prosecution for it nowhere, no matter how much I search.

          Here is how I know that the Federal Government has been aware of the "Trojan Check" since 2005:

          In 2005 as you can read here in Robert Douglas's Testimony before The United State Senate Committee on the Judiciary: http://bit.ly/i0QtaX where he states:
          -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          "Another method that is becoming more common is the use of a "Trojan check". An investigator or broker will create a fictitious business name and open a checking account in that business name. A small check will be mailed to the target as a "rebate" or "prize" stamped on the back "for deposit only". Once the check has been deposited and is returned to the fictitious company the banking information obtained on the back of the check can be used to further the pretext to determine the amount of funds held in the account. There is great debate in the investigative and broker communities as to the legality of this practice given Gramm-Leach-Bliley and the deceptive trade practices statutes. While the debate continues, so does the practice."
          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


          Now this is not meant to be argumentative, it is just more information to consider before anyone gives their opinion or revises their opinion.


          Ricky Gurley.


          --
          Risk Management Research & Investments, Inc. & Thoth Data Systems
          Agency License Number: 2011001124
          Private Investigator License Number: 2011001072

          Mailing Address: 2101 W. Broadway PMB 326, Columbia, MO. 65203
          Office Address: 1 E. Broadway Suite Z, Columbia, MO. 65203

          Direct Office Number: (573) 234-6876
          Office Phone: (573) 234-4647 Ext. 110
          Car Phone: (573) 529-0808
          Cell Phone: (573) 529-4476
          Toll Free Phone: (888) 571-0958
          Toll Free Fax: (877) 795-9800
          EMERGENCY LINE: (573) 234-4871

          RMRI, Inc. Websites
          (1) http://www.rmriinc.com
          (2) http://rmriinc.bestcyberinvestigator.com

          RMRI, Inc. Blogs
          (1) http://rmriinc.blogspot.com/index.html
          (2) http://rmriincspace.spaces.live.com/




          --- In infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com, suesarkis@... wrote:
          >
          >
          > Rick -
          >
          > Of course using a Trojan Check is a violation of federal law. The
          > Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which many of us vigorously and vehemently fought, left no
          > loopholes for us to hide behind.
          >
          > 15 USC 6821 clearly states that it is a felony (15 USC 6823) to attempt to
          > obtain or successfully obtain customer information using any false
          > pretense. It can't be much clearer than that. Remember, it was members of our
          > own industry that educated Congress and the FTC the various ways we discover
          > such information. They (Congress), in turn, made sure they covered every
          > loophole.
          >
          > Now, if anyone here believes for one second that a Trojan Check is not a
          > false pretense, go get your head examined. Better yet, buy my bridge. All
          > ruses and pretexts are forbidden.
          >
          > If my memory serves me correctly, however, there are exemptions for "child
          > support" back payment recovery but even for those cases, I believe a
          > specific court order is required.
          >
          >
          > Sincerely yours,
          > Sue
          > ________________________
          > Sue Sarkis
          > Sarkis Detective Agency
          >
          > (est. 1976)
          > PI 6564
          > _www.sarkispi.com_ (http://www.sarkispi.com/)
          >
          > 1346 Ethel Street
          > Glendale, CA 91207-1826
          > 818-242-2505
          >
          > "one Nation under God" and "in GOD we TRUST"
          >
          > If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you can read it in English,
          > thank a military veteran
          >
          >
          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >
        • suesarkis@aol.com
          Bill - At the hearings the FTC made it loud and clear as to the intent and enforcement of the law. Now, I agree in part. If I walk into a bakery, make a
          Message 4 of 13 , Feb 8, 2011
            Bill -

            At the hearings the FTC made it loud and clear as to the intent and
            enforcement of the law.

            Now, I agree in part. If I walk into a bakery, make a purchase, and pay
            by check, of course the bakery's banking information is going to be on the
            check and nothing is wrong with that transaction.

            However, if the subject of an investigation that I have been hired to find
            out information on owns that bakery and it is not a place where I have ever
            been before, I believe a case could be made against me based on the clear
            and unambiguous wording of the law. By tendering the check with the true
            intent of obtaining the bank account information from the bank on this
            subject, I believe that I have provided a document under false pretenses and
            representation. That doesn't mean I would not defend myself in total accord
            with your statement.

            HOWEVER, in going over and reading what I just copied to insert in here, I
            do see and had forgotten that not only are there exemptions (located
            elsewhere) regarding backpay on child support, anyone working as an agent of an
            insurance institution is also exempt for certain types of investigations
            which would include all of the ones we'd be involved with. My having
            forgotten about that truly pisses me off since I've seriously looked over my
            shoulder a heck of a lot over the past 2 years for a couple of cases I worked.
            Shoot, I'm home free.


            SEC. 521. PRIVACY PROTECTION FOR CUSTOMER INFORMATION OF FINANCIAL
            INSTITUTIONS.
            (a) PROHIBITION ON OBTAINING CUSTOMER INFORMATION BY FALSE PRETENSES.—It
            shall be a violation of this subtitle for any person to obtain or attempt to
            obtain, or cause to be disclosed or attempt to cause to be disclosed to
            any person, customer information of a financial institution relating to
            another person—
            (1) by making a false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or
            representation to an officer, employee, or agent of a financial institution;
            (2) by making a false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or
            representation to a customer of a financial institution; or
            (3) by providing any document to an officer, employee, or agent of a
            financial institution, knowing that the document is forged, counterfeit, lost,
            or stolen, was fraudulently obtained, or contains a false, fictitious, or
            fraudulent statement or representation.
            (b) PROHIBITION ON SOLICITATION OF A PERSON TO OBTAIN CUSTOMER INFORMATION
            FROM FINANCIAL INSTITUTION UNDER FALSE PRETENSES.—It shall be a violation
            of this subtitle to request
            a person to obtain customer information of a financial institution,
            knowing that the person will obtain, or attempt to obtain, the information from
            the institution in any manner described in subsection (a).
            (c) NONAPPLICABILITY TO LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES.—No provision of this
            section shall be construed so as to prevent any action by a law enforcement
            agency, or any officer, employee, or
            agent of such agency, to obtain customer information of a financial
            institution in connection with the performance of the official duties of the
            agency.
            (d) NONAPPLICABILITY TO FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS IN CERTAIN CASES.—No
            provision of this section shall be construed so as to prevent any financial
            institution, or any officer, employee, or agent of a financial institution, from
            obtaining customer information of such financial institution in the course
            of—
            (1) testing the security procedures or systems of such institution for
            maintaining the confidentiality of customer information;
            (2) investigating allegations of misconduct or negligence on the part of
            any officer, employee, or agent of the financial institution; or
            (3) recovering customer information of the financial institution which was
            obtained or received by another person in any manner described in
            subsection (a) or (b).
            (e) NONAPPLICABILITY TO INSURANCE INSTITUTIONS FOR INVESTIGATION OF
            INSURANCE FRAUD.—No provision of this section shall be construed so as to prevent
            any insurance institution, or any officer, employee, or agency of an
            insurance institution, from obtaining information as part of an insurance
            investigation into criminal activity, fraud, material misrepresentation, or
            material nondisclosure that is authorized for such institution under State law,
            regulation, interpretation, or order.


            Sincerely yours,
            Sue
            ________________________
            Sue Sarkis
            Sarkis Detective Agency

            (est. 1976)
            PI 6564
            _www.sarkispi.com_ (http://www.sarkispi.com/)

            1346 Ethel Street
            Glendale, CA 91207-1826
            818-242-2505

            "one Nation under God" and "in GOD we TRUST"

            If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you can read it in English,
            thank a military veteran


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Bob Hrodey
            ... I see where Sue is coming from and I see where you and Bill are coming from. IMHO, this is a gray area which may or may not be colored in by some
            Message 5 of 13 , Feb 8, 2011
              RickyG, wrote the following at or about 2/8/2011 3:13 PM:
              > Sue,
              >
              > I am just looking for opinions.. Not really trying to start a debate (and we all know that most of the time I AM trying to start a debate when I post here). Of course though, a debate on this topic may actually be beneficial to some people. But I'd like to inject some information as we go along here, anyway...
              >
              > First, Most people "quote" GLB and have never read it... To me, the proof of that is when someone says or posts something like this: "Well GLB states that you can not use a pretext for a customer's financial information". And I know, because I HAVE read GLB that the word "pretext" is nowhere in GLB. But, the word "False Pretenses" IS.
              >
              > Second, GLB DOES clearly outline the definition of "False Pretenses":
              > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              > Subtitle B, Section 521(a)(2), which states:
              >
              > SEC. 521. PRIVACY PROTECTION FOR CUSTOMER INFORMATION OF FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS.
              >
              > (a) PROHIBITION ON OBTAINING CUSTOMER INFORMATION BY FALSE PRETENSES.---It shall be a violation of this subtitle for any person to obtain or attempt to obtain, or cause to be disclosed or attempt to cause to be disclosed to any person, customer information of a financial institution relating to another person---
              >
              > (1) by making a false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation to an officer, employee, or agent of a financial institution;
              >
              > (2) by making a false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation to a customer of a financial institution; or

              I see where Sue is coming from and I see where you and Bill are coming
              from. IMHO, this is a "gray area" which may or may not be colored in by
              some overzealous prosecutor who is receiving his/her marching orders
              from "on high." What do I mean? Well, for one thing we have the
              federal agencies constantly trying to expand their control and kingdom
              to keep us "serfs" in line. Remember the FCRA as amended back in the
              '90's? The one that the FTC turned inside out to mean that before we
              could conduct an investigation into employee misconduct, we had to have
              the miscreant's permission and even then we had to give him all the
              evidence, witnesses names and addresses, etc before the employer could
              be disciplined? That said he could demand a re-investigation at the
              cost of the employer if he disagreed? Okay, I don't know anyone that
              got run through the courts on that one, but I know a LOT of people who
              walked clear of anything like that until such time as Congress passed
              remedial legislation that THEY (the Congress said was unnecessary, but
              the FTC said was).

              Fast forward to the present... Like you, Rick, I don't know of any
              prosecutions so far and I'm assuming that Bill doesn't either. He ain't
              stoopid... if there was somebody out there roping in the Trojans (other
              than the ones in the little foil packets, oops, them's Troj-Enz) he
              probably wouldn't be here confessing.

              Think about it a minute. Let's say you do a REALLY good job using one
              of those Trojan checks and nail your debtor to the cross. He may well
              take offense at his own stupidity and your ingenuity. What happens if
              he runs to a Congresscreep that needs a cause today since extended cap
              magazines and black plastic assault weapons are so boring?

              I suspect, no, I KNOW, there's gotta be some retard US Attorney that
              would push the limits and say that a "A small check will be mailed to
              the target as a "rebate" or "prize" stamped on the back "for deposit
              only". [coming from a non-existent business for a non-existent rebate or
              contest]" is enough for the camel to slip his nose under the tent and
              reach over and bite somebody's ass.

              As we all know and are so fond of saying.... Anyone can file a suit and
              the cost of defending, even if you win, can kill you.

              My two cents.

              --

              Enjoy,

              /Bob/
              ________________________________________________________________
              Hrodey & Associates Established 1977
              Post Office Box 366 Member of NALI, ASIS, FBINAA,
              NAPPS
              Woodstock, IL 60098-0366 NCISS, & P.A.W.L.I.
              Licensed in IL & WI (815) 337-4636 Voice
              337-4638 Fax
              email: inquiry@... <mailto:inquiry@...> or
              rth@... <mailto:rth@...>
              Illinois License 115-000783 Wisconsin 8045-063



              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • suesarkis@aol.com
              Rick - And he testified about that same thing in the 90 s. He was one of the ones I referred to when I said words to the effect, ...people in our own
              Message 6 of 13 , Feb 8, 2011
                Rick -

                And he testified about that same thing in the 90's. He was one of the
                ones I referred to when I said words to the effect, "...people in our own
                industry...". He and EPIC and a few others have been the largest thorns in our
                sides for decades. For those of us who lived the nightmare, it was
                painful.

                Here's a portion of an article written July 1, 1999 by Washington Post
                staff writers -


                The House Rules Committee, which sets parameters for debate on House
                legislation, last night dropped the Commerce Committee provision when it melded
                competing bills that emerged from the Commerce and Banking Committees. The
                committee did decide that lawmakers could debate an amendment that would
                give consumers only the ability to limit the sharing of financial information
                to outside, unaffiliated companies for marketing. That provision also would
                require companies for the first time to create and distribute privacy
                policies. Democrats withdrew their sponsorship of the privacy amendment and
                vowed to vote against Republican procedural proposals today, however, because
                of an unrelated dispute over language dealing with redlining.

                The legislation going to the floor will also ban a practice known as
                "pretext calling" in which information brokers and private investigators use
                deception and trickery to obtain financial information. In an exception
                sponsored by Rep. Ed Royce (R-Calif.), however, the practice would be allowed when
                private investigators have a judge's approval and are working on a case
                involving court-ordered child support.
                Robert Douglas, a private investigator who has spoken before Congress
                about the practice and is skeptical about the exception, said that "what it's
                really about is getting one loophole they will expand over time."
                ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                The word PRETEXT does not have to exist anywhere within the document. It
                clearly identifies using any ruse just by the plain, clear and simple
                language that everyone should be able to understand. A FALSE PRETENSE is a
                PRETEXT. It is a RUSE.
                Sincerely,
                Sue


                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • RickyG
                Bill, My question to you is this: In the case of using a Trojan Check ; could a Federal Prosecutor make a case out of this simply from intent ..? In other
                Message 7 of 13 , Feb 8, 2011
                  Bill,

                  My question to you is this:

                  In the case of using a "Trojan Check"; could a Federal Prosecutor make a case out of this simply from "intent"..?

                  In other words; "Bill P.I." gets a call from a person that invested a bunch of money in "Greedy Scammer Sue's" investment scheme and got "ripped". You want to find out where "Greedy Scammer Sue" banks so you send her a check for $10.00. She cashes it. You have where she banks at. This comes up in court somewhere. Some Prosecutor charges you. You have to answer these questions:

                  Bill P.I.: Do you personally know Sue?

                  Bill P.I.: Have you ever done any business with Sue?

                  Bill P.I.: Did oyu owe Sue any money?

                  Bill P.I.: What were your intentions when you sent Sue that check?


                  Can that be enough to prosecute a case like this?


                  Ricky Gurley.

                  --
                  Risk Management Research & Investments, Inc. & Thoth Data Systems
                  Agency License Number: 2011001124
                  Private Investigator License Number: 2011001072

                  Mailing Address: 2101 W. Broadway PMB 326, Columbia, MO. 65203
                  Office Address: 1 E. Broadway Suite Z, Columbia, MO. 65203

                  Direct Office Number: (573) 234-6876
                  Office Phone: (573) 234-4647 Ext. 110
                  Car Phone: (573) 529-0808
                  Cell Phone: (573) 529-4476
                  Toll Free Phone: (888) 571-0958
                  Toll Free Fax: (877) 795-9800
                  EMERGENCY LINE: (573) 234-4871

                  RMRI, Inc. Websites
                  (1) http://www.rmriinc.com
                  (2) http://rmriinc.bestcyberinvestigator.com

                  RMRI, Inc. Blogs
                  (1) http://rmriinc.blogspot.com/index.html
                  (2) http://rmriincspace.spaces.live.com/


                  --- In infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com, oracleintl@... wrote:
                  >
                  > Thanks for your opinion Sue, but it's just an opinion and I disagree.
                  >
                  > I can tell you that a diligent search reveals no GLB related cases having
                  > anything to do with trojan checks.
                  >
                  > Now, if you think you can get the government to make a case, I'll just
                  > confess. Really, tell them that you have identified a habitual offender with
                  > no intention of changing his ways - I'll sign a confession.
                  >
                  > You are entitled to your interpretation of "pretext" but I see no support
                  > for it. If I send you a check, there is nothing pretextual about it and
                  > you cash it, or not, knowing that if you do I will be able to see where it
                  > was cashed as part of the normal course of business.
                  >
                  > Bill E. Branscum, Investigator
                  > Oracle International
                  > Naples, FL 34101
                  > (239) 304-1639 V
                  > (239) 304-1640 F
                  > (239) 641-6782 C
                  > _www.FraudsAndScams.com_ (http://www.FraudsAndScams.com)
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > In a message dated 2/8/2011 3:39:01 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
                  > suesarkis@... writes:
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Rick -
                  >
                  > Of course using a Trojan Check is a violation of federal law. The
                  > Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which many of us vigorously and vehemently fought,
                  > left no
                  > loopholes for us to hide behind.
                  >
                  > 15 USC 6821 clearly states that it is a felony (15 USC 6823) to attempt to
                  > obtain or successfully obtain customer information using any false
                  > pretense. It can't be much clearer than that. Remember, it was members of
                  > our
                  > own industry that educated Congress and the FTC the various ways we
                  > discover
                  > such information. They (Congress), in turn, made sure they covered every
                  > loophole.
                  >
                  > Now, if anyone here believes for one second that a Trojan Check is not a
                  > false pretense, go get your head examined. Better yet, buy my bridge. All
                  > ruses and pretexts are forbidden.
                  >
                  > If my memory serves me correctly, however, there are exemptions for "child
                  > support" back payment recovery but even for those cases, I believe a
                  > specific court order is required.
                  >
                  >
                  > 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
                  >
                  > "one Nation under God" and "in GOD we TRUST"
                  >
                  > If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you can read it in English,
                  > thank a military veteran
                  >
                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  >
                • suesarkis@aol.com
                  Rick - Robert Douglas has been complaining about our industry since way before 2005. He testified at each and every hearing, I do believe, at least one time
                  Message 8 of 13 , Feb 8, 2011
                    Rick -

                    Robert Douglas has been complaining about our industry since way before
                    2005. He testified at each and every hearing, I do believe, at least one
                    time starting back in 1998 as it came to the GLB. He also testified when it
                    came to phone record privacy and anything else that we, as an industry, do in
                    the normal course and scope of our employment. He was the downfall of all
                    of the 20+ that were subpoenaed before Congress.

                    If anyone is interested in some of his sweet contents, visit -

                    _http://www.privacytoday.com/bankingtestimony-98.htm_
                    (http://www.privacytoday.com/bankingtestimony-98.htm)

                    _http://www.privacytoday.com/bankingtestimony2000.htm_
                    (http://www.privacytoday.com/bankingtestimony2000.htm)


                    For that matter, his entire website at _www.privacytoday.com_
                    (http://www.privacytoday.com) is enough to make you regurgitate. What ticked me off
                    the most is that the majority of the people he complained about were, in
                    fact, the very same people many of us complained about to our licensing
                    agencies who did actually nothing about them.

                    I remember one of those brought before Congress was giving a teleconference
                    seminar over in Burbank. A relatively new licensee was promoting the
                    conference and trying to get people signed up, presumably for free entrance
                    herself. I told her that she was out of her ever loving mind getting
                    involved with that person since everything she did violated the law. A couple
                    years later when the hearings started, the local PI tried to claim to me that
                    she really didn't get involved with her. UGH !!!!

                    Anyway, what I say here is basically the same as I used to say to my CE
                    bail agent students when the class would first start. I would say, "Hi, for
                    those of you who do not know me, I'm Sue Sarkis. I'm not here to tell you
                    how to run your businesses. What I am here for is to make certain that
                    when you walk out those doors after the classes are over, that you know
                    precisely what the law says. What you do with that knowledge is up to you.".

                    Have a great night all !!

                    Sue



                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • suesarkis@aol.com
                    In a message dated 2/8/2011 1:43:55 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, rth@hrodey.com writes: As we all know and are so fond of saying.... Anyone can file a suit and
                    Message 9 of 13 , Feb 8, 2011
                      In a message dated 2/8/2011 1:43:55 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
                      rth@... writes:

                      As we all know and are so fond of saying.... Anyone can file a suit and
                      the cost of defending, even if you win, can kill you.
                      Bob said it well. Aside from that, anyone who knows me knows full well
                      that I have always been the Devil's Advocate. I always go to the extremes
                      because anything is possible.

                      I was working with the defense for the very first federal prosecution for
                      "keylogging". Everyone on these lists involved in those conversations back
                      then were positive he was going to be convicted. I was the only one
                      positive he wouldn't. He wasn't !!

                      I was working with the defense for the very first federal prosecution for
                      "phone records illegally obtained".

                      Although I have not heard of any "Trojan Check" cases out there but bear in
                      mind, that doesn't mean there haven't been a lot of them. I personally
                      would not be touting my arrest to the industry had such an event ever
                      occurred. Since the vast majority of criminal cases never get appealed, without
                      local press coverage, we never know about them.

                      I'm sure glad I'm semi-retired. Retirement is just around the corner !!!!

                      Sincerely,
                      Sue



                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • Slipinn@aol.com
                      Rick, I believe it boil s down to probable cause considering the body of the crime and the element s. I think it is just a matter of when before someone
                      Message 10 of 13 , Feb 8, 2011
                        Rick,

                        I believe it boil's down to "probable cause" considering the body of the
                        crime and the element's. I think it is just a matter of when before
                        someone is made an example.

                        1. Was a pretense used to gain financial information? Yes
                        2. Was the Intent to cause a disclosure by pretense? Yes


                        I believe that any prosecutor could find "PC" to make the charge. While
                        this may have been overlooked for the past few years I would hate to be the
                        example case.

                        Would a jury convict based on the elements and Body of the crime? Probably
                        so.

                        Pretense, ruse, and intent are the key word's here. The objective?.... to
                        obtain financial information.

                        Just my thought's on the matter.




                        Chuck Chambers


                        Chambers Investigations
                        606 49th st w
                        Bradenton, Florida 34209
                        Phone 941-798-3804
                        Lic# A-0001959





                        In a message dated 2/8/2011 5:02:03 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
                        suesarkis@... writes:




                        Rick -

                        Robert Douglas has been complaining about our industry since way before
                        2005. He testified at each and every hearing, I do believe, at least one
                        time starting back in 1998 as it came to the GLB. He also testified when
                        it
                        came to phone record privacy and anything else that we, as an industry, do
                        in
                        the normal course and scope of our employment. He was the downfall of all
                        of the 20+ that were subpoenaed before Congress.

                        If anyone is interested in some of his sweet contents, visit -

                        __http://www.privacytoday.com/bankingtestimony-98.htm__
                        (http://www.privacytoday.com/bankingtestimony-98.htm_)
                        (_http://www.privacytoday.com/bankingtestimony-98.htm_
                        (http://www.privacytoday.com/bankingtestimony-98.htm) )

                        __http://www.privacytoday.com/bankingtestimony2000.htm__
                        (http://www.privacytoday.com/bankingtestimony2000.htm_)
                        (_http://www.privacytoday.com/bankingtestimony2000.htm_
                        (http://www.privacytoday.com/bankingtestimony2000.htm) )

                        For that matter, his entire website at _www.privacytoday.com_
                        (_http://www.privacytoday.com_ (http://www.privacytoday.com/) ) is enough
                        to make you regurgitate. What ticked me off
                        the most is that the majority of the people he complained about were, in
                        fact, the very same people many of us complained about to our licensing
                        agencies who did actually nothing about them.

                        I remember one of those brought before Congress was giving a
                        teleconference
                        seminar over in Burbank. A relatively new licensee was promoting the
                        conference and trying to get people signed up, presumably for free
                        entrance
                        herself. I told her that she was out of her ever loving mind getting
                        involved with that person since everything she did violated the law. A
                        couple
                        years later when the hearings started, the local PI tried to claim to me
                        that
                        she really didn't get involved with her. UGH !!!!

                        Anyway, what I say here is basically the same as I used to say to my CE
                        bail agent students when the class would first start. I would say, "Hi,
                        for
                        those of you who do not know me, I'm Sue Sarkis. I'm not here to tell you
                        how to run your businesses. What I am here for is to make certain that
                        when you walk out those doors after the classes are over, that you know
                        precisely what the law says. What you do with that knowledge is up to
                        you.".

                        Have a great night all !!

                        Sue


                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • RickyG
                        Sue, I know who Robert Douglas is. I got off of the phone with him 60 minutes ago, almost to the minute.... He does a lot of Talk Radio now. To my surprise,
                        Message 11 of 13 , Feb 8, 2011
                          Sue,

                          I know who Robert Douglas is. I got off of the phone with him 60 minutes ago, almost to the minute....

                          He does a lot of "Talk Radio" now. To my surprise, he informed me that he used to be a P.I.. He also informed me about testifying on these issues in the 90s.

                          His position on this is that it is just a "Gray Area" like Bob said. But even so, he did not think that a Federal Prosecutor would waste his or her time on something like this considering the events we have going on in our world today.

                          He seemed a little dismayed that there is no clear frame of reference one way or the other in regards to the legalities of using the "Trojan Check"..

                          He DID say that Debt Collectors might run into problems with using "Trojan Checks" under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act because the language there is very broad.

                          He also even said that if he were going to use a "Trojan Check" he would not be too worried about being prosecuted for it.

                          I have to say, he was a pretty nice guy, he seemed very reasonable and cautious not to say anything that might mislead me.

                          But the point here had nothing at all to do with Robert Dourglas or his character, really. The point was that the Federal Government has been aware of the use of "Trojan Checks" since at least 2005 and I and many others can't find one single case involving a prosecution for their use......

                          Take from that what you may.....



                          Ricky Gurley.



                          --
                          Risk Management Research & Investments, Inc. & Thoth Data Systems
                          Agency License Number: 2011001124
                          Private Investigator License Number: 2011001072

                          Mailing Address: 2101 W. Broadway PMB 326, Columbia, MO. 65203
                          Office Address: 1 E. Broadway Suite Z, Columbia, MO. 65203

                          Direct Office Number: (573) 234-6876
                          Office Phone: (573) 234-4647 Ext. 110
                          Car Phone: (573) 529-0808
                          Cell Phone: (573) 529-4476
                          Toll Free Phone: (888) 571-0958
                          Toll Free Fax: (877) 795-9800
                          EMERGENCY LINE: (573) 234-4871

                          RMRI, Inc. Websites
                          (1) http://www.rmriinc.com
                          (2) http://rmriinc.bestcyberinvestigator.com

                          RMRI, Inc. Blogs
                          (1) http://rmriinc.blogspot.com/index.html
                          (2) http://rmriincspace.spaces.live.com/






                          --- In infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com, suesarkis@... wrote:
                          >
                          > Rick -
                          >
                          > Robert Douglas has been complaining about our industry since way before
                          > 2005. He testified at each and every hearing, I do believe, at least one
                          > time starting back in 1998 as it came to the GLB. He also testified when it
                          > came to phone record privacy and anything else that we, as an industry, do in
                          > the normal course and scope of our employment. He was the downfall of all
                          > of the 20+ that were subpoenaed before Congress.
                          >
                          > If anyone is interested in some of his sweet contents, visit -
                          >
                          > _http://www.privacytoday.com/bankingtestimony-98.htm_
                          > (http://www.privacytoday.com/bankingtestimony-98.htm)
                          >
                          > _http://www.privacytoday.com/bankingtestimony2000.htm_
                          > (http://www.privacytoday.com/bankingtestimony2000.htm)
                          >
                          >
                          > For that matter, his entire website at _www.privacytoday.com_
                          > (http://www.privacytoday.com) is enough to make you regurgitate. What ticked me off
                          > the most is that the majority of the people he complained about were, in
                          > fact, the very same people many of us complained about to our licensing
                          > agencies who did actually nothing about them.
                          >
                          > I remember one of those brought before Congress was giving a teleconference
                          > seminar over in Burbank. A relatively new licensee was promoting the
                          > conference and trying to get people signed up, presumably for free entrance
                          > herself. I told her that she was out of her ever loving mind getting
                          > involved with that person since everything she did violated the law. A couple
                          > years later when the hearings started, the local PI tried to claim to me that
                          > she really didn't get involved with her. UGH !!!!
                          >
                          > Anyway, what I say here is basically the same as I used to say to my CE
                          > bail agent students when the class would first start. I would say, "Hi, for
                          > those of you who do not know me, I'm Sue Sarkis. I'm not here to tell you
                          > how to run your businesses. What I am here for is to make certain that
                          > when you walk out those doors after the classes are over, that you know
                          > precisely what the law says. What you do with that knowledge is up to you.".
                          >
                          > Have a great night all !!
                          >
                          > Sue
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          >
                        • TSCM/SO Group
                          Sounds like it falls into the same category of events that takes place when someone attempts to turn over an illegal listening device to a fed LE agency. You
                          Message 12 of 13 , Feb 8, 2011
                            Sounds like it falls into the same category of events that takes place when
                            someone attempts to turn over an illegal listening device to a fed LE
                            agency.

                            You are greeted, thanked for your information, the device goes into a old
                            sneaker box on a shelf in the back, never to be seen again...

                            If it's a civil matter you get greeted with sorry,were too busy,it's a civil
                            matter you may want etc etc etc

                            And the beat goes on...





                            Mitch Davis

                            TSCM/Special Operations Group Inc.

                            20 Music Square West,Suite 208

                            Nashville, TN. 37203 USA

                            615.251.0441

                            Fax 615.523.0300

                            www.tscmusa.com



                            ***********************************

                            "Maintaining a higher degree of excellence"

                            *****************************************



                            This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to
                            which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged,
                            confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader
                            of this message is not the intended recipient or agent responsible for
                            delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
                            that any dissemination or copying of this communication is strictly
                            prohibited. If you have received this electronic transmission in error,
                            please delete it from your system without copying it and notify the sender
                            by reply e-mail so that the email address record can be corrected. Thank
                            you.



                            From: suesarkis@... [mailto:suesarkis@...]
                            Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2011 4:12 PM
                            To: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com
                            Subject: Re: GLOBAT SUSPECTS SPAM! [infoguys-list] Re: The Trojan Check





                            In a message dated 2/8/2011 1:43:55 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
                            rth@... <mailto:rth%40hrodey.com> writes:

                            As we all know and are so fond of saying.... Anyone can file a suit and
                            the cost of defending, even if you win, can kill you.
                            Bob said it well. Aside from that, anyone who knows me knows full well
                            that I have always been the Devil's Advocate. I always go to the extremes
                            because anything is possible.

                            I was working with the defense for the very first federal prosecution for
                            "keylogging". Everyone on these lists involved in those conversations back
                            then were positive he was going to be convicted. I was the only one
                            positive he wouldn't. He wasn't !!

                            I was working with the defense for the very first federal prosecution for
                            "phone records illegally obtained".

                            Although I have not heard of any "Trojan Check" cases out there but bear in
                            mind, that doesn't mean there haven't been a lot of them. I personally
                            would not be touting my arrest to the industry had such an event ever
                            occurred. Since the vast majority of criminal cases never get appealed,
                            without
                            local press coverage, we never know about them.

                            I'm sure glad I'm semi-retired. Retirement is just around the corner !!!!

                            Sincerely,
                            Sue

                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.