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

Re: [infoguys-list] Re: The Great Cell Phone Debate

Expand Messages
  • oracleintl@aol.com
    I continue to disagree. If the purchaser has no knowledge of the illegal activity, he cannot generally be charged with a crime - strict liability offenses
    Message 1 of 4 , May 7, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      I continue to disagree.

      If the purchaser has no knowledge of the illegal activity, he cannot
      generally be charged with a crime - strict liability offenses notwithstanding.

      Further, when it comes to private investigators, there is no general
      "Exclusionary Rule." Unless there is a statutory provision that says "if anyone
      does X they cannot use the evidence in any proceeding," evidence illegally
      obtained by private parties is not generally excluded.

      Considering all the pretexting of bank and toll records that has gone on,
      and the extent of the governments investigations pertaining thereto, you should
      be able to cite me lots of cases where a PI bought the records from a broker
      and got charged.

      I cannot think of any.

      Bill E. Branscum, Investigator
      Oracle International
      _http://www.fraudsandscams.com/_ (http://www.fraudsandscams.com/)
      _http://www.oracleinternational.com/_ (http://www.oracleinternational.com/)
      PO Box 10728
      Naples, FL 34101
      (239) 304-1639
      (239) 304-1640 Fax



      In a message dated 5/7/2006 5:43:57 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
      puncher113@... writes:

      Bill, you make a number of very good points, but I think you've
      overstated one of them:
      "Unless you can make the case that there is no possible legal way to
      have obtained the record, you cannot sanction the purchaser of that
      record as they are not responsible for the unlawful acts of the
      seller."
      That's way too broad; criminal law doesn't work that way. If it did,
      there are very few crimes one couldn't justify. If the people (or a
      plaintiff) can make a prima facie showing that you obtained the
      information in your case illegally, you're screwed, no matter whether
      someone else might have fished it out of their trash. And if the
      purchaser has reasonable grounds to believe the information was
      illegally obtained, he's an accomplice after the fact.
      Bryan Smith
      Cal. SBN 196500






      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • suesarkis@aol.com
      In a message dated 5/7/2006 3:15:21 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, oracleintl@aol.com writes: Unless there is a statutory provision that says if anyone does X
      Message 2 of 4 , May 7, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        In a message dated 5/7/2006 3:15:21 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
        oracleintl@... writes:

        Unless there is a statutory provision that says "if anyone
        does X they cannot use the evidence in any proceeding," evidence illegally
        obtained by private parties is not generally excluded.



        Bill -

        I don't know what the heck you're smoking, but put it down. It's fogging up
        your brain cells.

        A "foundation" must be laid before ANY physical evidence is admissible. You
        just can't put down a taped interview or a photo or printed records without
        the "tapee", the "photographer" or the "custodian of records". I can just
        see some investigator saying, "Yeah, I illegally pretexted to get these
        records" on the witness stand. Puhleeeeeeeze. No foundation; no admission. No
        judge in their right mind would allow such testimony without appointing an
        attorney for the witness first who would then order his client to shut the fook up.

        However, folks, having the illegally obtained information in my hot little
        hands will usually tell me where to direct the attorney and his SDTs.


        Sincerely yours,
        Sue
        ____________________________________________________
        Sue Sarkis
        Sarkis Detective Agency

        (est. 1976)
        PI 6564
        1346 Ethel Street
        Glendale, CA 91207-1826
        818-242-2505
        818-242-9824 FAX

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

        God Bless America and her allies forever !!


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • oracleintl@aol.com
        In a message dated 5/7/2006 8:03:29 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, suesarkis@aol.com writes: I don t know what the heck you re smoking, but put it down. It s
        Message 3 of 4 , May 7, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          In a message dated 5/7/2006 8:03:29 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
          suesarkis@... writes:

          I don't know what the heck you're smoking, but put it down. It's fogging
          up
          your brain cells.




          Sorry, but it's been done - all you do is tell the truth and argue that the
          evidence was "readily available in commerce."

          Further, law enforcement can use illegally obtained information if they had
          nothing to do with the illegality - the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree doctrine
          only applies to taint by other law enforcement officers.

          For example, suppose I get tired of the smell and kick down my neighbor's
          door, only to find that I'm living next door to another John Wayne Gacey. If I
          call the cops, they can use the evidence and that's true even in Kookyfornia.

          Bill E. Branscum, Investigator
          Oracle International
          _http://www.fraudsandscams.com/_ (http://www.fraudsandscams.com/)
          _http://www.oracleinternational.com/_ (http://www.oracleinternational.com/)
          PO Box 10728
          Naples, FL 34101
          (239) 304-1639
          (239) 304-1640 Fax
          .




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