Indiana City Hired Investigators to Probe Ex-Arts Center Chief

Carmel, Ind., officials hired a private firm to investigate the head of the city’s new Center for the Performing Arts shortly before he abruptly quit last month, The Indianapolis Star writes.

The city just north of Indianapolis paid a private investigator $8,000 to investigate Steven Libman, who had been hired in September 2009 as the first chief executive of the $175-million arts venue. During his tenure Mr. Libman and Jim Brainard, the mayor of Carmel, had clashed over the center’s operations and government aid.

In an e-mail to City Council members, Mr. Brainard alleged that the center’s foundation and the city faced a possible lawsuit over actions by Mr. Libman and that “for me not to act upon that information would have been a dereliction” of the mayor’s duty. Mr. Brainard did not disclose those actions.

Neither Mr. Brainard nor Mr. Libman returned The Star’s calls for comment.

Critics of the mayor and council members who had backed Mr. Libman in the fight over the center’s financing criticized the private investigation, which one council member called “an intrusion into people’s lives.”

http://liarcatchers.com/civil_investigations.html

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS
  • LinkedIn
Posted in Private Investigation | Tagged | Comments Off on Indiana City Hired Investigators to Probe Ex-Arts Center Chief

Do you snoop on your kids

It’s an undeniable truth: A lot of parents can give Sherlock Holmes a run for his money. When it comes to detective work, parents have serious skills. You’ve heard the stories—mom finds condom in son’s wallet, dad discovers daughter’s secret boyfriend.
It happens a lot, but is it right? It’s a debate that predates the Internet: Should parents snoop on their kids? And the discussion has only gotten more complicated with mobile phones, computers and social networking sites.
We surveyed parents with children ages 12 and older about snooping. Of the 50 parents we surveyed, 24 percent were dads and 76 percent were moms.
Invasion of privacy
A total of 66 percent of parents surveyed believe they have the right to snoop on their kids. “They are still minors. And we have the right to make sure they stay on the right path, by whatever means necessary. It’s for their own good,” says Maria, 39.
Others do not agree. Frieda, 46, says, “Snooping is an invasion of privacy and conveys a total lack of trust in your children. Every child needs some privacy, especially as they get older.”
Only 54 percent of parents surveyed, however, say they actually do it. Chloe, 45, thinks snooping should be considered a last resort. “I do not want deception to breed deception. We all want to trust our kids and treat their possessions as private, but if the kid’s behavior raises significant suspicion then it’s time to snoop.
“It is my duty and right to check on what my children are getting themselves into—friends, their performance in school, and activities outside the home and school. But I do not have the right to invade their privacy when it is not warranted.”
A lot of parents agree that snooping must only be done when there is a reason. “I would have no reason to snoop if I felt there wasn’t anything wrong. That would be really weird of me,” said 41-year-old Christina.
Fifty-year-old Dennis says, “If they leave a notebook on the table, I might look. If they leave a camera, I might flip through a few pics. But I don’t crack their computer passwords or have hidden cameras.”
Golden rule
Some parents refuse to do it at all because snooping makes them feel guilty. “My conscience prevents me from doing it,” says Linda, 48.
For others, it’s as simple as following the golden rule. Forty-two-year-old Anette says, “I don’t like my phones being checked, so I give my son the same respect. I see the phone as a very personal and private property so I don’t touch it.” PR Mom, 35, feels the same way. “I don’t check my children’s wallets. I don’t want them checking my wallet, too.”
Some parents don’t feel the need to snoop. “We have an open communication line. I don’t even have to ask them, my kids volunteer the info,” says Pia, 46.
Parents who do snoop have different reasons for snooping. Some 38 percent of parents snoop to find out what their kids are up to, 22 percent do it when they suspect something is going on, 12 percent want to see how their kids behave with their friends, 14 percent want to see if their kids’ friends are a good influence, 12 percent believe it’s their responsibility.
Another 12 percent believe snooping will help protect their children from harm, 8 percent snoop to find out if their kids are being bullied, 12 percent want to discover their kids’ interests, 12 percent snoop because they say their children do not open up to them, and 4 percent say snooping gives them peace of mind.
Some parents do not like the term “snooping”; they prefer to call it “monitoring” or “checking up on their children.”
A total of 30 percent admitted to checking their kids’ mobile phones. Maria says she checks her son’s phone at night when he’s sleeping. “I can make sure that he’s not being victimized by a stalker or developing a relationship with some bimbo. Better safe than sorry!”
Online
A total of 58 percent check their kid’s computers—photos, websites visited and browsing history—while 62 percent check on their kids’ online activities. A lot of them are concerned about the dangers of social networking. “I check on my daughter’s contacts regularly, and always remind her not to accept friend requests from people she does not personally know. I also filter her friends using Facebook. It’s easy to see who the bad eggs are from their posts,” says Mei, 32.
Mommy Chic, 41, says her 14- and 19-year-old daughters call her stalker mom.
Some 62 percent check their kids’ Facebook. About 6 percent would like to check their kids’ Facebook, but can’t—some were blocked by their kids, while others sent friend requests that were denied. Only 2 percent said they do not know how to check Facebook.
Allie, 40, said things did not go well when her daughter discovered she and her husband were snooping on Facebook. “She unfriended both me and her dad.”
While computers are fair game for some, a lot of parents balk at the idea of checking their kids’ wallets and bags. “Their wallets are sacred to them,” says 5DMarkII, 52. Only 30 percent said they check their kid’s wallets, while 26 percent said they check their kids’ bags.
Sara, 50, says she checks the wallets of her two teenage daughters. “I just want to be sure they have money. I also check on receipts and see what they have been buying.”
Some 72 percent of parents say they check their kids’ rooms—but 46 percent of those who do say they only go to their kids’ rooms to check if the rooms are clean and to tidy up.
A total of 70 percent of parents who snoop said they’ve never been caught. Some of those who have been caught said they ended up laughing about it, while others said their kids were annoyed.
Some 35 percent of parents say their own parents snooped on them, while 45 percent said their parents did not snoop on them, and 20 percent do not know.
For 40-year-old Mom-At-Home, it was her own experience of being snooped on that has stopped her from snooping on her own kids. “I’ve stumbled across their wallets, phones, Facebook and Twitter accounts, but I’ve deliberately avoided reading them. I had a bad experience when I was 17. I found out my mother was reading my diary. I felt violated. She did not respect my privacy. Up to now, I still remember the pain. I’ve forgiven her, but I haven’t forgotten. I’ve decided I won’t do the same thing to my kids.”
Passwords
Kids have found ways to prevent their parents from snooping. Some have protected their mobile phones and computers with passwords, others change their privacy settings on Facebook and their blogs so family members cannot see their posts. Sandra, 48, says, “Although I would probably be able to hack his account, I don’t want to go to that extent.”
Mercy, 30, says her 14-year-old son never lets her touch his mobile phone. “He always keeps his phone with him and I am very curious why he is keeping it. I am aware he does not want me to see the messages of his female friends, but I want to check what kind of friends he has.”
Parents who’ve never snooped on their kids say they might snoop if their kids show a change in behavior (44 percent), if they suspect something is wrong (34 percent), if parental instinct or gut feel tells them to do so (30 percent), if they feel their kids are in danger (22 percent), if they suspect their kids are drinking, smoking, or taking drugs (22 percent), if they have health concerns (8 percent), if they discover their kids have a relationship (4 percent), and if their kids have friends who they think are a bad influence (4 percent).
Tessa, 50, says she used to snoop on her kids but not anymore. “I got tired of it, maybe because I wasn’t seeing anything so worrisome save for some drinking with their friends, and at one time, my son had a condom in his wallet. That’s when I told the men in my family to talk to him about the birds and the bees. I also cautioned them about the hazards of drinking and driving.”
Patty, 42, believes that not snooping will help parents teach their children valuable lessons. “We need to teach our children the importance of trust and respect for other people and their property. Striking a balance between disciplining and letting go is difficult. But we must not over-manage our children. We must allow the child to be independent.”
Arlene, 45, says parents should allow their children to grow. “I believe many things are learned better if children are allowed to experience what life is all about. Social skills are developed only when you allow them to interact with other people. Parents should allow children to soar. If they fall, then parents have to catch them.”
For Smile, the formula is simple. “Build trust between you and your children, and they will not hide anything from you.”

http://liarcatchers.com/electronic_surveillance.html

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS
  • LinkedIn
Posted in Liar catchers | Tagged | Comments Off on Do you snoop on your kids

Attorney: Witness offered $50K to testify against Albert Haynesworth

A witness in the Albert Haynesworth sexual abuse case was offered $50,000 by the alleged victim in exchange for testimony against the former Washington Redskin, the player’s attorney alleged in a filing with D.C. Superior Court.

In the late Monday filing, Haynesworth’s attorney A. Scott Bolden requested that the judge overseeing the trial — scheduled to begin Aug. 23 — to force prosecutors to provide what he believes to be various pieces of evidence.

According to the filing, the evidence includes the testimony of a bouncer who allegedly testified before a grand jury that he saw Haynesworth grope a cocktail waitress at the W Hotel’s P.O.V. Roof Terrace Lounge early in the morning of Feb. 13 following a party.

That witness later told one of Bolden’s private detectives the contact was “consensual” and that he was offered $50,000 to testify on behalf of the waitress from a man who introduced himself as the victim’s attorney, Bolden said.

Haynesworth was charged with one count of misdemeanor sexual abuse after prosecutors alleged he “inappropriately” touched the woman’s breast while paying his bill. Haynesworth has pleaded not guilty in the case.

In the filing, Bolden included an affidavit from the waitress’s supervisor at the W Hotel in which the supervisor said he noticed on the waitress hug, flirt and dance with guests on “several” occasions. The supervisor also said he “talked” to her about her behavior and told her to “relax a bit” because the behavior was “inappropriate.”

Later in the affidavit, the manager said the waitress looked “visibly upset” after the alleged incident with Haynesworth. She told her supervisor that she nodded her head yes to Haynesworth when he asked if he could place his credit card in her blouse, the W employee said in the affidavit. But she later told her supervisor “he had taken it too far” and fondled her breast. He said the waitress began crying and she told him she wanted to call the police.

Prosecutors had offered to dismiss the sexual abuse charge if Haynesworth would plead guilty to simple assault, but Bolden rejected the deal, saying his client was innocent. In the filings, Bolden asserts his client was never arrested in connection with the charge.

In July, Haynesworth was traded to the New England Patriots for a fifth-round draft pick.

In the filings, Bolden was also seeking any information that any of the government’s witnesses were “under the influence of alcohol, narcotics or any other drug” at the time of the incident as well as whether any of the witnesses had any prior cases in which they could be seeking favor from the government in exchange for their testimony.

Bolden wrote that he believed the testimony from several of the witnesses would prove Haynesworth either did not sexually assault the waitress or the victim consented.

U.S. Attorney spokesman Bill Miller declined to comment on the filings.

According to charging documents, Haynesworth motioned the waitress over so he could settle the bill as she was cleaning tables and had dirty plates in both her hands and on her arms. The waitress said she needed to put the plates down, but Haynesworth insisted on paying immediately.

Haynesworth then put his debit card down the woman’s bra and allegedly began moving his hand toward her breast while holding the card, documents say. As he did so, according to the documents, he asked her, “Can I do that?” and “Is that okay?”

The waitress told him to stop, according to the documents, but Haynesworth continued to fondle her.

Bolden was also seeking to have statements made by Haynesworth when he was being questioned by detectives and security officers in a private room at the hotel excluded from the trial. Bolden said Haynesworth made the statements before he was read his rights.

Bolden specifically identified the statements Haynesworth made alleging the waitress, who was African-American, made up the allegations because she was angry he dated outside his race and that he did not like black women. “She was upset I have a white girlfriend. I couldn’t tell you the last time I dated a black girl,” Haynesworth allegedly told a detective.

The statements, Bolden wrote, had nothing to do with the case. “These statements will serve no purpose other than to impair the search for the truth, harass, annoy or humiliate Mr. Haynesworth, improperly inflame the arbiter and unfairly prejudice Mr. Haynesworth’s defense in this action,” Bolden wrote.

“This case would have never seen the inside of a courtroom if this didn’t involve Albert Haynesworth,” said Chad Speck, the player’s agent.

Speck said his client will be in court during the trial. Management with the Patriots, Speck said, were aware of the case before he was traded.

http://liarcatchers.com/fraud_investigation.html

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS
  • LinkedIn
Posted in Court Ruling | Tagged | Comments Off on Attorney: Witness offered $50K to testify against Albert Haynesworth

Authorities recover stolen Rembrandt worth $250K

LOS ANGELES (AP) — It wasn’t some bold theft carried out by burglars breaking into a heavily-fortified museum with high-tech alarms to swipe a masterpiece. It was a low-tech caper involving a distraction, an accomplice or two and a small sketch — an 11- by 6-inch drawing.

What was remarkable was the signature on the artwork: Rembrandt.

Authorities said Tuesday they had recovered the Dutch master’s 17th century sketch, which was snatched over the weekend from a private art display at a luxury California hotel while a curator was momentarily distracted by someone who seemed interested in buying another piece.

“When the curator turned back to the Rembrandt, it was gone,” Los Angeles County sheriff’s spokesman Steve Whitmore said. It was not clear whether the person talking to the curator was connected to the theft, though Whitmore said a team of at least two people was involved.

The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department did not release further details on the recovery of the drawing, and Associated Press calls for comment were not immediately returned.

The Rembrandt drawing, swiped Saturday night, was valued at $250,000 and was being exhibited as part of a private display in the Ritz-Carlton Hotel in the upmarket seaside community of Marina del Rey.

The sketch was being displayed on an easel or wooden stand and was apparently not fastened down in any way, Whitmore said.

He described the theft as well-executed, “but not executed well enough to get away with,” adding that investigators had several strong leads and that detectives were looking at video surveillance from the hotel.

The sketch, called The Judgment, was completed around 1655 and is signed on the back by Rembrandt von Rijn. He is widely regarded as one of the finest painters in European art history and his worldwide name recognition has made his work a common target for thieves.

“Rembrandt is a name that criminals know or should know,” said Chris Marinello, executive director of the London-based Art Loss Register, an international database of stolen artworks. “When they come across one, they see dollar signs.”

Marinello said the theft was likely a crime of opportunity and not an operation carried at the command of a mysterious underworld mastermind with a private art collection, as is often depicted in movies.

“Hollywood would love us to believe there are paintings being ordered stolen,” he said. “We have yet to find that.”

Artworks tend to surface either very quickly after they are stolen or else disappear into the underworld where they are traded between criminals at a fraction of their value for drugs and other illicit materials, Marinello said.

Ritz-Carlton spokeswoman Vivian Deuschl said she could not comment because the theft was a police matter.

The drawing was part of an exhibit at the hotel sponsored by the Linearis Institute based in the San Francisco Bay area community of Hercules. Messages left Monday weren’t returned.

The stolen sketch was drawn with a quill pen and depicts what appears to be a court scene with a man prostrating himself before a judge.

Marinello said the artist thieves most commonly target is Picasso because of the volume of the Spanish painter’s work and his name recognition.

In July, a thief walked into a San Francisco gallery and snatched a Picasso sketch valued at more than $200,000. The arrest of the suspect ultimately led police to a trove of other stolen artworks in a New Jersey apartment.

In 1990, two criminals posing as police officers robbed the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum during the St. Patrick’s Day parade in Boston. Marinello said the works, which included Rembrandt’s only seascape, had a combined worth of as much as $500,000. Those paintings are still missing.

Anthony Amore, chief investigator at the museum and co-author of the book Stealing Rembrandts, told the Los Angeles Times there have been 81 documented thefts of the artist’s work in the past 100 years.

Marina del Rey is a sprawling community and small-boat harbor on Santa Monica Bay, less than 20 miles from downtown Los Angeles.

http://liarcatchers.com/asset_investigations.html

 

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS
  • LinkedIn
Posted in Private Investigation | Tagged | 2 Comments

Judge throws out one bribery count against officer in police trial

A judge in a police corruption trial threw out one count of bribery against a veteran police officer Monday.

U.S. District Judge Bruce Black granted a defense motion asking that a single count of bribery of a witness against Officer Jeff Henderson be dismissed.

Henderson still faces 53 counts involving civil rights violations, drugs and other charges, and Officer Bill Yelton faces eight counts alleging civil rights violations, suborning perjury and retaliation against a witness.

Attorneys for Yelton rested their case Monday afternoon after calling a total of seven witnesses over two days. Henderson’s attorneys then began his defense.

The count dropped by the judge Monday involved an allegation that Henderson attempted to use Amie Slemaker and Eric Cullen, a private investigator hired by Henderson, to bribe a government witness to help Henderson’s case.

Meanwhile, Black denied a defense motion to dismiss charges of perjury and violation of civil rights involving both Henderson and Yelton.

The two officers are accused of attempting to suborn perjury of Rochelle Martin, a confidential informant, in the Bobby Haley Sr. drug case.

Additionally, Black denied a defense motion to dismiss a charge of conspiracy to commit witness tampering against Henderson and Yelton. That allegation of witness tampering also involves Martin.

In Monday’s testimony, several Tulsa police officers took the stand for various testimonies, as well as to be character witnesses to the two indicted officers.

Officer Frank Khalil, who has not been charged but is alleged in court documents to be a co-conspirator, was Henderson’s partner between 2005 and 2008. He said he never witnessed Henderson or Yelton commit any illegal acts.

“If I would have seen anything like that, I would have turned them in,” Khalil said.

The first witness called by Henderson’s attorneys, he testified about several of the drug investigations that are focal points of the prosecution’s case against the officers.

Former ATF Agent Brandon McFadden has testified that Khalil stole money during one search and was present during another search when drug evidence was stolen.

Khalil denied that money was stolen during a search involving Jerry Robert Hill III. He also refuted McFadden’s claim that methamphetamine and money were taken during a search of Ryan Logsdon’s home in January 2007.

Logsdon was one of Henderson’s main informants and alleged that officers stole drugs from his house during a raid.

Khalil said he watched Henderson pull cash from the attic and was there when Henderson pulled drugs from a closet stash.

http://liarcatchers.com/fraud_investigation.html

Khalil also denied that any money or drugs were stolen in several other cases. That is contrary to several other witnesses’ testimony since the case started Aug. 1.

Defense attorneys also called former Tulsa County Assistant District Attorney Tony Evans to testify about his experience with Rochelle Martin.

Evans became familiar with Martin during the Demarrio Oates drug-trafficking trial.

Martin was Oates’ girlfriend at the time and was arrested with him, Evans said. However, she was not charged because Evans was asked on behalf of Henderson not to file charges against her, he said.

Evans also testified about Durrell Collins, a witness and former informant who testified last week that Yelton asked him to beat up or “take out” another inmate while in jail.

Defense attorneys attempted to discredit Collins through Evans’ testimony, which indicated that Collins lied to law enforcement officials in a case in which he was the victim.

On cross-examination, prosecution attorneys showed that Collins was used as an informant several more times despite having lied to officials. Assistant U.S. Attorney Pat Harris stated that Collins is a key witness in an alleged murder plot against Tulsa County District Attorney Tim Harris.

“Isn’t it true that Durrell Collins has offered truthful or reliable information in every case except the one you have mentioned and he is still being helpful with his information?” Pat Harris asked Evans.

“That would be correct,” Evans said.

Sgt. Dave Walker briefly testified Monday afternoon, also indicating that Collins lied to police. Collins gave a fake name to Walker and other officers during an investigation, he said.

Earlier in the morning, a former supervisor of the defendants testified about their character and work ethic.

Sgt. Luke Sherman told the court that Henderson, 38, and Yelton, 50, were “very professional, very ethical,” during his time as their supervisor.

Under cross-examination, Assistant U.S. Attorney Patricia Harris was quick to focus on Sherman’s time supervising the two indicted officers, which would have been before the years that are focused on in the trial. Most of the counts in the indictment are for alleged acts from 2007 through 2009, but at least one was as early as 2004.

Sherman worked with Yelton and later with Henderson from 1995 to 2005, he said.

He testified about the use of informants in the Police Department’s street crime initiative, which he supervised and served on with both indicted officers.

It was important on that “fast-paced initiative” to act on informant tips before a drug dealer could move drugs, he said.

Yelton and Henderson were two of the best officers in Tulsa and were particularly adept at developing and talking with informants, he said.

On cross-examination, Sherman said it would not be proper to have a personal financial relationship with an informant.

Sherman also testified that it would be improper to give gifts to an informant or warn an informant about a search warrant.

Martin testified last week that Henderson had given her gifts such as cologne and marijuana. She also testified that she sold drugs for Henderson.

When asked about Yelton, Sherman said: “Yelton is the best officer in the Police Department. … He got along with everyone – even bad guys.”

Regarding Henderson, Sherman said: “Right off the bat, I heard good things about him.”

Sgt. James Clark testified about Yelton’s character, saying no one could tell him anything bad about him that he would believe without proof.

“That would be the antithesis to everything I’ve seen,” he said.

On cross-examination, prosecution attorneys pointed out – as they had with other witnesses – that Clark didn’t work directly with Yelton during the years in question.

Monday developments
Attorneys for Officer Bill Yelton rested their case Monday, and Officer Jeff Henderson’s defense began.

Officer Frank Khalil testified. He was Henderson’s partner from 2005-08 and worked often with Henderson since then and has been a recurring character in witness testimony.

Khalil denied several accusations made in witness testimony that directly affect several charges in the case, including allegations of stolen money and drugs.

Key moment
Tony Evans, a former Tulsa County Assistant District Attorney, testified that he doesn’t believe that Durrell Collins is reliable because he lied to law enforcement officials after an incident where he was shot.

Evans explained that Collins had told officers who had shot him but later recanted.

“He either lied to police or to prosecutors,” Evans said.

Either way, Evans said Collins had lied to officials and was unreliable as an informant.

Collins’s credibility is important to the case because he testified that Yelton asked him to beat up another inmate in jail.

On cross examination, Evans told the court that Collins was used as an informant on several more cases even after Evans deemed him unreliable.

Key testimony
Khalil took the stand as Henderson’s first witness Monday afternoon and denied or refuted the following claims in the prosecution’s case:

That he took a bale of marijuana from Juan Mata’s residence.

That Henderson took methamphetamine or money from the residence of Ryan Logsdon.

That he and Henderson stole money from Jerry Robert Hill III’s residence.

That officers entered a home improperly and hid evidence at Jose Angel Gonzalez’s residence

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS
  • LinkedIn
Posted in Court Ruling | Tagged | Comments Off on Judge throws out one bribery count against officer in police trial

Rembrandt drawing stolen from California hotel

A 17th-century drawing by Rembrandt has been snatched from a private art display at a California luxury hotel while a curator was momentarily distracted.

The theft of the $250,000 sketch from the lobby of the Ritz-Carlton Hotel in the upmarket seaside community of Marina del Rey took place at around 10:30pm on Saturday night while the curator’s attention was distracted for a few minutes.

“When the curator turned back to the Rembrandt, it was gone,” Los Angeles County sheriff’s spokesman Steve Whitmore said. It was not clear whether the person talking to the curator was connected to the theft, though Whitmore said at least two people was involved.

The sketch, called The Judgment, was completed around 1655 and is signed on the back by the Dutch master. Rembrandt von Rijn is widely regarded as one of the finest painters in European art history and his work has become a common target for thieves.

“Rembrandt is a name that criminals know or should know,” said Chris Marinello, the executive director of the London-based Art Loss Register, an international database of stolen artworks. “When they come across one, they see dollar signs.”

Marinello said the theft was most likely an opportunistic crime and not carried out on the orders of a mysterious criminal with a private art collection, as is often depicted in movies.

“Hollywood would love us to believe there are paintings being ordered stolen,” he said. “We have yet to find that.”

Artworks tend to surface either very quickly after they are stolen or else disappear into the underworld where they are traded between criminals at a fraction of their value for drugs and other illicit materials, Marinello said.

The sketch was being displayed on an easel or wooden stand and was apparently not fastened down, Whitmore said.

He described the theft as well-executed, “but not executed well enough to get away with”, adding that investigators had several strong leads and that detectives were looking at video surveillance from the hotel.

A sketch artist was putting together a suspect composite drawing based on witness accounts. It will be released at the end of the week.

The Rembrandt drawing was part of an exhibit at the hotel sponsored by the Linearis Institute based in the San Francisco Bay area community of Hercules.The stolen sketch was drawn with a quill pen and depicts what appears to be a court scene with a man prostrating himself before a judge.

Marinello said the artist thieves most commonly target is Pablo Picasso because of the volume of the Spanish painter’s work and his name recognition.

In July, a thief walked into a San Francisco gallery and snatched a Picasso sketch valued at more than $200,000. The arrest of the suspect ultimately led police to a trove of other stolen artworks in a New Jersey apartment.

In 1990, two criminals posing as police officers robbed the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum during the St Patrick’s Day parade in Boston. Marinello said the stolen works, which included Rembrandt’s only seascape, had a combined worth of as much as $500,000. The paintings are still missing.

Anthony Amore, chief investigator at the museum and co-author of the book Stealing Rembrandts, told the Los Angeles Times there have been 81 documented thefts of the artist’s work in the past 100 years

http://liarcatchers.com/asset_investigations.html

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS
  • LinkedIn
Posted in Private Investigation | Tagged | Comments Off on Rembrandt drawing stolen from California hotel

Carmel City Council questions use of private investigator

Carmel City Council asks questions about the bill for a private investigator hired by the city to follow the former executive director of the performing arts center.Monday night, the council made the decision to table the invoices as a question over the private investigators contract came up. The ultimate decision was based on an inquiry into the pay rate on the invoice and if it matched the rate quoted in the contract. The private investigator was hired by the city to follow Steven Libman, the former executive director of the peforming arts center.

——————————————————————————–
Don’t wait to get the latest news. Download the FOX59 app for your smartphone.
——————————————————————————–

Dwight Lile with the Constitutional Patriots came to Monday’s meeting concerned that Libman’s rights were violated.

“The reason that I’m here tonight is that we’re concerned that there’s been a fourth ammendment violation to one of our citizens that goes back about 10 years.”

Rick Sharpe is on the city council. He said it’s not common to pull invoices, but it has happened on occasion.

“When you have an usual invoice that sparks further inquiry. Some questions have been posed to the city attorney and answers really haven’t been forthcoming so that is the main reason that will get pulled.”

Carmel Mayor Jim Brainard said he stands behind the city’s attorney, Doug Haney. Mayor Brainard saying an investigation was necessary to protect the city’s interests.

“The city attorney was doing exactly what he was supposed to do.”

Lile disagreed with the mayor. He said Libman shouldn’t have been investigated by the city.

“He doesn’t work for the city. He works for the foundation. It’s a big distiction.”

“My personal opinion is that Mr. Libman is a political target,” Sharpe said.”I think that the independence that he operated the foundation did not sit well.”

http://liarcatchers.com/civil_investigations.html

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS
  • LinkedIn
Posted in Private Investigation | Tagged | Comments Off on Carmel City Council questions use of private investigator

Two in Contra Costa corruption scandal indicted

A former state narcotics investigator and a Concord private investigator at the center of a widening law enforcement scandal have been indicted by a federal grand jury on drug and corruption charges, authorities said Monday.

Norman Wielsch, 50, a former state Department of Justice agent who led an antinarcotics task force in Contra Costa County, and Christopher Butler, 50, who worked as a private investigator, were named in a 17-count indictment that was unsealed Monday after FBI agents arrested Butler and Wielsch. Each is being held without bail in an Alameda County jail pending detention hearings.

The two were accused of crimes including stealing marijuana and methamphetamine from police to sell, embezzling cash and opening a massage parlor in Pleasant Hill that served as a front for prostitution. The methamphetamine allegations could lead to mandatory minimum term of 10 years in federal prison if the men are convicted.

The indictment “brings dishonor to all the fine men and women in law enforcement who work hard, do the right thing and risk their lives every day protecting our communities,” said U.S. Attorney Melinda Haag in San Francisco.

Wielsch’s attorney, Michael Cardoza said, “It’s nothing that we didn’t expect. We knew what they were investigating.”

Butler’s attorney, William Gagen did not return a call for comment.

The grand jury indictment was the result of an investigation that Contra Costa prosecutors asked the FBI to take over earlier this summer. The men were already facing state drug charges, but the indictment represents the first time that the men were formally charged with running a place of prostitution.

Both were charged with extortion under color of official right for allegedly setting up the parlor on Gregory Lane in Pleasant Hill and protecting the women who worked there in exchange for “weekly payments to Butler, which Butler shared with Wielsch,” the indictment said.

The men were also charged with running phony sting operations by contacting suspected prostitutes through online ads, meeting them in hotels and then stealing their money and property, authorities said.

http://liarcatchers.com/electronic_surveillance.html

 

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS
  • LinkedIn
Posted in Court Ruling | Tagged | Comments Off on Two in Contra Costa corruption scandal indicted

Contra Costa Cop and Private Investigator Indicted on Charges of Running Brothel

SF Weekly readers might recall the crazy story of a former CoCo County cop and PI who were busted for stealing drugs and operating their own brothel — it’s just not that kind of story you forget. After three months of investigation, the two former cops allegedly involved in a string of lawlessness were indicted by a federal Grand Jury and arrested this morning.

Normal Wielsch and Christopher Butler, both 50, were allegedly in cahoots to steal drug evidence with the intention to sell it and operated a massage parlor in Pleasant Hill where they protected prostitutes in exchange for weekly payments.

According to the indictment, which was issued Aug. 8, Wielsch used his position as the commander of the Contra Costa County Narcotics Enforcement Team to participate in the “stings” directed at prostitutes. They would identify women who they believed to be prostitutes and arrange meetings with them, typically in hotels. But instead of busting these women, the two would take their cash and property for themselves, according to the indictment.

They would also shutdown other brothels in the area that were competing with their own business in order to make more money.

“This indictment alleges a pattern of lawlessness that not only violated the trust of the people of Contra Costa County, but also brings dishonor to all the fine men and women in law enforcement who work hard, do the right thing, and risk their lives everyday protecting our community,” U.S. Attorney Melinda Haag said in a statement.

Both men will appear in court later this month.

http://liarcatchers.com/background_checks.html

 

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS
  • LinkedIn
Posted in Court Ruling | Tagged | 1 Comment

Disgraced doctor won’t testify at sexual abuse hearing

A Mississauga physician who stands accused of sexually abusing a private investigator posing as a patient declined to testify at his disciplinary hearing Monday.

The hearing for Dr. David Lambert resumed Monday before a five-member committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, which could ultimately revoke his medical licence and fine him up to $35,000.

In June, Lambert pleaded guilty to four of the five professional misconduct charges against him, but he has adamantly denied the alleged sexual abuse.

On Monday, lawyers for Lambert and the college argued over whether the “adverse inference” rule could be applied in the proceedings. “Adverse inference” refers to a situation where a decision-making body, such as the disciplinary committee, could conclude that a person did not produce evidence because it would hurt his or her case.

Lambert declined to testify regarding an allegation that he brushed his hand across a woman’s breast during a medical appointment.

“The allegation is, ‘You brushed my nipple.’ (Lambert) could only say, ‘I didn’t touch her,’” which is already implied by his ‘not guilty’ plea, said Roy Stephenson, the defendant’s lawyer, on why Lambert refused to take the stand.

Colin Johnston, a lawyer for the College, argued that Lambert should have testified to allow for cross-examination, and that his refusal to do so means the “adverse inference” rule should apply.

The disciplinary committee has heard from the woman, who was hired by the College in 2009 to investigate the 59-year-old physician by posing as a patient. Her name is being withheld due to a publication ban.

Lambert has already pleaded guilty breaching restrictions placed on his medical licence.

His licence was revoked in 2002 after the college found he had sexually abused three female patients. It was reinstated several months before the private investigator visited his office.

Lambert’s licence is under suspension pending the results of the hearing.

The disciplinary committee will release their decision in a report.

http://liarcatchers.com/fraud_investigation.html

 

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS
  • LinkedIn
Posted in Fraud | Tagged | Comments Off on Disgraced doctor won’t testify at sexual abuse hearing