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

Interesting Article for P.I.s

Expand Messages
  • Ricky Gurley
    This small article below is interesting.... http://www.baywindows.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=blog&sc2=news&sc3=&id=77402 Rick.
    Message 1 of 8 , Jul 14 2:47 PM
    • 0 Attachment
    • Goldshield7
      I also found that article interesting especially since I specialize in criminal defense. In many of my trial cases the defense counsel usually calls me to
      Message 2 of 8 , Jul 14 2:57 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        I also found that article interesting especially since
        I specialize in criminal defense. In many of my trial cases
        the defense counsel usually calls me to testify, however I've
        never been ordered to testify. In some cases the defense
        counsel would ask me to share interview reports with the
        Prosecutor.
        Ross

        Ross Crespy
        LPI, Lic# 22112

        On Jul 14, 2008, at 2:47 PM, "Ricky Gurley" <rmriinc@...> wrote:

        This small article below is interesting....

        http://www.baywindows.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=blog&sc2=news&sc3=&id=77402

        Rick.

        http://rmriinc.bestcyberinvestigator.com







        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • suesarkis@aol.com
        In a message dated 7/14/2008 3:02:58 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, goldshield7@yahoo.com writes: In some cases the defense counsel would ask me to share
        Message 3 of 8 , Jul 14 3:15 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          In a message dated 7/14/2008 3:02:58 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
          goldshield7@... writes:

          In some cases the defense
          counsel would ask me to share interview reports with the
          Prosecutor.



          Ross -

          California has a peculiar statute which most other states do not have, i.e.,
          PC 1054 et seq. Therefore, they are entitled to all defense investigative
          reports relative to anything or anyone the defense plans to present at the
          time of trial. However, that is ONLY after indictment or arraignment.

          How dare any prosecutor attempt to usurp the authority of the Sixth
          Amendment.


          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
          818-246-3001 FAX

          "one Nation under God"

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



          **************Get the scoop on last night's hottest shows and the live music
          scene in your area - Check out TourTracker.com!
          (http://www.tourtracker.com?NCID=aolmus00050000000112)


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Ricky Gurley
          ... I have a divorce case that also turned into a bankruptcy for my client (filing the bankruptcy was strategical for my client). While examining assets my
          Message 4 of 8 , Jul 14 3:34 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com, Goldshield7 <goldshield7@...> wrote:
            >
            > I also found that article interesting especially since
            > I specialize in criminal defense. In many of my trial cases
            > the defense counsel usually calls me to testify, however I've
            > never been ordered to testify. In some cases the defense
            > counsel would ask me to share interview reports with the
            > Prosecutor.
            > Ross
            >
            > Ross Crespy
            > LPI, Lic# 22112
            >

            I have a divorce case that also turned into a bankruptcy for my client
            (filing the bankruptcy was strategical for my client). While examining
            assets my client's ex-husband claimed that he did not receive some
            court ordered property and that she still had the property. When the
            husband came out to pick up the property he had his P.I. with him. The
            P.I. made a video recording of the husband picking up the property. I
            was with my client and the attorney that I recommended to the client
            in a meeting when this came up. The attorney said she'd like a copy of
            that video tape.I told the attorney that I'd call the P.I. and see if
            he'd share the video tape. I called the P.I. and he seemed
            cooperative, I told him I'd pay for his copy expenses and such. The
            next day I called about it to see if he had started getting the video
            tape copied, and he informed me that the attorney he was working for
            was going to title the video tape "work product". LOL. I told my
            client's attorney what had happened and I suggested that she issue a
            Subpoena Duces Tecum for the video tape. The attorney thought that was
            brilliant... I further suggested that since the attorney and the P.I.
            wanted to "play hard ball", include in the subpoena a request for all
            contracts, invoices, and bills between the client (the ex-husband),
            the P.I. and the attorney.The attorney issued the two subpoenas for
            these records, and my process server served the first one on the
            attorney with no problem (but the attorney was a little "upset"). The
            P.I. tried to be evasive, and I made contact with him by phone. Funny
            thing, since it was a Bankruptcy Hearing it was Federal, and Federal
            Subpoenas have a warning on them that any attempt to evade service
            could result in criminal charges.Once I informed the P.I. of this and
            told him that if he wanted to evade, let me know and I'd send my
            Process Server home, the conversation was being recorded, and I'd
            write up my report and put it in front of a Federal Judge with a copy
            of the audio recording, and see what happens from there. The P.I.
            found it wise to meet my Process Server at the Wright County Sheriff's
            Department for service. A few days later the husband "found" the
            belongings that he said my client had kept.....

            If there is any doubt as to this, I still have copies of the subpoenas
            that I scanned into my computer as I do with all subpoenas.

            The work product doctrine is NOT privilege, so it is not as powerful
            as attorney-client privilege, and it can be overcome if an attorney
            can demonstrate that there is no other way to obtain the needed
            material, and the material is needed to support the claim of the
            attorney's client. In other words, bring in the attorneys and let them
            argue it, but the subpoena is still valid, until the Judge either
            quashes it or allows it...

            The Work Product Doctrine is actually A Federal Rule now, and is
            referred to as Rule 26(b)(3) in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
            as seen below:

            "Subdivision (b) is the heart of the discovery rule, and defines what
            is discoverable and what is limited. Anything that is relevant is
            available for the other party to request, as long as it is not
            privileged or otherwise protected. Under §1, relevance is defined as
            anything more or less likely to prove a fact that affects the outcome
            of the claim. It does not have to be admissible in court as long as it
            could reasonably lead to admissible evidence.

            However, there are limits to discovery. §2 allows the court to alter
            the limits of discovery on the number of depositions, interrogatories,
            and document requests if it determines that the discovery sought is
            overly burdensome, redundant, unnecessary, or disproportionately
            difficult to produce with respect to the importance of the case or
            specific issue. Enshrined in §3, the work-product doctrine protects
            tangible (and some intangible) items created in anticipation of the
            litigation (e.g., a memorandum from an attorney outlining his strategy
            in the case). Protecting work product is considered in the interest of
            justice because discovery of such work product would expose an
            attorney's complete legal strategy before trial. §4 allows discovery
            of experts whose opinions may be presented at trial, but limits
            discovery of experts not likely to testify during trial. §5 generally
            prohibits the discovery of any material legally privileged
            (attorney-client, doctor-patient, etc.), and requires the production
            of a "privilege log" which describes the privileged information or
            material in a way that allows others to see that (if) it is
            privileged, but does not divulge the privileged material."


            Rick.

            http://rmriinc.bestcyberinvestigator.com
          • suesarkis@aol.com
            Rick - We were talking criminal law, you are covering civil law. Also, the case in the article was pre-indictment. Discovery is non-existent, per se.
            Message 5 of 8 , Jul 14 4:24 PM
            • 0 Attachment
              Rick -

              We were talking criminal law, you are covering civil law. Also, the case in
              the article was pre-indictment. Discovery is non-existent, per se.




              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
              818-246-3001 FAX

              "one Nation under God"

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



              **************Get the scoop on last night's hottest shows and the live music
              scene in your area - Check out TourTracker.com!
              (http://www.tourtracker.com?NCID=aolmus00050000000112)


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Ricky Gurley
              ... the case in ... It was just a reference to a case where an attorney tried to protect material from discovery.. I did not intend for it to match perfectly
              Message 6 of 8 , Jul 14 4:37 PM
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com, suesarkis@... wrote:
                >
                > Rick -
                >
                > We were talking criminal law, you are covering civil law. Also,
                the case in
                > the article was pre-indictment. Discovery is non-existent, per se.


                It was just a reference to a case where an attorney tried to protect
                material from discovery.. I did not intend for it to match perfectly
                with the case in the article, but I did intend to give some useful
                information on "work product"...

                In the case mentioned, I could shown the attorney how to make it work
                with a criminal case as well.. Before you disagree, understand that
                the attorney that tried to assert that the material was work product
                was not the attorney used in the bankruptcy proceedings by the
                ex-husband, technically he could not have even argued his point since
                he could not protect the material under the work product doctrine in a
                case that he was not even a party to.

                So, say she would have been charged with theft, and the attorney tried
                to assert that the video tape was work product when I called to get a
                copy of it, two separate cases, and the Prosecutor could not protect
                the material, and the original attorney from the divorce case would
                not have been a party to the criminal case, so the only thing he could
                have done was "shut his mouth" and bring the materials, along with the
                P.I. They'd have been nothing more than witnesses under subpoena...

                In any event, it was one time that I really enjoyed putting the
                attorney and the P.I. in the "hot seat", since they were some pretty
                "arrogant scoundrels"...



                Rick.

                http://rmriinc.bestcyberinvestigator.com
              • suesarkis@aol.com
                In a message dated 7/14/2008 4:38:21 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, rmriinc@grouply.com writes: it was one time that I really enjoyed putting the attorney and
                Message 7 of 8 , Jul 14 7:32 PM
                • 0 Attachment
                  In a message dated 7/14/2008 4:38:21 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
                  rmriinc@... writes:

                  it was one time that I really enjoyed putting the
                  attorney and the P.I. in the "hot seat", since they were some pretty
                  "arrogant scoundrels"."a



                  Great story Rick.

                  However, I'll tell you right now that if a civil attorney in, let's say a
                  BK, had a sought after video or something of a criminal defense client of mine,
                  you'd be surprised how fast we'd have the civil attorney partner up with the
                  criminal attorney for the criminal matter.

                  On the other hand, I am a diabolical and sly person when it comes to
                  protecting my criminal clients. Pretty good with my civil ones also. LOL

                  Have a great week.


                  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
                  818-246-3001 FAX

                  "one Nation under God"

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



                  **************Get the scoop on last night's hottest shows and the live music
                  scene in your area - Check out TourTracker.com!
                  (http://www.tourtracker.com?NCID=aolmus00050000000112)


                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Ricky Gurley
                  ... say a ... client of mine, ... with the ... also. LOL I actually kind of expected that to happen on my case.. It didn t, but not because they couldn t
                  Message 8 of 8 , Jul 14 8:04 PM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com, suesarkis@... wrote:
                    >
                    >
                    > In a message dated 7/14/2008 4:38:21 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
                    > rmriinc@... writes:
                    >
                    > it was one time that I really enjoyed putting the
                    > attorney and the P.I. in the "hot seat", since they were some pretty
                    > "arrogant scoundrels"."a
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > Great story Rick.
                    >
                    > However, I'll tell you right now that if a civil attorney in, let's
                    say a
                    > BK, had a sought after video or something of a criminal defense
                    client of mine,
                    > you'd be surprised how fast we'd have the civil attorney partner up
                    with the
                    > criminal attorney for the criminal matter.
                    >
                    > On the other hand, I am a diabolical and sly person when it comes to
                    > protecting my criminal clients. Pretty good with my civil ones
                    also. LOL


                    I actually kind of expected that to happen on my case.. It didn't, but
                    not because they couldn't do it, instead I think it was because they
                    did not think of it. I fully expected the attorney from the divorce to
                    make an entrance as another attorney hired by the husband on the
                    bankruptcy dispute. I am not so sure that you could get away with it,
                    if opposing counsel is smart. I advised the attorney that this could
                    happen, and I also said "this is why we document everything to the
                    second". Because if they partner to protect the material, we want to
                    be able to show the court the time line in which the two attorneys
                    partnered and how it corresponds with the evidence request, so we can
                    demonstrate that the sole reason for this partnership was to protect
                    evidence that was vital to our client's claim, and that would
                    demonstrate that the husband perjured himself when he signed official
                    documents under oath saying that he did not get some property that
                    there is in fact a video tape of him getting".

                    You know as well as I do, that court cases are chess games, those that
                    can think 3 moves ahead of their opponents, usually walk out winners..
                    When I take on a client, I'll be honest, my sole concern is making
                    sure that I can walk out of the court room on the winning team; at the
                    end of the day. YES! My top priority on a case is to win. Now, that
                    does not mean at all costs, I am not going to break the law, I am not
                    going to do anything unethical, I am not going to manufacture,
                    destroy, or hide evidence, and I am not going to lie. I don't think a
                    smart P.I. has to do any of these things to be on the winning team,
                    not even if the other team is doing them. In criminal cases and civil
                    cases the Judicial System provides us a wide array of "tools" to do
                    our jobs with, if we just learn what those "tools" are. Many times,
                    the winner is the attorney with the most persuasive argument. In order
                    to build a persuasive argument, that attorney has to be able to
                    effectively demonstrate what he or she wants the court to accept and
                    agree with, and that is where the "tools" that the court provides for
                    us makes the attorney's job easier. Understanding what the law says
                    can and can not be done is also key, that is why you can never have
                    enough legal research materials in my humble opinion.

                    I know attorneys that are not aware of the fact that in order to prove
                    one part of the three parts of a Brady Violation, you do NOT have to
                    show that the verdict would have been different if the evidence in
                    question were not withheld by the prosecution. YES! there are actually
                    attorneys that believe that the evidence that was withheld by the
                    prosecution would have had to have changed the verdict of the case in
                    order to constitute a Brady Violation. If these attorneys actually
                    believe that, there clients stand no chance of getting a new trial on
                    an appeal based on a Brady Violation.

                    Now, I have come to realize that someone like you and a few others may
                    actually know more about the law than the attorney they are working
                    for. Someone like me has to spend hours upon hours upon hours
                    researching the law as it applies to my case.. But I'll tell you this,
                    no matter how much you know about the law, if you are on the other
                    side of the court room from me, "bring your A game", because I don't
                    mind spending 10 to 12 hours a day for weeks and weeks learning every
                    little legal maneuver, "trick", "road block", and "booby trap" that I
                    can use to ruin your day with.... As a matter of fact, I am like you;
                    I LOVE learning..


                    Rick.

                    http://rmriinc.bestcyberinvestigator.com
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.