Type Number for Location Report

Unsolicited local call.

They phone-calls, it rings one 5 times and then hang up the phone...really troublesome

Who's this

Here's benjaman whiteheads mail benj whatt.com watch out girls. He told me the exact same his parnts dead. So lets get him females. He uses he name barry claims he is driver an bodyguard. Along with a name he claims his manufacture under him mr.perry. Guaranteed dont pay to wreck people girl. Lots of fish women any...

That fcker keep calling junk local call

deerhunter4845 weeks previously +Flag as inappropriatemy girlfriend and i were out looking for houses for sale this summer in portbyron il area.We came across a home at 10111 228th saint d portbyron il We pulled in the push to acquire a glance at the property each time an older heavy set guy came out to your car and began shouting at us and explained the owner of the home was about the hand-set and handed me his cell desk phone. A ladies who indentified herself as laura crawford claimed she was the owner and we were tresspassing she yelled obscenities at me and shouted created a myriad of hazards even threatened to destroy us. this women was completely erational. She said she'd call the sheriff on-US if we didnt leave i told her we were just driving by when we stoped that we were available in the market for a brand new home and viewed the home for selling. A day later i called the realtor at melfoster corp. told below what had happened and she said she would consult with the crawfords and get back to me. Again she's screaming at me and a couple of hours later i get a number using this erational laura crawford and yelling obscenities. Therefore I hung up on her behalf. The quantity I was called by her from was.... 415_987_0024

the crawfords lived nearby tome in san francisco bay area. The police were always at there house one evening i heard yelling and shouting. it seemed like there child was screaming bloody murder ceremony after that 5 police cars were there. I did so some checking on these crawford persons and discovered they've criminal records. They certainly were massive drug dealers and mr crawford was in jail for drugs. I called pamela fresh at company and hillside. Immediately after the crawfords were eliminated I'm glad those individuals are from this comunity

F.2d 597. gary crawfords medication conviction.UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.Gary CRAWFORD, Opponent-Appellant.No. 71-2658.United States Court of Appeals,Ninth Circuit.1 Anthony Michael Glassman (argued), of Cooper, Glassman & Browning, Beverly Hills, Cal., Daniel H. Weinstein, San Francisco, Cal., for defendant-appellant.2 N. James Thayer, Thomas H. Kontos, Eric A. Nobles, Asst. U. S. Attys., William D. Keller, U. S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff- DUNIWAY and appellee.3 Before KOELSCH, Circuit Judges, and ANDERSON,* District Judge.J. BLAINE ANDERSON, District Judge:4 This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction on the basis of the choice of the District Court, a jury having been waived, for having control of a controlled substance (hashish) with intent to deliver in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. Sec. 841(a) (1).5 Prior to trial the appellant transferred, pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to curb, as evidence, contraband which were arrested pursuant to a search warrant and which contraband formed the cornerstone of the indictment. During the time of the hearing on the action, the Court, after hearing the account of U. S. Customs Representative, Phil Roberts, whose affidavit produced the foundation for the issuance of the search warrant herein, ruled the warrant and the affidavit in support thereof were valid on the face and rejected appellant&quots action to control. Thereafter the appellant waived trial by jury, agreed to the allegations contained in the indictment and incorporated by reference the Concept 41 hearing in to the trial record. The court found the appellant guilty as charged.6 The sole concern which appellant with which this court is challenged on this appeal and H Crawford improves problems the sufficiency of the affidavit1 which U. S. Methods Broker Phil Roberts introduced to the Magistrate of obtaining a search warrant.7 The test regarding whether adequate basis is provided by an affidavit upon which a magistrate may issue a search warrant within the span is governed by the test established in Aguilar v. Colorado, 378 U.S. 108, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964).8 The affidavit of U. S. Methods Broker Phil Roberts considerably surpasses the affidavit of the representatives in Aguilar v. Texas, supra, regarding the uniqueness of the data provided the magistrate who had been contacted to issue the search warrant. Appellant concedes this is so with respect to a few of the underlying circumstances from which the informant concluded that the narcotics were where he said they were, Aguilar v. Texas, supra, 378 U.S. 114, 84 S.Ct. 1514, but challenges the sufficiency of the disclosure of the affidavit regarding several of the underlying conditions of the mysterious informant&quots standing or the reliability of his information. (Aguilar v. Texas, supra, 378 U.S. 114, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 12 L.Ed.2d 723).9 There's nothing in Aguilar v. Colorado, supra, which provides any support for the argument these two propositions are wholly independent of one another. We're constrained to carry they are not and that you can supply service to the other, at least regarding the affidavit at hand. Study as a whole, the affidavit which Representative Roberts has presented for the magistrate is really as truthful as that held adequate in Jones v. United States Of America, 362 U.S. 257, 80 S.Ct. 725, 4 L.Ed.2d 697 (1960), and provided the magistrate with probable cause to issue the warrant. The somewhat detailed record of the underlying facts which led Adviser Roberts to consider that the narcotics were where he said them to be, lend themselves meant for the consistency of his information.10 Unlike Spinelli v and the standing of the info. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 89 S.Ct. 584, 21 L.Ed.2d 637 (1969), the affidavit below does describe how the informant arrived by his information.11 It's not simply a simple statement the Practices Representative believed the informant. The agent&quots own sworn declaration of his purchases with the informant, when merged with another facts in the affidavit, were adequate to justify the magistrate&quots summary regarding probable cause to issue the warrant.12 Representative Roberts might well have spelled out in more detail his connections with the informant which caused him to end reliability and we would advocate greater detail in the future. Nevertheless, as was explained in Usa v. Harris, 403 U.S. 573, 583, 91 S.Ct. 2075, 2082, 29 L.Ed.2d 723, 733 (1971),. . we decline to utilize it [Spinelli v. United States, supra] to prevent a magistrate from relying on a police officer&quots familiarity with a suspect&quots reputation.Counsel for the government has advised that individuals spell out clearly the extent to which, if any, the opposition may impeach the research affidavit at a hearing on a motion to suppress under Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. That issue is not properly ahead of the court and, therefore, we specifically decrease comment.13 Accordingly, we consider the decision of the District Court ought to be, and the exact same hereby is, affirmed.* Honorable J. Blaine Anderson, Usa District Judge, District of Idaho, relaxing by designation1 I, Philip N. Roberts, being duly sworn depose and say:That I'm an United States Customs AgentThat on May 1st, 1971, at about 10:45 p. M., I obtained information from a confidential informant, whose prior information has proven appropriate, that three people arrived at 852 3/4 D and whom I have caused on previous occasions. Sanborn Ave., L. A., California, on May 1st, 1971, and were in control of five suitcases where were released about twenty (20) kilos of hashishThat the three persons were recognized by the confidential informant as being (1) Gary Crawford (2) a male subject known only as Jones (3) and women known only as FlorenceThat the three persons told the confidential informant that the hashish have been received in Afg(h)anistan and sent from Kabul to Teheran to Istanbul to Ceylon to Tokyo to Honolulu to Los Angeles Airport Terminal by them personallyThat the same Gary Crawford described herein has on at least five previous occasions offered the confidential informant the ability to smuggle hashish from Afg(h)anistan or other nations to the United StatesThat the confidential informant has permitted the three individuals stated herein to settle themselves at his female companion&quots condo (the female companion likewise being fully a confidential informant of the affiant)That 852 3/4 Deborah. Sanborn Ave., La, California, is they are in property of the suitcases containing the contrabandThat 852 3/4 D and where in fact the three persons mentioned herein are currently put. Sanborn Ave., La, California, will be the dwelling of just one of the confidential informantsThat both confidential informants have been found where in actuality the contraband is and have smelled itThat both confidential informants are knowledgeable about hashishThat I believe that included in the suitcases described herein are about twenty kilos (20 kilos) of hashish which have been imported into the Usa despite lawThat the suitcases are described as (2) red suiters, (2) dark suiters and (1) brown leather suiter.

F.2d 597. H crawfords drug indictment. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. H CRAWFORD, Defendant-Appellant. No. 71-2658. United States Of America Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. 1 Anthony Michael Glassman (argued), of Miller, Glassman & Browning, Beverly Hills, Cal., Daniel H. Weinstein, Bay Area, Cal., for defendant-appellant. 2D. Henry Thayer, Thomas H. Kontos, Eric A. Nobles, Asst. U. S. Attys., William D. Keller, U. S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee. 3 Before DUNIWAY and KOELSCH, Circuit Judges, and ANDERSON, * District Judge. T. BLAINE ANDERSON, District Judge: 4 That Is an appeal from a judgment of conviction on the basis of the determination of the District Court, a jury having been waived, for having control of a controlled substance (hashish) with intent to deliver in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. Sec. 841(a) (1). 5 Ahead Of trial the appellant transferred, pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to restrain, as evidence, contraband which contraband and which were seized pursuant to a search warrant established the idea of the indictment. At that time of the hearing to the motion, the Judge, after hearing the testimony of U. S. Methods Broker, Phil Roberts, whose affidavit established the basis for the issuance of the search warrant thus, rejected appellant&quots action to control and decided that the warrant and the affidavit in support thereof were appropriate on their face. Then the appellant waived trial by jury, established for the allegations within the indictment and included by reference the Principle 41 reading into the trial report. The court found the appellant guilty as charged. 6 The sole issue which appellant H Crawford improves on this lure and with which this court is faced concerns the sufficiency of the affidavit1 which U. S. Customs Representative Phil Roberts presented for the Magistrate in the course of receiving a search warrant. 7 The test as to whether adequate basis is provided by an affidavit upon which a magistrate may issue a search warrant is influenced by the test set forth in Aguilar v. Florida, 378 U.S. 108, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964). 8 The affidavit of U. S. Customs Agent Phil Roberts significantly exceeds the affidavit of the officers in Aguilar v. Arizona, supra, with respect to the specificity of the info supplied the magistrate who was asked to issue the search warrant. Appellant concedes this can be so regarding a number of the underlying circumstances from which the informant figured the narcotics were where he claimed they were, Aguilar v. Arizona, supra, 378 U.S. 114, 84 S.Ct. 1514, but contests the sufficiency of the disclosure of the affidavit as to some of the actual circumstances of the anonymous informant&quots credibility or the reliability of his information. (Aguilar v. Arizona, supra, 378 U.S. 114, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 12 L.Ed.2d 723). 9 There is nothing in Aguilar v. Florida, supra, which gives any support towards the contention that these two propositions are fully independent of just one another. We are confined to put up that one may furnish assistance to the other, at least regarding the affidavit at hand and they are not. Read all together, the affidavit which Agent Roberts has offered to the magistrate is as informative as that kept sufficient in Jones v. Usa, 362 U.S. 257, 80 S.Ct. 725, 4 L.Ed.2d 697 (1960), and furnished the magistrate with probable cause to issue the guarantee. The fairly comprehensive statement of the fundamental facts which directed Representative Roberts to conclude the narcotics were where he mentioned them to become, provide themselves in support of the credibility of the information and the reliability of his information. 10 Unlike Spinelli v. Usa, 393 U.S. 410, 89 S.Ct. 584, 21 L.Ed.2d 637 (1969), the affidavit here does reveal the way the informant came by his information. 11 It's not simply a simple statement the Practices Representative believed the informant. The broker&quots own sworn statement of his deals with the informant, when combined with one other details within the affidavit, were sufficient to justify the quots & magistrate finish concerning probable cause to issue the warrant. 12 Broker Roberts may have spelled out in more detail his acquaintances with the informant which caused him to conclude consistency and we would advocate better detail as time goes on. Nevertheless, as was explained in United States Of America v. Harris, 403 U.S. 573, 583, 91 S.Ct. 2075, 2082, 29 L.Ed.2d 723, 733 (1971),. . we decline to apply it [Spinelli v. Usa, supra] to prevent a magistrate from relying on a police officer&quots knowledge of a suspect&quots reputation.Counsel for the government has told that we show clearly the extent to which, if any, the opposition may impeach the research affidavit at a hearing on a motion to suppress under Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. That concern is not properly before the court and, consequently, we specifically decline review. 13 Accordingly, we conclude your decision of the District Court should really be, and the same hereby is, affirmed. * Honorable T. Blaine Anderson, United States Of America District Judge, District of Idaho, sitting by designation 1 I, Philip T. Roberts, being duly sworn depose and state: That I am an United States Customs Broker That on May 1st, 1971, at about 10:45 p. M., I obtained information from a confidential informant, whose prior information has proven appropriate, that three persons reached 852 3/4 Deborah and whom I have caused on previous occasions. Sanborn Ave., L A, California, on May 1st, 1971, and were in control of five suitcases where were produced approximately twenty (20) kilos of hashish The three persons were revealed by the confidential informant to be (1) Gary Crawford (2) a male matter known only as Thomas (3) and a lady known only as Florence The three persons told the confidential informant that the hashish had been obtained in Afg(h)anistan and transferred from Kabul to Teheran to Istanbul to Ceylon to Tokyo to Honolulu to Los-Angeles International Airport by them individually That the same Gary Crawford mentioned herein has on at least five previous occasions offered the confidential informant the opportunity to smuggle hashish from Afg(h)anistan or other nations into the Usa That the confidential informant has allowed the three individuals mentioned herein to settle themselves at his female companion&quots house (the female companion likewise being truly a confidential informant of the affiant) That 852 3/4 N. Sanborn Ave., La, California, is that they are in possession of the suitcases containing the contraband That 852 3/4 Deborah and where the three individuals mentioned herein are currently lodged. Sanborn Ave., La, California, will be the property of just one of the confidential informants That both confidential informants have been proven where in fact the contraband is and have smelled it That both confidential informants are familiar with hashish That in my opinion that within the suitcases described herein are about twenty kilos (20 kilos) of hashish which have been imported in to the United States Of America contrary to law The suitcases are described as (2) red suiters, (2) black suiters and (1) brown leather suiter

PLEASE beware of a guy calling himself JOHN LANDIS as Cynthia described, a guy going by BENJAMIN WHITEHEAD, and person going by TIMOTHY WOODS. All three of these guys claim to be civil engineers, claim to have moved to start out new lives, and claim to have lost their spouses in automobile accidents. They...