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

Re: [infoguys-list] Re: The Trojan Check

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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.