miss bre asked:


My boyfriend is currently serving 90 days in county jail in an inpatient treatment program for violating his probation by not passing a drug test.
I asked him a long time ago what he did to get put on probation and he would never tell me.
So, last night I’m bored and can’t sleep and decided to go find out for myself.
The jail that he is in has an inmate/criminal hearing/criminal case record detail search that gives you a pretty detailed report…..which is nice and all……but I’m not quite sure what all this shit means so can anyone translate and tell me what he might of done?
This is what the report said:

Filed on 09/25/2007
05/22/07-FRAUD DESTROY REMOVAL CONCEALMENT WRITING
Misdemeanor A
Current Status: Disposed/CSCD

Thanks in advance!

Caffeinated Content

taochiespirt asked:


DATA CONVICTIONS…
By: Paul DeWitt Goree Ó2006 Las Vegas, NV

Here is an interesting, possible fiction incident. That tests the integrity of the American government and Corporate America. Business is business, day in and day out. There exist the “Free Market” which is global and has a major influence on the culture of the world. The Free Market, although the majority of the total is the most exclusive. It consists of Giant industries that have merged or have affiliated their interest. Then there is the “Black Market” the black market represent knock offs or stolen products of the Free Market. These items are usually much less in cost, and it to provides a financial contribution to society.

The Free Market industries, due to their expansiveness, often are regulated by the government, at least in the United States. This protection is directly obtained from the
Fact that the Federal Government interest is in the people and not in the private sector of the Capitalistic world. Imagine if the opposite were true, the F.D.A. wouldn’t exist and anybody could put any product on the market, and regardless of it’s effects, the consumer would be at risk. The only role the government has in the FREE MARKET, is that of assuring the protection of people, from the products and services of the Free Market that compromise their civil rights or health in general.

Although this is the matrix of governmental roles in the market. Sometimes this is over looked, and completely disrespected, for some higher goal. For example, the people of the United States have stated through various congressional expressions and legislation of codes, that basically state, the Federal government and local government should not have a integrated interest industry, whereby the citizens may be subject to some civil violation, that results in a felony criminal conviction. For the most part, these incidences that would produce some kind of complaint in the judicial system, would be addressed in civil court. A separations of industry and state, is very necessary. It prevent special treatment, blindness to oblivious concerns, etc.

Point in case, the cell phone industry is currently going through a huge fraudulent accounts period. Several of the new accounts opened, are opened in other persons name and social security numbers. Supposedly the government does require the industry to provide some protective method to prevent this. But the fraudulent incidences continue to rise and rise. When these cases are brought to court, in all incidences, the government requires the state to obtain a warrant, before they request telephone records of any particular case. The warrant gives the state, the right to review their phone records of the accused. All is fair, yet it has come to the attention of many, that while under a warrant for one telephone number and it’s call detail, some enforcer may have escalated their data search and obtained other correlations that were later used for the arrest and conviction of many other persons, who have not association with the original warranted release individual. The only relationship is that of correlated data bases, with different specs.

To make matter worst, recently it was announced to the American public, that some of these cell phone companies, simply just gave PRIVATE call records to government agents. Under normal circumstances, any arrest obtained from such miss use of government power, would be retrailed. Basically there is in existence many felony inmates, arrested and charged by the obtaining of illegal database information. Most of these arrest occurred between 1999 and 2005. Anybody conducting some illegal business over a telephone, may be one of these persons, voided of due process and arrested on information that was not and would not otherwise be linked or obtained by arresting agents. The charges are various in nature and many include other charges.

For example, Mr. Doe bought a cell phone on the black market. More than likely the phone is a fraudulent phone, but due to the cell phone carrier, this account is working fine. Maybe these service providers should be fined for their reckless use of their customers vital information. Anyway Mr. Doe is in possession of large quantities of a drug. Mr. Doe has a son, and his son has a girlfriend, who he often calls on their home phone line.

Sometimes while away from his home, Mr,Doe uses his cell phone to call his home phone. The transfer of calls continue on and on. Then one day, the person who sold Mr. Doe the phone, is arrested for fraud, in his case, he is arrested for selling credit cards. He has a cell phone on him, during the arrest, and it is put into the evidence room. Upon reviewing the evidence of his arrest, enforcers scroll through his cell phone. Some how all of the numbers in the cell phone are entered into a data base. The arrested person does not have Mr. Doe’s phone in his phone, but when the records are reviewed, it is found that Mr.Doe received a call from this phone. There are other people who received phone calls from this phone also. Next, the enforcer cross database that first finding, and he also includes home phone and business phone numbers.

As it turns out, Mr.Doe’s son while on the home line, received a call from Mr. Doe, at the same time Mr. Doe had received a call from the arrested person. His call was documented, but not available he received a busy signal. The enforcer then decided (based on this one incident of accidental occurrence) decided to just run Mr. Does’ cell phone and home line number. And to their accepted surprise they find several correlations to other persons of interest to them, that have no relation to the arrested person. Nevertheless, the papers are processed, and warrants issued. But Mr. Doe’s warrant was issued on the violation of the 4th amendment. First of all Mr. Doe’s relationship with his cell phone carrier is a civil private affair. Second Mr.Doe’s phone records belong only to him, and on their own did not suggest any possible association.

The issue is of great concern, because it is a Bill of Right violation, by which the above example occurred. A question of interest arises, Who owns the data detail of the phone bill? We might assume that since the consumer paid for the service and security of the service, and since the consumer called the phone numbers listed on the bill, or granted usage for those numbers to be called, that the detail and phone numbers listed on the bill, are the property of the account holder, once the account has expired it’s contract, without renewing a new contract, but keeping service to what ever phone number given to them. But seeming that during the contractual period, the account owner is in actuality LEASING the service, the phone number from the phone carrier, of which the only portion of the phone that is actually theirs, is the phone equipment, if it’s was purchased in complete.

But there exist a hidden event by which the about contract would be voided, by the carrier because a portion of the phone equipment was not provided to the account holder, when they purchased the phone. This portion is termed SUBSIDY CODE. I call 3 manufactures during the month of June 2003, of which I had a simple question. Can I purchase a cell phone from you, directly? Two of the three manufactures replied yes. They are Motorola and Nokia. At Motorola I was informed that if I wanted to purchase a cell phone from them directly, I would have to indicate which carrier I intended to receive service from. At the time, Motorola offered service with T-Mobile, Verizon and AT&T for the phone in question. I informed the csr employee that how could I purchase the phone without pre-activating it with any carrier? I was informed that this was not possible. I then informed the csr employee that I wanted to purchase the phone for a friend in Mexico and that they don’t offer those carriers in Mexico. Again the csr employee suggested remarks that basically stated, the phones are manufactured by carrier bids and request, thus to purchase a phone for a gift in another country, one would purchase the phone from that country. I asked why? This is America, free business, if you don’t have an exclusive contract with any carrier, then why am I the consumer being pushed into a one year or two year contract by the carrier, when all I want is a Motorola product, made by Motorola, for Motorola customers.

Next I informed the csr employee that I had heard from a third carrier about something called a SUBSIDY CODE, that turns out to be the device placed in the phone, which restricts it to a prescribed carrier before it even leaves the manufactures. After several attempts to get a better understand of the SUBSIDY CODE, I eventually took the well stated advice of the Motorola csr and management team and called the carrier. I called Verizon and Cingular, I asked the Verizon csr employee how could I have the subsidy code remove from my phone? I was informed that the manufacturer places the subsidy code on the phone during the manufacturing process. I informed the representative that I was just informed otherwise. I ended my phone call with both, who claimed that they do not have access to the subsidy codes.

Well the issue with subsidy codes, is that they are not warranted by the manufacturer and only exist as a contractual issue by the carrier. Now upon the completion of a contract with a cell phone carrier, you would think the subsidy code would be provided to the account holder. It seems that not even during this event would the carrier offer the subsidy code. Why would a consumer want the subsidy code, well it is the product that locks your phone into the one or two year contract, thus preventing you the option to have a free phone, which would be avoided of the data ownership issues, and would provide you, the consumer the right to shop carriers. If you were to purchase a cell phone from the manufacturers, you could receive better phone rates as this would cause the carriers to compete more effectively. You could also activate your phone in a foreign country, freely choosing the carrier you want. Perhaps you could use a carrier in Mexico (who offer a low rate) and relocate to United State, still using the same phone. Nevertheless the subsidy code restricts the FREE AMERICAN CONSUMER, choose of carriers, based on phone equipment and it also locks the consumer into a one or two contract for service.

So if I had a cell phone equipment purchased directly from the manufacturer, and it was unlocked, and then I decided to activate service with any carrier, and signed a one year contract anyway (I guess fair business practice) at this point, would I own the detail to the phone bill? It seems that this is one huge confusing mess, of which some innocent people are having their privacy invaded, just because their phone number showed up on someone else’s bill. As a cell phone owner, I always assumed that all the data belonged to me. I was reassured of this in 2004, when Nextel offered copyright services on their phones, providing the customer the opportunity to copyright the detail, conversations, and written properties on their phone. Some people write songs, reports, or dialogue on their phone, or review PRIVATE business issues over the phone, is that what it’s for any way, communication.

It’s only fair that this issue be reviewed, I have submitted similar reports to the A.C.L.U concerning the invasion of privacy that occurs when the ownership of the data detail is in dispute. Consumers have to demand their right to the subsidy code, it is part of the manufactured product, when it leaves the warehouse. Currently many websites and local phone companies offer consumers UNLOCK CODES for their cell phones, which range from $19.99 and up. But why should the consumer have to pay for something they already paid for when they purchased the phone?

Caffeinated Content

MISSY18 asked:


My fiance went to jail for 10 days in January. His records were online still saying when he got released and arrested and blahblahblah. His next court day isn’t tell April. He told me his lawyer might be able to get his record cleared. Today for some reason i went to the riverside inmate site and typed his name in but it said no records found.why??? Ive done this alot before and it always had his record? HELP!?

Caffeinated Content

sxybrown32 asked:


First, if you dont have an intelligent answer please dont respond. Im here to get information on the valiadity of a federal inmate conviction. Are there any known sites where you can check the criminal history ( to see what they did) for Federal inmates, not State inmates. Dont tell me to ask him his crimes becasue he has already told me. I want to see that he was accurate about the crime he commited for myself. An inmate will tell you anything. I visited the BOP website and it gives only name, bday,age,color, and institution, doesnt say anything about the actual crime committed. I want to find out for certain this mans past before I continue to talk with him. Any suggested sites?? or how I may go about getting his access to his criminal record. I thought all of this was public records? funny I cant find squat on him., a newspaper clipping,etc something. I know he did something or he wouldnt be locked up…LOL

Caffeinated Content

JACQUELINE S asked:


check records on past county inmates

Caffeinated Content

Van the Spider Man asked:


I’m doing a research paper on the film Walk The Line and comparing and contrasting it to Johnny Cash’s real life. I was wondering if there were any sources online stating why Johnny Cash wanted to record at Folsom. The film depicts his inspiration for recording there because of fan letters sent by inmates. If this is accurate, where can i find sources stating this? please email me the web links at vwalker1020@gmail.com

Caffeinated Content

andrew_wanner2006 asked:


im looking for info on inmates in orange county prisons with websites or phone numbers that i can call

Beige Brown Blues asked:


http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2009/02/jury_rejects_inmates_claim_tha.html

“They suggested that a flurry of grievances filed by Foster was his attempt to establish a “record of duress” that he could then point to later”

Or maybe he really really needed help?!!?

Plumpbust asked:


Texas killed 78 inmates last year, that is more than one a week. They refused to honor the Supreme Court suggestion on a moratorium on killing the mentally impaired. Most of the other states have either repealed or put a moratorium on the death penalty while they review all cases that hinged on DNA and a record number of people have been freed after being wrongfully convicted. Texas is not actively looking at reviewing cases where DNA or circumstantial evidence could free a inmate. Is this fair? I am not advocating freeing those who are guilty and believe that in most cases Life without the possibilityof parole is sufficient. BUT should we take the chance of killing innoncent people rather than admitting there maybe a mistake? The justice system is not set up to kill the innoncent, but instead protect them.

Caffeinated Content

deport_scum asked:


Feds urge other states to follow Ariz. inmate deportation policy

The Arizona Republic
Apr. 15, 2008 12:00 AM

The nation’s top immigration officials want other states to copy an Arizona program that releases non-violent, illegal-immigrant inmates from state prisons and deports them.

Only New York has a similar program, in which eligible inmates are turned over to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials for immediate deportation.

Arizona has referred 1,443 state prisoners to ICE, saving $18.6 million, since the program began in 2005, said Dora Schriro, director of the Arizona Department of Corrections. On average, inmates were released 210 days early. advertisement

Also, 28 were caught after slipping back across the border and were convicted of new crimes in Arizona. Three of them received initial sentences ranging from 2½ to 3½ years. Their crimes included aggravated assault, domestic violence and burglary.

Eligible inmates typically were convicted of crimes from drunken driving to lower-level drug charges. Early this month, the state turned over three inmates for deportation. Two were convicted of drug charges, one for driving a stolen car.

Schriro said Arizona was the first state to team up with ICE under the Rapid Repatriation program to help state prison officials identify illegal immigrants when they are booked.

“It’s a great program. It keeps criminals off the streets of Arizona. It saves the state lots of money,” ICE spokesman Vincent Picard said.

Deportation figures

Statewide, ICE deported 42,449 immigrants in the fiscal year ending Sept. 30. Of those, 12,455, or 29 percent, had criminal records. Through mid-March of this fiscal year, ICE had deported 21,355 people, including 5,649 criminals.

Julie Myers, assistant secretary of homeland security for ICE, said that those inmates do not include violent criminals. Rapists and murderers do not qualify for early deportation, and only those who could be paroled are considered.

“People who are eligible for this program do not have significant criminal histories in Mexico or any other country,” Myers said. “For the worst of the worst, it’s absolutely imperative to keep them off any streets.”

Among Arizona’s 38,300 prison inmates, about 5,400 are designated criminal aliens, meaning they are in the country illegally or have valid visas but broke a law. Of those, 1,600 inmates, or 4 percent, of the prison population, are eligible for early deportation.

A Corrections Department review last fall reported that 40 percent of illegal immigrants were convicted of violent assaults and ineligible. Among those who could be released early, 37 percent were convicted of drug or alcohol charges and 18 percent committed property crimes.

An Arizona law passed in 1996 allows the state to turn over illegal immigrants to ICE for deportation before they complete their sentences and sets conditions for doing so. Inmates must serve at least half of their sentences, not be convicted of a violent or sexual offense, and agree not to fight their removal from the country.

If the deportee returns to the United States and is caught, the immigrant will serve the remainder of the original sentence and face up to 20 years in prison on charges of illegally re-entering the United States.

Myers said the government has stepped up enforcement on re-entry cases.

The enforcement idea gained prominence in Los Angeles, where ICE and federal prosecutors teamed up to imprison serious criminals under the nation’s re-entry laws. The government prosecuted 678 cases in 2007, up from 173 in 2006. Immigration cases outnumber all other types of prosecutions, said Thom Mrozek, spokesman for the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Los Angeles.

In the federal fiscal year ending Oct. 31, the government prosecuted 74 people on felony re-entry charges in Arizona, up from 12 the year before, Picard said.

Reduced backlog

The number of Arizona’s early releases was small until 2005. That’s when ICE and the Department of Corrections struck an agreement to train corrections officers on immigration procedures and ICE transferred responsibility of deporting inmates to a division with more staff.

That allowed the agencies to begin reducing a backlog of inmates awaiting deportation. Schriro said the state projects 928 early releases this year and 249 in 2009.

Myers said the federal government has approached all the other states and is close to inking agreements with “a handful” in the next few months. She said populous border states with overcrowded prisons are a priority.

One Florida state lawmaker plans to introduce a bill to bring the program to the Sunshine State.

“These people are going to be deported when they get done anyhow,” Florida state Sen. Mike Bennett said. “Why not speed the process and get them out of here?”

In Arizona, the political climate is tilting toward tougher enforcement, which could spur resistance to releasing immigrants early. At the same time early releases are picking up, the Border Patrol is locking up more first-time border-crossers for 15 days typically.

Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio says early release is a bad idea.

“Why are we giving these guys breaks? Why don’t they do the full time, just like a U.S. citizen?” he asked. “If they are worried about money, if they don’t have the room, I have a tent city. I’ll take as many as you want.”

“Everybody knows they come right back (to the country),” Arpaio added.

Illegal immigrants serving sentences in county jails aren’t eligible for the early-release program.
In RIDDING ourselves of these illegal criminals??