We focus our knowledge, skills and expertise on investigative services that will bring our clients exceptional work product and unparalleled service results.
Empire Specialized Investigations,
California Licensed Private Investigator Providing Professional Investigative
Services in Alameda County - Amador County - Butte County - Calaveras County -
Contra Costa County - Del Norte County - El Dorado County -Fresno County -
Glenn County - Humboldt County - Inyo County - Kern County - King County -
Kings Lake County - Lassen County - Los Angeles County - Madera County - Marin
County - Mariposa County - Merced County - Modoc County - Mono County -
Monterey County - Napa County - Nevada County - Orange County - Placer County -
Plumas County - Riverside County - Sacramento County - San Benito County - San
Bernardino County - San Diego County - San Francisco County - San Joaquin
County - San Luis Obispo County - San Mateo County - Santa Barbara County
-Santa Clara County - Santa Cruz County - Shasta County - Sierra County -
Siskiyou County - Solano County - Sonoma County - Stanislaus County - Ventura
County Licensed Private Investigator Empire Specialized Investigations - (949)
645-1492 | The Surveillance Expert for California
LAS VEGAS -- A group of Nevada Highway Patrol troopers and a retired police sergeant have filed a racketeering
complaint against the NHP and Las Vegas Metro Police in U.S. District Court.
The complaint alleges that after then-Gov. Jim Gibbons approved a K-9 program to target drug runners on Nevada's highways, Nevada Highway Patrol Commander Chris Perry intentionally undermined the program.
The complaint alleges that the drug-sniffing dogs used by troopers in the program were intentionally being trained to operate as so-called trick ponies, or dogs that provide officers false alerts for the presence of drugs.
The dogs were being trained to alert their handlers by cues, instead of by picking up a drug's scent by sniffing, the complaint said. When a dog gives a false alert, this resulted in illegal searches and seizures, including money and property, the complaint said.
The 103-page complaint alleges that Perry,
along with others, used the K-9s to undermine the program to systematically
conduct illegal searches and seizures for financial benefit. The complaint also alleges the defendants, which also includes the state's Public Safety Department and individuals in NHP and Metro, were involved in a Federal RICO conspiracy, also known as the Federal Racketeer Influence and Corrupt Organizations Act. NHP, Metro and the state have not returned
calls from 8 News NOW for comment.
Allegations also include corruption, abuse
of office and official cover ups.
PRESS RELEASE - Sen. Paul Introduces Bill to Protect Americans Against Unwarranted Drone Surveillance
WASHINGTON, D.C. - Today, Sen. Rand Paul introduced legislation into the Senate that protects individual privacy against unwarranted governmental intrusion through the use of the unmanned aerial vehicles commonly known as drones. The Preserving Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act of 2012 will protect Americans' personal privacy.
"Like other tools used to collect information in law enforcement, in order to use drones a warrant needs to be issued. Americans going about their everyday lives should not be treated like criminals or terrorists and have their rights infringed upon by military tactics," Sen. Paul said.
The Preserving Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act of 2012 also:
1. Prohibits the use of drones by the government except when a warrant is issued for its use in accordance with the requirements of the Fourth Amendment.
( FOURTH AMENDMENT LAWS ... THAT WAS BEFORE 911 AND THE PATRIOT ACT)
2. Includes the following exceptions:
1) patrol of national borders;
2) when law enforcement possesses reasonable suspicion that under particular circumstances, swift drone action is necessary to prevent "imminent danger to life;"
3) high risk of a terrorist attack (SUSPICION?)
3. Allows any person to sue the government for violating this Act.
4. Specifies that no evidence obtained or collected in violation of this Act can be used/admissible as evidence in a criminal, civil, or regulatory action.
POLICE USING DRONE SURVEILLANCE TO SPY ON US!
As Predator drones obliterate targets in Central Asia, an armada of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) is forecast to take over the United States' skies. These UAVs won't be raining down Hellfire missiles, but concerns are being raised over what exactly they will be doing.
A major shift in US airspace control is under way, after the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) legislation was passed by Congress earlier this year. The act fully integrates drone technology by 2015, meaning UAVs are destined to become a major part of American life.
But many worry privacy laws aren't keeping pace with the technology. UAVs can be equipped with formidable surveillance tools, such as military-grade video equipment that can read a milk carton from 60,000 feet (18,300 metres). Thermal imaging and facial recognition technology, Wi-Fi network cracking capabilities, and systems to intercept text messages and phone calls can also be deployed.
Drone designers seek non-violent uses
At present, no clear rules exist over what information law enforcement agencies can scoop up from the public and save. And, privacy advocates say, the invasion of the drones has already begun.
In May, the FAA announced police and first responders are allowed to fly drones weighing as much as 25 pounds (11.3 kilograms) in general airspace below 400 feet (120 metres) - without applying for special approval. The FAA has signed off on about 300 certificates of authorisation for government agencies, universities and private companies.
One group concerned about privacy violations is San Francisco-based Electronic Frontier Foundation. It filed a Freedom of Information Request and received an FAA list of organisations given permission to fly drones.
"The privacy dangers posed by drones are unprecedented in scope and current privacy law is not equipped to deal with them," the group's Trevor Timm told Al Jazeera. "Surveillance drones may soon be in the lives of everyday American citizens if police are allowed to use them with no judicial oversight or privacy protections."
Pressing for regulations The benefits of drone technology are wide-ranging. Advocates say unmanned aerial vehicles can assist in disaster relief, search for missing persons, dust crops, and provide traffic reports - all at a fraction of the cost of using helicopters and manned aircraft. The UAV industry is expected to double to $12bn in a decade, resulting in thousands of jobs. Nearly 50 companies around the world are developing about 150 different systems, from small "insect" models to ones the size of commercial aircraft. US Senator Rand Paul hasintroduced the Preserving Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act of 2012, which would require agencies to acquire a warrant before using drones to spy on people, unless extraordinary circumstances exist.
Law enforcement's past record on surveillance technology does not bode well for privacy, says John Whitehead [AeroVironment, Inc.]
US Representatives Ed Markey and Joe Barton sent a letter telling the FAA it has "the responsibility to ensure that the privacy of individuals is protected and that the public is fully informed about who is using drones in public airspace and why". But when asked if privacy rules were being considered in its deliberations, the agency said in an email: "The FAA's top mission and charter is safety … FAA has regulatory oversight from a safety perspective only." The Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International, an industry group, said privacy protections are being discussed as the FAA prepares to release guidelines later this year. "We have already met with nearly a dozen privacy and civil liberties advocacy organisations ... to begin a constructive dialogue about how best to advance this incredibly beneficial technology safely and responsibly," said spokeswoman Melanie Hinton. John Whitehead of the conservative Rutherford Institute think tank is wary, however. A constitutional lawyer, Whitehead said law enforcement's past record on surveillance technology does not bode well for privacy amid the rise of the drones. "Based upon the government's positions on wiretapping, GPS tracking devices and internet tracking technologies, it also is unlikely that our elected officials will do anything to protect the American people from the prying eye of the American government," Whitehead said.
Legal latitude As a new technology, legal precedent does not exist to guide courts on drone surveillance. Writing in theWashington Post, Benjamin Wittes and John Villasenor of the Brookings Institution highlighted Supreme Court cases in California in 1986 and Florida in 1989, pertaining to manned police aircraft monitoring suspects' property. In both cases, the court ruled observations made from "public navigable airspace" in the absence of a warrant did not violate the Fourth Amendment, which protects Americans from unreasonable government searches. "These precedents suggest, in a world in which UAVs will be inexpensive and plentiful, that government operators might have broad legal latitude to use them for surveillance," Wittes and Villasenor wrote. "Non-government operators may have even fewer constraints regarding surveillance."
Inside Story Americas - How effective are US drone strikes?
Drones for law enforcement also have the capability of carrying a variety of weapons, including 12-gauge shotguns, grenade and tear gas launchers, and rubber-bullet guns. Michael Buscher, chief executive officer of Vanguard Defense Industries, said the focus for law enforcement agencies is "less lethal systems". UAVs could be armed with a gun that fires bean bags known as a "stun baton", he told Officer.com. Montgomery County Police Department was the first in Texas to receive a certificate of authorisation to deploy drones from the FAA. Chief Deputy Randy McDaniel said arming drones could save officers on the ground. "Impact rounds, chemical munitions rounds, or a Taser - those are things that law enforcement utilises day in and day out," McDaniel told The Daily. "It might be advantageous to have this type of less lethal weapons platform on the UAV." As for privacy, McDaniel added there is no interest in spying on innocent Texans. "Just to see what you're doing in your backyard pool - we don't care."
What is Google’s Relationship with the NSA ? (National Security Agency)
DC Court Says NSADoesn’t Have to Divulge Info on Secret Relationship
with Google
Too Big to Control ... Is Google Working for Big Brother?
Let me preface this article by saying I am not a conspiracy nut, I don’t
believe aliens are being kept in a bunker somewhere, and I don’t believe big
brother is out to get me. With that said, I recently came across a
bit of news from Forbes that was both baffling, and a little
nefarious: a recent ruling in an appeals court in the D.C. Circuit has decided
that the NSA (National Security Agency) is not required to confirm or deny
whether they have an ongoing relationship with the search giant, Google. This
ruling was in response to a Freedom of Information Act inquiry that was filed
by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), the decision for further
investigation being overturned under the clause that it may further endanger
the efforts of the NSA of protecting the security and interests of the country.
NSA's intelligence gathering WAS limited to foreign communications, although domestic incidents such as the NSA warrantless surveillance controversy have occurred. As of 2001 and the passing of the US Patriot Act all communication by US citizens are monitored especially on US soil. Incoming communications from abroad arrive at a terminal off the California coast and are routed to the 7th floor of the AT&T building in San Francisco. There a mirror copy of everything is routed to the 6th floor for NSA, CIA, FBI. The NSA/CSS is the only agency with enough cryptanalysis and CNO (computer network operation) to put it all this data into context and perspective. And Google has been on board from its inception... why do you think the Chinese are waging war on Google ... because Google offers free speech? No ... it's the greatest spy bot ever built and the Chinese, Cuba, Libya, North Korea, Somali, Uzbekistan Governments know this and their not having it! Between Facebook, Twitter, your updates, photos, Google +, your cell phone text and emails the next question is what don't they know... just saying!
"According to the court documents, “If NSA disclosed
whether there are (or are not) records of a partnership or communications
between Google and NSA regarding Google’s security, that disclosure might
reveal whether NSA investigated the threat, deemed the threat a concern to the
security of U.S. Government information systems, or took any measures in
response to the threat. As such, any information pertaining to the relationship between
Google and NSA would reveal protected information about NSA’s implementation of
its Information Assurance mission.” ARTICLE
FROM In The Capital
"Yet again, it would appear the American public is not at
liberty to get a definite answer to this question. Late last week US federal
judgeRichard
J. Leon of Washington D.C. used the controversial “Glomar
response” to rule that the US National Security Agency (NSA) should not be required to reveal or disclose its partnership with
Google Inc. amid a significant mounting of credible reports that the two
organizations are working closely together. The request to disclose this information under the
freedom of information act was brought forward by EPIC (Electronic Privacy
Information Center) which is a public interest research center based in
Washington D.C. established to focus public attention on emerging civil
liberties issues and to protect privacy, the First Amendment, and
constitutional values. The reason EPIC made the FOIA request was because they
were rightfully worried that such an agreement “could reveal that the NSA is
developing technical standards that would enable greater surveillance of
Internet users” including US citizens.
While the rumors of Google being in bed with the NSA have
logically been around for quite some time now, it was really only truly brought
plain into light early last year in January 2010 when Google’s was seamlessly hacked by alleged Chinese backed government operatives,
private security experts and so called Internet outlaws who had a bone to pick
with the Google." ARTICLE FROM Operation Reality
The official title of the USA PATRIOT Act is "Uniting and Strengthening
America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct
Terrorism (USA PATRIOT) Act of 2001." To view this law in its entirety, click on
the USA PATRIOT Act link below. USA
PATRIOT Act
The purpose of the USA PATRIOT Act is to deter and punish terrorist acts in
the United States and around the world, to enhance law enforcement investigatory
tools, and other purposes, some of which include:
To strengthen U.S. measures to prevent, detect and prosecute international
money laundering and financing of terrorism;
To subject to special scrutiny foreign jurisdictions, foreign financial
institutions, and classes of international transactions or types of accounts
that are susceptible to criminal abuse;
To require all appropriate elements of the financial services industry to
report potential money laundering;
To strengthen measures to prevent use of the U.S. financial system for
personal gain by corrupt foreign officials and facilitate repatriation of stolen
assets to the citizens of countries to whom such assets belong.
Below is a brief, non-comprehensive overview of the sections of the USA
PATRIOT Act that may affect financial institutions. Section
311:Special Measures for
Jurisdictions, Financial Institutions, or International Transactions of Primary
Money Laundering Concern This Section allows for identifying customers using correspondent accounts,
including obtaining information comparable to information obtained on domestic
customers and prohibiting or imposing conditions on the opening or maintaining
in the U.S. of correspondent or payable-through accounts for a foreign banking
institution.
California Penal Code
422 PC defines the crime of "criminal threats" (formerly known as
terrorist threats). A "criminal threat" is when you threaten to
kill or physically harm someone and Criminal threats can be charged whether or not
you have the ability to carry out the threat...and even if you don't actually
intend to execute the threat.2
1.that person is thereby placed in a
state of reasonably sustained fear for his/her safety or for the safety of
his/her immediate family,
2.the threat is specific and
unequivocal and
3.you communicate the threat verbally,
in writing, or via an electronically transmitted device.1
Criminal threats can be
charged whether or not you have the ability to carry out the threat...and even
if you don't actually intend to execute the threat.2
So basically if you are labeled a "terrorist" by a government officer that is employed at an agency, they now have the legal means and right to monitor everything you say, do, and every where you go. At this point there is no reasonable exception of privacy required of law enforcement ... and getting label a "terrorist" is easy enough.
I believe that's called "Open Season" on anyone.
Orange County Private Investigator Empire Specialized Investigations (949) 645-1492
Orange County DA Office: MAN SENTENCED FOR DEFRAUDING HUNDREDS OF VICTIMSIN REAL
ESTATE LOAN MODIFICATION SCAM - *Hundreds of fake letters with CitiFinancial or
CitiMortgage logos sent as part of scam
SANTA ANA - A man was sentenced today to a year in jail
and five years of formal probation today for defrauding hundreds of victims in
a real estate scam by offering home loan modification assistance to struggling
homeowners across the country. Andrew Michael Phalen, 25, Mission Viejo,
pleaded guilty May 16, 2012, to one felony count of conspiracy to charge
illegal upfront fees and one felony count of conspiracy to commit grand theft.
As part of the sentence, Phalen will also be prohibited from engaging in similar
activities during the probation period.
Co-Defendants
Jacob John Cunningham, 25, Irvine, is charged with 14
felony counts of grand theft by false pretenses and one felony count each of
conspiracy to charge illegal upfront fees, conspiracy to commit forgery, and
money laundering. If convicted on all counts, he faces a maximum sentence of 17
years and four months in state prison.
Justin Dennis Koelle, 22, Costa Mesa, is charged with
seven felony counts of grand theft by false pretenses and one felony count each
of conspiracy to charge illegal upfront fees. If convicted on all counts, he
faces a maximum sentence of 10 years and eight months in state prison.
Dominic Adam Nolan, 31, Irvine, is charged with 14 felony
counts of grand theft by false pretenses, and one felony count each of
conspiracy to commit forgery, conspiracy to charge illegal upfront fees, and
money laundering. If convicted on all counts, he faces a maximum sentence of 15
years and four months in state prison.
John D. Silva, 27, Irvine, is charged with 23 felony
counts of grand theft by false pretenses, two felony counts of theft from an
elder, and one felony count each of conspiracy to commit forgery, conspiracy to
charge illegal upfront fees, and money laundering. If convicted on all counts,
he faces a maximum sentence of 17 years and four months in state prison.
The four co-defendants are scheduled for a pre-trial
hearing June 11, 2012, at 8:30 a.m. in Department C-57, Central Justice Center,
Santa Ana.
Phalen was convicted of and his co-defendants are accused
of the following:
Between January 2009 and March 2012, Cunningham, Koelle,
Phalen, Nolan, and Silva are accused of creating numerous fraudulent loan
modification businesses including CSFA Home Solutions, Mortgage Solution Specialists,
Inc., CS & Associates, National Mortgage Relief Center, National Mortgage
Relief Center, NMRC, NMRC Inc., N.M.R.C. Inc., Allied Home Servicing, and
Allied Loan Servicing for home loan modification assistance. Cunningham,
Koelle, Phalen, Nolan, and Silva are accused of sending a promotional letter to
people throughout the United States with an offer to restructure their home
loans, in which the defendants referred to the homeowner's specific lender and
principal balance, and charging the homeowner upfront fees for loan
modification services.
California Senate Bill 94, enacted into law on Oct. 11,
2009, makes it illegal in California for any person or business to demand,
charge, or collect any advance or upfront fee for loan modification work or services.
When victims called the number on the letter, the
defendants are accused of falsely telling the victims that they could get a
complete refund of the fee their company charged if their loan was not
modified, and the company had a 95 to 100 percent success rate. After the
victims gave Cunningham, Koelle, Phalen, Nolan, or Silva their money, the
defendants are accused of keeping that money without securing loan
modifications for the distressed victims. They are accused of not returning or
refunding the victims the fee they paid for a loan modification.
In order to avoid having their theft discovered,
Cunningham, Koelle, Phalen, Nolan, and Silva are accused of regularly changing
the names, phone numbers, and addresses of the companies they operated.
In late December 2011, after over a hundred victims from
California and other states submitted complaints to various law enforcement
agencies and the Better Business Bureau regarding the defendants' loan
modification activities, Cunningham, Nolan, and Silva are accused of starting a
new fraudulent scheme in which they would send out forged "Conditional
Approval" letters to victims with a CitiFinancial or CitiMortgage logo in
the letterhead. They are accused of stating in the forged "Conditional
Approval" letters that they could offer the homeowner a low interest rate
of 2.8 percent or less to refinance their home loan. Cunningham, Nolan, and
Silva are accused of attaching "Escrow Instructions" with the letter,
directing the homeowner to deposit between $3,500 and $4,600 directly into the
defendants' bank accounts.
Cunningham, Nolan, and Silva are accused of having no
affiliation to CitiFinancial or CitiMortgage or any authorization to offer a
loan on behalf of CitiFinancial or CitiMortgage. They are accused of making no
efforts to qualify the victims for loans with CitiFinancial or
CitiMortgage.
In March 2012, the five defendants were arrested.
There are presently hundreds of known victims and others
that are unknown both in California and out of state. At this time, losses are estimated to be in
excess of $200,000.
Deputy District Attorney Megan Wagner of the Major Fraud
Unit is prosecuting this case.
NEW SCAM
ALERTS POSTED BY THE FBI: 03/12/12— U.S. Law Firms Continue to be the Target of
Counterfeit Check Scheme
The IC3 continues to receive reports of counterfeit
check schemes targeting U.S. law firms. The scammers contact lawyers via
e-mail, claiming to be overseas and requesting legal representation in
collecting a debt from third parties located in the U.S. The law firms receive
a retainer agreement and a check payable to the law firm. The firms are
instructed to deposit the check, take out retainer fees, and wire the remaining
funds to banks in China, Korea, Ireland, or Canada. After the funds are wired
overseas, the checks are determined to be counterfeit.
In a slight variation of the scheme’s execution, the victim law firm
receives an e-mail from what appears to be an attorney located in another state
requesting assistance for a client. The client needs aid in collecting a debt
from a company located in the victim law firm’s state. In some cases, the name
of the referring attorney and the debtor company used in the e-mail were
verified as legitimate entities and were being used as part of the scheme. The
law firm receives a signed retainer agreement and a check made payable to the
law firm from the alleged debtor. The client instructs the law firm to deposit
the check and to wire the funds, minus all fees, to an overseas bank account.
The law firm discovers after the funds are wired that the check is counterfeit.
Law firms should use caution when engaging in transactions with parties who
are handling their business solely via e-mail, particularly those parties
claiming to reside overseas. Attorneys who agree to represent a client in
circumstances similar to those described above should consider incorporating a
provision into their retainer agreement that allows the attorney to hold funds
received from a debtor for a sufficient period of time to verify the validity
of the check.
NEW SCAM ALERTS POSTED BY THE FBI:Empire Specialized Investigations, is your advocate and investigation consultant. ESI takes a proactive approach to consumer awareness issues. Our agency is up to date crime statistics, new e-scams and alerts, posted by the Homeland Security, FBI, local law enforcement bulletins and notification from the Orange County District Attorney’s Office. We recognize your need for exceptional investigative services, nothing else will do. That’s our pledge to you; professional investigators and outstanding service. Contact ESI (949) 645-1492 should you need to speak with an investigator. Empire Specialized Investigations, Professional Services Orange County, CA
