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

Re: [infoguys-list] Using and Choosing Data Providers

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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 14 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 15 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 16 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.