Infidelity while traveling - Cheating and Affairs while out of town.

A cheating spouse who frequently travels creates a whole new world of challenges and questions for the spouse who was left behind facing this infidelity. You need an investigator who specializes in catching the traveling cheater.

Since many affairs begin and prosper at work, and co-workers are often required to travel together, this gives the cheating spouse a full pass to indiscretion. The cheaters have found themselves on an all expense paid trip together, probably enjoying sights and dinners in places that you have always wished to see with your loved one.

No matter what problem you face, you have found the private investigator that can help!” Call and discuss your situation with a infidelity private investigator now.

The same problems occur when a spouse goes to a convention or out of town business meeting. They often take someone with them, meet someone to cheat with at that location or find someone to have a quick affair with while out of town. Men will even go out and look for stripers or call girls when traveling for business. The bachelor or bachelorette party is another prime time to cheat on your spouse when out of town.

Catching the cheating spouse while traveling can sometimes be difficult due to circumstances beyond anyone’s control. In most cases, investigators will work in pairs.

Ever since 9-11, rules and regulations have changed significantly causing our business to change right a long with it. You’ll need to understand that procedures that applied to the infidelity investigator ten years ago are no longer acceptable today. For example; Let’s say that your spouse and their co-worker/lover, are traveling to Miami International Airport and are due to arrive at noon. In the days of old, we would wait for the unsuspecting couple to walk out of the airport, hail a cab, and be off to their hotel destination. Gone are those days. Since vehicles are no longer able to remain idle outside of an airport terminal, we’re forced to continuously circle the terminal anticipating the cheaters’ departure.

Since obtaining a quick, positive identification of the subject is crucial, we must be allowed the use of two investigators. Investigator one will enter the airport and likely proceed straight to Baggage. He will identify the subject and quickly phone ahead to alert investigator two, who is at the ready to receive his subject. Investigator two will hang onto the subject until he has been secured at his destination, usually an area hotel.

Once the subject has arrived at the hotel, several things can happen. He may decide to grab a drink and some dinner with his paramour, which allows us great opportunities to video their behavior. He may instead decide to catch a quick shower, meet up with his lover and then leave the hotel premises to have dinner in private, possibly away from the prying eyes of his co-workers.

In any case, the traveling cheater creates a different kind of investigation with very special circumstances. You need an investigations company with the knowledge and experience to handle such circumstances.
If you suspect that your traveling spouse is being unfaithful, you need Agency Investigations.

We are able to provide assistance at short notice provided the funding is available to secure transportation and lodging. This may include providing airline tickets to a pre-designated location (I.E. Miami, Bahamas etc.).

Shadowing a subject is far easier when they are outside of their danger zone, that being their familiar surroundings. They tend to be clueless that they are even being observed and far less likely to give it a second thought.

If you should require our services, be rest assured that we will make every effort to obtain the evidence you are seeking. We are also able to provide up-to-date information on the status of your case via our exclusive Master Track Client Interface. With this Software you will be able to log on from anywhere in the world and examine investigative entries as well as photo’s, video etc. Think of that: You will be able to actually ‘see’ what we have already seen right from the comfort of your own home or office thousands of miles away!

The 10 Nastiest Ponzi Schemes Ever

10. The Fraudulent Feminist



(Note: This isn’t Howe. Just an 1880s woman from a catalog.)

In 1880, Boston Ponzian Sarah Howe promised women 8% interest on a “Ladies Deposit.” She said it was only for women, selling an implicit assumption of safety. She took the money and ran.

Nastiness Factor: Bad. Way to break the sisterhood of trust, Sarah.

9. The Haiti Haters




Ponzi schemes popped up all over Haiti in the early 2000’s. These schemes sold themselves as government-backed “cooperatives.” They ran mainstream-sounding ads, some of which featured Haitian pop stars. As a result, people felt safe investing more than $240 million–60% of Haitian GDP in 2001–into the schemes, which ended up being a massive swindle.

Nastiness Factor: Bad. Haiti is already one of the poorest countries in the world. People there eat mud cakes when times get bad. Cheating them out of their meager savings is sick; alas, it also appears to be systemic.

8. The Scientologist Snake



Earthlink co-founder and Scientology minister Reed Slatkin posed as a brilliant investment advisor for A-list Hollywood residents and corporate bosses. Working out of his garage, Slatkin cheated the rich and famous out of roughly $593 million, creating fake statements referring back to fake brokerage firms to prove his mettle. He fed the Church of Scientology with millions of his winnings. In 2000, the SEC caught wind that Slatkin wasn’t licensed, and busted the scheme.

Nastiness Factor: Mild. Cheating the rich and famous usually results in fewer bankruptcies than, say, misling seniors out of their retirement funds.

7. The Lottery Uprising



When Albania was moving out from behind the Iron Curtain in the mid-1990s, a powerful government and environment of questionable ethics resulted in a financial system dominated by pyramid schemes. The government endorsed various Ponzis, which robbed the majority of the population and netted more than $1 billion in losses. Albanians rioted and overthrew the government.

Nastiness Factor: Deplorable. Don’t government officials realize that endorsing Ponzi schemes might get them overthrown?

6. The Costa Rica Crooks



Three Costa Rican brothers, Enrique, Osvaldo and Freddy Villalobos, defrauded clients–mostly American and Canadian retirees–out of $400 million in a 20-odd-year unregulated loan scheme that started in the late 1980s. They promised interest rates of 3% per month on a minimum investment of $10,000. Villalobos moved money through shell companies before paying investors. Its staying power had to do with the fact that margins were low, the brothers were disciplined, and the outfit just barely skirted past laws.

Nastiness Factor: Mild. The size of the operation gives it a place on this list, but the brothers also had real assets to back them up. It’s Ponzi Lite, but that doesn’t ease the burden on people who lost everything.

5. The Biblical Bilker



In fraud-rich Florida, the Greater Ministries International church used Bible-speak to cheat its flock out of $500 million. Starting in the early 1990s, the church, led by gun-toting minister Gerald Payne, offered worshippers investments in gold coins. Payne then created an investment plan that would “double the ‘blessings’ that people invested” by funneling money towards the church’s fake precious metals investments. According to the Anti-Defamation League,

Payne said that God had modernized the multiplication of the loaves and fishes and asked him to share the secret. $500 million later, the Feds caught Payne, but most investors never got their money back.

Nastiness Factor: Disgusting. Anyone who uses holy speak to bilk people out of their retirement savings is disgusting, plain and simple.

4. The Boy Band Bandit

The Investigative Firm of Copenhaver & Associates Inc. Conducted the investigation on this case.



Beginning in the late 1980s, Lou Pearlman, Art Garfunkel’s cousin and former manager of ‘N Sync and the Backstreet Boys, offered attractive returns through his FDIC-insured Trans Continental Savings Program. The scheme was neither a savings and loan nor FDIC-approved, but that didn’t stop Pearlman from bilking investors out of nearly $500 million, with which he planned on funding three MTV shows and an entertainment complex.

Nastiness Factor: Deplorable. Pearlman was already a multimillionaire. The fact that he became a compulsive criminal after that means he should sit in a cell for a very long time.

3. The Retiree Plunderer



Mexican resort owner Michael Eugene Kelly schemed retirees and senior citizens out of $428 million. He offered them timeshare investments in Cancun hotels that he called “Universal Leases.” The timeshares came with rental agreements promising investors a nice fixed rate of return. Most of his victims used their retirement savings, thinking they would get solid, low-risk returns. The SEC says that “more than $136 million of the funds invested (came) from IRA accounts.” Kelly, meanwhile, bought himself a private jet, racetrack, and four yachts.

Nastiness Factor: Disgusting. Defrauding senior citizens out of their retirement savings is just about as low as you can go.

2. Madman Madoff



Bernard Madoff’s scam is still unfolding. The facts as we know them now are that Madoff spent decades building the biggest Ponzi scheme in history, bilking nonprofits, famous people, funds, banks, and countless others out of $50 billion.

Nastiness Factor: Deplorable. The man single-handedly destroyed charities, life savings, and other organizations yet to be named. The amount of money involved earns him a spot just below Charles Ponzi himself.

1. The Namesake



The King of Get Rich Quick, Charles Ponzi became a millionaire in six months by
promising investors 50% return in 45 days on international postal coupon investments. He earned $15 million, which in 1920s terms was serious money. After Ponzi was caught, investors only received $5 million back.

Nastiness Factor: Mythical. This ancestor of fraudulent men passed his name on to the many schemes that would follow his own. His legacy, and his scheme, are forever memorialized, earning them a unique Nastiness Factor label.

">

What is a Ponzi Scheme?

A Ponzi scheme is essentially an investment fraud wherein the operator promises high financial returns or dividends that are not available through traditional investments.

Instead of investing victims' funds, the operator pays "dividends" to initial investors using the principle amounts "invested" by subsequent investors.

The scheme generally falls apart when the operator flees with all of the proceeds, or when a sufficient number of new investors cannot be found to allow the continued payment of "dividends."

This type of scheme is named after Charles Ponzi of Boston, Massachusetts, who operated an extremely attractive investment scheme in which he guaranteed investors a 50 percent return on their investment in postal coupons. Although he was able to pay his initial investors, the scheme dissolved when he was unable to pay investors who entered the scheme later.

Tips to Avoid Ponzi Schemes

As with all investments, exercise due diligence in selecting investments and the people with whom you invest.
Make sure you fully understand the investment before you invest your money.

Private Investigators have access to databases that can help them uncover a lot about a person

Orlando private investigator James Copenhaver said Google is one of his favorite tools to learn about people, as are social networking Internet sites such as MySpace and Facebook.A great deal of a private eye's work, though, is done the old-fashioned way. They perform surveillance and interview people face-to-face, on the phone and even by e-mail.

OVER 100 ROUNDS FIRED AT THE SUSPECT !

ORLANDO --

Nine Orange County deputies were put on administrative leave as investigators sort through the details of a deadly shooting.

Orange County Sheriff Jerry Demings said it all started around 5 a.m. Tuesday, when deputies zeroed in on Torey Breedlove in a planned arrest for felony auto theft charges.

Deputies On Leave

Source: Orange County Sheriff’s Office of Media Relations

* Hector Cartagena, hired 1998
* Rafael Cruz, hired 1997
* Jason Gorberg, hired 2006
* John Leone, hired 1994
* Jason Popovich, hired 2001
* Randall Root, hired 1995
* Richard Schmeltzer, hired 2001
* Troy Tiegs, hired 1998
* Paul Volkerson, hired 1999

Deputies said they followed Breedlove into the Alta Westgate apartment complex, where they saw him get out of the stolen car and get into his own car.

When they approached his vehicle, Demings said Breedlove violently resisted by trying to ram deputies with his car.

Demings said he stood by his deputies in their choice to use deadly force, because Breedlove had a long rap sheet, and deputies said they had reason to believe he was armed and dangerous.

Deputies allegedly fired on Breedlove’s car until he called to them that he wanted to surrender, but when they attempted to approach his car, they said he apparently tried to ram them again.

That was when deputies responded with a second volley of gunfire, killing Breedlove.

Over 100 rounds were fired, Demings said over 100 rounds.

There were several errant rounds, but Demings said no one was injured by those bullets.

There has been strong reaction from residents in the apartment complex about why deputies chose to confront Breedlove in a residential area, and whether deputies used excessive force.

“In this community, one thing is for certain is that this community does not want to see high-speed pursuits,” Demings said, “and that’s why it was really, I think, incumbent upon the deputies to try to stop the individual from leaving that parking lot -- and ultimately that’s what they did.”

The Florida Department of Law Enforcement is investigating the shooting. Once it concludes, the case will be presented to the state Attorney’s Office for review.

Demings would not say whether deputies found Breedlove armed within his car, citing the ongoing investigation.

“Knock and Talk”

What exactly is a “knock and talk” procedure?

A knock and talk investigation “involves officers knocking on the door of a house,
identifying themselves as officers, asking to talk to the occupant about a criminal
complaint, and eventually requesting permission to search the house. If successful,
it allows police officers who lack probable cause to gain access to a house and
conduct a search.

Once the officers get permission to search the house, they are allowed to use any
contraband they find as the basis for probable cause The officers can then
obtain a search warrant and seize the contraband.

However, the officer will not
always need to obtain a search warrant due to the plain view doctrine. The well established plain view doctrine states “police may seize evidence in plain view
without a warrant.

Police use one of the recognized exceptions—

voluntary consent—in the “knock and talk” procedure. Thus, as long as the
homeowner voluntarily allows the police officer inside the home, the officer can
legally seize any contraband within his plain view. Furthermore, not only can the
officer seize the contraband, but the officer can also arrest the homeowner for
possession of the contraband. Therefore, consenting to a “knock and talk” could
have serious consequences for the homeowner.

Supreme court rules police need warrant to search cell phones

Supreme court rules police need warrant to search cell phones
December 27th, 2009

In what is considered a landmark decision, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that police need warrants before they can search people’s cell phones.

The ruling, the first in a state supreme court, is expected to serve as a model for other courts to follow, according to an editorial in The New York Times.

The ruling stems from an arrest of a man on drug charges where police searched through his cell phone without his consent.

When the police arrested Antwaun Smith on drug charges they seized his cellphone and searched it, examining his call records. The police did not have a warrant or the consent of Mr. Smith.

The Ohio Supreme Court ruled this month, by a 4-to-3 vote, that the search violated the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable search and seizure. Rather than seeing a cellphone as a simple closed container, the majority noted that modern cellphones — especially ones that permit Internet access — are “capable of storing a wealth of digitized information.”

This is information, the court said, for which people reasonably have a high expectation of privacy, and under established Fourth Amendment principles, police officers must get a search warrant before they can look through call logs or examine other data. The court wisely decided that it made no sense to try to distinguish among various kinds of cellphones based on what specific functions they have. All cellphones, the court said, fall under the search warrant requirement.

Few federal courts have considered the issue of cellphone searches, and they have disagreed about whether a warrant should be required. The Ohio ruling eloquently makes the case for why the very personal information that new forms of technology aggregate must be accorded a significant degree of privacy.

Federal court reigns in use of Tasers

Federal court reigns in use of Tasers
December 31st, 2009


After a year that saw exaggerated use of Tasers against unarmed people who posed no threat to police, a federal appeals court ruled to limit the use of Tasers in these situations.

The ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco this week will affect most of the western United States, including Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington, along with two territories.

It stems from an incident where a 21-year-old California man was Tased after a traffic stop even though he did not threaten the officer or attempted to flee.

According to The New York Times:

In a vividly worded opinion issued by the court this week, Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw described a “bad morning” for Carl Bryan, a 21-year-old Californian who drove over large stretches of Southern California to retrieve car keys mistakenly taken by a friend and ended up being Tasered by a Coronado, Calif., policeman and breaking four teeth when he fell to the ground.

Mr. Bryan was stopped twice on his driving odyssey, once for speeding and again for not wearing his seat belt. After the second stop, Mr. Bryan was “agitated, standing outside his car, yelling gibberish and hitting his thighs, clad only in his boxer shorts and tennis shoes,” the court said.

The judge noted, however, Mr. Bryan did not threaten the officer, Brian McPherson, and was not attempting to flee — all elements of a three-part test that the United States Supreme Court has used to determine when significant force is justified. As for the third factor in the Supreme Court test, the severity of the offense at issue, the Ninth Circuit judges observed that “traffic violations generally will not support the use of a significant level of force.”

Prior to the ruling, police were allowed immunity in Tasering people. Now they can be held liable, which hopefully will make them think twice before using their Taser.