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

Re: [infoguys-list] Is it legal to use a record someone in MN?

Expand Messages
  • suesarkis@aol.com
    Betteye - I do not know the qualifications of whomever might have informed you that it is legal to record a conversation but I would consult with an attorney
    Message 1 of 22 , Jul 2, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Betteye -


      I do not know the qualifications of whomever might have informed you that it
      is legal to record a conversation but I would consult with an attorney before
      even thinking of recording in Michigan. Although I am not an attorney,
      that is not how I read the law.


      The statute below states that a private conversation legally cannot be
      overheard or recorded without the consent of all participants. Illegal
      eavesdropping can be punished as a felony carrying a jail term of up to two years and a
      fine of up to $2,000.
      In addition, any individual who divulges information he knows, or reasonably
      should know, was obtained through illegal eavesdropping is guilty of a felony
      punishable by imprisonment for up to two years and a fine of up to $2,000.
      Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.539e. Civil liability for actual and punitive damages
      also are sanctioned. Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.539h.
      The exact statute reads:
      750.539c Eavesdropping upon private conversation. Sec. 539c.
      Any person who is present or who is not present during a private conversation
      and who wilfully uses any device to eavesdrop upon the conversation without
      the consent of all parties thereto, or who knowingly aids, employs or
      procures another person to do the same in violation of this section, is guilty of a
      felony punishable by imprisonment in a state prison for not more than 2 years
      or by a fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both.
      Even parents have limitations -
      Under the Michigan statute, a parent may not vicariously consent to a
      recording for a minor child. Williams v. Williams, 603 N.W. 2d 114 (Mich. Ct. App.
      1999).
      It is a felony to observe, photograph or eavesdrop on a person in a private
      place without the person's consent. Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.539d. A private
      place is a place where one may reasonably expect to be safe from intrusion or
      surveillance, but not a place where the public has access. Mich. Comp. Laws §
      750.539a.
      And then you have at least one contrary court decision:
      The eavesdropping statute has been interpreted by one court as applying only
      to situations in which a third party has intercepted a communication, an
      interpretation that makes it legal for a participant in a conversation to record
      that conversation without the permission of other parties. Sullivan v. Gray,
      324 N.W.2d 58 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982).
      Bottom line: Michigan appears to be an ALL party state for ALL recordings.

      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]
    • Bob Hrodey
      ... Okay, here are TWO excellent resources that will give you some GUIDANCE. You still need to run your particular situation past a lawyer that you are paying
      Message 2 of 22 , Jul 2, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        Betteye, wrote the following at or about 7/2/2007 9:46 AM:
        > Please post the answer to the list. I was told that in Michigan it is legal to record a conversation.
        > The court upheld the recorded conversation. I don't know about phone recordings? I consider this the grey area. I have the understanding that you can record a phone conversation if you inform all parties that they are being recorded. Please tell how we could do a search to determine the legality of recordings.
        >
        > I know a disbarred circuit court judge. I will try to locate her now be back with more on this issue.
        >
        > thanks
        > Betteye

        Okay, here are TWO excellent resources that will give you some
        GUIDANCE. You still need to run your particular situation past a lawyer
        that you are paying to get a solid legal opinion. This area of the law
        is in a constant state of change as new technologies emerge and as PI's,
        private citizens, news reporters, police, etc. do new and incredibly
        stupid things with it.

        http://www.rcfp.org/taping/

        http://www.poynter.org/resource_center/

        And, Bettye, you're kidding us about getting information from a
        disbarred judge, right? LOL!


        --
        Enjoy,

        Bob
        _______________________________________________________________________
        Hrodey & Associates Established 1977
        Post Office Box 366 Member of NALI, ASIS, FBINAA, NAPPS
        Woodstock, IL 60098-0366 NCISS, Assoc Det of IL & P.A.W.L.I.
        Licensed in IL & WI (815) 337-4636 Voice 337-4638 Fax
        e-mail: inquiry@... or rth@...
        Illinois License 115-000783 Wisconsin 8045-063
      • Jim Parker
        Not quite, Sue. Michigan is one of those odd exceptions which looks on
        Message 3 of 22 , Jul 2, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          <<<< Bottom line: Michigan appears to be an ALL party state for ALL
          recordings. >>>>


          Not quite, Sue. Michigan is one of those odd exceptions which looks on the
          surface to be an all party state, but case law has decreed otherwise.

          In order to make sense of the statute, you must first read how Michigan
          defines "eavesdrop" or "eavesdropping"

          750 §539a(2))

          (2) “Eavesdrop” or “eavesdropping” means to overhear, record, amplify or
          transmit any part of the PRIVATE DISCOURSE OF OTHERS without the permission
          of all persons engaged in the discourse. [emphasis added]

          The key phrase in there is "private discourse of others"

          Michigan courts have held that any conversation you are a party to is not a
          conversation "of others" and can therefore be recorded.

          If, however, you were listening (and/or recording) the conversation on an
          extension phone, but were not a party to the actual conversation, even if
          one of the parties knew of the recording, that would violate the statute.

          In other words, parties can record their OWN conversations, but if a third
          party records it or is involved in the recording of it, it's illegal.

          I believe you'll find the relevant case law in: Sullivan v Gray, 324 N.W.2d
          58 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982), which concludes:

          "We believe the statutory language, on its face, unambiguously excludes
          participant recording from the definition of eavesdropping by limiting the
          subject conversation to "the private discourse of others". The statute
          contemplates that a potential eavesdropper must be a third party not
          otherwise involved in the conversation being eavesdropped on."

          It's not a particularly well written law.

          Jim



          -----Original Message-----
          From: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com [mailto:infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com]
          On Behalf Of suesarkis@...
          Sent: Monday, July 02, 2007 12:14 PM
          To: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: Re: [infoguys-list] Is it legal to use a record someone in MN?

          Betteye -


          I do not know the qualifications of whomever might have informed you that it

          is legal to record a conversation but I would consult with an attorney
          before
          even thinking of recording in Michigan. Although I am not an attorney,
          that is not how I read the law.


          The statute below states that a private conversation legally cannot be
          overheard or recorded without the consent of all participants. Illegal
          eavesdropping can be punished as a felony carrying a jail term of up to two
          years and a
          fine of up to $2,000.
          In addition, any individual who divulges information he knows, or reasonably

          should know, was obtained through illegal eavesdropping is guilty of a
          felony
          punishable by imprisonment for up to two years and a fine of up to $2,000.
          Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.539e. Civil liability for actual and punitive damages

          also are sanctioned. Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.539h.
          The exact statute reads:
          750.539c Eavesdropping upon private conversation. Sec. 539c.
          Any person who is present or who is not present during a private
          conversation
          and who wilfully uses any device to eavesdrop upon the conversation without
          the consent of all parties thereto, or who knowingly aids, employs or
          procures another person to do the same in violation of this section, is
          guilty of a
          felony punishable by imprisonment in a state prison for not more than 2
          years
          or by a fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both.
          Even parents have limitations -
          Under the Michigan statute, a parent may not vicariously consent to a
          recording for a minor child. Williams v. Williams, 603 N.W. 2d 114 (Mich.
          Ct. App.
          1999).
          It is a felony to observe, photograph or eavesdrop on a person in a private
          place without the person's consent. Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.539d. A private
          place is a place where one may reasonably expect to be safe from intrusion
          or
          surveillance, but not a place where the public has access. Mich. Comp. Laws
          §
          750.539a.
          And then you have at least one contrary court decision:
          The eavesdropping statute has been interpreted by one court as applying only

          to situations in which a third party has intercepted a communication, an
          interpretation that makes it legal for a participant in a conversation to
          record
          that conversation without the permission of other parties. Sullivan v. Gray,

          324 N.W.2d 58 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982).
          Bottom line: Michigan appears to be an ALL party state for ALL recordings.

          Sincerely yours,
          Sue
          ________________________
          Sue Sarkis
          Sarkis Detective Agency

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

          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Jim Parker
          Is there any
          Message 4 of 22 , Jul 2, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            <<<< what in the heck does Arbonne, a beauty line, have to do with
            investigative work, and why are you here, getting advice from us? >>>>


            Is there any particular reason why they shouldn't? I thought one of the
            purposes of this list was to give advice?

            Jim



            -----Original Message-----
            From: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com [mailto:infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com]
            On Behalf Of Vicki Siedow
            Sent: Monday, July 02, 2007 2:23 AM
            To: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: RE: [infoguys-list] Is it legal to use a record someone in MN?

            Excuse me, but what in the heck does Arbonne, a beauty line, have to do with
            investigative work, and why are you here, getting advice from us? People,
            please check who you're working with here.

            Vicki Siedow
            Siedow & Associates Investigations
            & Legal Support Services
            2629 Foothill Blvd. #262
            La Crescenta, CA 91214
            Los Angeles County
            CA PI License # 22852
            800.448.6431 toll free
            818.242.0130 local
            818.688.3295 fax
            <http://siedow.lawandorder.com/ <http://siedow.lawandorder.com/> >
            http://Siedow.LawAndOrder.com <http://Siedow.LawAndOrder.com>
            <mailto:Siedow@... <mailto:Siedow%40LawAndOrder.com> >
            Siedow@... <mailto:Siedow%40LawAndOrder.com>
            Member NCISS, IWWA

            Need economical legal help?
            Concerned about Identity Theft?
            Check the links on my site, or contact me directly.

            _____

            From: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com <mailto:infoguys-list%40yahoogroups.com>
            [mailto:infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com
            <mailto:infoguys-list%40yahoogroups.com> ]
            On Behalf Of Dawn Ek
            Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2007 1:31 PM
            To: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com <mailto:infoguys-list%40yahoogroups.com>
            Subject: Re: [infoguys-list] Is it legal to use a record someone in MN?

            That absolutely helps. Thank you so much for a quick response!
            Take Care,

            Dawn Ek
            Arbonne Consultant
            507.280.0579
            507.421.0730
            ID 16607737
            dawnek@rapidwebllp. <mailto:dawnek%40rapidwebllp.com> com
            We can't do much about the length of our lives, but we can do plenty about
            its width and depth... - Evan Esar

            -------Original Message-------

            From: david jones
            Date: 7/1/2007 11:04:59 AM
            To: infoguys-list@ <mailto:infoguys-list%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com
            Subject: Re: [infoguys-list] Is it legal to use a record someone in MN?

            It will depend on how the recorder was used. If it was used to record a
            transmission" such as a phone conversation, then it is a federal violation
            and will fall under FCC guidelines. Often times investigators will use them
            as an "aid memoir" so to speak to assist them in writing a statement. If the
            statement is sworn it can be considered a pretty good piece of evidence
            providing the creditability of the person providing the statement is on the
            up and up. It usually all boils down to how the conversation was recorded,
            and of course, you should talk to a state licensed attorney for proper
            guidance. Hope that helps.

            Best Regards,

            Steve

            dawnek71 <DawnEk@rapidwebllp. <mailto:DawnEk%40rapidwebllp.com> com> wrote:
            Is it legal and adminisable in
            court to use a digital voice recorder in
            Minnesota. Where can I find the answer?
            TIA,
            Dawn

            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Jim Parker
            Although you ve received responses ranging from excellent to the
            Message 5 of 22 , Jul 2, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              <<<< Is it legal and adminisable in court to use a digital voice recorder
              in Minnesota. >>>>


              Although you've received responses ranging from excellent to the truly
              preposterous, the correct answer is: "it depends."

              Your inquiry begs more questions than it does answers. Everything would
              depend on exactly how you planned on using the recording device, who would
              be aware of the recording and a variety of other factors.

              With the little you have provided, it would be impossible for anyone to give
              you a "yes" or "no" answer.

              Jim



              -----Original Message-----
              From: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com [mailto:infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com]
              On Behalf Of dawnek71
              Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2007 12:31 AM
              To: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: [infoguys-list] Is it legal to use a record someone in MN?

              TIA,
              Dawn
            • suesarkis@aol.com
              Jim, Betteye and all - The question is not about court opinion, it is about published law. My answer does not dispute the fact that some courts have handed
              Message 6 of 22 , Jul 2, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                Jim, Betteye and all -

                The question is not about court opinion, it is about published law. My
                answer does not dispute the fact that some courts have handed down opinions that
                such activity is permissible, but the published law continues to state that the
                activity is illegal - this has not changed in spite of what some state
                courts may have said.

                The comments about judicial opinion cloud the original question and serve
                little more than confusing information. In contrast, I stuck with the original
                question and I wholeheartedly stand by my NON-LAWYER answer. The published
                law in Michigan deems this activity "illegal".

                It is also important to note that Sullivan v. Gray, 324 N.W.2d 58 (Mich. Ct.
                App. 1982), as quoted above, was "ONLY ONE COURT'S OPINION" and is not
                representative of broad authority for everyone to follow. THIS DOES NOT CHANGE
                THE WORDING OF THE LAW and obviously the lawmakers have had plenty of time
                since 1982 to change the law had they agreed.

                The state Supreme Court stated in a July 1999 ruling that a participant in a
                conversation "may not unilaterally nullify other participants' expectations
                of privacy by secretly broadcasting the conversation" and that the overriding
                inquiry should be whether the parties "intended and reasonably expected that
                the conversation was private." Therefore, it is likely that a recording party
                may not broadcast a recorded conversation without the consent of all
                parties. Dickerson v. Raphael, 601 N.W.2d 108 (Mich. 1999).

                Although Jim pointed out (as did I) decisions that appear to support the
                notion that one can, in some instances, record conversations, and while some
                courts have obviously conflicted in their opinions as to the permissiveness of
                the law, Betteye's question was related to what the law “says”. Courts do not
                always support the letter of the law which often leads to statutory changes,
                but this has not happened as of yet.
                As it currently stands the law is still clear that one cannot record a
                conversation in the State of Michigan, even if he is a consenting party, when
                other parties to the conversation have not given consent.

                I maintain that the definition of “eavesdropping” extends to recording
                conversations to which you are a part based on the Supreme Court ruling.

                “Eavesdrop” or “eavesdropping” means to overhear, record, amplify or
                transmit any part of the private discourse of others without the permission of all
                persons engaged in the discourse. Neither this definition or any other
                provision of this act shall modify or affect any law or regulation concerning
                interception, divulgence or recording of messages transmitted by communications
                common carriers.”

                Ambiguity abounds in Michigan !!


                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]
              • Jim Parker
                Message 7 of 22 , Jul 2, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  <<<< It is also important to note that Sullivan v. Gray, 324 N.W.2d 58 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982), as quoted above, was "ONLY ONE COURT'S OPINION" and is not representative of broad authority for everyone to follow. THIS DOES NOT CHANGE THE WORDING OF THE LAW >>>>

                  And no one would expect it to. It's not the court's job to change the wording of the law, it's the court's job to INTERPRET the wording of the law.

                  As it is, in Sullivan v. Gray, the appeals court noted that:

                  "We believe the statutory language, on its face, UNAMBIGUOUSLY EXCLUDES PARTICIPANT RECORDING from the definition of eavesdropping by limiting the subject conversation to "the private discourse of others".

                  Even in the case you mention, Dickerson v. Raphael, the court noted that Dickenson's daughter MAY HAVE BEEN WITHIN HER RIGHTS TO RECORD THE CONVERSATION HERSELF, but it was the involvement of a third party (Sally Jessy Raphael's sound technician) making the actual recording that violated the statute.

                  You'll note that that's precisely what I said in my earlier response (see my previous post below).

                  So your statement of " Bottom line: Michigan appears to be an ALL party state for ALL recordings." is entirely incorrect.

                  Jim


                  -----Original Message-----
                  From: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com [mailto:infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jim Parker
                  Sent: Monday, July 02, 2007 12:33 PM
                  To: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: RE: [infoguys-list] Is it legal to use a record someone in MN?

                  <<<< Bottom line: Michigan appears to be an ALL party state for ALL
                  recordings. >>>>


                  Not quite, Sue. Michigan is one of those odd exceptions which looks on the
                  surface to be an all party state, but case law has decreed otherwise.

                  In order to make sense of the statute, you must first read how Michigan
                  defines "eavesdrop" or "eavesdropping"

                  750 §539a(2))

                  (2) “Eavesdrop” or “eavesdropping” means to overhear, record, amplify or
                  transmit any part of the PRIVATE DISCOURSE OF OTHERS without the permission
                  of all persons engaged in the discourse. [emphasis added]

                  The key phrase in there is "private discourse of others"

                  Michigan courts have held that any conversation you are a party to is not a
                  conversation "of others" and can therefore be recorded.

                  If, however, you were listening (and/or recording) the conversation on an
                  extension phone, but were not a party to the actual conversation, even if
                  one of the parties knew of the recording, that would violate the statute.

                  In other words, parties can record their OWN conversations, but if a third
                  party records it or is involved in the recording of it, it's illegal.

                  I believe you'll find the relevant case law in: Sullivan v Gray, 324 N.W.2d
                  58 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982), which concludes:

                  "We believe the statutory language, on its face, unambiguously excludes
                  participant recording from the definition of eavesdropping by limiting the
                  subject conversation to "the private discourse of others". The statute
                  contemplates that a potential eavesdropper must be a third party not
                  otherwise involved in the conversation being eavesdropped on."

                  It's not a particularly well written law.

                  Jim
                • Bob Hrodey
                  ... Not to mention the fact that case law controls, not the statutory law. The law is a living thing and constantly evolves by case law. If you doubt it, try
                  Message 8 of 22 , Jul 2, 2007
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Jim Parker, wrote the following at or about 7/2/2007 1:36 PM:
                    > <<<< It is also important to note that Sullivan v. Gray, 324 N.W.2d 58 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982), as quoted above, was "ONLY ONE COURT'S OPINION" and is not representative of broad authority for everyone to follow. THIS DOES NOT CHANGE THE WORDING OF THE LAW >>>>
                    >
                    > And no one would expect it to. It's not the court's job to change the wording of the law, it's the court's job to INTERPRET the wording of the law.
                    >
                    > As it is, in Sullivan v. Gray, the appeals court noted that:
                    >
                    > "We believe the statutory language, on its face, UNAMBIGUOUSLY EXCLUDES PARTICIPANT RECORDING from the definition of eavesdropping by limiting the subject conversation to "the private discourse of others".
                    >
                    > Even in the case you mention, Dickerson v. Raphael, the court noted that Dickenson's daughter MAY HAVE BEEN WITHIN HER RIGHTS TO RECORD THE CONVERSATION HERSELF, but it was the involvement of a third party (Sally Jessy Raphael's sound technician) making the actual recording that violated the statute.
                    >
                    > You'll note that that's precisely what I said in my earlier response (see my previous post below).
                    >
                    > So your statement of " Bottom line: Michigan appears to be an ALL party state for ALL recordings." is entirely incorrect.

                    Not to mention the fact that case law controls, not the statutory law.
                    The law is a living thing and constantly evolves by case law.

                    If you doubt it, try arguing a case in a court using outdated law and
                    watch the judge (if they catch you) hand you your head. I've seen it
                    happen to clients/friends who missed a cite while Sheperdizing a case.
                    It ain't pretty.

                    Granted, one Court's ruling (provided it's a trial court) does not set
                    precedent anywhere but that particular court. An appellate court,
                    however does set precedent in that district and the state supreme court
                    sets it for the state, etc. Again, these can be treacherous waters in
                    which to tread and your best bet is to pay for a legal opinion based
                    upon your factual situation. The only think black and white in the law
                    what's printed in the law books and that, as you know, is subject to
                    varying opinions depending on where in the state you are and at what
                    point in time.


                    --
                    Enjoy,

                    Bob
                    _______________________________________________________________________
                    Hrodey & Associates Established 1977
                    Post Office Box 366 Member of NALI, ASIS, FBINAA, NAPPS
                    Woodstock, IL 60098-0366 NCISS, Assoc Det of IL & P.A.W.L.I.
                    Licensed in IL & WI (815) 337-4636 Voice 337-4638 Fax
                    e-mail: inquiry@... or rth@...
                    Illinois License 115-000783 Wisconsin 8045-063
                  • ceecee lynn
                    I m not eavesdropping on anybody. I m sharing what I know about the law. I m a bystander learning law. Is that a crime to learn something for my country? No.
                    Message 9 of 22 , Jul 2, 2007
                    • 0 Attachment
                      I'm not eavesdropping on anybody. I'm sharing what I know about the law. I'm a bystander learning law. Is that a crime to learn something for my country? No. It's not. If you don't want me in here, I'll cancel out my subscription with you people and that's that. I don't need trouble makers making any legal problems for me when I only wanted to learn something. You people are very rude. Do you know that. And I certainly don't appreciate the idle threats of imprisonment, because I'll refer this site over to my local detective bureau for further investigations. I'm a snitch for the law. I support the law. Ok? My God. You people are nutty. Good bye. I don't need your abusive talk. Cindi.


                      ---------------------------------
                      TV dinner still cooling?
                      Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV.

                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • Bob Hrodey
                      ... Did I miss something? Don t seem to recall anyone really coming down all that hard on Cindi. Guess this is Darwin in Action -- Enjoy, Bob
                      Message 10 of 22 , Jul 3, 2007
                      • 0 Attachment
                        ceecee lynn, wrote the following at or about 7/2/2007 2:57 PM:
                        > I'm not eavesdropping on anybody. I'm sharing what I know about the law. I'm a bystander learning law. Is that a crime to learn something for my country? No. It's not. If you don't want me in here, I'll cancel out my subscription with you people and that's that. I don't need trouble makers making any legal problems for me when I only wanted to learn something. You people are very rude. Do you know that. And I certainly don't appreciate the idle threats of imprisonment, because I'll refer this site over to my local detective bureau for further investigations. I'm a snitch for the law. I support the law. Ok? My God. You people are nutty. Good bye. I don't need your abusive talk. Cindi.
                        >

                        Did I miss something? Don't seem to recall anyone really coming down
                        all that hard on Cindi.

                        Guess this is "Darwin in Action"<g>

                        --
                        Enjoy,

                        Bob
                        _______________________________________________________________________
                        Hrodey & Associates Established 1977
                        Post Office Box 366 Member of NALI, ASIS, FBINAA, NAPPS
                        Woodstock, IL 60098-0366 NCISS, Assoc Det of IL & P.A.W.L.I.
                        Licensed in IL & WI (815) 337-4636 Voice 337-4638 Fax
                        e-mail: inquiry@... or rth@...
                        Illinois License 115-000783 Wisconsin 8045-063
                      • Robert Bryan
                        Bob, Guess your right. I haven t seen anyone coming down that hard either. Oh well, thats life. Have a great 4th everyone, be safe & careful out there. Night
                        Message 11 of 22 , Jul 3, 2007
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Bob,

                          Guess your right. I haven't seen anyone coming down that hard either. Oh well, thats life.

                          Have a great 4th everyone, be safe & careful out there.

                          Night Owl Investigations www.nightowlinvestigations.com

                          Robert Bryan
                          Owner/Investigator Night Owl Investigations
                          P.O. Box 19137
                          Panama City Beach, FL 32417
                          nightowl1@...
                          gulfcoastpi@... tel:
                          fax:
                          mobile: 850-522-8010
                          850-522-0704
                          850-527-0215




                          Want to always have my latest info? Want a signature like this?



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