Linkedin profile of former cruise employee

“Lead- Claims and Litigation Investigations, Risk Managment

Sep 2018 – Jan 2022 3 years 5 months

Miami/Fort Lauderdale Area

Support the claims and litigation team in conducting investigations onboard or ashore. Provide support to the in house attorneys by assisting in responding to discovery requests and vessel/site inspections. Assist the claims team by investigating claimants, coordinating SURVEILLANCE and assisting with claim files. “

This surveillance can be very covert but it is possible to set “traps” to catch the spy and expose this surveillance such as planting things like Coleen Rooney. Caroline Fanning Solicitors have also successfully set such “traps”.


Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights, reads as follows:

Article 8

“1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private … life, ….

2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”


R.E. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM – 62498/11 (Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) : Court (Fourth Section)) [2015] ECHR 947 (27 October 2015)

” 131.  The present case concerns the surveillance of legal consultations taking place in a police station, which the Court considers to be analogous to the interception of a telephone call between a lawyer and client. The Court has recognised that, while Article 8 protects the confidentiality of all correspondence between individuals, it will afford “STRENGTHENED PROTECTION” to exchanges between lawyers and their clients, as lawyers would be unable to defend their clients if they were unable to guarantee that their exchanges would remain confidential (Michaud v. France, no. 12323/11, § 118, ECHR 2012). The Court therefore considers that the surveillance of a legal consultation constitutes an EXTREMELY HIGH DEGREE OF INTRUSION into a person’s right to respect for his or her private life and correspondence; higher than the degree of intrusion in Uzun and even in Bykov. Consequently, in such cases it will expect the same safeguards to be in place to protect individuals from arbitrary interference with their Article 8 rights as it has required in cases concerning the interception of communications, at least insofar as those principles can be applied to the form of surveillance in question. “