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

Re: [infoguys-list] Some Interesting Reading on Missouri PI Licensing

Expand Messages
  • suesarkis@aol.com
    Rick - With the exception of the issue of grandfathering , which I am not going to address here, I am of the opinion that you have lost your mind. For
    Message 1 of 8 , Oct 17, 2011
      Rick -

      With the exception of the issue of "grandfathering", which I am not going
      to address here, I am of the opinion that you have lost your mind.

      For starters, although the codification of the law is a Missouri issue,
      they did not write the law. They might have changed an element or two they
      felt more suitable to the needs of your state, but the code itself was
      written by the Uniform Law Commission which is headquartered in Chicago. All 50
      states have laws as to who and why members of their legal community will be
      participating members of the ULC which has, I believe, 300 participants.
      They have been in existence since 1892. Have you ever noticed how most
      state laws became in effect in 1892? Have you ever noticed how the wording
      of most states with licensing is quite similar? That's because it comes
      from one source. However, I will admit that some states totally ignored the
      ULC's suggestions and went out on their own.

      There is absolutely NOTHING in your State law that infringes upon anyone's
      First Amendment rights. Your attorney's assertion that "A plain reading of
      the definition reveals that the vast majority of Missourians commit a
      class A misdemeanor every day by engaging in the “private investigator business”
      with neither
      licensure nor exemption" is not only inaccurate but totally ludicrous.

      What is absent from the entire brief and rather mistakingly stated is the
      fact that the law does not preclude ANY PERSON within the confines of your
      state's borders from going out and conducting any investigation they want
      and to then be able to go forward with the information they garnered in any
      lawful channel they choose. They could stand on a podium in the middle of
      the State Capitol's town center and broadcast all they want.

      What is missing, however, throughout the entire brief (except the very
      beginning where the definitions are listed) is the fact that licensure is
      required for anyone who wants to go beyond their First Amendment Rights of free
      speech, etc. and SELL the information to a client. Just as any mother has
      the lawful right to remove a splinter from their child's finger, so too can
      that mother go out and do all of the background research and investigation
      she wants on her child's teachers. It is only when she hangs a shingle
      out offering similar services to neighborhood children and their families for
      A FEE that she needs to be licensed as either an M.D. or a P.I.

      Consumers need protections and that is what these laws are intended for.
      To engage in any business in America that could cause either physical harm
      or financial hardship and suffering to a person due to the improper
      handling and conduct by said business, ALL states should demand licensure of those
      businesses.

      What a waste of taxpayer dollars !!!!

      Sincerely,
      Sue




      In a message dated 10/17/2011 10:59:51 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
      rmriinc@... writes:




      As many of you may know, I had a problem with getting my PI License when
      the state of Missouri started licensing Private Investigators. I had to
      initiate legal action to get my PI License. I finally did prevail and got
      licensed, got the people that were licensed under my company with the City of
      Columbia (municipal licenses) prior to state licensing also licensed, and got
      my agency licensed. I never did any PI work in the period of time that my
      company or myself was not licensed, and I am proud of that because I can
      honestly say that "I played by the rules"; which is something that I would not
      have done 15 years ago. I am proud of that, because in my mind I think it
      shows that I am not the same person that I used to be, I have learned to
      respect the rules; or at the very least I'd like to think so...

      But this issue is not completely finished. My attorney took a personal
      interest in the case once he got into it. My attorney believes that there are
      some issues with state licensing that need to be addressed in the courts.
      So, we are still pursuing additional legal action.

      We have filed for an injunction against the statutes that govern PI
      licensing in Missouri, and we lost in the Circuit Court, and we lost when we
      asked the Circuit Court to reconsider, but we have now appealed the Circuit
      Court's ruling to the Missouri Supreme Court. These types of actions take
      time, but things are starting to pick up speed in regards to my case. The ACLU
      even submitted an Amicus Brief on my behalf. If anyone is interested in
      reading about this case you can read about it on this page:
      _http://1.usa.gov/nWhfVf_ (http://1.usa.gov/nWhfVf)

      Just scroll down to the last case, and you can read all of the briefs on
      this case to date.

      The Missouri Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on my case November 9,
      2011.

      Take care.

      Ricky B. Gurley.

      --
      Risk Management Research & Investments, Inc. & Thoth Data Systems
      Agency License Number: 2011001124

      Director of Operations: Ricky Gurley
      Private Investigator License Number: 2011001072

      Mailing Address: 2101 W. Broadway PMB 326, Columbia, MO. 65203
      Office Address: 1 E. Broadway Suite Z, Columbia, MO. 65203
      Direct Office Number: (573) 234-6876
      Office Phone: (573) 234-4647 Ext. 110
      Car Phone: (573) 529-0808
      Cell Phone: (573) 529-4476
      Toll Free Phone: (888) 571-0958
      Toll Free Fax: (877) 795-9800
      EMERGENCY LINE: (573) 234-4871

      RMRI, Inc. Website
      (1) _http://www.rmriinc.com_ (http://www.rmriinc.com/)

      RMRI, Inc. Blog
      (1) _http://rmriinc.wordpress.com/_ (http://rmriinc.wordpress.com/)






      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • RickyG
      Why you try to be so abrasive in your posts, I ll never know? But, what you may not know is that while I did in fact lose in the Circuit Court, the Judge in
      Message 2 of 8 , Oct 17, 2011
        Why you try to be so abrasive in your posts, I'll never know?

        But, what you may not know is that while I did in fact lose in the Circuit Court, the Judge in that case (Judge Paul Wilson) wrote in his opinion that the points you claim to be invalid, were in fact valid points, they just presented a "worse than worse case scenario" that did not rise to a level requiring injunctive action.

        Now, if you would have read CLOSELY, you would have read in the post that I made these two sentences: "My attorney took a personal
        interest in the case once he got into it. My attorney believes that there are some issues with state licensing that need to be addressed in the courts." Perhaps those sentences need some explaining? Even after I got my PI License, I wanted to go forward with some type of an action I will admit, but like most people the sense of urgency and "personal importance" in doing so had diminished greatly. I really did not care all that much, I was happy to be licensed and working... But my attorney felt like the issues that you see being addressed needed to be addressed. So, he asked me to weigh my options, and consider that this case could have a profound effect on more than just me. After some thought, I told him to "go for it". So, while I am happy that this is happening, I can also say that a BAR LICENSED ATTORNEY feels like these issues are valid, and a FEW OTHER BAR LICENSED ATTORNEYS FROM THE ACLU feel like these issues are valid... Now, I do respect you Sue, but when it comes to legal arguments and knowing the law, I have to have faith in the attorneys that I pay to advise me, after-all they are the ones with the BAR CARDS.......

        Nobody knows how the Missouri Supreme Court will rule. One rarely knows when it comes to any court of law, what is going to happen before it happens. But, I can say that I am putting my money where my mouth is on this one; and I can live with that....

        I would not be too concerned with how this action is wasting tax payer dollars in our current economy. Seems to me if you are concerned so about the economy; "you have bigger fish to fry"......


        Ricky B. Gurley.


        --
        Risk Management Research & Investments, Inc. & Thoth Data Systems
        Agency License Number: 2011001124

        Director of Operations: Ricky Gurley
        Private Investigator License Number: 2011001072

        Mailing Address: 2101 W. Broadway PMB 326, Columbia, MO. 65203
        Office Address: 1 E. Broadway Suite Z, Columbia, MO. 65203
        Direct Office Number: (573) 234-6876
        Office Phone: (573) 234-4647 Ext. 110
        Car Phone: (573) 529-0808
        Cell Phone: (573) 529-4476
        Toll Free Phone: (888) 571-0958
        Toll Free Fax: (877) 795-9800
        EMERGENCY LINE: (573) 234-4871

        RMRI, Inc. Website
        (1) http://www.rmriinc.com


        RMRI, Inc. Blog
        (1) http://rmriinc.wordpress.com/

        --- In infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com, suesarkis@... wrote:
        >
        >
        > Rick -
        >
        > With the exception of the issue of "grandfathering", which I am not going
        > to address here, I am of the opinion that you have lost your mind.
        >
        > For starters, although the codification of the law is a Missouri issue,
        > they did not write the law. They might have changed an element or two they
        > felt more suitable to the needs of your state, but the code itself was
        > written by the Uniform Law Commission which is headquartered in Chicago. All 50
        > states have laws as to who and why members of their legal community will be
        > participating members of the ULC which has, I believe, 300 participants.
        > They have been in existence since 1892. Have you ever noticed how most
        > state laws became in effect in 1892? Have you ever noticed how the wording
        > of most states with licensing is quite similar? That's because it comes
        > from one source. However, I will admit that some states totally ignored the
        > ULC's suggestions and went out on their own.
        >
        > There is absolutely NOTHING in your State law that infringes upon anyone's
        > First Amendment rights. Your attorney's assertion that "A plain reading of
        > the definition reveals that the vast majority of Missourians commit a
        > class A misdemeanor every day by engaging in the “private investigator business”
        > with neither
        > licensure nor exemption" is not only inaccurate but totally ludicrous.
        >
        > What is absent from the entire brief and rather mistakingly stated is the
        > fact that the law does not preclude ANY PERSON within the confines of your
        > state's borders from going out and conducting any investigation they want
        > and to then be able to go forward with the information they garnered in any
        > lawful channel they choose. They could stand on a podium in the middle of
        > the State Capitol's town center and broadcast all they want.
        >
        > What is missing, however, throughout the entire brief (except the very
        > beginning where the definitions are listed) is the fact that licensure is
        > required for anyone who wants to go beyond their First Amendment Rights of free
        > speech, etc. and SELL the information to a client. Just as any mother has
        > the lawful right to remove a splinter from their child's finger, so too can
        > that mother go out and do all of the background research and investigation
        > she wants on her child's teachers. It is only when she hangs a shingle
        > out offering similar services to neighborhood children and their families for
        > A FEE that she needs to be licensed as either an M.D. or a P.I.
        >
        > Consumers need protections and that is what these laws are intended for.
        > To engage in any business in America that could cause either physical harm
        > or financial hardship and suffering to a person due to the improper
        > handling and conduct by said business, ALL states should demand licensure of those
        > businesses.
        >
        > What a waste of taxpayer dollars !!!!
        >
        > Sincerely,
        > Sue
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > In a message dated 10/17/2011 10:59:51 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
        > rmriinc@... writes:
      • suesarkis@aol.com
        Rick - What the heck are you talking about? There was absolutely NOTHING in my post that would be considered abrasive as far as I am concerned. Maybe
        Message 3 of 8 , Oct 17, 2011
          Rick -

          What the heck are you talking about? There was absolutely NOTHING in my
          post that would be considered "abrasive" as far as I am concerned. Maybe
          some limp wristed pencil pushing sniveling paper shover might think so but
          not the PI industry members. I voiced an opinion. There was no profanity.
          There was no harshness. As a matter of fact, for me it was quite tame.

          I am a very good reader and fully understand that you said that your
          attorney believed this and believed that. However, the buck stops at your feet
          since your attorney cannot go forward in your name without your permission.

          If you and your attorney were to be proven correct in your thoughts, which
          there is no doubt in my mind won't happen, yes, the case would have a
          profound effect on more than just you. It would be one of the most devastating
          issues to the entire licensing procedures for all trades and professions
          across America as we know them today and every consumer would be unfair
          game.

          I hope when the justices write their opinion, they call it as it truly is.
          I hope they don't mince words !!!! I also hope I am around long enough
          to read it.


          Sincerely,
          Sue





          In a message dated 10/17/2011 1:26:26 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
          rmriinc@... writes:

          Why you try to be so abrasive in your posts, I'll never know?

          But, what you may not know is that while I did in fact lose in the Circuit
          Court, the Judge in that case (Judge Paul Wilson) wrote in his opinion
          that the points you claim to be invalid, were in fact valid points, they just
          presented a "worse than worse case scenario" that did not rise to a level
          requiring injunctive action.

          Now, if you would have read CLOSELY, you would have read in the post that
          I made these two sentences: "My attorney took a personal
          interest in the case once he got into it. My attorney believes that there
          are some issues with state licensing that need to be addressed in the
          courts." Perhaps those sentences need some explaining? Even after I got my PI
          License, I wanted to go forward with some type of an action I will admit, but
          like most people the sense of urgency and "personal importance" in doing so
          had diminished greatly. I really did not care all that much, I was happy
          to be licensed and working... But my attorney felt like the issues that you
          see being addressed needed to be addressed. So, he asked me to weigh my
          options, and consider that this case could have a profound effect on more than
          just me. After some thought, I told him to "go for it". So, while I am
          happy that this is happening, I can also say that a BAR LICENSED ATTORNEY
          feels like these issues are valid, and a FEW OTHER BAR LICENSED ATTORNEYS FROM
          THE ACLU feel like these issues are valid... Now, I do respect you Sue, but
          when it comes to legal arguments and knowing the law, I have to have faith
          in the attorneys that I pay to advise me, after-all they are the ones with
          the BAR CARDS.......

          Nobody knows how the Missouri Supreme Court will rule. One rarely knows
          when it comes to any court of law, what is going to happen before it happens.
          But, I can say that I am putting my money where my mouth is on this one;
          and I can live with that....

          I would not be too concerned with how this action is wasting tax payer
          dollars in our current economy. Seems to me if you are concerned so about the
          economy; "you have bigger fish to fry"......

          Ricky B. Gurley.

          --
          Risk Management Research & Investments, Inc. & Thoth Data Systems
          Agency License Number: 2011001124

          Director of Operations: Ricky Gurley
          Private Investigator License Number: 2011001072

          Mailing Address: 2101 W. Broadway PMB 326, Columbia, MO. 65203
          Office Address: 1 E. Broadway Suite Z, Columbia, MO. 65203
          Direct Office Number: (573) 234-6876
          Office Phone: (573) 234-4647 Ext. 110
          Car Phone: (573) 529-0808
          Cell Phone: (573) 529-4476
          Toll Free Phone: (888) 571-0958
          Toll Free Fax: (877) 795-9800
          EMERGENCY LINE: (573) 234-4871

          RMRI, Inc. Website
          (1) _http://www.rmriinc.com_ (http://www.rmriinc.com/)

          RMRI, Inc. Blog
          (1) _http://rmriinc.wordpress.com/_ (http://rmriinc.wordpress.com/)

          --- In _infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com_
          (mailto:infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com) , suesarkis@... wrote:
          >
          >
          > Rick -
          >
          > With the exception of the issue of "grandfathering", which I am not
          going
          > to address here, I am of the opinion that you have lost your mind.
          >
          > For starters, although the codification of the law is a Missouri issue,
          > they did not write the law. They might have changed an element or two
          they
          > felt more suitable to the needs of your state, but the code itself was
          > written by the Uniform Law Commission which is headquartered in Chicago.
          All 50
          > states have laws as to who and why members of their legal community will
          be
          > participating members of the ULC which has, I believe, 300 participants.
          > They have been in existence since 1892. Have you ever noticed how most
          > state laws became in effect in 1892? Have you ever noticed how the
          wording
          > of most states with licensing is quite similar? That's because it comes
          > from one source. However, I will admit that some states totally ignored
          the
          > ULC's suggestions and went out on their own.
          >
          > There is absolutely NOTHING in your State law that infringes upon
          anyone's
          > First Amendment rights. Your attorney's assertion that "A plain reading
          of
          > the definition reveals that the vast majority of Missourians commit a
          > class A misdemeanor every day by engaging in the “private
          investigator business”
          > with neither
          > licensure nor exemption" is not only inaccurate but totally ludicrous.
          >
          > What is absent from the entire brief and rather mistakingly stated is
          the
          > fact that the law does not preclude ANY PERSON within the confines of
          your
          > state's borders from going out and conducting any investigation they
          want
          > and to then be able to go forward with the information they garnered in
          any
          > lawful channel they choose. They could stand on a podium in the middle
          of
          > the State Capitol's town center and broadcast all they want.
          >
          > What is missing, however, throughout the entire brief (except the very
          > beginning where the definitions are listed) is the fact that licensure
          is
          > required for anyone who wants to go beyond their First Amendment Rights
          of free
          > speech, etc. and SELL the information to a client. Just as any mother
          has
          > the lawful right to remove a splinter from their child's finger, so too
          can
          > that mother go out and do all of the background research and
          investigation
          > she wants on her child's teachers. It is only when she hangs a shingle
          > out offering similar services to neighborhood children and their
          families for
          > A FEE that she needs to be licensed as either an M.D. or a P.I.
          >
          > Consumers need protections and that is what these laws are intended for.
          > To engage in any business in America that could cause either physical
          harm
          > or financial hardship and suffering to a person due to the improper
          > handling and conduct by said business, ALL states should demand
          licensure of those
          > businesses.
          >
          > What a waste of taxpayer dollars !!!!
          >
          > Sincerely,
          > Sue
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > In a message dated 10/17/2011 10:59:51 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
          > rmriinc@... writes:







          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • RickyG
          Sue, I don t care if you want to write like a Jackass ... It does not bother me any. First of all, I am all for this legal action. I don t think what is being
          Message 4 of 8 , Oct 18, 2011
            Sue,

            I don't care if you want to write like a "Jackass"... It does not bother me any.

            First of all, I am all for this legal action. I don't think what is being sought here is harmful to anyone in anyway. Especially considering the fact that we went without state licensing for PI's here in Missouri for 20 years to nobody's detriment. I think you greatly over-exaggerate the harm that this action will cause. I actually think this action will result in BETTER state licensing of P.I.'s. The original legislation was rushed due to pressure from our state organization, M.A.P.I.. But at the same time, I would not have cared too much had we (my attorney and I) not filed this action.

            Try to understand, I am FOR state licensing... I don't want to just simply shut it down. I want to shut it down so that it has to start back all over again in the legislature and be written correctly this time.

            I believe as the statutes governing Private Investigator licensing here in Missouri stand now are unconstitutional. I believe they are over-broad. I believe that the statutes afford the board the authority to license by likes and dislikes, instead of by a clear set of rules and qualifications. I believe the statutes are unclear in some areas, which could have a dangerous impact on the people of Missouri. One small example is that in our current statutes, there is no clear definition for Private Investigation Business, there is no language that indicates that there has to be a "valuable consideration" gained from conducting an investigation before a person can be charged with the crime of Unlicensed Activity. That is dangerous to every person in the state of Missouri. The state can not say that Prosecutorial Discretion and Professional Responsibility would save a person from a "worse than worse case scenario" in which an overzealous Prosecutor might charge someone with a crime for doing as much as a Google search on another person by charging under the current statutes that defines that Google search on another person as conducting an investigation: "Where a statute is overbroad, it is not a defense to say that applications which are overbroad would not be brought by prosecutors. "The First Amendment protects against the Government; it does not leave us at the mercy of noblesse oblige. We would not uphold an unconstitutional statute merely because the Government promised to use it responsibly." Whitman v. American Trucking Associations, Inc., 531 U.S. 457, 473 (2001). Thus, even if it could be proven to a certainty that no prosecutor would ever bring a charge against someone attempting to exercise clearly protected First Amendment rights, the statute still must be struck as unconstitutional".

            Right now, a person that owns a blog, and is taking donations on that blog can technically be charged with a Class A Misdemeanor of Unlicensed Activity, if that person even runs a person name or business name on Google. All it takes is one overzealous Prosecutor. Case Law clearly indicates that the government can not rely on a defense that all of it's Prosecutors are responsible enough not to abuse vague statutes, again: "We would not uphold an unconstitutional statute merely because the Government promised to use it responsibly." Whitman v. American Trucking Associations, Inc., 531 U.S. 457, 473 (2001)".

            These are just small "samples" of the issues that we raise here. I happen to have been a part of this and have been researching it for over a year now. I think that you might not know as much about what some real case law research already indicates about the issues that my attorney is raising. We'll see what the Missouri Supreme Court has to say about them. As my old man used to say when I was a child "Time Will Tell"...


            Ricky B. Gurley.

            --
            Risk Management Research & Investments, Inc. & Thoth Data Systems

            Mailing Address: 2101 W. Broadway PMB 326, Columbia, MO. 65203
            Office Address: 1 E. Broadway Suite Z, Columbia, MO. 65203

            Direct Office Number: (573) 234-6876
            Office Phone: (573) 234-4647 Ext. 110
            Car Phone: (573) 529-0808
            Cell Phone: (573) 529-4476
            Toll Free Phone: (888) 571-0958
            Toll Free Fax: (877) 795-9800
            EMERGENCY LINE: (573) 234-4871

            RMRI, Inc. Websites
            (1) http://www.rmriinc.com

            RMRI, Inc. Blogs
            (1) http://rmriincblog.com





            --- In infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com, suesarkis@... wrote:
            >
            >
            > Rick -
            >
            > What the heck are you talking about? There was absolutely NOTHING in my
            > post that would be considered "abrasive" as far as I am concerned. Maybe
            > some limp wristed pencil pushing sniveling paper shover might think so but
            > not the PI industry members. I voiced an opinion. There was no profanity.
            > There was no harshness. As a matter of fact, for me it was quite tame.
            >
            > I am a very good reader and fully understand that you said that your
            > attorney believed this and believed that. However, the buck stops at your feet
            > since your attorney cannot go forward in your name without your permission.
            >
            > If you and your attorney were to be proven correct in your thoughts, which
            > there is no doubt in my mind won't happen, yes, the case would have a
            > profound effect on more than just you. It would be one of the most devastating
            > issues to the entire licensing procedures for all trades and professions
            > across America as we know them today and every consumer would be unfair
            > game.
            >
            > I hope when the justices write their opinion, they call it as it truly is.
            > I hope they don't mince words !!!! I also hope I am around long enough
            > to read it.
            >
            >
            > Sincerely,
            > Sue
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > In a message dated 10/17/2011 1:26:26 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
            > rmriinc@... writes:
            >
            > Why you try to be so abrasive in your posts, I'll never know?
            >
            > But, what you may not know is that while I did in fact lose in the Circuit
            > Court, the Judge in that case (Judge Paul Wilson) wrote in his opinion
            > that the points you claim to be invalid, were in fact valid points, they just
            > presented a "worse than worse case scenario" that did not rise to a level
            > requiring injunctive action.
            >
            > Now, if you would have read CLOSELY, you would have read in the post that
            > I made these two sentences: "My attorney took a personal
            > interest in the case once he got into it. My attorney believes that there
            > are some issues with state licensing that need to be addressed in the
            > courts." Perhaps those sentences need some explaining? Even after I got my PI
            > License, I wanted to go forward with some type of an action I will admit, but
            > like most people the sense of urgency and "personal importance" in doing so
            > had diminished greatly. I really did not care all that much, I was happy
            > to be licensed and working... But my attorney felt like the issues that you
            > see being addressed needed to be addressed. So, he asked me to weigh my
            > options, and consider that this case could have a profound effect on more than
            > just me. After some thought, I told him to "go for it". So, while I am
            > happy that this is happening, I can also say that a BAR LICENSED ATTORNEY
            > feels like these issues are valid, and a FEW OTHER BAR LICENSED ATTORNEYS FROM
            > THE ACLU feel like these issues are valid... Now, I do respect you Sue, but
            > when it comes to legal arguments and knowing the law, I have to have faith
            > in the attorneys that I pay to advise me, after-all they are the ones with
            > the BAR CARDS.......
            >
            > Nobody knows how the Missouri Supreme Court will rule. One rarely knows
            > when it comes to any court of law, what is going to happen before it happens.
            > But, I can say that I am putting my money where my mouth is on this one;
            > and I can live with that....
            >
            > I would not be too concerned with how this action is wasting tax payer
            > dollars in our current economy. Seems to me if you are concerned so about the
            > economy; "you have bigger fish to fry"......
            >
            > Ricky B. Gurley.
            >
            > --
            > Risk Management Research & Investments, Inc. & Thoth Data Systems
            > Agency License Number: 2011001124
            >
            > Director of Operations: Ricky Gurley
            > Private Investigator License Number: 2011001072
            >
            > Mailing Address: 2101 W. Broadway PMB 326, Columbia, MO. 65203
            > Office Address: 1 E. Broadway Suite Z, Columbia, MO. 65203
            > Direct Office Number: (573) 234-6876
            > Office Phone: (573) 234-4647 Ext. 110
            > Car Phone: (573) 529-0808
            > Cell Phone: (573) 529-4476
            > Toll Free Phone: (888) 571-0958
            > Toll Free Fax: (877) 795-9800
            > EMERGENCY LINE: (573) 234-4871
            >
            > RMRI, Inc. Website
            > (1) _http://www.rmriinc.com_ (http://www.rmriinc.com/)
            >
            > RMRI, Inc. Blog
            > (1) _http://rmriinc.wordpress.com/_ (http://rmriinc.wordpress.com/)
            >
            > --- In _infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com_
            > (mailto:infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com) , suesarkis@ wrote:
            > >
            > >
            > > Rick -
            > >
            > > With the exception of the issue of "grandfathering", which I am not
            > going
            > > to address here, I am of the opinion that you have lost your mind.
            > >
            > > For starters, although the codification of the law is a Missouri issue,
            > > they did not write the law. They might have changed an element or two
            > they
            > > felt more suitable to the needs of your state, but the code itself was
            > > written by the Uniform Law Commission which is headquartered in Chicago.
            > All 50
            > > states have laws as to who and why members of their legal community will
            > be
            > > participating members of the ULC which has, I believe, 300 participants.
            > > They have been in existence since 1892. Have you ever noticed how most
            > > state laws became in effect in 1892? Have you ever noticed how the
            > wording
            > > of most states with licensing is quite similar? That's because it comes
            > > from one source. However, I will admit that some states totally ignored
            > the
            > > ULC's suggestions and went out on their own.
            > >
            > > There is absolutely NOTHING in your State law that infringes upon
            > anyone's
            > > First Amendment rights. Your attorney's assertion that "A plain reading
            > of
            > > the definition reveals that the vast majority of Missourians commit a
            > > class A misdemeanor every day by engaging in the â€Å"private
            > investigator business”
            > > with neither
            > > licensure nor exemption" is not only inaccurate but totally ludicrous.
            > >
            > > What is absent from the entire brief and rather mistakingly stated is
            > the
            > > fact that the law does not preclude ANY PERSON within the confines of
            > your
            > > state's borders from going out and conducting any investigation they
            > want
            > > and to then be able to go forward with the information they garnered in
            > any
            > > lawful channel they choose. They could stand on a podium in the middle
            > of
            > > the State Capitol's town center and broadcast all they want.
            > >
            > > What is missing, however, throughout the entire brief (except the very
            > > beginning where the definitions are listed) is the fact that licensure
            > is
            > > required for anyone who wants to go beyond their First Amendment Rights
            > of free
            > > speech, etc. and SELL the information to a client. Just as any mother
            > has
            > > the lawful right to remove a splinter from their child's finger, so too
            > can
            > > that mother go out and do all of the background research and
            > investigation
            > > she wants on her child's teachers. It is only when she hangs a shingle
            > > out offering similar services to neighborhood children and their
            > families for
            > > A FEE that she needs to be licensed as either an M.D. or a P.I.
            > >
            > > Consumers need protections and that is what these laws are intended for.
            > > To engage in any business in America that could cause either physical
            > harm
            > > or financial hardship and suffering to a person due to the improper
            > > handling and conduct by said business, ALL states should demand
            > licensure of those
            > > businesses.
            > >
            > > What a waste of taxpayer dollars !!!!
            > >
            > > Sincerely,
            > > Sue
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > In a message dated 10/17/2011 10:59:51 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
            > > rmriinc@ writes:
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            >
          • oracleintl@aol.com
            This is interesting. I have read the briefs, and it seems to me that the Constitutional arguments miss the key element - the statute does not undertake to
            Message 5 of 8 , Oct 18, 2011
              This is interesting.

              I have read the briefs, and it seems to me that the Constitutional
              arguments miss the key element - the statute does not undertake to regulate an
              activity, they undertake to regulate a business.

              The assertion that a person could be in violation by merely reading a
              newspaper seems absurd.

              A person could be in violation if they were gathering information from news
              media sources to compile and incorporate within an investigative report
              FOR HIRE, but I see no support for the contention that the activity itself is
              regulated.

              I don't get it.

              Bill


              In a message dated 10/17/2011 1:59:52 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
              rmriinc@... writes:




              As many of you may know, I had a problem with getting my PI License when
              the state of Missouri started licensing Private Investigators. I had to
              initiate legal action to get my PI License. I finally did prevail and got
              licensed, got the people that were licensed under my company with the City of
              Columbia (municipal licenses) prior to state licensing also licensed, and got
              my agency licensed. I never did any PI work in the period of time that my
              company or myself was not licensed, and I am proud of that because I can
              honestly say that "I played by the rules"; which is something that I would not
              have done 15 years ago. I am proud of that, because in my mind I think it
              shows that I am not the same person that I used to be, I have learned to
              respect the rules; or at the very least I'd like to think so...

              But this issue is not completely finished. My attorney took a personal
              interest in the case once he got into it. My attorney believes that there are
              some issues with state licensing that need to be addressed in the courts.
              So, we are still pursuing additional legal action.

              We have filed for an injunction against the statutes that govern PI
              licensing in Missouri, and we lost in the Circuit Court, and we lost when we
              asked the Circuit Court to reconsider, but we have now appealed the Circuit
              Court's ruling to the Missouri Supreme Court. These types of actions take
              time, but things are starting to pick up speed in regards to my case. The ACLU
              even submitted an Amicus Brief on my behalf. If anyone is interested in
              reading about this case you can read about it on this page:
              _http://1.usa.gov/nWhfVf_ (http://1.usa.gov/nWhfVf)

              Just scroll down to the last case, and you can read all of the briefs on
              this case to date.

              The Missouri Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on my case November 9,
              2011.

              Take care.

              Ricky B. Gurley.

              --
              Risk Management Research & Investments, Inc. & Thoth Data Systems
              Agency License Number: 2011001124

              Director of Operations: Ricky Gurley
              Private Investigator License Number: 2011001072

              Mailing Address: 2101 W. Broadway PMB 326, Columbia, MO. 65203
              Office Address: 1 E. Broadway Suite Z, Columbia, MO. 65203
              Direct Office Number: (573) 234-6876
              Office Phone: (573) 234-4647 Ext. 110
              Car Phone: (573) 529-0808
              Cell Phone: (573) 529-4476
              Toll Free Phone: (888) 571-0958
              Toll Free Fax: (877) 795-9800
              EMERGENCY LINE: (573) 234-4871

              RMRI, Inc. Website
              (1) _http://www.rmriinc.com_ (http://www.rmriinc.com/)

              RMRI, Inc. Blog
              (1) _http://rmriinc.wordpress.com/_ (http://rmriinc.wordpress.com/)






              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • suesarkis@aol.com
              I am writing this for the benefit of any colleagues that might be following this thread. Since you called me a jackass, you are off my list. Since the wording
              Message 6 of 8 , Oct 18, 2011
                I am writing this for the benefit of any colleagues that might be following
                this thread. Since you called me a jackass, you are off my list.

                Since the wording of your license is quite similar to ours, actually
                identical in many parts, as is the case with many states PI licensing laws, if
                this were to be found in your favor the State would have to take it
                upstairs. If still upheld, every state with similar wording would have to rewrite.
                I don't think the harm that could, although I'm sure it won't, come is
                exaggerated.

                The only thing in your licensing laws that I would have challenged or
                raised an issue about when it was being worked on is their definition of
                "Private investigator agency". The way they have it worded, I would not be able
                to operate as the Sarkis Detective Agency currently although I could be Sue
                Sarkis, Private Investigator.

                You mention that you do not like the licensing authority by statute as
                allegedly licenses can be afforded according to personalities. I find it
                curious since your attorney never mentioned a single word about that in his
                brief. However, that's probably because he realizes that the statutes don't
                cover that either. That's an internal "board policy" issue, not a
                legislative concern.

                You also state that "there is no clear definition for Private Investigation
                Business". I strongly urge you to read §324.1100(11). According to
                §324.1100(9) only a licensed PI can conduct a Private Investigation Business for
                hire as it clearly says, "...any person who receives any
                consideration...". In the legal and taxing arenas a consideration is anything of value
                promised to another when making a contract. It doesn't have to be money as
                we can barter, for instance.

                Contrary to your attorney's contention, any citizen can conduct an
                investigation for any purpose they so desire and that is their constitutional
                right. However, if they are going to hold themselves out "for hire" for said
                investigation, a license is required and there is nothing in the
                constitution that says otherwise. Using your example of Googling, people Google away
                for research purposes constantly. That's what Google is for and no one is
                being arrested for unlicensed practices because of it.

                If someone owns a blog and is accepting "donations" for the purpose of
                providing researched information to the donor, they should be prosecuted for
                unlicensed activity. Your law is slightly better than ours as we have an
                exemption which you do not. We have an exemption for research using public
                records. In this day and age that really puts us here in CA behind the
                8-ball. I filed a complaint with BSIS who did nothing because the person
                alleged they only used public records. I knew better so we filed an action
                against him in Glendale Court. He hung himself at his own depo being
                represented by one of those pre-paid legal attorneys who allowed the client to sit
                there and admit to committing unlawful acts. David didn't miss a beat and
                kept on going until the end. Needless to say, we won, he lost !!!!

                You will find in your efforts to nail unlicensed competitors that you will
                be hard pressed, even in your small community, of finding a prosecutor
                willing to proceed against an U/P never mind abusing very clear and concise
                statutes.

                The bottom line is plain and simple the way I read your code. Anybody can
                perform the activities listed under "Private Investigation Business" and
                not be in violation of any laws. However, should they do so for hire, they
                have violated §324.1100(9) and can be nailed in a court of law for
                "unlicensed practices". Could the code have been organized a little better. YEP.
                Sub (9) should have flowed directly into sub (11). However, does it
                change the meaning? NOPE !!



                In a message dated 10/18/2011 1:23:32 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
                rmriinc@... writes:




                Sue,

                I don't care if you want to write like a "Jackass"... It does not bother
                me any.

                First of all, I am all for this legal action. I don't think what is being
                sought here is harmful to anyone in anyway. Especially considering the fact
                that we went without state licensing for PI's here in Missouri for 20
                years to nobody's detriment. I think you greatly over-exaggerate the harm that
                this action will cause. I actually think this action will result in BETTER
                state licensing of P.I.'s. The original legislation was rushed due to
                pressure from our state organization, M.A.P.I.. But at the same time, I would
                not have cared too much had we (my attorney and I) not filed this action.

                Try to understand, I am FOR state licensing... I don't want to just simply
                shut it down. I want to shut it down so that it has to start back all over
                again in the legislature and be written correctly this time.

                I believe as the statutes governing Private Investigator licensing here in
                Missouri stand now are unconstitutional. I believe they are over-broad. I
                believe that the statutes afford the board the authority to license by
                likes and dislikes, instead of by a clear set of rules and qualifications. I
                believe the statutes are unclear in some areas, which could have a dangerous
                impact on the people of Missouri. One small example is that in our current
                statutes, there is no clear definition for Private Investigation Business,
                there is no language that indicates that there has to be a "valuable
                consideration" gained from conducting an investigation before a person can be
                charged with the crime of Unlicensed Activity. That is dangerous to every
                person in the state of Missouri. The state can not say that Prosecutorial
                Discretion and Professional Responsibility would save a person from a "worse
                than worse case scenario" in which an overzealous Prosecutor might charge
                someone with a crime for doing as much as a Google search on another person by
                charging under the current statutes that defines that Google search on
                another person as conducting an investigation: "Where a statute is overbroad,
                it is not a defense to say that applications which are overbroad would not
                be brought by prosecutors. "The First Amendment protects against the
                Government; it does not leave us at the mercy of noblesse oblige. We would not
                uphold an unconstitutional statute merely because the Government promised to
                use it responsibly." Whitman v. American Trucking Associations, Inc., 531
                U.S. 457, 473 (2001). Thus, even if it could be proven to a certainty that no
                prosecutor would ever bring a charge against someone attempting to exercise
                clearly protected First Amendment rights, the statute still must be struck
                as unconstitutional".

                Right now, a person that owns a blog, and is taking donations on that blog
                can technically be charged with a Class A Misdemeanor of Unlicensed
                Activity, if that person even runs a person name or business name on Google. All
                it takes is one overzealous Prosecutor. Case Law clearly indicates that the
                government can not rely on a defense that all of it's Prosecutors are
                responsible enough not to abuse vague statutes, again: "We would not uphold an
                unconstitutional statute merely because the Government promised to use it
                responsibly." Whitman v. American Trucking Associations, Inc., 531 U.S. 457,
                473 (2001)".

                These are just small "samples" of the issues that we raise here. I happen
                to have been a part of this and have been researching it for over a year
                now. I think that you might not know as much about what some real case law
                research already indicates about the issues that my attorney is raising.
                We'll see what the Missouri Supreme Court has to say about them. As my old man
                used to say when I was a child "Time Will Tell"...

                Ricky B. Gurley.

                --
                Risk Management Research & Investments, Inc. & Thoth Data Systems

                Mailing Address: 2101 W. Broadway PMB 326, Columbia, MO. 65203
                Office Address: 1 E. Broadway Suite Z, Columbia, MO. 65203

                Direct Office Number: (573) 234-6876
                Office Phone: (573) 234-4647 Ext. 110
                Car Phone: (573) 529-0808
                Cell Phone: (573) 529-4476
                Toll Free Phone: (888) 571-0958
                Toll Free Fax: (877) 795-9800
                EMERGENCY LINE: (573) 234-4871

                RMRI, Inc. Websites
                (1) _http://www.rmriinc.com_ (http://www.rmriinc.com/)

                RMRI, Inc. Blogs
                (1) _http://rmriincblog.com_ (http://rmriincblog.com/)

                --- In _infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com_
                (mailto:infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com) , suesarkis@... wrote:
                >
                >
                > Rick -
                >
                > What the heck are you talking about? There was absolutely NOTHING in my
                > post that would be considered "abrasive" as far as I am concerned. Maybe
                > some limp wristed pencil pushing sniveling paper shover might think so
                but
                > not the PI industry members. I voiced an opinion. There was no
                profanity.
                > There was no harshness. As a matter of fact, for me it was quite tame.
                >
                > I am a very good reader and fully understand that you said that your
                > attorney believed this and believed that. However, the buck stops at
                your feet
                > since your attorney cannot go forward in your name without your
                permission.
                >
                > If you and your attorney were to be proven correct in your thoughts,
                which
                > there is no doubt in my mind won't happen, yes, the case would have a
                > profound effect on more than just you. It would be one of the most
                devastating
                > issues to the entire licensing procedures for all trades and professions
                > across America as we know them today and every consumer would be unfair
                > game.
                >
                > I hope when the justices write their opinion, they call it as it truly
                is.
                > I hope they don't mince words !!!! I also hope I am around long enough
                > to read it.
                >
                >
                > Sincerely,
                > Sue
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > In a message dated 10/17/2011 1:26:26 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
                > rmriinc@... writes:
                >
                > Why you try to be so abrasive in your posts, I'll never know?
                >
                > But, what you may not know is that while I did in fact lose in the
                Circuit
                > Court, the Judge in that case (Judge Paul Wilson) wrote in his opinion
                > that the points you claim to be invalid, were in fact valid points, they
                just
                > presented a "worse than worse case scenario" that did not rise to a
                level
                > requiring injunctive action.
                >
                > Now, if you would have read CLOSELY, you would have read in the post
                that
                > I made these two sentences: "My attorney took a personal
                > interest in the case once he got into it. My attorney believes that
                there
                > are some issues with state licensing that need to be addressed in the
                > courts." Perhaps those sentences need some explaining? Even after I got
                my PI
                > License, I wanted to go forward with some type of an action I will
                admit, but
                > like most people the sense of urgency and "personal importance" in doing
                so
                > had diminished greatly. I really did not care all that much, I was happy
                > to be licensed and working... But my attorney felt like the issues that
                you
                > see being addressed needed to be addressed. So, he asked me to weigh my
                > options, and consider that this case could have a profound effect on
                more than
                > just me. After some thought, I told him to "go for it". So, while I am
                > happy that this is happening, I can also say that a BAR LICENSED
                ATTORNEY
                > feels like these issues are valid, and a FEW OTHER BAR LICENSED
                ATTORNEYS FROM
                > THE ACLU feel like these issues are valid... Now, I do respect you Sue,
                but
                > when it comes to legal arguments and knowing the law, I have to have
                faith
                > in the attorneys that I pay to advise me, after-all they are the ones
                with
                > the BAR CARDS.......
                >
                > Nobody knows how the Missouri Supreme Court will rule. One rarely knows
                > when it comes to any court of law, what is going to happen before it
                happens.
                > But, I can say that I am putting my money where my mouth is on this one;
                > and I can live with that....
                >
                > I would not be too concerned with how this action is wasting tax payer
                > dollars in our current economy. Seems to me if you are concerned so
                about the
                > economy; "you have bigger fish to fry"......
                >
                > Ricky B. Gurley.
                >
                > --
                > Risk Management Research & Investments, Inc. & Thoth Data Systems
                > Agency License Number: 2011001124
                >
                > Director of Operations: Ricky Gurley
                > Private Investigator License Number: 2011001072
                >
                > Mailing Address: 2101 W. Broadway PMB 326, Columbia, MO. 65203
                > Office Address: 1 E. Broadway Suite Z, Columbia, MO. 65203
                > Direct Office Number: (573) 234-6876
                > Office Phone: (573) 234-4647 Ext. 110
                > Car Phone: (573) 529-0808
                > Cell Phone: (573) 529-4476
                > Toll Free Phone: (888) 571-0958
                > Toll Free Fax: (877) 795-9800
                > EMERGENCY LINE: (573) 234-4871
                >
                > RMRI, Inc. Website
                > (1) __http://www.rmriinc.com__ (http://www.rmriinc.com_/)
                (_http://www.rmriinc.com/_ (http://www.rmriinc.com/) )
                >
                > RMRI, Inc. Blog
                > (1) __http://rmriinc.wordpress.com/__ (http://rmriinc.wordpress.com/_)
                (_http://rmriinc.wordpress.com/_ (http://rmriinc.wordpress.com/) )
                >
                > --- In __infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com_
                (mailto:_infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com) _
                > (mailto:_infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com_
                (mailto:infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com) ) , suesarkis@ wrote:
                > >
                > >
                > > Rick -
                > >
                > > With the exception of the issue of "grandfathering", which I am not
                > going
                > > to address here, I am of the opinion that you have lost your mind.
                > >
                > > For starters, although the codification of the law is a Missouri
                issue,
                > > they did not write the law. They might have changed an element or two
                > they
                > > felt more suitable to the needs of your state, but the code itself was
                > > written by the Uniform Law Commission which is headquartered in
                Chicago.
                > All 50
                > > states have laws as to who and why members of their legal community
                will
                > be
                > > participating members of the ULC which has, I believe, 300
                participants.
                > > They have been in existence since 1892. Have you ever noticed how most
                > > state laws became in effect in 1892? Have you ever noticed how the
                > wording
                > > of most states with licensing is quite similar? That's because it
                comes
                > > from one source. However, I will admit that some states totally
                ignored
                > the
                > > ULC's suggestions and went out on their own.
                > >
                > > There is absolutely NOTHING in your State law that infringes upon
                > anyone's
                > > First Amendment rights. Your attorney's assertion that "A plain
                reading
                > of
                > > the definition reveals that the vast majority of Missourians commit a
                > > class A misdemeanor every day by engaging in the â€Å"private
                > investigator business”
                > > with neither
                > > licensure nor exemption" is not only inaccurate but totally ludicrous.
                > >
                > > What is absent from the entire brief and rather mistakingly stated is
                > the
                > > fact that the law does not preclude ANY PERSON within the confines of
                > your
                > > state's borders from going out and conducting any investigation they
                > want
                > > and to then be able to go forward with the information they garnered
                in
                > any
                > > lawful channel they choose. They could stand on a podium in the middle
                > of
                > > the State Capitol's town center and broadcast all they want.
                > >
                > > What is missing, however, throughout the entire brief (except the very
                > > beginning where the definitions are listed) is the fact that licensure
                > is
                > > required for anyone who wants to go beyond their First Amendment
                Rights
                > of free
                > > speech, etc. and SELL the information to a client. Just as any mother
                > has
                > > the lawful right to remove a splinter from their child's finger, so
                too
                > can
                > > that mother go out and do all of the background research and
                > investigation
                > > she wants on her child's teachers. It is only when she hangs a shingle
                > > out offering similar services to neighborhood children and their
                > families for
                > > A FEE that she needs to be licensed as either an M.D. or a P.I.
                > >
                > > Consumers need protections and that is what these laws are intended
                for.
                > > To engage in any business in America that could cause either physical
                > harm
                > > or financial hardship and suffering to a person due to the improper
                > > handling and conduct by said business, ALL states should demand
                > licensure of those
                > > businesses.
                > >
                > > What a waste of taxpayer dollars !!!!
                > >
                > > Sincerely,
                > > Sue
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > In a message dated 10/17/2011 10:59:51 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
                > > rmriinc@ writes:
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                >






                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • RickyG
                That is the crux of one of our arguments.. Have you read the Missouri Revised Statutes that regulate the PI Business? Here is a link to the definitions under
                Message 7 of 8 , Oct 18, 2011
                  That is the crux of one of our arguments..

                  Have you read the Missouri Revised Statutes that regulate the PI Business?

                  Here is a link to the definitions under the RSMo: http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C300-399/3240001100.HTM

                  You can also read the rest of the statutes if you want here: http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/c324.htm

                  It would be one thing if the Missouri Statutes distinguished the regulation of a business from the regulation of an activity with regards to the PI Business; but that is not the case here. When you read the definitions of PI Business in the statutes, here is what you are left with:
                  ---------------------------------------------------------------------
                  (11) "Private investigator business", the furnishing of, making of, or agreeing to make, any investigation for the purpose of obtaining information pertaining to:

                  (a) Crimes or wrongs done or threatened against the United States or any state or territory of the United States;

                  (b) The identity, habits, conduct, business, occupation, honesty, integrity, credibility, knowledge, trustworthiness, efficiency, loyalty, activity, movement, whereabouts, affiliations, associations, transactions, acts, reputation, or character of any person;

                  (c) The location, disposition, or recovery of lost or stolen property;

                  (d) Securing evidence to be used before any court, board, officer, or investigating committee;

                  (e) Sale of personal identification information to the public; or

                  (f) The cause of responsibility for libel, losses, accident, or damage or injury to persons or property or protection of life or property.
                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------

                  And reading the PI Statutes in their entirety is not helpful in distinguishing the difference between a business and and activity in regards to the regulation of the PI Business in Missouri.

                  So, the PI Business is basically defined as a set of activities, with no regard for whether or not these activities are conducted freely or for some type of consideration. In essence, this IS the regulation of activity or activities.

                  Furthermore, it is important to refer back to Judge Paul Wilson's ruling which we are appealing here. Judge Wilson never said that these arguments are not valid arguments, he just said that they present a "worse than worse case scenario" that he did not think warranted injunctive action because he could not imagine any Prosecutor charging a citizen of Missouri based on the scenarios we gave in our brief. We appeal this ruling because case law indicates that this line of thought which Judge Wilson wrote in his opinion is incorrect and if the statutes are actually unconstitutional then they can not be protected by saying that the government will use them responsibly: "We would not uphold an unconstitutional statute merely because the Government promised to use it responsibly. (Whitman v. American Trucking Associations, Inc., 531 U.S. 457, 473 (2001))"

                  You may have actually helped me more clearly define the crux of one of our arguments with your post, Bill. I know Sue is struggling with it; but she also does not get the same amount of oxygen to her brain that she was getting 20 years ago.... Oooops, I took a shot at Sue... But, it was honestly in humor, I actually hope Sue is over there in California laughing after having read that....

                  Ricky B. Gurley.


                  Risk Management Research & Investments, Inc. & Thoth Data Systems
                  Agency License Number: 2011001124

                  Director of Operations: Ricky Gurley
                  Private Investigator License Number: 2011001072

                  Mailing Address: 2101 W. Broadway PMB 326, Columbia, MO. 65203
                  Office Address: 1 E. Broadway Suite Z, Columbia, MO. 65203
                  Direct Office Number: (573) 234-6876
                  Office Phone: (573) 234-4647 Ext. 110
                  Car Phone: (573) 529-0808
                  Cell Phone: (573) 529-4476
                  Toll Free Phone: (888) 571-0958
                  Toll Free Fax: (877) 795-9800
                  EMERGENCY LINE: (573) 234-4871

                  RMRI, Inc. Website
                  (1) http://www.rmriinc.com


                  RMRI, Inc. Blog
                  (1) http://rmriinc.wordpress.com/






                  --- In infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com, oracleintl@... wrote:
                  >
                  > This is interesting.
                  >
                  > I have read the briefs, and it seems to me that the Constitutional
                  > arguments miss the key element - the statute does not undertake to regulate an
                  > activity, they undertake to regulate a business.
                  >
                  > The assertion that a person could be in violation by merely reading a
                  > newspaper seems absurd.
                  >
                  > A person could be in violation if they were gathering information from news
                  > media sources to compile and incorporate within an investigative report
                  > FOR HIRE, but I see no support for the contention that the activity itself is
                  > regulated.
                  >
                  > I don't get it.
                  >
                  > Bill
                  >
                  >
                  > In a message dated 10/17/2011 1:59:52 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
                  > rmriinc@... writes:
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > As many of you may know, I had a problem with getting my PI License when
                  > the state of Missouri started licensing Private Investigators. I had to
                  > initiate legal action to get my PI License. I finally did prevail and got
                  > licensed, got the people that were licensed under my company with the City of
                  > Columbia (municipal licenses) prior to state licensing also licensed, and got
                  > my agency licensed. I never did any PI work in the period of time that my
                  > company or myself was not licensed, and I am proud of that because I can
                  > honestly say that "I played by the rules"; which is something that I would not
                  > have done 15 years ago. I am proud of that, because in my mind I think it
                  > shows that I am not the same person that I used to be, I have learned to
                  > respect the rules; or at the very least I'd like to think so...
                  >
                  > But this issue is not completely finished. My attorney took a personal
                  > interest in the case once he got into it. My attorney believes that there are
                  > some issues with state licensing that need to be addressed in the courts.
                  > So, we are still pursuing additional legal action.
                  >
                  > We have filed for an injunction against the statutes that govern PI
                  > licensing in Missouri, and we lost in the Circuit Court, and we lost when we
                  > asked the Circuit Court to reconsider, but we have now appealed the Circuit
                  > Court's ruling to the Missouri Supreme Court. These types of actions take
                  > time, but things are starting to pick up speed in regards to my case. The ACLU
                  > even submitted an Amicus Brief on my behalf. If anyone is interested in
                  > reading about this case you can read about it on this page:
                  > _http://1.usa.gov/nWhfVf_ (http://1.usa.gov/nWhfVf)
                  >
                  > Just scroll down to the last case, and you can read all of the briefs on
                  > this case to date.
                  >
                  > The Missouri Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on my case November 9,
                  > 2011.
                  >
                  > Take care.
                  >
                  > Ricky B. Gurley.
                  >
                  > --
                  > Risk Management Research & Investments, Inc. & Thoth Data Systems
                  > Agency License Number: 2011001124
                  >
                  > Director of Operations: Ricky Gurley
                  > Private Investigator License Number: 2011001072
                  >
                  > Mailing Address: 2101 W. Broadway PMB 326, Columbia, MO. 65203
                  > Office Address: 1 E. Broadway Suite Z, Columbia, MO. 65203
                  > Direct Office Number: (573) 234-6876
                  > Office Phone: (573) 234-4647 Ext. 110
                  > Car Phone: (573) 529-0808
                  > Cell Phone: (573) 529-4476
                  > Toll Free Phone: (888) 571-0958
                  > Toll Free Fax: (877) 795-9800
                  > EMERGENCY LINE: (573) 234-4871
                  >
                  > RMRI, Inc. Website
                  > (1) _http://www.rmriinc.com_ (http://www.rmriinc.com/)
                  >
                  > RMRI, Inc. Blog
                  > (1) _http://rmriinc.wordpress.com/_ (http://rmriinc.wordpress.com/)
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  >
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.