Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Using and Choosing Data Providers

Expand Messages
  • t_knapke31
    Acquiring data to work a case or locate a person is critical for a process serving and investigative business. There is a lot of data that can be found in free
    Message 1 of 17 , Jun 15, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Acquiring data to work a case or locate a person is critical for a
      process serving and investigative business. There is a lot of data that
      can be found in free public records databases but when it comes to
      getting more sensitive data you may need to turn to an established data
      broker. Please click the link below to read the entire article on data
      providers.

      Using and Choosing Data Providers
      <http://www.pinow.com/news/2007/06/11/using-and-choosing-data-providers/\
      >

      What are your thoughts? The ServeNow.com and PInow.com team would like
      to give you the opportunity to provide your input and experience with
      data providers. Please feel free to leave your comments just below the
      article on the PInow.com page.


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • suesarkis@aol.com
      In a message dated 6/15/2007 8:07:29 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, tknapke@serve-now.com writes: Acquiring data to work a case or locate a person is critical for
      Message 2 of 17 , Jun 15, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        In a message dated 6/15/2007 8:07:29 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
        tknapke@... writes:

        Acquiring data to work a case or locate a person is critical for a
        process serving and investigative business. There is a lot of data that
        can be found in free public records databases but when it comes to
        getting more sensitive data you may need to turn to an established data
        broker. Please click the link below to read the entire article on data
        providers.



        Although you are so correct, I wish to chime in since erroneous and harmful
        information is being broadcast on other lists reflecting on a post written by
        Mike Dores (Merlin) in 1999.

        Process servers are in violation of the laws of many, if not most, states,
        if they subscribe to an established database whereby they pay a fee such as
        IRB, Merlin, LocatePlus, etc. Those databases are not databases of PUBLIC
        records. They are a combination of public and private records and since process
        servers, at least here in CA, are only allowed to conduct locates from public
        records, many, I fear, are treading in dangerous territory. They are
        potentially leaving themselves wide open for a civil lawsuit in any case whereby
        the service is quashed post "due diligence report".

        If anyone knew the late Dick Green, one of the founding fathers of CAPPS, he
        was nailed by BSIS (then known by another name) when Fagan was the Chief.
        Although we didn't have databases back then, shoot we didn't even have
        computers, he was accessing the information via a "telex machine" installed in his
        offices by TRW. His fine exceeded $100,000 as the ALJ fined for each service
        as a separate offense. He was a longtime friend of mine and there was
        nothing I could do to help him. I truly tried.




        Sincerely yours,
        Sue
        ________________________
        Sue Sarkis
        Sarkis Detective Agency
        (est. 1976)
        PI 6564
        _www.sarkispi.com_ (http://www.sarkispi.com/)


        1346 Ethel Street
        Glendale, CA 91207-1826
        818-242-2505
        818-242-9824 FAX

        "one Nation under God"

        If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you can read it in English, thank
        a military veteran !



        ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • RanchoAttySvc@aol.com
        To add to Sue s post and expand on the practice of Registered Process Servers claiming exemption from Licensing as a Private Investigator for the purpose of
        Message 3 of 17 , Jun 15, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          To add to Sue's post and expand on the practice of Registered Process
          Servers claiming exemption from Licensing as a Private Investigator for the purpose
          of serving process, I'm pasting my response made regarding the same thing on
          another group:


          Regarding the California B&P Code, there IS an exemption for a process
          server in the "act of serving process". I held off on getting my PI license also
          erroneously believing that, as an RPS, I was exempt if I was asking
          questions, locating, staking out, etc in order to serve process. The problem arose
          when I was asked to document my efforts to locate, and under the B&P, that was
          not allowed unless I limited the "report" or "declaration of diligence" to
          which public records I researched. I could provide a proof of service showing
          the address where the subject was served. Beyond that, no report was allowed
          and how I found the address was knowledge that I alone could have. And
          statements by neighbors as to the defendant's whereabouts, movements, habits,
          employment (if obtained from other than a public record) would have violated the
          law and possibly subjected me to criminal charges.

          In disbelief, I called the BSIS (Bureau of Security and Investigative
          Services) and spoke to Claudette and another whose name escapes me. Both
          confirmed that any report as to my methods, findings, etc. would be a violation of
          the code and therefore, illegal.

          So I got my license. I've got better things to do than defend civil or
          criminal matters.

          May I suggest that we quit trying to interpret, bend, and otherwise maneuver
          the laws to suit our own individual circumstance and get the information
          directly from the appropriate licensing bureaus as to their requirements?? Or
          lobby to amend the law to specify what an RPS CAN or CANNOT do without
          violating the code? We got the law amended to remove the requirement to check the
          DMV in order to complete diligence when that resource was locked down.
          Obviously the laws are too "loosey goosey" now or we wouldn't have this thread
          going.


          _ "RASCAL" - Your friendly neighborhood Process Server_
          (http://www.ranchoattorneyservice.com/)

          Michele Dawn, RPS 117 & CA PI 24790
          Rancho Attorney Service of California &
          RASCAL's Research & Location Services
          28465 Old Town Front St, Suite 318
          Temecula, CA 92590
          (951) 693-0165 or fax (951) 693-4056
          CAPPS NAPPS NCISS CAJP
          Specializing in defendant/witness location and
          Successful service of process worldwide since 1977



          ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Ricky Gurley
          ... process ... PI license also ... asking ... The problem arose ... B&P, that was ... diligence to ... service showing ... was allowed ... have. And ...
          Message 4 of 17 , Jun 15, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com, RanchoAttySvc@... wrote:

            > Regarding the California B&P Code, there IS an exemption for a
            process
            > server in the "act of serving process". I held off on getting my
            PI license also
            > erroneously believing that, as an RPS, I was exempt if I was
            asking
            > questions, locating, staking out, etc in order to serve process.
            The problem arose
            > when I was asked to document my efforts to locate, and under the
            B&P, that was
            > not allowed unless I limited the "report" or "declaration of
            diligence" to
            > which public records I researched. I could provide a proof of
            service showing
            > the address where the subject was served. Beyond that, no report
            was allowed
            > and how I found the address was knowledge that I alone could
            have. And
            > statements by neighbors as to the defendant's whereabouts,
            movements, habits,
            > employment (if obtained from other than a public record) would
            have violated the
            > law and possibly subjected me to criminal charges.
            >
            > In disbelief, I called the BSIS (Bureau of Security and
            Investigative
            > Services) and spoke to Claudette and another whose name escapes
            me. Both
            > confirmed that any report as to my methods, findings, etc. would
            be a violation of
            > the code and therefore, illegal.
            >
            > So I got my license. I've got better things to do than defend
            civil or
            > criminal matters.
            >
            > May I suggest that we quit trying to interpret, bend, and
            otherwise maneuver
            > the laws to suit our own individual circumstance and get the
            information
            > directly from the appropriate licensing bureaus as to their
            requirements?? Or
            > lobby to amend the law to specify what an RPS CAN or CANNOT do
            without
            > violating the code? We got the law amended to remove the
            requirement to check the
            > DMV in order to complete diligence when that resource was locked
            down.
            > Obviously the laws are too "loosey goosey" now or we wouldn't have
            this thread
            > going.

            I'd buy all of this from you and Sue both if it were not wrought with
            so many "holes' and "what ifs", and I do not believe for a minute the
            state of California would put such legislation into effect to be
            interpreted the way some of you are interpreting it..

            Often times people will accuse others of trying to bend or manipulate
            certain laws only because they don't quite understand the laws they
            are accusing others of trying to bend or manipulate....

            First of all, if a Process Server were charged or sued for whatever
            the crime might be (not using public records to serve a subpoena?
            using a database provider to serve a subpoena? misdemeanor due
            diligence in trying to serve a subpoena?), the burden of proof to
            show that the person serving the subpoena used records other than
            public records would be on the state. I just don't believe the state
            of California is silly enough to try to spend the money prosecuting a
            case like this, which could become complex, for a misdemeanor
            conviction. But..... That is not to say that a state known as "The
            Land Of Fruits and Nuts" would NOT do such a thing....

            This means that if some Process Server used IRB to serve a subpoena
            on someone, and the state wanted to make an issue out of it, the
            state would have to first ascertain how the Process Server got the
            information in question, if it turned out to be through a data
            provider, then show who that data provider is, and then lastly prove
            that the individual record that was used to serve the subpoenas or
            that bought about the concern for from where the information came was
            in fact a private record and not a public record.

            I don't have time to get charged or sued either.. I don't think that
            anyone here does. However, if you are going to worry about getting
            sued or criminally charged this much, then build a panic room in your
            house and lock yourself in it forever, because you have more of a
            chance of getting hit by a car or robbed in your own home than you do
            of getting sued...

            But while we are talking about being charged, let me throw a scenario
            out at you. I live in an apartment complex in California. I step
            outside of my door into the hall. I see a man shoot another man in
            the chest and take off running. I follow, and I get outside and see
            him go into the next building. I go to the next building and see a
            person coming out of their apartment, and I stop and ask if they saw
            a person wearing this and that go by. That person says "Yes, he went
            in apartment 516". I call the Police. They arrest the man in 516 who
            fits the description of the man Is aw do the shooting. I have to give
            a statement. I have to testify at the murder trial. Do I have to get
            my P.I. License now to give my statement, or to testify at the murder
            trial? I did not see an exemption of this in the code you quoted.
            Would Claudette tell me I'd be breaking the law if I testified to
            asking someone in the next building if they saw the suspect in court,
            or if I put it in my report that I asked a person if they saw the
            suspect run by? So, what's up Michele? Does the BSIS Code you quoted
            apply here also? And if not; why not, I did not see ANY exemption for
            it?

            Sue Says:
            "If anyone knew the late Dick Green, one of the founding fathers of
            CAPPS, he was nailed by BSIS (then known by another name) when Fagan
            was the Chief. Although we didn't have databases back then, shoot we
            didn't even have computers, he was accessing the information via
            a "telex machine" installed in his offices by TRW. His fine exceeded
            $100,000 as the ALJ fined for each service as a separate offense. He
            was a longtime friend of mine and there was nothing I could do to
            help him. I truly tried."

            Yeah, I'll bet he did get "socked"! What was he accessing, tell us
            that Sue? Because I happen to know that one of the things that TRW is
            (or at least was), is or was a credit reporting agency. If he was
            accessing people's credit information without the appropriate
            authorization, then he deserved the fine, and he was not fined for
            violating any failure to comply with a statute that indicates you can
            only use public records in a given, state regulated profession, he
            was fined for accessing people's credit information without
            authorization, IF, and Sue I said IF, he was using TRW to access
            people's credit information without proper authorization.

            Are Process Servers really in violation of the law if they subscribe
            to IRB, Merlin, or LocatePlus as Sue says here:

            "Process servers are in violation of the laws of many, if not most,
            states,if they subscribe to an established database whereby they pay
            a fee such as IRB, Merlin, LocatePlus, etc."

            I think not, I'd say the can subscribe all they want to subscribe,
            and if these data providers choose to allow them a subscription, they
            are still fine and legal. There is nothing at all illegal about
            having an account with these providers, for ANYONE that the providers
            will allow accessÂ… Perhaps there ARE legal and ILLEGAL ways to use
            the service, but subscription alone does not warrant any concerns
            over criminal or civil culpability or constitute any civil or
            criminal action initiated by the state of California. Could someone
            show me where it is illegal in any state, anywhere in the USA for a
            person to just have an account with IRB?

            For the record, Mike Dores is NOT correct in his statement, and the
            information he gives could get you into trouble. Mike Dores is
            advocating that the Process Server provide a separate service that
            falls under the prescribed duties of a Private Investigator. YES!
            This could get a person in California charged with a misdemeanor
            criminal offense,a nd quite possibly sued. In my posts; I am trying
            to clarify the difference here between a Process Server that is
            trying to diligently do their work and complete their assignment at
            their standard rates, and a Process Server that is taking Mike Dores
            recommendation.

            This "hokey advice" about knocking on a neigbor's door to try to
            serve your papers, or using a database to try to perform your
            research before you go to the field being illegal without a P.I.
            License is just more B.S. from the "I am licensed so I am holier than
            thou crowd".. And I hate to say that, because I am licensed also, but
            Jesus H. Christ! I'd never try to convince anyone of the "crap" that
            I have seen some people try to convince certain Process Servers of in
            this thread.



            Rick.



            Risk Management Research & Investments, Inc.
            http://www.rmriinc.com
            2101 W. Broadway PMB 326, Columbia, MO. 65203

            Phone: (888) 571-0958 Fax: (877) 795-9800 Cell Phone: (573) 529-0808

            "He Who Forgets, Will Be Destined To Remember"
          • suesarkis@aol.com
            Rick - I would hope that you are right about the State not wasting money on stuff like this. However, back around 30 years ago a very dear friend of mine did
            Message 5 of 17 , Jun 16, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              Rick -

              I would hope that you are right about the State not wasting money on stuff
              like this. However, back around 30 years ago a very dear friend of mine did
              get nailed and he was one of the founding members of CAPPS, I do believe. If
              not CAPPS, then one of the organizations that combined to form CAPPS or
              something like that. I was his defense investigator and I learned a heck of a
              lot. To be fined in excess of 100k around 30 years ago was a lot but they got
              him for every crossover in his files. (Oops, I already mentioned Dick
              Green's plight to this group).

              However, that was an exceptional case and not the norm and NO, I wouldn't
              expect them to prosecute. What you routinely seem to fail to recognize though
              is the potential impact on the client's case if the opposing counsel and/or
              investigator is a little smarter than the average bear.

              However, the analogy you threw out is the most irresponsible, asinine piece
              of dung I've seen thrown out in a mighty long time on any of these lists and
              even you should know better. For starters, the laws in all 50 states, I do
              believe, allow citizen's arrests for felons which includes the ability to
              chase, pursue, apprehend, and arrest. Where the laws change and the new ballgame
              starts is when you start charging for said services.

              Any person can interview whoever they want and photograph accident scenes
              all they want without a PI license as long as they are not charging any fees.
              And, yep, they'd even be eligible to testify. As the code says, "...who,
              for any consideration whatsoever engages in business or accepts employment to
              furnish or agrees to furnish ...".

              No, Rick, Dick Green was not accessing credit reports. He had the same
              machine I did with the same kind of account. We were provided nothing but the
              credit headers which included all names associated with the SSN, LNA, DBA,
              spouse and last known employer. They were bigger than a small desk and noisier
              than all get up and go. You may think you know what TRW was giving us but
              obviously you don't !!!

              The owner of one of the databases you mentioned is fully aware of the laws
              and that process servers are not supposed to have access from some states.
              However, as he once stated to me, "the other companies allow them, so must I.
              It's a matter of survival".

              The article that was being discussed which was written by Mike Dores was
              written back in the late '90's. He's already been punished for that one enough.
              Trust me, I got on his case. Leave him alone.

              No, Rick, for those of us who are TRULY licensed whereby we had to take a
              State issued exam and we pay State fees outside the local business permit fees
              and the like do not believe we are holier than thou. What some of us attempt
              to do though, is just give what we believe to be "food for thought" so that
              our colleagues are at least aware. It is not legal advice but rather "watch
              your back" advice. If nothing else, it suggests what NOT to put in a written
              report.


              Sincerely yours,
              Sue
              ________________________
              Sue Sarkis
              Sarkis Detective Agency


              (est. 1976)
              PI 6564
              _www.sarkispi.com_ (http://www.sarkispi.com/)

              1346 Ethel Street
              Glendale, CA 91207-1826
              818-242-2505
              818-242-9824 FAX

              "one Nation under God"

              If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you can read it in English, thank
              a military veteran !



              ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Ricky Gurley
              ... take a ... permit fees ... us attempt ... thought so that ... rather watch ... in a written ... Well, to start this on a pleasant note, when you posted
              Message 6 of 17 , Jun 16, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com, suesarkis@... wrote:

                > No, Rick, for those of us who are TRULY licensed whereby we had to
                take a
                > State issued exam and we pay State fees outside the local business
                permit fees
                > and the like do not believe we are holier than thou. What some of
                us attempt
                > to do though, is just give what we believe to be "food for
                thought" so that
                > our colleagues are at least aware. It is not legal advice but
                rather "watch
                > your back" advice. If nothing else, it suggests what NOT to put
                in a written
                > report.


                Well, to start this on a pleasant note, when you posted this "Typical
                Sue Sarkis Post", I was watching some videos on the French Foreign
                Legion. MASSIVE respect for those guys. MASSIVE RESPECT!

                And to move onto an observation of mine, based on your final
                paragraph, you must have just gotten back from one of your California
                Underachieving Nitwit TwitS meetings; in which there must have been
                some kind of a pep rally for "TRULEY Licensed P.I.s"....

                I am sorry that you view P.I. Licenses as different in that some
                people who hold licenses from certain states are "TRULEY Licensed"
                and some from other states who hold municipal licenses are not. But,
                the license does not make one person a good P.I. and another person
                not, it is solely dependant upon the person's skill set. I suppose
                that this never occurred to you.

                As for Mike Dores, I am not criticizing him at all, nor am I "messing
                with him", I am (AS I PREVIOUSLY STATED), simply clarifying the
                difference between the implications of his article and the difference
                in that and a Process Server trying to diligently perform his or her
                duties.

                What you seem to miss is that this is actually a "carry over post"
                from another group. This topic actually bled over from ServeNow, and
                this is where I was following up. Maybe you are not on that group? No
                surprise there......

                As for my asinine observation that you so eloquently quoted
                as "dung", that was for the people that want to strictly quote the
                letter of the law without making any considerations for the spirit of
                the law or the intent of the law that they are quoting.



                Rick.
              • Thomas Eskridge
                If nothing else, it suggests what NOT to put in a written ... It sounds like the TRULY LICENSED people omit facts---kinda of a way of saying they lie Now if I
                Message 7 of 17 , Jun 16, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  If nothing else, it suggests what NOT to put
                  in a written
                  > report.



                  It sounds like the TRULY LICENSED people omit facts---kinda of a way of
                  saying they lie



                  Now if I missed the beginning of this thread and the info
                  omitted is opinions, guesses, or other non factual information I would agree
                  with sue



                  Damn Rick, now that I figured that out for you maybe you'll become a better
                  investigator!





                  Tom Eskridge, Chief Operations Officer

                  High Tech Crime Institute

                  28100 US Hwy 19 N, suite 204

                  Clearwater Florida 33761

                  727-499-7215

                  888-300-9789

                  www.gohtci.com



                  _____

                  From: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com [mailto:infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com]
                  On Behalf Of Ricky Gurley
                  Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2007 5:05 AM
                  To: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: [infoguys-list] Re: Using and Choosing Data Providers



                  --- In infoguys-list@ <mailto:infoguys-list%40yahoogroups.com>
                  yahoogroups.com, suesarkis@... wrote:

                  > No, Rick, for those of us who are TRULY licensed whereby we had to
                  take a
                  > State issued exam and we pay State fees outside the local business
                  permit fees
                  > and the like do not believe we are holier than thou. What some of
                  us attempt
                  > to do though, is just give what we believe to be "food for
                  thought" so that
                  > our colleagues are at least aware. It is not legal advice but
                  rather "watch
                  > your back" advice. If nothing else, it suggests what NOT to put
                  in a written
                  > report.

                  Well, to start this on a pleasant note, when you posted this "Typical
                  Sue Sarkis Post", I was watching some videos on the French Foreign
                  Legion. MASSIVE respect for those guys. MASSIVE RESPECT!

                  And to move onto an observation of mine, based on your final
                  paragraph, you must have just gotten back from one of your California
                  Underachieving Nitwit TwitS meetings; in which there must have been
                  some kind of a pep rally for "TRULEY Licensed P.I.s"....

                  I am sorry that you view P.I. Licenses as different in that some
                  people who hold licenses from certain states are "TRULEY Licensed"
                  and some from other states who hold municipal licenses are not. But,
                  the license does not make one person a good P.I. and another person
                  not, it is solely dependant upon the person's skill set. I suppose
                  that this never occurred to you.

                  As for Mike Dores, I am not criticizing him at all, nor am I "messing
                  with him", I am (AS I PREVIOUSLY STATED), simply clarifying the
                  difference between the implications of his article and the difference
                  in that and a Process Server trying to diligently perform his or her
                  duties.

                  What you seem to miss is that this is actually a "carry over post"
                  from another group. This topic actually bled over from ServeNow, and
                  this is where I was following up. Maybe you are not on that group? No
                  surprise there......

                  As for my asinine observation that you so eloquently quoted
                  as "dung", that was for the people that want to strictly quote the
                  letter of the law without making any considerations for the spirit of
                  the law or the intent of the law that they are quoting.

                  Rick.





                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Ricky Gurley
                  ... of ... I will take some courses on how to omit facts from my reports... Thanks for helping me to decide which continuing education courses might benefit me
                  Message 8 of 17 , Jun 16, 2007
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com, "Thomas Eskridge" <TOM@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > If nothing else, it suggests what NOT to put
                    > in a written
                    > > report.
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > It sounds like the TRULY LICENSED people omit facts---kinda of a way
                    of
                    > saying they lie

                    I will take some courses on how to omit facts from my reports... Thanks
                    for helping me to decide which continuing education courses might
                    benefit me best, Tom... ;o)


                    Rick.
                  • Rus B Robison
                    A major consideration on what to put into your report is whether or not the report is subject to discovery by opposing counsel. If your report is discoverable,
                    Message 9 of 17 , Jun 16, 2007
                    • 0 Attachment
                      A major consideration on what to put into your report is whether or not the
                      report is subject to discovery by opposing counsel. If your report is
                      discoverable, keep it plain vanilla. Make a verbal report to the lawyer that
                      hired you on any issues you question and let him decide each issue on a
                      case-by-case basis on what is exculpatory or not.



                      If your report qualifies as "attorney work product" where you discuss case
                      strategies, give opinions etc., then you have less to worry about. Always
                      discuss any issues you have with your client before making a questionable
                      report.



                      With kindest regards, I remain...



                      The Robison Companies, LLC

                      Private Investigators



                      Rus B. Robison

                      General Manager



                      Voice (405) 721-2295



                      rbr@...





                      Oklahoma's FIRST State-Licensed Private Investigation Agency.





                      __



                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • suesarkis@aol.com
                      In a message dated 6/16/2007 6:27:02 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, TOM@GOHTCI.COM writes: It sounds like the TRULY LICENSED people omit facts---kinda of a way
                      Message 10 of 17 , Jun 16, 2007
                      • 0 Attachment
                        In a message dated 6/16/2007 6:27:02 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
                        TOM@... writes:

                        It sounds like the TRULY LICENSED people omit facts---kinda of a way of
                        saying they lie

                        Now if I missed the beginning of this thread and the info
                        omitted is opinions, guesses, or other non factual information I would agree
                        with sue



                        Tom -

                        What I was referring to for the non-PI's only was in the states where it
                        matters, if I were them I would consider writing something like, "...during the
                        course of the attempted serve it was learned that they moved to Boston. A
                        forwarding order request at the local post office revealed ...." as opposed to
                        "...during the course of the attempted service, the house was boarded up. I
                        canvassed the neighborhood for hours only to find that they had moved to
                        Boston. A forwarding order request at the local post office revealed ....".

                        That is neither a direct lie nor is it a lie by omission. I would NEVER
                        suggest that anyone lie in their reports.



                        Sincerely yours,
                        Sue
                        ________________________
                        Sue Sarkis
                        Sarkis Detective Agency


                        (est. 1976)
                        PI 6564
                        _www.sarkispi.com_ (http://www.sarkispi.com/)

                        1346 Ethel Street
                        Glendale, CA 91207-1826
                        818-242-2505
                        818-242-9824 FAX

                        "one Nation under God"

                        If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you can read it in English, thank
                        a military veteran !



                        ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com


                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • Ricky Gurley
                        ... where it ... like, ...during the ... Boston. A ... as opposed to ... boarded up. I ... moved to ... revealed .... . ... NEVER ... Tom, I think what Sue
                        Message 11 of 17 , Jun 16, 2007
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- In infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com, suesarkis@... wrote:

                          > Tom -
                          >
                          > What I was referring to for the non-PI's only was in the states
                          where it
                          > matters, if I were them I would consider writing something
                          like, "...during the
                          > course of the attempted serve it was learned that they moved to
                          Boston. A
                          > forwarding order request at the local post office revealed ...."
                          as opposed to
                          > "...during the course of the attempted service, the house was
                          boarded up. I
                          > canvassed the neighborhood for hours only to find that they had
                          moved to
                          > Boston. A forwarding order request at the local post office
                          revealed ....".
                          >
                          > That is neither a direct lie nor is it a lie by omission. I would
                          NEVER
                          > suggest that anyone lie in their reports.


                          Tom, I think what Sue is saying here is that the Process Server
                          should try to lie to the court in their report and indicate that they
                          were not doing anything that may be construed as what is defined in
                          California as the functions of a Private Investigator.

                          I also think that you open up a good area of conversation here with
                          your post; Tom. I think that when one thinks a little about your
                          post, one can come to the conclusion that a Private Investigator
                          (especially a "TRULY Licensed Private Investigator") or a Process
                          Server should not do anything that they could not put in a report for
                          fear of implicating their self in something illegal and/or unethical
                          (Russ, that statement takes into account your post with regard to
                          there being times that it may not be "strategically wise" to put
                          certain information in a report, or to even write a report in some
                          instances).

                          And to expound further, this is the gist of my postings which seemed
                          to be lost on some people. Quite simply, if a Process Server chooses
                          to knock on a the subject of the serve's neighbor's door; and ask
                          about the subject of the serve, the Process Server should feel free
                          to put that in his or her report, and not feel like he or she has to
                          hire a P.I. to knock on the neighbor's door at a cost of $100.00/Hr.
                          ("TRULY Licensed Private Investigators" may charge more) to perform a
                          service that he or she will charge approximately $75.00 total for.
                          And the Process Server might write something to the effect of "After
                          several attempts to serve this subject at this address with no
                          success I conducted some field research and made a general inquiry
                          (could be replaced with "and I asked the neighbor whether or not "Joe
                          Schmuck" still lived next door") with the subject's neighbor as to
                          whether or not the subject has been seen at this address lately in
                          the interest of trying to diligently complete this serve". I am quite
                          sure that this statement pretty well explains that the Process Server
                          was simply trying to do his or her job, and not take on the role of a
                          Private Investigator (and heaven forbid the Process Server be
                          misconstrued as taking on the role of a "TRULY Licensed Private
                          Investigator"); especially if the Process Server is charging a
                          standard flat rate fee for their service. Furthermore it is truthful,
                          it demonstrates that the Process Server has made a reasonable attempt
                          to perform their duties, and it gives the court reason to permit
                          alternate methods of service if it so chooses.

                          Further expounding on this thread; I'd like to reiterate that any
                          Process Server here that has been "scared" into believing that if you
                          live in California and are not a Licensed Private Investigator
                          ("TRULY Licensed"; that is), that you can not legally have an account
                          with a database vendor, to put that fear aside. You can have all of
                          the accounts you want to have. Having the account in and of itself is
                          not illegal; it is how you use the account that may get you into
                          trouble, if you so choose to abuse your access. In other words,
                          Private Investigators do NOT have a "lock" on subscription based
                          database accounts as you might have been led to believe (and YES,
                          that applies to "TRULY Licensed Private Investigators", also)....

                          Process Server's in California, do yourself a favor, do the research
                          for yourself, and don't let someone try to convince you that because
                          they are a Licensed Private Investigator (Or rather a "TRULY Licensed
                          Private Investigator"), that you can not perform the functions of
                          your job without paying them to assist you..



                          Rick.
                        • david jones
                          Facts are facts no matter how they are obtained. There is no sense in disclosing trade secrets. ... of ... I will take some courses on how to omit facts from
                          Message 12 of 17 , Jun 16, 2007
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Facts are facts no matter how they are obtained. There is no sense in disclosing trade secrets.

                            Ricky Gurley <rmriinc@...> wrote: --- In infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com, "Thomas Eskridge" <TOM@...> wrote:
                            >
                            > If nothing else, it suggests what NOT to put
                            > in a written
                            > > report.
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > It sounds like the TRULY LICENSED people omit facts---kinda of a way
                            of
                            > saying they lie

                            I will take some courses on how to omit facts from my reports... Thanks
                            for helping me to decide which continuing education courses might
                            benefit me best, Tom... ;o)

                            Rick.






                            ---------------------------------
                            8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time
                            with theYahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut.

                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • david jones
                            All investigation work should be objective, this is not an audit. If someone were able to get a court to request the information that you found no matter how
                            Message 13 of 17 , Jun 16, 2007
                            • 0 Attachment
                              All investigation work should be objective, this is not an audit. If someone were able to get a court to request the information that you found no matter how it was found and its the same information, that is key. You do not have to explain how you know the information, but you better be damn sure its accurate.

                              Rus B Robison <rbr007@...> wrote: A major consideration on what to put into your report is whether or not the
                              report is subject to discovery by opposing counsel. If your report is
                              discoverable, keep it plain vanilla. Make a verbal report to the lawyer that
                              hired you on any issues you question and let him decide each issue on a
                              case-by-case basis on what is exculpatory or not.

                              If your report qualifies as "attorney work product" where you discuss case
                              strategies, give opinions etc., then you have less to worry about. Always
                              discuss any issues you have with your client before making a questionable
                              report.

                              With kindest regards, I remain...

                              The Robison Companies, LLC

                              Private Investigators

                              Rus B. Robison

                              General Manager

                              Voice (405) 721-2295

                              rbr@...

                              Oklahoma's FIRST State-Licensed Private Investigation Agency.

                              __

                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






                              ---------------------------------
                              Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell.

                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            • Thomas Eskridge
                              Here s a better idea. Follow the law. IF it is true that a process server in California is violating the law by using a Data Provider---where this post
                              Message 14 of 17 , Jun 17, 2007
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Here's a better idea. Follow the law. IF it is true that a process server in
                                California is violating the law by using a Data Provider---where this post
                                started---then just DON'T don't it. Then you have no problem determining how
                                to write your report. It is kind of amazing how soon he lessons of
                                Hewlett-Packard have been lost on some.



                                Tom Eskridge, Chief Operations Officer

                                High Tech Crime Institute

                                28100 US Hwy 19 N, suite 204

                                Clearwater Florida 33761

                                727-499-7215

                                888-300-9789

                                www.gohtci.com



                                _____

                                From: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com [mailto:infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com]
                                On Behalf Of suesarkis@...
                                Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2007 10:16 PM
                                To: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com
                                Subject: Re: [infoguys-list] Re: Using and Choosing Data Providers




                                In a message dated 6/16/2007 6:27:02 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
                                TOM@... <mailto:TOM%40GOHTCI.COM> writes:

                                It sounds like the TRULY LICENSED people omit facts---kinda of a way of
                                saying they lie

                                Now if I missed the beginning of this thread and the info
                                omitted is opinions, guesses, or other non factual information I would agree
                                with sue

                                Tom -

                                What I was referring to for the non-PI's only was in the states where it
                                matters, if I were them I would consider writing something like, "...during
                                the
                                course of the attempted serve it was learned that they moved to Boston. A
                                forwarding order request at the local post office revealed ...." as opposed
                                to
                                "...during the course of the attempted service, the house was boarded up. I
                                canvassed the neighborhood for hours only to find that they had moved to
                                Boston. A forwarding order request at the local post office revealed ....".

                                That is neither a direct lie nor is it a lie by omission. I would NEVER
                                suggest that anyone lie in their reports.



                                Sincerely yours,
                                Sue
                                ________________________
                                Sue Sarkis
                                Sarkis Detective Agency

                                (est. 1976)
                                PI 6564
                                _www.sarkispi.com_ (http://www.sarkispi <http://www.sarkispi.com/> .com/)

                                1346 Ethel Street
                                Glendale, CA 91207-1826
                                818-242-2505
                                818-242-9824 FAX

                                "one Nation under God"

                                If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you can read it in English, thank
                                a military veteran !

                                ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol
                                <http://www.aol.com> com.

                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              • Thomas Eskridge
                                Facts are facts no matter how they are obtained See prior post. Wonder if this one worked for HP? Tom Eskridge, Chief Operations Officer High Tech Crime
                                Message 15 of 17 , Jun 17, 2007
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Facts are facts no matter how they are obtained



                                  See prior post. Wonder if this one worked for HP?



                                  Tom Eskridge, Chief Operations Officer

                                  High Tech Crime Institute

                                  28100 US Hwy 19 N, suite 204

                                  Clearwater Florida 33761

                                  727-499-7215

                                  888-300-9789

                                  www.gohtci.com



                                  _____

                                  .


                                  <http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=1003554/grpspId=1705059354/msgId
                                  =11052/stime=1182059619/nc1=3848515/nc2=3848643/nc3=3848571>




                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                • Thomas Eskridge
                                  http://pasco. tbo.com/pasco/MGB5HT6FZ2F.html Can you say pay the feds $110K for facts obtained..oh yeah ..it was
                                  Message 16 of 17 , Jun 17, 2007
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    http://pasco. <http://pasco.tbo.com/pasco/MGB5HT6FZ2F.html>
                                    tbo.com/pasco/MGB5HT6FZ2F.html



                                    Can you say pay the feds $110K for facts obtained..oh yeah ..it was via
                                    pretexting.







                                    Tom Eskridge, Chief Operations Officer

                                    High Tech Crime Institute

                                    28100 US Hwy 19 N, suite 204

                                    Clearwater Florida 33761

                                    727-499-7215

                                    888-300-9789

                                    www.gohtci.com



                                    _____

                                    From: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com [mailto:infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com]
                                    On Behalf Of david jones
                                    Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2007 1:43 AM
                                    To: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com
                                    Subject: Re: [infoguys-list] Re: Using and Choosing Data Providers



                                    Facts are facts no matter how they are obtained. There is no sense in
                                    disclosing trade secrets.

                                    Ricky Gurley <rmriinc@yahoo. <mailto:rmriinc%40yahoo.com> com> wrote: --- In
                                    infoguys-list@ <mailto:infoguys-list%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com,
                                    "Thomas Eskridge" <TOM@...> wrote:
                                    >
                                    > If nothing else, it suggests what NOT to put
                                    > in a written
                                    > > report.
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > It sounds like the TRULY LICENSED people omit facts---kinda of a way
                                    of
                                    > saying they lie

                                    I will take some courses on how to omit facts from my reports... Thanks
                                    for helping me to decide which continuing education courses might
                                    benefit me best, Tom... ;o)

                                    Rick.





                                    ---------------------------------
                                    8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time
                                    with theYahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut.

                                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





                                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  • david jones
                                    I didn t say to violate privacy laws. In Florida, pretexting is legal so long as you do not pretend to represent yourself to be anyone employed by the
                                    Message 17 of 17 , Jun 18, 2007
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      I didn't say to violate privacy laws. In Florida, pretexting is legal so long as you do not pretend to represent yourself to be anyone employed by the government: state, city, federal or otherwise and you have permissible use to do so. That will depend on what kind of case you are working on. The same goes for any other method you use to collect data. Using public records database or DMV records to cause service of process is legal in some states but in others, say, Pennsylvania it is not. The investigators in the HP "scandal" violated privacy laws by obtaining records they did not have permissible use to access.

                                      Pretexting is a very valid way to collect information. You can collect information in five minutes on a phone that can take you hours to collect on the Internet, if you can even find it at all. Before you do it though, you should obviously make sure your not putting yourself in an actionable position.

                                      Thomas Eskridge <TOM@...> wrote: http://pasco. <http://pasco.tbo.com/pasco/MGB5HT6FZ2F.html>
                                      tbo.com/pasco/MGB5HT6FZ2F.html

                                      Can you say pay the feds $110K for facts obtained..oh yeah ..it was via
                                      pretexting.

                                      Tom Eskridge, Chief Operations Officer

                                      High Tech Crime Institute

                                      28100 US Hwy 19 N, suite 204

                                      Clearwater Florida 33761

                                      727-499-7215

                                      888-300-9789

                                      www.gohtci.com

                                      _____

                                      From: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com [mailto:infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com]
                                      On Behalf Of david jones
                                      Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2007 1:43 AM
                                      To: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com
                                      Subject: Re: [infoguys-list] Re: Using and Choosing Data Providers

                                      Facts are facts no matter how they are obtained. There is no sense in
                                      disclosing trade secrets.

                                      Ricky Gurley <rmriinc@yahoo. <mailto:rmriinc%40yahoo.com> com> wrote: --- In
                                      infoguys-list@ <mailto:infoguys-list%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com,
                                      "Thomas Eskridge" <TOM@...> wrote:
                                      >
                                      > If nothing else, it suggests what NOT to put
                                      > in a written
                                      > > report.
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > It sounds like the TRULY LICENSED people omit facts---kinda of a way
                                      of
                                      > saying they lie

                                      I will take some courses on how to omit facts from my reports... Thanks
                                      for helping me to decide which continuing education courses might
                                      benefit me best, Tom... ;o)

                                      Rick.

                                      ---------------------------------
                                      8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time
                                      with theYahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut.

                                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

                                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






                                      ---------------------------------
                                      Park yourself in front of a world of choices in alternative vehicles.
                                      Visit the Yahoo! Auto Green Center.

                                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.