When In Doubt About the Cop Trying to Pull You Over, Drive to Safety or Call #77 or #677 on Your Cell Phone-Partly Truth!

eRumor
The story of a young college woman who was suspicious about an unmarked patrol car attempting to pull her over. She remembered her parents' advice to proceed to a safe or populated place before stopping and also contacted the authorities on her cell by by using #77. Other patrol cars were sent to her location, the person in the unmarked car was arrested and turned out to be a convicted rapist.
Some Canadian versions of the story say the number to call is #677.
eTruth
Whether this particular story is real, we don't know, but the information it conveys is apparently sound.

TruthOrFiction.com talked with law enforcement agencies on both the East and West Coasts. The consensus was that if you are suspicious about a patrol car wanting to pull you over, especially in an isolated area or at night, it's prudent to proceed to a place where would feel safer.

The problem is that the law says you are to obey an officer who says to pull over so if you do decide to continue, do so in a way that makes it clear you are not trying to evade him or her.

If you have a cell phone, call your local emergency number, usually 911, and you can be connected to a dispatcher who can help decide whether the car attempting to pull you over is legitimate.

Also, as happens in this eRumor, you can inform the dispatcher that it is your intention to comply, but only after you get to the next off ramp, gas station, populated areas, etc.

We've received numerous emails asking about the #77 procedure described in the eRumor.

Even though 911 is the most common number to use in an emergency, there are many states that have established other numbers as well for cell phone users, especially to report highway emergencies.

The #77 number is one of them. Some states use *77 or even #55.

The story that suggests using #677 is a Canadian version of this eRumor that inserted the numbers for reaching the Ontario Provincial Police in Ontario.

One of the reasons, according to a cell company we spoke with, is that the 911 calls from a cell phone go to different kinds of agencies depending on where the phone call is being made.

In some areas, dialing 911 on a cell phone may go to a city or county emergency dispatcher. In other areas, the call may go to a state highway law enforcement agency such as the highway patrol or state troopers.

In the states with the "77" numbers, cell phone users will usually get connected directly with a highway law enforcement agency.

For that reason, you will frequently see signs posted along some freeways, expressways, or toll ways suggesting use of a number other than 911 if you're using a cell phone.

A real example of the eRumor as it has appeared on the Internet:
I never even knew about this #77 feature!
This actually happened to one of my dearest
new friend's daughter.
Her daughter, Lauren, is 19yrs old and a
sophomore in college. This
happened to her over the Christmas/New Year's
holiday break. It was the
Saturday before New Year's and it was about 1PM in
the afternoon. Lauren
was driving from here, Winchester, to visit a
friend in Warrenton. For
those of you who are familiar with the area, she
was taking50 East towards
Middleburg and then was going to cut over to 66 via
17.Those of you who
aren't familiar with this area - 50 East is a main
road (55mph and two
lanes each side with a big median separating East
and West lanes), but is
somewhat secluded, meaning mostly residents along
the road, rather than
commercial businesses. Lauren was actually
following behind a state police
car shortly after she left Winchester and was going
just over 65mph since
she was following behind him.
An UNMARKED police car pulled up behind her
and put his lights on. My
friend and her husband have 4 children (highschool
and college age) and
have always told them never to pull over for an
unmarked car on the side of
the road, but rather wait until they get to a gas
station, etc. So Lauren
had actually listened to her parents advice, and
promptly called #77 on her
cell phone to tell the dispatcher that she would
not pull over right away.
She proceeded to tell the dispatcher that there
were 2 police cars, one
unmarked behind her and one marked in front of her.
The dispatcher checked
if there were 2 police cars where she was. There
wasn't and she was
connected to the policeman in front of her and he
told her to keep driving,
remain calm and that he had back-up already on the
way.Ten mins later 4
cop cars surrounded her and the unmarked car behind
her.One policeman went
to her side and the others surrounded the car
behind.They pulled the guy
from the car and tackled him to the
ground..........the man was a convicted
rapist and wanted for other crimes.
Thank God Lauren listened to her parents! She
was shaken up, but
fine. I never knew that bit of advice, but
especially for a woman alone in
a car, you should not pull over for an unmarked car
in a secluded area. In
fact, even a marked car after dark should follow
you to a populated area.
Apparently police have to respect your right to
keep going to
a"safe" place. You obviously need to make some
signals that you acknowledge
them (i.e. put on your hazard lights) or call #77
like Lauren did. I am so
thankful that my friend was just sitting at our
book club meeting telling
us this scary story, rather than us at her house
consoling her!
Be safe and pass this on to your friends.
Awareness is everything!

from:TruthOrFiction.com

Don't buy Gas from Petro Express Because It Belongs to Controversial Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez-Fiction!

eRumor:
The eRumor warns not to buy gas from Petro Express because it's just another name for Citgo, the oil company owned by Hugo Chavez, the controversial anti-American president of Venezuela.
eTruth:
It is not true that Petro Express is owned by Hugo Chavez or Venezuela. It is an American-owned company that has been headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina but was purchased in 2007 by The Pantry, a convenience store chain in the southeastern United States.

Petro Express sold Citgo gas in the past but phased it out.

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has drawn the ire of Americans for his open opposition to the United States. His most dramatic display was during a fiery speech before the United Nations in September of 2006 in which he called president Bush "the devil" and suggested that the United Nations should move elsewhere, perhaps Jerusalem.

Because of Chavez's hatred of the United States, many American motorists have called for a boycott of Citgo, was founded as an American company but is now owned by Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A., the national oil company of Venezuela.

A real example of the eRumor as it has appeared on the Internet:

I had to forward this, because Chavez is starting to feel the

loss of revenue from his holdings. He OWNS CITGO

This is a very important move that everyone should be aware.

ANNOUNCED JUST RECENTLY, CITGO, BEING AWARE THAT

SALES ARE DOWN DUE TO U.S.

(CUSTOMERS NOT WANTING TO BUY FROM "CHAVEZ"),

HAVE STARTED TO CHANGE

THE NAME OF SOME OF THEIR STORES, TO: "PETRO EXPRESS"

DO NOT BUY FROM "PETRO EXPRESS"

"PETRO EXPRESS" IS ALSO 100% OWNED BY "CHAVEZ"

KEEP THIS MEMO GOING SO EVERYONE KNOWS WHAT IS

HAPPENING.

Hugo Chavez insulted our president.

Hugo Chavez insulted our country.

Hugo Chavez insulted our military.

Hugo Chavez insulted our history.

He said we are a curse on the planet and that we endanger the very survival of humankind. He said that the countries of the world must unite against us.

He hates the United States and everything about us.

Except our money, of course. Our money makes him rich. And it gives him the power to spread anti-American hatred around the globe. His entire regime is built on American money.

So I think we should stop giving it to him.

I think it has become the patriotic duty of all Americans to avoid sending another dime into Hugo Chavez s particular Third World hellhole. He has called us his enemy. That makes him our enemy.

And we don t do business with our enemies.

We boycott them.

Remember this word: Citgo. That s the brand of gasoline you will never buy again. That s the brand of gasoline you will talk your friends into never buying again.

Because Citgo equals Chavez and Chavez equals hatred of America. And it s time for real Americans to stop buying Citgo.

Here s the background.

Hugo Chavez is the dictator of Venezuela. Venezuela would be just another crap-in-a-hole banana farm if it weren t for oil. Oil that is brought to the American market by the Venezuelan government through its subsidiary, Citgo gasoline.

The predecessor to Citgo was started in America by an American in 1910. It took the name Citgo in 1965, and was bought by Occidental Petroleum in 1982. Occidental was a company most noted for its ties to the Soviet Union and Al Gore s dad. Occidental turned around the next year and sold Citgo to the company that owns the 7-11 convenience stores.

So far, so good.

But it turned dirty in 1986 when the convenience store company sold half of Citgo to something called Petroleos de Venezuela. In 1990, Petroleos de Venezuela bought the other half and owned Citgo lock, stock and barrel.

What is Petroleos de Venezuela? It is the Venezuelan government. It is not a private company, it is a nationalized industry, much like the industries of Cuba, the Soviet Union and other communist countries.

So Citgo is Petroleos de Venezuela, and Petroleos de Venezuela is Venezuela, and Venezuela is Hugo Chavez, and Hugo Chavez is our enemy.

Therefore Citgo is our enemy.

And every dollar you spend on Citgo gasoline is a dollar that cuts America s throat. I m not saying that, Hugo Chavez is saying that. At the United Nations and at the conference of unaligned nations, Hugo Chavez said Venezuela would support and lead those nations that wanted to rise up against the United States.

That means he s going to bankroll the people who hate you and your country.

Or rather, that means he s going to use your gas money to bankroll the people who hate you and your country.

If you keep buying Citgo gasoline.

So let s draw the line. Let the Citgo boycott begin now. And let it end when Hugo Chavez is rotting in hell.

Anything less is first cousin to treason.

Some will complain that Americans distribute Citgo gasoline and will be hurt by a boycott. Others will say that Americans own and are employed by the convenience stores and gas stations that sell Citgo gasoline and that they also will be hurt by a boycott.

Tough luck.

I know many fine people who make their living from Citgo gasoline, and I will be sorry if this boycott hurts them. But I owe my country first, and must be loyal to it before I am loyal to my friends. There are other brands of gasoline, and I will gladly go back to familiar convenience stores and gas stations when they begin carrying a brand of gasoline that doesn t enrich a regime that threatens the safety and freedom of my children.

This isn t a Republican issue or a Democratic issue, this is an American issue. Hugo Chavez has gotten up and told us what he thinks of us. He has told us by his words and deeds that he hates us and that he wants to tear us down.

He is our enemy. And I will not give aid and comfort to the enemy.

I will not buy Citgo gasoline.

And you must not either.

Together we must tell as many people as we can. We must use the power of free speech and the power of the free market to kick this little tyrant where it counts.

We must change our habits if we are accustomed to buying Citgo gasoline. We must find new service stations and convenience stores. We must change our ways.

Or this man is going to bury us with our own money. He is going to use the wealth we give him to buy the knife that slits our throats and destroys our country.

Be an American, boycott Citgo.

from: truthorfiction.com

Columnist Maureen Dowd Says Obama's Internet Donations are Mostly From Foreign Sources-Fiction!

eRumor:
An alleged New York Times column by Maureen Dowd quotes Obama campaign sources as saying that Obama's record-breaking fund-raising on the Internet has been from foreigners, including Saudi Arabia, Iran, and China, and that the campaign is not paying attention to whether any donations violate the law.
eTruth:
This email is a hoax.

Dowd told Sam Stein of the Huffington Post that when she saw the email she "got to the second line and knew it wasn't me."

There were other clues that it was not authentic. The email claimed that it was a June 29 column In the New York Times by Dowd, but her column on that date was about Hillary Clinton supporters, not Barack Obama.

A real example of the eRumor as it has appeared on the Internet: Obama is raising campaign money handy over fist - Big Time!


This is incredible. No wonder Obama is being so generous in helping Hillary with her campaign debts. I am greatly surprised, almost shocked, that this liberal journalist would write this column. Doesn't she know she could be killed? She's brave!

By MAUREEN DOWD

Published: June 29, 2008

Go to Columnist Page »

OBAMA’S TROUBLING INTERNET FUND RAISING

Certainly the most interesting and potentially devastating phone call I have received during this election cycle came this week from one of the Obama’s campaign internet geeks. These are the staffers who devised Obama’s internet fund raising campaign which raised in the neighborhood of $200 million so far. That is more then twice the total funds raised by any candidate in history – and this was all from the internet campaign.

What I learned from this insider was shocking but I guess we shouldn’t be surprised that when it comes to fund raising there simply are no rules that can’t be broken and no ethics that prevail.

Obama’s internet campaign started out innocently enough with basic e-mail networking , lists saved from previous party campaigns and from supporters who visited any of the Obama campaign web sites.

Small contributions came in from these sources and the internet campaign staff were more than pleased by the results.

Then, about two months into the campaign the daily contribution intake multiplied. Where was it coming from? One of the web site security monitors began to notice the bulk of the contributions were clearly coming in from overseas internet service providers and at the rate and frequency of transmission it was clear these donations were “programmed” by a very sophisticated user.

While the security people were not able to track most of the sources due to firewalls and other blocking devices put on these contributions they were able to collate the number of contributions that were coming in seemingly from individuals but the funds were from only a few credit card accounts and bank electronic funds transfers. The internet service providers (ISP) they were able to trace were from Saudi Arabia , Iran , and other Middle Eastern countries. One of the banks used for fund transfers was also located in Saudi Arabia .

Another concentrated group of donations was traced to a Chinese ISP with a similar pattern of limited credit card charges.

It became clear that these donations were very likely coming from sources other than American voters. This was discussed at length within the campaign and the decision was made that none of these donations violated campaign financing laws.

It was also decided that it was not the responsibility of the campaign to audit these millions of contributions as to the actual source (specific credit card number or bank transfer account numbers) to insure that none of these internet contributors exceeded the legal maximum donation on a cumulative basis of many small donations. They also found the record keeping was not complete enough to do it anyway.

This is a shocking revelation.

We have been concerned about the legality of “bundling” contributions after the recent exposure of illegal bundlers but now it appears we may have an even greater problem.

I guess we should have been somewhat suspicious when the numbers started to come out. We were told (no proof offered) that the Obama internet contributions were from $10.00 to $25.00 or so.

If the $200,000,000 is right, and the average contribution was $15.00, that would mean over 13 million individuals made contributions? That would also be 13 million contributions would need to be processed. How did all that happen?

I believe the Obama campaign’s internet fund raising needs a serious, in depth investigation and audit. It also appears the whole question of internet fund raising needs investigation by the legislature and perhaps new laws to insure it complies not only with the letter of these laws but the spirit as well.

from:truthorfiction.com

Thirty Three U.S. Senators Voted Against Making English the Official Language of the United States-Truth! But Misleading!

eRumor:
The forwarded email is in the form of a letter from "Colonel Harry Riley USA ret" criticizing 33 Senators for voting against making English the official language of the U.S.
eTruth:
The vote was in May, 2006 in the United States Senate and was for The Comprehensive Immigration and Reform Act of 2007.

An amendment to the bill was added just days before the vote that would have declared English as the official language of the United States and, among other things, would mean that the government would not have to provide services in any language other than English. One of the purposes of the amendment was to "promote the patriotic integration of prospective U.S. citizens."

The bill was defeated by a vote of 61 to 34 with 4 not voting.

So it isn't accurate to say that the "no" votes of the Senators was about making English the official language of the United States. Their opposition could have been to other aspects of the legislation.

A real example of the eRumor as it has appeared on the Internet:

33 Senators Voted Against English as America's Official Language June 6, 2007
On Wed, 6 Jun 2007 23:35:23 -0500,

"Colonel Harry Riley USA ret" wrote:

Senators,

Your vote against an amendment to the Immigration Bill 1348, to make English America's official language is astounding. On D-Day no less when we honor those that sacrificed in order to secure the bedrock character and principles of America. I can only surmise your vote reflects a loyalty to illegal aliens.

I don't much care where you come from, what your religion is, whether you're black, white or some other color, male or female, democrat, republican or independent, but I do care when you're a United States Senator, representing citizens of America and vote against English as the official language of the United States.

Your vote reflects betrayal, political surrender, violates your pledge of allegiance, dishonors historical principle, rejects patriotism, borders on traitorous action and, in my opinion, makes you unfit to serve as a United States Senator... impeachment, recall, or other appropriate action is warranted.

Worse, 4 of you voting against English as America's official language are presidential candidates: Senator Biden, Senator Clinton, Senator Dodd, and Senator Obama.

Those 4 Senators vying to lead America but won't or don't have the courage to cast a vote in favor of English as America's official language when 91% of American citizens want English officially designated as our language.

This is the second time in the last several months this list of Senators have disgraced themselves as political hacks... unworthy as Senators and certainly unqualified to serve as President of the United States.

If America is as angry as I am, you will realize a back-lash so stunning it will literally rock you out of your panties... and preferably, totally out of the United States Senate.

The entire immigration bill is a farce... your action only confirms this really isn't about America; it's about self-serving politics... despicable at best.
"Never argue with an idiot; they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." ~ anonymous
The following senators voted against making English the official language of America:

Akaka (D-HI)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE) Wants to be President?
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Clinton (D-NY) Wants to be President?
Dayton (D-MN)
Dodd (D-CT) Wants to be President?
Domenici (R-NM) Coward, protecting his Senate seat...
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI) Not unusual for him
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA) Wanted to be President
Kohl (D-WI)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT) Disappointment here.....
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Obama (D-IL) Wants to be President?
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV) Senate Majority Leader
Salazar (D-CO)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Stabenow (D-M)
"Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale, and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled or hanged."
~ President Abraham Lincoln " Amen "