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

Re: The Trojan Check

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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.