Reverse cell phone lookup

[sactoking]

I beseech the all-knowing ATOT for assistance. Long story short, my wife has an arbitration hearing next week with an ex-employer. Pursuant to the arbitration guidelines we have a copy of what they intend to enter as evidence, one item of which is an alleged telephone transcript of a phone call my wife received that just happens to be a complete fabrication. The transcript is hearsay but the rules of evidence are lax in arbitration, so we need to impugn the integrity of the witness. We have the phone number from which the phone call was allegedly made and we believe we can shw the witness is lying. The problem is the phone number is for a cell phone.

Are there any reliable ways to get a cell phone owner from a reverse lookup? I know that a general reverse lookup will not lead to results for a cell phone. Do any of the services that offer "background" type information have the ability to provide this info?

Cliffs:
Need to do a reverse lookup of a cell number
Not sure if it can be done

 

[Jeeebus]

What state do you live in? And do you know where the case originated?

 

[sactoking]

Nevada for both

 

[Pantoot]

Try tnid.us, it works for some cell numbers.

 

[corwin]

So they're allowing a transcript of a conversation but not saying who it was with? Can;t you call the person since you have the number?

 

[sactoking]

So they're allowing a transcript of a conversation but not saying who it was with? Can;t you call the person since you have the number?

The person they say it was with is where the lie is occurring. Additionally, the main party(ies) for the ex-employer are no longer employed there.

 

[Jeeebus]

Nevada for both

You may want to let the other side know that the transcript violates Nevada law and will possibly subject them to a felony charge and/or civil penalties. Nevada is one of the few states where you can't record/transcribe a conversation without both parties' consent.

NRS 200.620 Interception and attempted interception of wire communication prohibited; exceptions.

1. Except as otherwise provided in NRS 179.410 to 179.515, inclusive, 209.419 and 704.195, it is unlawful for any person to intercept or attempt to intercept any wire communication unless:

(a) The interception or attempted interception is made with the prior consent of one of the parties to the communication; and

(b) An emergency situation exists and it is impractical to obtain a court order as required by NRS 179.410 to 179.515, inclusive, before the interception, in which event the interception is subject to the requirements of subsection 3. If the application for ratification is denied, any use or disclosure of the information so intercepted is unlawful, and the person who made the interception shall notify the sender and the receiver of the communication that:

(1) The communication was intercepted; and

(2) Upon application to the court, ratification of the interception was denied.

2. This section does not apply to any person, or to the officers, employees or agents of any person, engaged in the business of providing service and facilities for wire communication where the interception or attempted interception is to construct, maintain, conduct or operate the service or facilities of that person.

3. Any person who has made an interception in an emergency situation as provided in paragraph (b) of subsection 1 shall, within 72 hours of the interception, make a written application to a justice of the Supreme Court or district judge for ratification of the interception. The interception must not be ratified unless the applicant shows that:

(a) An emergency situation existed and it was impractical to obtain a court order before the interception; and

(b) Except for the absence of a court order, the interception met the requirements of NRS 179.410 to 179.515, inclusive.

4. NRS 200.610 to 200.690, inclusive, do not prohibit the recording, and NRS 179.410 to 179.515, inclusive, do not prohibit the reception in evidence, of conversations on wire communications installed in the office of an official law enforcement or fire-fighting agency, or a public utility, if the equipment used for the recording is installed in a facility for wire communications or on a telephone with a number listed in a directory, on which emergency calls or requests by a person for response by the law enforcement or fire-fighting agency or public utility are likely to be received. In addition, those sections do not prohibit the recording or reception in evidence of conversations initiated by the law enforcement or fire-fighting agency or public utility from such a facility or telephone in connection with responding to the original call or request, if the agency or public utility informs the other party that the conversation is being recorded.

(Added to NRS by 1957, 334; A 1973, 1748; 1975, 747; 1983, 120, 681; 1989, 659)

NRS 200.630 Disclosure of existence, content or substance of wire or radio communication prohibited; exceptions.

1. Except as otherwise provided in NRS 179.410 to 179.515, inclusive, and 704.195, a person shall not disclose the existence, content, substance, purport, effect or meaning of any wire or radio communication to any person unless authorized to do so by either the sender or receiver.

2. This section does not apply to any person, or the officers, employees or agents of any person, engaged in furnishing service or facilities for wire or radio communication where the disclosure is made:

(a) For the purpose of construction, maintenance, conduct or operation of the service or facilities of such a person;

(b) To the intended receiver or his or her agent or attorney;

(c) In response to a subpoena issued by a court of competent jurisdiction; or

(d) On written demand of other lawful authority.

(Added to NRS by 1957, 334; A 1973, 1749; 1989, 660)

NRS 200.690 Penalties.

1. A person who willfully and knowingly violates NRS 200.620 to 200.650, inclusive:

(a) Shall be punished for a category D felony as provided in NRS 193.130.

(b) Is liable to a person whose wire or oral communication is intercepted without his or her consent for:

(1) Actual damages or liquidated damages of $100 per day of violation but not less than $1,000, whichever is greater;

(2) Punitive damages; and

(3) His or her costs reasonably incurred in the action, including a reasonable attorney’s fee,

Ê all of which may be recovered by civil action.

2. A good faith reliance by a public utility on a written request for interception by one party to a conversation is a complete defense to any civil or criminal action brought against the public utility on account of the interception.

(Added to NRS by 1957, 336; A 1967, 474; 1973, 1749; 1995, 1195)

 

[sactoking]

You may want to let the other side know that the transcript violates Nevada law and will possibly subject them to a felony charge and/or civil penalties. Nevada is one of the few states where you can't record/transcribe a conversation without both parties' consent.

Thanks, but I think my use of "transcribe/transcription" was improper. Basically what happened is my wife received a call from someone and had a very short conversation. Allegedly the person who called her then turned around and described the conversation to a third party. The third party's notes are what's being admitted as evidence. It's grossly inappropriate but in arbitration the rules are very lax.

Where we come in is the story doesn't hold water. We know the third party lied about who called and about the contents of the coversation. It's very difficult to prove the lie about the contents of the conversation since it's he said-she said but if we can prove the lie about who called then the third party's integrity can be questioned and the scales are tipped in my wife's favor.

 

[Jeeebus]

doesn't really matter how lax the arbitration rules are - those notes should not be considered absent the person who wrote them being there.

What is the dollar figure at stake here? Enough to make the arbitrator actually treat this seriously?

 

[sactoking]

Ehh, it's enough at stake to be important to us but in the grand scheme of things it's "only" several thousand dollars (<$10,000) so not enough to be big-time.

 

[sactoking]

Well, I bit the bullet and spent $5 on a reverse cell lookup and it was worthless. Oh well.

 

[edro]

What ever happened in this case?

We need an update, thanks to the spammer.

Spam removed.
admin allisolm

 

[sactoking]

I spent $5 on the reverse lookup, it was worthless, but I totally owned the other representative on the veracity of the transcript and "won" the arbitration.

 

[rsutoratosu]

nice, so those reverse cell lookup are garbage.. always had a feeling.. wasn't 100% sure..