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

Re: the ISPLA and their last post

Expand Messages
  • RickyG
    Welp! I have it on my task manager to remind me to look into the findings 3 days after your hearing on the 28th. It has never been a secret that I don t like
    Message 1 of 3 , Oct 3, 2012
      Welp! I have it on my task manager to remind me to look into the findings 3 days after your hearing on the 28th.

      It has never been a secret that I don't like you, for you are an arrogant and boisterous man and you have an uncanny ability to piss people off....

      But I do hope simply as a matter of principle that you get fair due process and a fair hearing. I also hope that you keep your license and your livelihood, because I understand how painful it can be to lose both; even temporarily. I wish you all the best in this particular ordeal, despite the fact that I know you would not have the same principles of fair play and compassion if I were in your shoes.


      Ricky Gurley.


      RMRI, Inc.
      http://www.rmriinc.com

      --- In infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com, S.R. <newsgroups@...> wrote:
      >
      > Dear Colleagues:
      >
      > I am one of the "bad PIs" mentioned in the ISPLA's last post to this
      > newsgroup. I have no information regarding the other (allegedly) "bad
      > PIs" but, as regards my inclusion in that needless and destructive
      > post, there are a few things that you should know about 1. the truth
      > of the post and 2. the reason for my inclusion in the posting.
      >
      > There are also a few things that you should know about the ISPLA.
      >
      > First, the state's "complaint" against me came at the end of a long
      > effort by me to get the NY licensing folks to apologize for false
      > statements that their spokesman (who is now "returned to the private
      > sector") made about me. Rather than apologize, they opened an
      > investigation into me. NY's complaint against me essentially has 2
      > major issues: 1. that I intimidated witnesses (in a case) and 2. that
      > I don't have an office in NY.
      >
      > Regarding the intimidation of witnesses, as far as I can tell
      > (discovery is still ongoing) there were 4 supposed "victims"; 3 said
      > that they "heard" that I was making threats, and the 4th is dead.
      > (Yes, really.) Further, there were other Investigators with me during
      > each and every interview, and they are appearing as witnesses for me
      > (unless this case, G-d willing, resolves quicker). And, as you all can
      > probably guess, especially if you have worked with me in the field,
      > each and every supposedly threatening interview was "documented to the
      > fullest extent permitted by law" (and you all know what that means).
      >
      > Regarding "no office", by any metric, I have an office: desks, chairs,
      > file cabinets, computers, phones, data lines, a cable line, a lease, a
      > license hanging on the wall, etc etc. Same location for 22 years. The
      > claim that I have no physical NY office is just plain wrong.
      >
      > (BTW, I AM PREPARING AN ARTICLE ON THIS CASE FOR PI MAGAZINE - THANK
      > YOU, JIMMIE - AND TWO OTHER PUBLICATIONS, WHICH I URGE EVERYONE TO
      > READ. IT WILL BE INFORMATIVE AND, I THINK, PRETTY DARN ENTERTAINING.
      > <G>.)
      >
      > All of the above was known to the ISPLA and/or could have easily been
      > determined by them - or by any colleague picking up the phone or
      > keyboard and saying "hey, Steve, what's up with the NY state
      > complaint" (as dozens of you already have) - prior to the ISPLA
      > sliming me by inclusion in their posting. Shouldn't supposed
      > colleagues have done at least a minimal amount of investigation before
      > republishing possibly (and in my case, absolutely) false and
      > potentially damaging statements about a fellow investigator? Or, even
      > more appropriate, behaved professionally by waiting for a decision in
      > the case and then posting that info, instead of allegations that might
      > or might not be true?
      >
      > (I'M VERY GRATEFUL TO THE COLLEAGUES WHO HAD THE COURTESY TO RESPOND
      > TO ISPLA'S POST WITH "...INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY..." COMMENTS.
      > THANK YOU ALL.)
      >
      > And, an obvious comment: if the ISPLA was so concerned about the
      > possible effects of bad publicity re "bad PIs" why did they address
      > that concern...by massively reposting the supposedly harmful info to
      > worldwide newsgroups? Yeah, makes sense, ISPLA.
      >
      > So, why was I honored with inclusion in a mass sliming by the ISPLA?
      > Likely because I have had a number of disagreements with their
      > spokesman and public face, Bruce Hulme.
      >
      > In the recent past I criticized Hulme about the actions of an ISPLA
      > board member (and I then quit ISPLA when he responded in what I
      > thought was a inappropriate manner). I publicly took Hulme to task re
      > ISPLA's recent wildly-inappropriate sliming of the NCISS (on these
      > very newsgroups) by his gratuitously mentioning that a PI in trouble
      > had once been an NCISS member (why not mention what church that PI
      > attended, or what political party had his vote?). And I publicly
      > questioned Hulme when, at an "educational event", he instructed PIs
      > that, even for a PI working for an attorney, "...questionable uses of
      > pretexts (even contacting a represented party) may be justifiable if
      > the information is so germane to the action and there is no other way
      > that it may be obtained...". (I am quoting VERBATIM from Humle's
      > Powerpoint slide; I was so astonished by his presentation that I took
      > a photo of it. And, FYI, in preparation for an article on this issue I
      > have contacted the NY and TX state bars and the NACDL, not to mention
      > a number of attorneys, re Hulme's advice...also look for that article
      > on that by the end of this year.)
      >
      > And there's more re me and Hulme, some of which I'm prohibited from
      > talking about due to the bylaws of an organization on whose board I sit.
      >
      > So, bottom line, Bruce Hulme and ISPLA have a beef with me, and one or
      > both saw an opportunity to zing me....a zing that, IMO, said a lot
      > more about the ISPLA's character than about mine.
      >
      > Still, because it's the nature of the internet that any poster has the
      > same potential reach and effect as the publisher of the NY Times, I
      > had to respond. (I have better things to do with my evening than spend
      > 20 minutes writing this and putting it into 1000 colleagues' e-
      > mailboxes...but I had to set the record straight. Note that I am only
      > posting where ISPLA posted...this sort of public squabble is bad for
      > all PIs.) I have been a proud and active Investigator for nearly 30
      > years. Being an Investigator is a basic part of my DNA, hugely
      > important to me, and there's no way that I could let ISPLA misleading
      > you re my honesty and integrity go unchallenged.
      >
      > (Here's where ISPLA's likely response will be "we were only quoting
      > from a newspaper article"...to which I hope you all then ask "how is
      > republishing harmful, unverified info about a colleague, no matter the
      > source, considered OK".)
      >
      > The ISPLA was started a few years back by a number of Investigators
      > who had become opponents of the NCISS - for reasons which are still
      > mostly unclear to me - and who wanted to establish a competing
      > organization. (FYI, a number of my friends, and people that I hugely
      > respect, were involved in the founding of the ISPLA and so, for a year
      > or so, I was one of the ISPLA's few paid members.) I had - and,
      > believe it or not, still have - no dog in the NCISS-ISPLA fight
      > (though a few more dumb posts may change that), and if Hulme hadn't
      > rubbed me the wrong way I probably would have continued supporting,
      > and paying dues to, both organizations. There are 50,000+
      > investigators in the USA, plenty of potential members for everyone.
      > But, gotta say this: regarding the membership, ongoing activities, and
      > makeup of the ISPLA, it's easier getting stats out of North Korea.
      > It's interesting to compare the complete transparency of the NCISS to
      > the Defcon 5 security level surrounding nearly everything about ISPLA,
      > even the number of their dues-paying members. What do they do that
      > requires that level of secrecy? I am aware of no other supposedly
      > "national" organization that doesn't at least post a membership
      > directory. Is the ISPLA 20 guys making a lot of noise, or 2000 people?
      >
      > So, be aware of the backstory, and please read my article in approx 2
      > weeks before you believe any more ISPLA b.s. about my case.
      >
      > And, hey, ISPLA, you handle legislative and legal issues affecting
      > PIs? How about some support for a PI that does everything "by the book"?
      >
      > And, yes, it will likely take sweat and blood but, though everything
      > is always in G-d's hands, I have no doubt that I will survive this
      > trial (in every sense of the word) completely intact.
      >
      > Please excuse any typos and the length of this post. I'm banging this
      > out as my last thing of the day and couldn't spent sufficient time on
      > this to be "elegant".
      >
      > Finally, my sincere and humble thanks to the dozens of people who have
      > expressed and offered amazing levels of support. Yeah, it's a cliche,
      > but at times like this a person finds out who are friends and who are
      > the knuckleheads, and who are the cowards that try to kick a guy when
      > they stupidly believe that he's down.
      >
      > Thanks for listening,
      >
      > Steven.
      >
      > (for: Pallorium, Inc.)
      > direct email: rambam@...
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > On Oct 3, 2012, at 6:27 AM, Investigator-Notes@yahoogroups.com wrote:
      >
      > > September was not a great press month for the Private Investigation
      > > profession. Below are just some of the negative press stories
      > > reported on
      > > around the country last month. With Congress and most state
      > > legislatures
      > > currently on recess until after the elections it is important to be
      > > aware of
      > > these types of events if you or your state associations are working
      > > on any
      > > type of legislative agendas. Rest assured that those groups that
      > > generally
      > > oppose the investigation profession are monitoring these types of
      > > media
      > > coverage and will use them to their advantage if given the
      > > opportunity.
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
    • S.R.
      Dear Colleagues: I am one of the bad PIs mentioned in the ISPLA s last post to this newsgroup. I have no information regarding the other (allegedly) bad
      Message 2 of 3 , Oct 3, 2012
        Dear Colleagues:

        I am one of the "bad PIs" mentioned in the ISPLA's last post to this
        newsgroup. I have no information regarding the other (allegedly) "bad
        PIs" but, as regards my inclusion in that needless and destructive
        post, there are a few things that you should know about 1. the truth
        of the post and 2. the reason for my inclusion in the posting.

        There are also a few things that you should know about the ISPLA.

        First, the state's "complaint" against me came at the end of a long
        effort by me to get the NY licensing folks to apologize for false
        statements that their spokesman (who is now "returned to the private
        sector") made about me. Rather than apologize, they opened an
        investigation into me. NY's complaint against me essentially has 2
        major issues: 1. that I intimidated witnesses (in a case) and 2. that
        I don't have an office in NY.

        Regarding the intimidation of witnesses, as far as I can tell
        (discovery is still ongoing) there were 4 supposed "victims"; 3 said
        that they "heard" that I was making threats, and the 4th is dead.
        (Yes, really.) Further, there were other Investigators with me during
        each and every interview, and they are appearing as witnesses for me
        (unless this case, G-d willing, resolves quicker). And, as you all can
        probably guess, especially if you have worked with me in the field,
        each and every supposedly threatening interview was "documented to the
        fullest extent permitted by law" (and you all know what that means).

        Regarding "no office", by any metric, I have an office: desks, chairs,
        file cabinets, computers, phones, data lines, a cable line, a lease, a
        license hanging on the wall, etc etc. Same location for 22 years. The
        claim that I have no physical NY office is just plain wrong.

        (BTW, I AM PREPARING AN ARTICLE ON THIS CASE FOR PI MAGAZINE - THANK
        YOU, JIMMIE - AND TWO OTHER PUBLICATIONS, WHICH I URGE EVERYONE TO
        READ. IT WILL BE INFORMATIVE AND, I THINK, PRETTY DARN ENTERTAINING.
        <G>.)

        All of the above was known to the ISPLA and/or could have easily been
        determined by them - or by any colleague picking up the phone or
        keyboard and saying "hey, Steve, what's up with the NY state
        complaint" (as dozens of you already have) - prior to the ISPLA
        sliming me by inclusion in their posting. Shouldn't supposed
        colleagues have done at least a minimal amount of investigation before
        republishing possibly (and in my case, absolutely) false and
        potentially damaging statements about a fellow investigator? Or, even
        more appropriate, behaved professionally by waiting for a decision in
        the case and then posting that info, instead of allegations that might
        or might not be true?

        (I'M VERY GRATEFUL TO THE COLLEAGUES WHO HAD THE COURTESY TO RESPOND
        TO ISPLA'S POST WITH "...INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY..." COMMENTS.
        THANK YOU ALL.)

        And, an obvious comment: if the ISPLA was so concerned about the
        possible effects of bad publicity re "bad PIs" why did they address
        that concern...by massively reposting the supposedly harmful info to
        worldwide newsgroups? Yeah, makes sense, ISPLA.

        So, why was I honored with inclusion in a mass sliming by the ISPLA?
        Likely because I have had a number of disagreements with their
        spokesman and public face, Bruce Hulme.

        In the recent past I criticized Hulme about the actions of an ISPLA
        board member (and I then quit ISPLA when he responded in what I
        thought was a inappropriate manner). I publicly took Hulme to task re
        ISPLA's recent wildly-inappropriate sliming of the NCISS (on these
        very newsgroups) by his gratuitously mentioning that a PI in trouble
        had once been an NCISS member (why not mention what church that PI
        attended, or what political party had his vote?). And I publicly
        questioned Hulme when, at an "educational event", he instructed PIs
        that, even for a PI working for an attorney, "...questionable uses of
        pretexts (even contacting a represented party) may be justifiable if
        the information is so germane to the action and there is no other way
        that it may be obtained...". (I am quoting VERBATIM from Humle's
        Powerpoint slide; I was so astonished by his presentation that I took
        a photo of it. And, FYI, in preparation for an article on this issue I
        have contacted the NY and TX state bars and the NACDL, not to mention
        a number of attorneys, re Hulme's advice...also look for that article
        on that by the end of this year.)

        And there's more re me and Hulme, some of which I'm prohibited from
        talking about due to the bylaws of an organization on whose board I sit.

        So, bottom line, Bruce Hulme and ISPLA have a beef with me, and one or
        both saw an opportunity to zing me....a zing that, IMO, said a lot
        more about the ISPLA's character than about mine.

        Still, because it's the nature of the internet that any poster has the
        same potential reach and effect as the publisher of the NY Times, I
        had to respond. (I have better things to do with my evening than spend
        20 minutes writing this and putting it into 1000 colleagues' e-
        mailboxes...but I had to set the record straight. Note that I am only
        posting where ISPLA posted...this sort of public squabble is bad for
        all PIs.) I have been a proud and active Investigator for nearly 30
        years. Being an Investigator is a basic part of my DNA, hugely
        important to me, and there's no way that I could let ISPLA misleading
        you re my honesty and integrity go unchallenged.

        (Here's where ISPLA's likely response will be "we were only quoting
        from a newspaper article"...to which I hope you all then ask "how is
        republishing harmful, unverified info about a colleague, no matter the
        source, considered OK".)

        The ISPLA was started a few years back by a number of Investigators
        who had become opponents of the NCISS - for reasons which are still
        mostly unclear to me - and who wanted to establish a competing
        organization. (FYI, a number of my friends, and people that I hugely
        respect, were involved in the founding of the ISPLA and so, for a year
        or so, I was one of the ISPLA's few paid members.) I had - and,
        believe it or not, still have - no dog in the NCISS-ISPLA fight
        (though a few more dumb posts may change that), and if Hulme hadn't
        rubbed me the wrong way I probably would have continued supporting,
        and paying dues to, both organizations. There are 50,000+
        investigators in the USA, plenty of potential members for everyone.
        But, gotta say this: regarding the membership, ongoing activities, and
        makeup of the ISPLA, it's easier getting stats out of North Korea.
        It's interesting to compare the complete transparency of the NCISS to
        the Defcon 5 security level surrounding nearly everything about ISPLA,
        even the number of their dues-paying members. What do they do that
        requires that level of secrecy? I am aware of no other supposedly
        "national" organization that doesn't at least post a membership
        directory. Is the ISPLA 20 guys making a lot of noise, or 2000 people?

        So, be aware of the backstory, and please read my article in approx 2
        weeks before you believe any more ISPLA b.s. about my case.

        And, hey, ISPLA, you handle legislative and legal issues affecting
        PIs? How about some support for a PI that does everything "by the book"?

        And, yes, it will likely take sweat and blood but, though everything
        is always in G-d's hands, I have no doubt that I will survive this
        trial (in every sense of the word) completely intact.

        Please excuse any typos and the length of this post. I'm banging this
        out as my last thing of the day and couldn't spent sufficient time on
        this to be "elegant".

        Finally, my sincere and humble thanks to the dozens of people who have
        expressed and offered amazing levels of support. Yeah, it's a cliche,
        but at times like this a person finds out who are friends and who are
        the knuckleheads, and who are the cowards that try to kick a guy when
        they stupidly believe that he's down.

        Thanks for listening,

        Steven.

        (for: Pallorium, Inc.)
        direct email: rambam@...






        On Oct 3, 2012, at 6:27 AM, Investigator-Notes@yahoogroups.com wrote:

        > September was not a great press month for the Private Investigation
        > profession. Below are just some of the negative press stories
        > reported on
        > around the country last month. With Congress and most state
        > legislatures
        > currently on recess until after the elections it is important to be
        > aware of
        > these types of events if you or your state associations are working
        > on any
        > type of legislative agendas. Rest assured that those groups that
        > generally
        > oppose the investigation profession are monitoring these types of
        > media
        > coverage and will use them to their advantage if given the
        > opportunity.




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