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

Re: The Great Cell Phone Debate Questions.....

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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.