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

Re: Using and Choosing Data Providers

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