A2Z Investigations

The phone rings, you pick it up, and the caller identifies himself as an officer of the court. He says you failed to report for jury duty and that a warrant is out for your arrest. You say you never received a notice. To clear it up, the caller says he’ll need some information for “verification purposes”-your birth date, social security number, maybe even a credit card number.

This is when you should hang up the phone. It’s a scam.

Jury scams have been around for years, but have seen a resurgence in recent months. Communities in more than a dozen states have issued public warnings about cold calls from people claiming to be court officials seeking personal information. As a rule, court officers never ask for confidential information over the phone; they generally correspond with prospective jurors via mail.

The scam’s bold simplicity may be what makes it so effective. Facing the unexpected threat of arrest, victims are caught off guard and may be quick to part with some information to defuse the situation.

“They get you scared first,” says a special agent in the Minneapolis field office who has heard the complaints. “They get people saying, ‘Oh my gosh! I’m not a criminal. What’s going on?’” That’s when the scammer dangles a solution-a fine, payable by credit card, that will clear up the problem.

With enough information, scammers can assume your identity and empty your bank accounts.

“It seems like a very simple scam,” the agent adds. The trick is putting people on the defensive, then reeling them back in with the promise of a clean slate. “It’s kind of ingenious. It’s social engineering.”

In recent months, communities in Florida, New York, Minnesota, Illinois, Colorado, Oregon, California, Virginia, Oklahoma, Arizona, and New Hampshire reported scams or posted warnings or press releases on their local websites. In August, the federal court system issued a warning on the scam and urged people to call their local District Court office if they receive suspicious calls. In September, the FBI issued a press release about jury scams and suggested victims also contact their local FBI field office.

In March, USA.gov, the federal government’s information website, posted details about jury scams in their Frequently Asked Questions area. The site reported scores of queries on the subject from website visitors and callers seeking information.

The jury scam is a simple variation of the identity-theft ploys that have proliferated in recent years as personal information and good credit have become thieves’ preferred prey, particularly on the Internet. Scammers might tap your information to make a purchase on your credit card, but could just as easily sell your information to the highest bidder on the Internet’s black market.

Protecting yourself is the key: Never give out personal information when you receive an unsolicited phone call.

source: http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2006/june/jury_scam060206

for more information about personal identity security and investigations, please visit www.a2zinvestigations.com

Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge gender-neutralised his reasoning. Photograph: Ian Nicholson/PA

Parliament made clear two years ago that sexual infidelity should not be allowed as a defence for murder, whatever the circumstances. A partner’s affair could no longer be treated by courts as a defensible reason to lose control and kill.

However, giving judgment last week, on three domestic killing appeals, Lord Chief Justice Judge ruled: “Where sexual infidelity is integral to and forms an essential part of the context the prohibition does not operate to exclude it.”

It seems that parliament says infidelity doesn’t count and the court says it does.

Killing a wife for infidelity was “classic” provocation under the law prior to 2009. The courts were littered with cases in which men blamed their partner’s adultery for making them kill her.

In the case of Morgan James Smith in 1999, Lord Hoffman noted that historically one of the legal justifications for killing due to losing self-control had been finding a wife in adultery. It was regarded as “the highest invasion of property”.

In 2008 Justice for Women asked a senior judge why he had accepted a plea of guilty to manslaughter instead of murder, when a man had stabbed his wife in fury.

“Because it was classic provocation,” he said. “She was leaving him for another man. I would have been practically ordering them [the jury] to give a verdict of manslaughter!”‘

Lord Hoffman, again in the case of Smith, understanding that this still prevailed, said: “Male possessiveness and jealousy should not today be an acceptable reason for the loss of self-control leading to homicide.”

And that is what this legislation attempted to do. The exclusion of infidelity as an allowable trigger for a loss of self-control defence was not because legislators thought it didn’t make both men and women angry but because it is contrary to modern public policy to allow it as a defence to murder.

Lord Judge accepted that the statute does not allow infidelity to be a “qualifying trigger” capable, in law, of causing someone to lose self-control but, because all the circumstances at the time of the killing have to be examined. If infidelity is present it has to be looked at and may add to the potency of any other conduct which might cause a loss of self-control. So if there can no longer be an infidelity defence there is instead a sort of “infidelity plus” defence, notwithstanding the statute says: “In deciding whether a loss of self-control had a qualifying trigger, the fact that a thing done or said constituted sexual infidelity is to be disregarded.”

Clearly nobody in future will assert that they lost control because of infidelity. The defence will always be “infidelity plus”. For example, she was unfaithful plus she goaded me about it.

Lord Judge studiedly gender-neutralised his reasoning but that does not alter the context that it has been men who kill their unfaithful partners and it is still very rare that the opposite is the case.

Consequently this is mainly a reversal for women, as well as a setback for parliament which intended to pass a law that recognised, like Lord Hoffman, that harmful culture must change. It should be appealed to the supreme court (though without Lord Phillips, who has already criticised the provision).

The campaigning women who fought for this change for women, and are devastated at how quickly the courts have undermined it, should be reassured that the new law has raised the bar considerably for those who kill and plead loss of control.

The defence is only allowed if the conduct provoking the cause of the loss of control was “extremely grave”, gave the defendant “a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged” and would have made someone with “a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint” lose control and kill as well. These are all far higher tests than before .

Further and importantly, women and men who kill their violent partners now have an equivalent plea if fear of serious violence made them lose self-control. The earlier law of provocation did not work for women, its basis being that the defendant was angered to kill and such women were not angry but afraid. At that time, the court of appeal was helpful, stretching the law of provocation to help, but it took this statute finally to end the appalling injustice which otherwise prevailed where angry men and women who killed their partners were acquitted of murder and frightened men and women who killed their abusers were convicted of it. This surely is new, good, clear-sighted justice and it is unaffected by last week’s judgment on the three domestic killing appeals.

Only one of these appeals succeeded, where the trial judge followed the statute and prohibited the defence of loss of control through infidelity from going to the jury. That man, Jon-Jacques Clinton must now be retried on the defence of “infidelity plus”. In the other two, while the old law might have produced acquittals both were convicted by juries rejecting their case under the narrower new law. Ironically, perhaps the same would have happened to Clinton if his defence were put to a jury. We shall soon see.

Despite the totemic setback for campaigning women, in this judgment, progress has been made in the Coroners and Justice Act and the days when one can legitimately say, as many protesters did about this case last week “Justice for who? Not for women” ought, in this aspect of the law of murder, at least, to be moving towards a close.

source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jan/23/infidelity-plus-defence-murder?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+theguardian%2Fcommentisfree%2Frss+%28Comment+is+free%29

for more information about infidelity or if you think your spouse is cheating, contact the private investigators at A2Z Investigations – www.a2zinvestigations.com

New Jersey Background checks

If the Essex County Prosecutor’s Office is granted its request for date of birth information on prospective jurors, and a criminal background check reveals an open warrant on one such juror, will an arrest follow? Will a deal be worked out?

“We’d be running a fugitive safe surrender program,” Superior Court Assignment Judge Patricia Costello said, answering her own question at Friday’s hearing on the motion in Newark.

What about the background check itself? Would it include searching for a prospective juror’s juvenile record or any criminal complaint that never led to arrest?

And at what point would the state conclude its background check?

Those were just a few of the many questions left unanswered during the hour-long hearing in which two assistant prosecutors argued in favor of the motion, with attorneys for the state public defender’s office, a defense lawyers association and the New Jersey chapter of the ACLU expressing their strong opposition.

Costello will issue a written ruling by Feb. 3.

Assistant prosecutors Howard Zuckerman and Sara Friedman told the judge they would agree to the court retaining juror birth date information only if the court ran the check itself then provided any resulting arrest and conviction records.

As it now stands in New Jersey, courts have birth date information on prospective jurors but are only obligated to provide the prosecution and defense with names, occupations and towns of residence.

In its brief requesting the expanded information, the prosecutor’s office cited three instances where jurors were found to have lied about being charged with a crime or having relatives who were charged with a crime.

The background checks were needed, Friedman argued, to avoid the potential of jury’s guilty verdict later being overturned because one of the deliberating jurors was found to have a criminal conviction.

Opposing the motion, Deputy Public Defender for Essex Michael Marucci said three incidents in five years does not constitute an overwhelming need for such change.

Marucci added he was concerned that the motion “was more of an idea than a specific plan.” He argued, too, that if Costello grants the motion, the defense should be entitled to the same information along with any subsequent background check findings.

Zuckerman said should his office be granted date of birth information, it would supply the defense with all relevant data from the background check but would not provide the actual birth dates. “We have concerns for the safety of jurors,” Zuckerman said. “We don’t want that information out there.”

Leslie Stolbof Sinemus, who is president of the Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers of New Jersey, called the motion an invasion of privacy. “Is it appropriate that jurors doing their civic duty are investigated like witnesses and defendants?” she asked in court during the hearing.

Arguing on behalf of jurors, ACLU attorney Alexander Shalom said the prosecutor’s office was “trying to bootstrap a problem of qualification with information they want to have.” Because prosecutors would be unwilling to provide the defense with the same information it is seeking from the court, Shalom told the judge, “we can sense there is a value in the raw data.”

For more New Jersey background check information, please visit http://www.a2zinvestigatigations.com

source:http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/01/motion_to_expand_jurors_backgr.html

Security ramped up for Super Bowl

“If somebody is thinking about committing a crime, they do see that we have eyes up there and we can see if they do anything and respond to it,” Homeland Security Chief Gary Koons said. “A lot of the cameras were purchased through Urban Area Security Intervention grants through the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Over the last nine years, Indianapolis has used the grants to purchase cameras, bomb suits and other technologies to keep people safe.”The surveillance network will link in with cameras already installed around the Indiana War Memorial by a state agency that keeps watch on more than 24 acres of property and green space throughout downtown, RTV6′s Jack Rinehart reported.Brigadier Gen. Stewart Goodwin, of the Indiana War Memorial, said keeping tabs on downtown security will be just a click away for some officials.”If you had the right (Internet) address, you could set up a laptop anywhere and you could watch the camera from there,” Goodwin said.Indianapolis police, Homeland Security and FBI officials said they will monitor the camera network around the clock from two separate locations.”If something happens, they can pinpoint where you were, what happened, and that to me gives me more safety,” Goodwin said. “If you have security cameras and more of a police presence, it’s always good for the city. I always feel safe downtown.”Homeland Security officials said they will deploy cameras on moving vehicles, on helicopters and on pods that can be moved to different locations as needed so that fans can focus on having fun.”It’s probably going to be hard not to be on some type of camera while you’re downtown in the vicinity of the Super Bowl,” Goodwin said.

for more security and private investigator information, please visit

http://www.a2zinvestigations.com

source:http://www.theindychannel.com/news/30244695/detail.html

FAST FACTS:

• Identity theft cases decreased in recent years, but consumers lost more time and money resolving the issue.
• One report reveals 75% of all id theft claims come from stolen wallets, purses and personal information.
• Monitoring your credit report can aid in prevention.

(Memphis, 1/2/2012) Hundreds of dollars worth of pizza and a DJ for a house party.

Who could forget the Shelby County teenager that pleaded guilty last month after using an app to pose as law enforcement and steal credit card information.

“The criminal element has become much more sophisticated using technology of course to aid in their crimes,” explains Chip Washington, Public Information Officer for the Shelby Co. Sheriff’s Office.

Just last year 34 states introduced identity theft legislation, and in 16, bills passed. That includes Tennessee and Mississippi where online impersonation is now a punishable offense.

Experts say the new year marks a great time to consider ways to protect yourself.

Tip #1:

Protect your personal information at home, out and about and online. At your house, personal documents should be locked and stored. Guard your card when you’re using it at atms and making purchases. Also, take additional steps when shopping online to ensure you’re making a secure transaction.

Tip #2:

Don’t overshare on social networks. Many of us are on Facebook and LinkedIn, but don’t use proper privacy settings.

Tip #3:

Review your credit report.  You can get a free copy at annualcreditreport.com.  Check for errors, unusual activity and dispute a claim if necessary.

It may seem simple, but it’s a way to try to stay a step ahead of crooks.

“A lot of folks sit home and they plot and they plan how to figure how to best take advantage of an unsuspecting citizen, so all we can do is remind, remind, remind, and of course if we can save one person from heartache, then we feel like we’ve done our job,” Washington says.

If you’ve been the victim of identity theft, you can have a fraud alert placed on your credit report and get a security freeze.  This should stop thieves from opening up new accounts in your name.

source:http://www.wreg.com/news/onyourside/wreg-protect-your-identity-in-2012-20120102,0,3035215.story

for more information about online security, please contact us at www.a2zinvestigations.com

According to AshleyMadison.com, the Hispanic community is “the fastest growing community when it comes to infidelity.”

In a press release sent by the self-described “largest dating site for married people”, the company states that since launching the Spanish-language version of their website in 2009, 1.1 million Latinos have signed up, accounting for 31 percent of their total new membership.

The company further suggests that according to their data, “Hispanic members have affairs at the youngest age: Average age of 27 for women and 34 for men (compared to 33 for women and 40 for men in the general U.S. population).”

Considering the stereotype of Latinos as family-oriented and with conservative social values, this may come as a bit of a surprise.

In a 2010 review of General Social Survey data, one intrepid blogger took a look at the “relationship between ancestry and philandering in the U.S.” The writer’s analysis indicates that 19.6 percent of married Mexican men and 12.4 percent of married Mexican women have cheated on their spouses, whereas the rates for Americans (i.e. those who claim this as their only ethnicity) were 28.2 percent for married men and 15.5 percent for married women, indexing over 40 percent and 25 percent, respectively, versus the Mexican respondents.

Persons of the Iberian peninsula (Spain and Portugal) rated low for women, 10.9 percent, but quite high for men, at 38.5 percent.

While Hispanics are different from Mexicans or Iberians, and while perhaps presenting a bit of a statistical case for the machista reputation of Latino men, the findings possibly reinforce the stereotype that Hispanics are more socially conservative that the U.S. mainstream when it comes to this issue.

A separate finding reported by AshleyMadison.com in their press release corroborates this, somewhat, indicating that Hispanics who are cheating on their spouses “are choosing to have fewer partners: U.S. members average three affair partners per year; Hispanic members average only one affair partner per year.”

However, in 2009, the National Institutes of Health published a report which showed that Latino youths are less apt to protect against sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancy due to their focus “on the emotional and social repercussions of potentially revealing infidelity by advocating condom use than the physical repercussions of unsafe sex.”

The findings suggest that this group, Latino youths, are promiscuous and prone to concealing their infidelity, behavior which could persist and lead to the kinds of findings noted by AshleyMadison.com.

So, the jury is still out. The people at AshleyMadison.com may be onto something, maybe they know what’s really going on behind the curtains of Latino marriages. To be sure, they recently announced they are accelerating the launch of their website for Mexico, hoping to launch by end of November.

for more information about infidelity of cheating spouse, please visit http://www.a2zinvestigations.com

source:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/10/hispanic-infidelity_n_1086990.html

law enforcement agencies are using more surveillance devices as a part of their investigations, but these may not necessarily be increasing the number of arrests, according to the Attorney-General’s Surveillance Devices Act 2004 annual report.

The report (PDF) stated that the Australian Federal Police had seen an increase of about 30 per cent in the number of surveillance device warrants, obtaining 406 warrants in the reporting period, up from 311 in the previous year. It is the main government agency that requests surveillance warrants aside from the Australian Crime Commission, which saw a 10 per cent decrease in warrants obtained from last year, down to 179 warrants from 199.

Overall, there was a 12.6 per cent increase in warrants issued over the previous year. These statistics, while they include NSW and Victorian Police, represent warrants at a federal level. State and territory law enforcement agencies have separate legislation to draw from, and are only included in the attorney-general’s report during Commonwealth or joint investigations.

Warrants issued by law enforcement agencies.
(Credit: Attorney-General’s Department, CC BY 3.0)

Although the annual report breaks warrants into categories of optical, listening, data, tracking and device retrieval, almost all warrants are listed as a combination of these. This makes it difficult to determine what type of surveillance that government agencies are using, or if there is a trend towards, for example, greater data surveillance over optical.

Warrants were also typically never refused. In the past three reporting periods, only two warrants were refused. In addition, no applications to extend warrants had been refused in the past three years.

In some cases, warrants aren’t necessary. According to the report, optical surveillance devices can be used if they can be installed and retrieved without entering a premises or interfering with the interior of a vehicle without permission. Similarly, tracking devices can be installed on or under vehicles so long as they do not require entering a premises or interfering with the vehicle’s interior.

Arrests, prosecutions and convictions resulting from surveillance.
(Credit: Attorney-General’s Department, CC BY 3.0)

However, although the number of warrants has increased, the total number of arrests, prosecutions and convictions have not necessarily matched. Total arrests dropped by 29 per cent from 108 last year to 77, and prosecutions increased by 23 per cent from 44 to 54, while convictions dropped 38 per cent from 24 to 15.

The report did state that it is possible that the figures may be understated due to consequent arrests, prosecutions and convictions occurring in separate reporting periods, and that, in some cases, convictions are recorded without the need to provide information obtained through surveillance.

An episode of “South Park” from 2005 that parodied the Church of Scientology was so upsetting to leaders of the religious sect that it secretly investigated the show’s creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone, according to documents made public yesterday.

Private investigators for the church allegedly staked out the “South Park” offices, rifled through Stone’s and Parker’s trash, and even tried to recruit a mole to infiltrate the “South Park” team, former high-ranking Scientologist Mark Rathburn says. The goal, according to Rathburn, was to dig up dirt, which the church could use to pressure the show into not poking fun at the highly secretive sect popular with Hollywood stars such as John Travolta and Tom Cruise.

The Scientology investigator failed to dig up anything juicy enough, so they set their sights on actors John Stamos and Rebecca Romijn – who were friends with Parker and Stone.

All of this was the result of a “South Park” episode, “Trapped in a Closet,” depicting Stan Marsh becoming a Scientologist because it was “fun and free.” On the show, he was discovered to be the reincarnation of the church’s founder, L. Ron Hubbard.

source:http://www.nypost.com/p/entertainment/tv/scientologists_target_south_park_gBJ4Evi6sUxEtv8E90bY6N

for more information on surveillance and private investigators, please visit http://www.a2zinvestigations.com