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

The Great Cell Phone Debate Questions.....

Expand Messages
  • Ricky Gurley
    Bill says: Considering all the pretexting of bank and toll records that has gone on, and the extent of the governments investigations pertaining thereto, you
    Message 1 of 7 , May 7, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Bill says:

      "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, are you implying that at this point in time, that buying these
      records from an Information Broker is not illegal, since nobody has
      been criminally charged with anything resembling this; as of yet?


      Sue says:

      "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."

      Sue, judging from your statement quoted above, it seems to me that
      you are referring to an evidence admissibility issue, instead of
      illegally obtained information, and how that information can cause
      the Private Investigator to lose his or her license, or even go to
      jail. You are aware that we are in a discussion that is much broader
      than evidence admissibility issues, aren't you? You do understand
      that we are also discussing the legalities of information that may
      not even ever see the inside of a court room, yes?


      Bryan says:

      "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, I totally agree.. Yes, if Bill Branscum hired Joe Bloggs to
      go through Dave Defendants trash, and Joe Bloggs went up under Dave
      Defendant's car port and got Dave Defendant's trash, and found a
      phone bill in Dave's trash and sent it to Bill, Bill would have
      information that could not be admitted into court as evidence, if
      the true facts of how this evidence was obtained were known to the
      court.

      At this point in time, I honestly don't know if it is illegal to use
      an Information Broker to get cell phone records or not. But it does
      not matter, because whether it is illegal or not, I do know that you
      can be sued for it, so I am not going to use an Information Broker
      to get cell phone records for me..

      But, I want to ask another question here...

      Bill... Are you saying that if the FEDs caught you with my credit
      report, knowing that you don't have my consent to have it, that you
      could easily say, "I bought it, I have absolutely no idea where the
      seller got it from, all I know is I paid him $100.00 for it, and he
      faxed it to me, so since I have no idea of how it was obtained, I am
      not criminally culpable", and that magic sentence would stop the
      investigation, keep you from being charged with illegally accessing
      my credit record and details, and all your worries would be over
      with as far as you possessing my credit report goes? Just a one
      sentence proclamation that you had no idea of how the report you
      possess was obtained, and that's it, the investigation stops?



      Rick.




      Risk Management Research & Investments, Inc.
      2101 W. Broadway PMB 326, Columbia, MO. 65203
      Phone: (888) 571-0958 Fax: (877) 795-9800 Cell: (573)
      529-0808
      Company Email: RMRI-Inc@... Internet Email:
      rmriinc@...
    • suesarkis@aol.com
      In a message dated 5/7/2006 11:07:33 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, rmriinc@yahoo.com writes: Sue, judging from your statement quoted above, it seems to me that
      Message 2 of 7 , May 7, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        In a message dated 5/7/2006 11:07:33 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
        rmriinc@... writes:

        Sue, judging from your statement quoted above, it seems to me that
        you are referring to an evidence admissibility issue, instead of
        illegally obtained information, and how that information can cause
        the Private Investigator to lose his or her license, or even go to
        jail. You are aware that we are in a discussion that is much broader
        than evidence admissibility issues, aren't you? You do understand
        that we are also discussing the legalities of information that may
        not even ever see the inside of a court room, yes?


        Rick -

        You must be smoking the same thing Bill is. I addressed one paragraph only.
        Since you and others have argued the legality/illegality issue on this very
        item for quite sometime with me and you know darn well I was right all along,
        why would I need to be involved in any discussion about whether it is legal
        or not. It is not and I have known that for the past 30 years.

        Bill Branscum said, "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.'

        THAT is what I was addressing. Go back to sleep. You're confusing the
        issue.

        Sue


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Ricky Gurley
        ... confusing the ... No Sue, you are confusing the issue.... I posted this original thread, go back and look at the original questions, and try to keep your
        Message 3 of 7 , May 8, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          > THAT is what I was addressing. Go back to sleep. You're
          confusing the
          > issue.


          No Sue, you are confusing the issue.... I posted this original
          thread, go back and look at the original questions, and try to keep
          your replies in the same context that this thread was supposed to be
          in..

          There are a ton of things that one may not be able to get in as
          evidence in court, but that does not necessarily make these things
          illegal to have obtained or to possess.... But to refresh your
          memory, the original line of questioning revolved around Law
          Enforcement obtaining cell phone tolls in the same manner that our
          government has stated is or should be illegal...

          Now, you drop the "doobie", have some Doritos to kill that "buzz" by
          satisfying those "munchies" you should be having about right now,
          turn off the Bob Dylan, and wait a little while, and then come back
          and read this thread.... If I am not badly mistaken, you have
          already lost this argument to Bill once before, haven't you?

          Besides... You and Bill are much too old to be smoking that stuff
          anyway..... You two know you can't handle those psychedelic effects
          any longer. LOL.



          Rick.


          RMRI, Inc.
          Columbia, Missouri
          (888) 571-0958
        • oracleintl@aol.com
          Hi Rick, I wish I had the free time to go round,and round, and round . . . but I don t. I think my answers have been responsive to your questions, and I do
          Message 4 of 7 , May 8, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            Hi Rick,

            I wish I had the free time to go round,and round, and round . . . but I
            don't.

            I think my answers have been responsive to your questions, and I do not
            think there has been anything equivocal about them.

            If pretexting bank records was clearly illegal prior to GLB, why do we have
            GLB? The answer is, because it was not clearly illegal (See US v Mitchell
            Miller), and still is not necessarily illegal as GLB provides specific
            exemptions.

            If pretexting bank records was not clearly illegal prior to GLB, buying
            those records from an info broker would not have been clearly illegal even
            assuming that the buyer knew how they were obtained.

            Since info brokers closely guard their secrets, it's pretty hard to make the
            case that the purchaser of these records knew how they were being obtained,
            but as I said, absent clear guidance as to the legal issue, there was still no
            criminal case to be made. In support of that assertion, I invite anyone to
            point me to a case where someone was prosecuted for purchasing bank records
            from an info broker prior to GLB.

            That's why we have GLB.

            Similarly, assuming that brokers illegally obtained telephone toll records,
            the consumer who purchased phone toll records from a broker may not have had
            any idea how they were obtained. There is a scienter requirement for most
            criminal acts unless they are categorized as strict liability offenses - such as
            statutory rape, or speeding.

            As for the notion that evidence must be obtained legally to be admissible,
            that is simply ridiculous. Laying the foundation for admission does not mean
            one must prove that the documents were obtained legally. Obviously, the
            evidence should have been obtained legally, but unlawfully obtained evidence is
            frequently admitted.

            For one thing, the rules are dramatically different for law enforcement
            (government) and private parties. There is no general Exclusionary Rule
            applicable to private parties, even in criminal cases. If I am burglarizing your
            house and find your stash of pedophile vids where you taped yourself with
            neighborhood kids, I can turn them over to the cops and you can bet your ass they
            will be admissible - anyone who says otherwise obviously has no clue.

            For another thing, the rules vary according to use. Evidence that may not
            be admissible in the presentation of one's case, may very well be admissible
            in impeachment. A statement unlawfully obtained by the cops is a prime
            example. If you want to keep your mouth shut at trial, they may not be able to use
            it, but if you take the stand and tell a profoundly different story, it may
            very well come in.

            Also, if I buy phone toll records from Joe Schmoe who assures me that they
            were lawfully obtained from your trash, and it turns out that Schmoe got them
            from your trash can as it sat by your house as opposed to curbside, I would
            expect to be able to use them as evidence. You might have a sustainable civil
            action against Schmoe, but it is up to the discretion of the Court as to
            whether or not the evidence comes in, and absent wrongdoing on my part, I would
            expect to use the evidence - the foundation being that I bought them from
            Schmoe and Schmoe's testimony as to where he got them if the Court did not find
            them to be self-authenticating.


            Further, if the cops seek to introduce evidence in a criminal trial against
            you in the form of phone toll records that were ostensibly lawfully obtained
            from your criminal cohort's trash, and it turns out that they got them from
            their trash can as it sat by their house as opposed to curbside, although
            those records might well be excludable at trial against the cohort, I would
            expect the evidence to be admissible AGAINST YOU as you have no standing to object
            to the violation of a third party's rights.

            In any event, private action or government prosecution, the Court may permit
            the introduction of otherwise excludable evidence in rebuttal of perjury, or
            when justice otherwise demands it.

            I'll leave it to you to do your own research as I have a living to make.

            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]
          • Ricky Gurley
            ... You seem to be doing a pretty good job of it, Bill.. But I am glad that you are so busy that you can t seem to squeeze in 5 minutes to make a post, or does
            Message 5 of 7 , May 8, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com, oracleintl@... wrote:
              >
              > Hi Rick,
              >
              > I wish I had the free time to go round,and round, and round . . .

              You seem to be doing a pretty good job of it, Bill.. But I am glad
              that you are so busy that you can't seem to squeeze in 5 minutes to
              make a post, or does it just take longer for you to type up a
              post? ;o). You're probably just in high demand, these days....

              I just wanted to nail down some of your opinions on this topic.. To
              be honest, I am not as worried about admissibility issues with cell
              phone records, as I am the future of being able to get them at
              all... I will be the first to admit that in the past I have used
              cell phone records, and never have I had to bring them into court
              for any reason. Of course though, I am not going to be a hypocrite
              and lie and say that I have never used them, because they are such a
              political hot topic nowadays...

              The discussion on "rules of evidence" has been educational, though..
              I have learned that there really is not many "hard and fast rules"
              in court, it is all up to the Judge and the attitude of the court
              can sometimes be "geographical" or some might
              say "jurisdictional".... There are some courts here in Missouri that
              you can get away with things in that you may not ever dream about
              doing in other courts here in Missouri...



              Rick.


              RMRI, Inc
              Columbia, Missouri
              (888) 571-0958
            • oracleintl@aol.com
              In a message dated 5/8/2006 2:01:08 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, rmriinc@yahoo.com writes: You seem to be doing a pretty good job of it, Bill.. But I am glad
              Message 6 of 7 , May 8, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                In a message dated 5/8/2006 2:01:08 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
                rmriinc@... writes:

                You seem to be doing a pretty good job of it, Bill.. But I am glad
                that you are so busy that you can't seem to squeeze in 5 minutes to
                make a post, or does it just take longer for you to type up a
                post? ;o). You're probably just in high demand, these days....




                Yep, I suppose that's true but it is easy to be in high demand when one's
                competition so frequently has no clue.

                ; )

                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]
              • Ricky Gurley
                ... when one s ... You were blessed by the P.I. Gods , Bill..... You are certainly a fortunate one. Some of us have to struggle to attain only a modicum of
                Message 7 of 7 , May 8, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  > Yep, I suppose that's true but it is easy to be in high demand
                  when one's
                  > competition so frequently has no clue.

                  You were blessed by the "P.I. Gods", Bill..... You are certainly a
                  fortunate one. Some of us have to struggle to attain only a modicum
                  of your knowledge.... Thank you for being our guiding
                  inspiration.....

                  LOL.



                  Rick.


                  RMRI, Inc.
                  Columbia, Missouri
                  (888) 571-0958
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.