Facts: A Private Investigator renting his office space and has been in the office building for over 5 years. On the night of November 1, 2022, he was working late as he usually does to meet his lawyer-client needs after surveillance and investigations. He edits and upload files and videos and work late to complete reports so that clients can have them early mornings when they get to their offices. While he was in office working, he noticed flashes of lights through the window, out in the parking lot near his client’s vehicle. He opened up the window saw that it was the police so he introduced himself to them. Immediately, the police escalated the situation to wanting him to throw them his identification from the second floor. He refused and returned to work. The police broke into the locked building and started hunting down this citizen and business owner. He wasn’t hiding so he was still talking with his client. From the hallway, the police heard him talking and stopped at his office door. They thought themselves gods and demanded that the business owner proved to them that the business was his by providing drivers license. This is not what the law requires. The client in private investigator’s office came out, walked by the police in the hallway, and left in the elevator. The police did not stop or questioned the client. This reason was unclear but it raised questions about the claims those policemen made that they wanted to identify people whom they thought might not belong in the building that night. They failed to ask the female who exited any questions and did not seem a bit concerned when she walked by them. This was because they were trying to punish the private investigator for standing on his constitutional rights. The police claimed that the private investigator “slammed the window and called them stupid.” Even if this was true, these actions did not rise to the level of criminal activities. From previous encounter in February 2022, the Clayton knew that this man has his office there and they pretended that he was not known to them. They wanted to delay and punish him for his free speech and for exercising his freedom from unlawful searches and seizures. They did not interview the client and this shows that their true intentions were to punish the Facts: Private Investigator renting his office space and been in the building for over 5 years. On the night in question here, he was working late as he usually does to meet his lawyer-client needs after surveillance and investigations. He edits and upload files and videos so that clients can have them early mornings when in office. They wanted to delay and punish him for exercising his constitutional rights. Even so, how would they know who belong there if they didn’t have a list of the 150 tenants in the building? Note that he was the one who opened his office window and asked the police if everything was okay.
WILCORP Consultants LLC’s Post
More Relevant Posts
-
Whether home or business, ensuring the security of your property and its belongings remains the priority. You may need to be extra careful with the office because many of your critical files and documents are there. Also, a business premise receives a higher footfall daily. Due to higher turnover in such places, locksmiths suggest people rekey their locks at least once or twice a year to add an extra layer of safety. But one may have to do this in other circumstances as well. For example, you can implement this to upgrade your office’s security or prevent resentful employees from accessing it. Where do you live in Oregon – Dallas or Albany? You can contact a reliable locksmith Albany Oregon for help if you live in Albany. Before this, let’s delve into this requirement a little more.
-
A very good description of the Post Office scandal.
Don't know where to start with the Post Office scandal? A basic rundown: Suppose you decide to run a post office in the 90s. You get to be self employed, while also serving a function in your local community. You enter into a contract with the Post Office, acting as their agent to run a Post Office branch. We call you a ‘subpostmaster’. You’re used to doing the accounts using a paper-based system, until one day the Post Office tells you they are switching to a computer-based system. Installed by Fujitsu, it promises to make everything easier, is being installed all across the Post Office branches, and it’s among the biggest IT projects in Europe outside the military. It doesn’t take long before problems start to show. At the end of the week, the computer tells you that you are short £2,000, but you don’t know why because you haven’t made any errors. It must be a computer error! So you call up the Post Office helpdesk. When you eventually get through, they act like you’re the incompetent one. You must have made a mistake, they say. No one else is facing this problem. You stop calling them. But the computer errors don’t stop. The system tells you that you now owe £15,000. You’ve checked everything and you can’t work out why. The Post Office blames you: it’s in your contract to make up for any shortfalls. ‘You've been taking money from the company, haven't you?’ You know it wasn’t your fault. It was the computer. But they don’t believe you. ‘The Horizon system is perfectly robust.’ You don’t have the money to pay back the Post Office. They fire you and pursue a private prosecution to take you to court. The Post Office is in a unique position here as the party to bring the claim AND the investigator. They have all the information about the Horizon system. They make it clear the Horizon system is faultless, that no one else is facing this problem, and you don’t have access to any evidence to prove otherwise. It’s their word against yours. What seems strange is how aggressively the Post Office is pursuing this case against you. They call you a liar. There is no evidence at all to suggest the Horizon system has any issues. They tell you that they’ll drop their charge of theft if you plead guilty for false accounting. What you don't know is that they have no evidence of theft in the first place. You lose at court. You’re ordered to pay the Post Office’s costs of £300,000. You file for bankruptcy. Fast forward almost two decades of fighting for someone to listen, and it turns out: - The Post Office’s Horizon’s system was faulty - The Post Office and Fujitsu knew about problems facing Horizon (and Fujitsu had remote access to the system, despite the Post Office denying it) - Executives engaged in a deliberate attempt to deny and conceal this information - The Post Office aggressively prosecuted over 900 subpostmasters, leading to jail-time, bankruptcies, linked-suicides - and thousands more in financial and emotional distress
Publisher, International Judicial Reformer, French Student, and Your Favorite Faculty. Also…Crypto.
3moJust think if that was still the offices of my firm! Always appreciate my landlord Wilcorp and the man whose name is on the door.