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

Re: [infoguys-list] The Trojan Check

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 13 , Feb 8, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      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 2 of 13 , Feb 8, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        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 3 of 13 , Feb 8, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          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 4 of 13 , Feb 8, 2011
          • 0 Attachment
            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 5 of 13 , Feb 8, 2011
            • 0 Attachment
              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 6 of 13 , Feb 8, 2011
              • 0 Attachment
                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 7 of 13 , Feb 8, 2011
                • 0 Attachment
                  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 8 of 13 , Feb 8, 2011
                  • 0 Attachment
                    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 9 of 13 , Feb 8, 2011
                    • 0 Attachment
                      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.