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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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.