[NR] Re: Facts

[shag]

 hey has anybody seen this site www.casebreakers.com??

                                             shag

----- Original Message -----
From: "Derryk Carr" <derrykcarr at hotmail.com>
To: <northern at ansteorra.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2001 12:02 PM
Subject: RE: [NR] Re: Facts


> Thanks for the info. I stand corrected. My appologies to the list, and any
> one that I may have offended.
>
> Aldric
>
>
> >From: "Decker, Terry D." <TerryD at Health.State.OK.US>
> >Reply-To: northern at ansteorra.org
> >To: "'northern at ansteorra.org'" <northern at ansteorra.org>
> >Subject: RE: [NR] Re: Facts
> >Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 10:23:21 -0500
> >
> >If "background checks" were illegal, then a lot of private investigators
> >would be out of business.  It is illegal to obtain confidential
> >information,
> >such as personal financial and medical information (which are not part of
> >the public record) without permission.  Public records are fair game.
So,
> >if there is a lien on your property, that has been properly filed at the
> >county courthouse, I can find out about it without breaking the law,
where
> >I
> >may not be able to find out about a lien on your automobile, depending on
> >the state laws about identifying vehicle registartion owners.
> >
> >In the matter of court actions, the complaint, its amendments, the
> >testimony
> >and the disposition of the case are public record, unless protected by
> >statute or sealed by the court.  I ran into this one a number of years
ago
> >when I was accused in the SCA of "protecting criminal."  I was the local
> >seneschal then.  I had loaned a spare bedroom to SCAer who had moved into
> >the area.  He proved to be less than scrupulously honest, wound up being
> >arrested, and my enemies decided that they would capitalize on my being a
> >nice guy by tying me to a "convicted sex offender."
> >
> >As part of the response to the accusations, I checked the court records
and
> >found the case had been sealed by the judge and that the defendent had
been
> >released.  Usually, this means an agreement has been reached and if the
> >defendent commits no further acts, the record is expunged at the end of
the
> >sentence.  Because I checked, I was able to point out that my accusers
> >could
> >not have legally obtained the information they were stating as fact.
> >
> >If the "background check" was a check of public records, then it may be
> >lawful.  That would be a question to be decided in a courtroom.
> >
> >The questions for us, individually and collectively, are; was such a
search
> >ethical and having such information, what may one properly do with it?
> >
> >Bear
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Northern mailing list
> >Northern at ansteorra.org
> >http://www.ansteorra.org/mailman/listinfo/northern
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> Northern mailing list
> Northern at ansteorra.org
> http://www.ansteorra.org/mailman/listinfo/northern