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

[infoguys-list] Re: The Trojan Check - My Final Answer

Expand Messages
  • oracleintl@aol.com
    Yep, I think that pretty well sums it up except that, whereas the government could make a case on an illegal listening device if they could prove who was
    Message 1 of 1 , Feb 9, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      Yep, I think that pretty well sums it up except that, whereas the
      government could make a case on an illegal listening device if they could prove who
      was responsible, I do not think the government could successfully
      prosecute a Trojan Check case.

      Here are the problems, in my view. Criminal intent would be an element to
      prove - not that a person intended to violate the law (you need not even
      be aware of the law), but intent to engage in conduct that clearly violates
      the law.

      "Void for vagueness" has been the demise of a great many criminal statutes.

      Consider, once the government starts down this path, where does one draw
      the line?

      To use Sue's example, suppose I buy donuts from a bakery with a check,
      there's no pretense involved. Everyone involved knows that it's their donuts,
      my check, and I'll see where it is cashed as a normal consequence of
      commerce.

      Suppose I send my wife to go buy donuts with a check so I can see where
      it's cashed?

      Suppose I find out that your wife bought donuts with a check so I ask to
      see it so I can see where it was cashed?

      Suppose the have a help wanted sign so I apply for a job so they will
      write me a check? There's no pretense there either.

      Or, suppose we call them in for deposition and pay their mileage/expenses
      with a check . . . hmmmmmmmmmm?

      The point that people are missing is, LIKE ALL CRIMINAL STATUTES, GLB
      CRIMINALISES CONDUCT, NOT UNDERLYING MOTIVE.

      I can think of many cases where conduct is criminal no matter what your
      motive was, but I can think of no situation where otherwise lawful activity
      becomes criminal based upon underlying motive.

      "Why you did it" may be a defense in many cases involving otherwise
      criminal conduct, but if the conduct itself would otherwise be perfectly legal,
      "why you did it" is irrelevant.

      My oh my, think of the fun we could have with that one -

      "Ok, so she wasn't under age, but you thought she looked younger."

      "Ok, so the check cleared the bank, but you didn't think you had enough
      money in your account when you wrote it."

      "Ok, so the guy had a gun and the intention to kill you with it, but you
      thought he was just kidding when you shot him."

      "Ok, the speed limit is 70, and that's what you were doing, but you
      thought it was 55."

      We can go round and round about this forever but, until someone can cite
      me a case, my interpretation will remain as it is.

      GLB was never intended to keep us from identifying banking relationships,
      nor does it criminalize clever - it says you cannot deceive people or
      financial institutions into giving you the information by making false
      statements.

      Bill




      In a message dated 2/8/2011 6:29:10 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
      MitchD@... writes:




      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@...)
      [mailto:_suesarkis@..._ (mailto:suesarkis@...) ]
      Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2011 4:12 PM
      To: _infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com_ (mailto: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@...) <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]





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