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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 8 , Oct 18, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      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]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.