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

RE: [infoguys-list] Re: Investigators Needed Nationwide This Saturday

Expand Messages
  • Paul Curtis
    Perhaps we overlooked something here. This request comes to us from our neighbors to the north in Canada. I suspect that the rules are a bit different up
    Message 1 of 10 , Jun 8, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Perhaps we overlooked something here. This request comes to us from our
      neighbors to the north in Canada. I suspect that the rules are a bit
      different up there. I know the jurisdiction is.



      Paul Curtis

      Costa Mesa, CA

      pncurtis@...





      _____

      From: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com [mailto:infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com]
      On Behalf Of Ricky Gurley
      Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 9:36 PM
      To: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [infoguys-list] Re: Investigators Needed Nationwide This Saturday



      --- In infoguys-list@ <mailto:infoguys-list%40yahoogroups.com>
      yahoogroups.com, suesarkis@... wrote:
      >
      > Ryan -
      >
      > Since you are a licensed investigator, are you actually a licensee
      in all of
      > the states that require licensing of the 50? If not, wouldn't
      your subbing
      > out to licensees be a crime? That is, of course, unless you are
      doing this for
      > free and not getting paid any money or other consideration.

      Sue,

      I think that all he is asking for is people to assist in Signal
      Piracy Investigations.

      If this is the case could you explain to us the difference
      between what he is doing and you hiring an out of state Licensed
      Private Investigator to assist you on a case you are working in
      California, that requires some type of investigative work outside of
      the state of California i.e. pulling documents, surveillance,
      garbage collection etc., etc....?

      Rick.

      RMRI, Inc.
      Columbia, Missouri
      (888) 571-0958





      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • suesarkis@aol.com
      Rick - I’m surprised you would ask something so obvious. If I hire you as a client, I am directly responsible for your bill and I pay you for your services
      Message 2 of 10 , Jun 8, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Rick -

        I’m surprised you would ask something so obvious.

        If I hire you as a client, I am directly responsible for your bill and I pay
        you for your services either out of my pocket or I present your bill to the
        client. Should the client fail to pay, well, guess what I eat for breakfast.
        I am not making any money on the deal and, depending upon the laws of your
        state, I better NOT be padding that bill.

        On the other hand, with what many of the investigators do who are farming
        out the pay-per-view matters, they are paying a portion of money they have been
        paid. In other words, they are making money on our work. In CA it clearly
        says that for anyone to offer to provide services for PI work here in CA for
        ANY CONSIDERATION WHATSOEVER, they must be duly licensed in CA. This would
        be considered CA work being done in CA for an investigator requiring a CA
        license.

        On the other hand, the attorneys out there that are hiring PI’s to do same
        are within the confines of, if nothing else, CA’s laws. I cannot speak for
        most others.

        Sincerely yours,
        Sue
        ____________________________________________________
        Sue Sarkis
        Sarkis Detective Agency
        (est. 1976)

        PI 6564
        1346 Ethel Street
        Glendale, CA 91207-1826
        818-242-2505
        818-242-9824 FAX

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

        God Bless America and her allies forever !!


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • suesarkis@aol.com
        Paul - If anyone holds themselves out as being able to provide CA investigations for any consideration whatsoever, they must be duly licensed in accordance
        Message 3 of 10 , Jun 8, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          Paul -

          If anyone holds themselves out as being able to provide CA investigations
          for any consideration whatsoever, they must be duly licensed in accordance with
          §§ 7521 and 7523. He does not qualify for an exemption.

          However, for all I know he might be duly licensed in CA. I haven't checked.
          I just asked the question. Also, I will reiterate, if he is not making ANY
          money at all on these subbings, he's not in any violation either.

          It doesn't matter what the laws say in Canada but rather it is the courts
          here in CA that he would have to face.

          Sincerely yours,
          Sue
          ____________________________________________________
          Sue Sarkis
          Sarkis Detective Agency
          (est. 1976)


          PI 6564
          1346 Ethel Street
          Glendale, CA 91207-1826
          818-242-2505
          818-242-9824 FAX

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

          God Bless America and her allies forever !!


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Paul Curtis
          Sue, Thanks. I guess I was thinking that he probably would not come under the jurisdiction of the California courts if he was operating out of Canada. On the
          Message 4 of 10 , Jun 8, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            Sue,



            Thanks. I guess I was thinking that he probably would not come under the
            jurisdiction of the California courts if he was operating out of Canada. On
            the other hand, if the information gathered is used in a case before the
            courts here he is sort of between a rock and a really hard place, isn’t he?



            All my best,



            Paul Curtis

            Costa Mesa, CA

            pncurtis@...



            PS I doubt this is a freebie :-)





            _____

            From: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com [mailto:infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com]
            On Behalf Of suesarkis@...
            Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 10:27 PM
            To: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: Re: [infoguys-list] Re: Investigators Needed Nationwide This
            Saturday



            Paul -

            If anyone holds themselves out as being able to provide CA investigations
            for any consideration whatsoever, they must be duly licensed in accordance
            with
            §§ 7521 and 7523. He does not qualify for an exemption.

            However, for all I know he might be duly licensed in CA. I haven't checked.
            I just asked the question. Also, I will reiterate, if he is not making ANY
            money at all on these subbings, he's not in any violation either.

            It doesn't matter what the laws say in Canada but rather it is the courts
            here in CA that he would have to face.

            Sincerely yours,
            Sue
            ____________________________________________________
            Sue Sarkis
            Sarkis Detective Agency
            (est. 1976)

            PI 6564
            1346 Ethel Street
            Glendale, CA 91207-1826
            818-242-2505
            818-242-9824 FAX

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

            God Bless America and her allies forever !!

            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Ricky Gurley
            ... courts here in CA that he would have to face. In this case, I am not sure that he would have to face the courts in California at all, EVEN if these actions
            Message 5 of 10 , Jun 8, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com, suesarkis@... wrote:

              > It doesn't matter what the laws say in Canada but rather it is the
              courts here in CA that he would have to face.


              In this case, I am not sure that he would have to face the courts in
              California at all, EVEN if these actions we refer to here in this
              post were found to be criminal......

              I strongly suspect that this is something that the state of
              California would not waste it's time or money on.... Of course
              though it is California, and I could certainly be wrong....

              Personally; I believe this is all a bunch of non-sense.

              I long for people that would make someone prove their statement, by
              saying: "Ok, let's test your legal theory. When I am finished, I
              will send you the names of all of the P.I.s that did this work for
              me in California, and what they did, and I challenge you to have me
              or cause me to be prosecuted over it".

              It is always good to deal with people that are that confident about
              what they are doing......




              Rick.


              RMRI, Inc.
              Columbia, Missouri
              (888) 571-0958
            • suesarkis@aol.com
              Rick - You do not seem to understand as I have told you this previously so I will say it again. It does not matter what the State of CA is willing to do about
              Message 6 of 10 , Jun 9, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                Rick -

                You do not seem to understand as I have told you this previously so I will
                say it again.

                It does not matter what the State of CA is willing to do about it or not.
                ANY person can file an action in the court for an injunction against unlawful
                conduct. I've done it many, many times. Previously we would use the former
                17200 B&P but that was recently changed whereby only those personally harmed and
                out of pocket can file that way and when they prevail, they do get awarded
                attorney fees. Although there are no attorney fees for "injunctions" there are
                costs and I have an attorney friend who does them for GP.

                Before 17200 changed, there was a nonprofit, CAUP, who went after unlicensed
                people, not only PI's but all unlicensed parties. They never lost one. Since
                the change, I've only gone after 2 but 1 was from out of state and I won
                both.

                Rick, someday when we both have time remind me to tell you about the case I
                filed against the guy who put a bail Kiosk in the lobby of the San Luis Obispo
                County jail. He didn't have a bail license. If Kevin Ripa successfully
                saves my hard drive (which he just telephoned and said he believes he can), I
                believe a copy of the complaint might be on that drive. If so, I'll share it with
                you.

                Sue Sarkis
                Sarkis Detective Agency
                PI 6564
                1346 Ethel Street
                Glendale, CA 91207
                818-242-2505
                818-246-3001 FAX


                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Ricky Gurley
                ... or not. ... against unlawful ... the former ... personally harmed and ... awarded ... for injunctions there are ... I believe you Sue.. I have no doubt
                Message 7 of 10 , Jun 9, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com, suesarkis@... wrote:

                  > It does not matter what the State of CA is willing to do about it
                  or not.
                  > ANY person can file an action in the court for an injunction
                  against unlawful
                  > conduct. I've done it many, many times. Previously we would use
                  the former
                  > 17200 B&P but that was recently changed whereby only those
                  personally harmed and
                  > out of pocket can file that way and when they prevail, they do get
                  awarded
                  > attorney fees. Although there are no attorney fees
                  for "injunctions" there are
                  > costs and I have an attorney friend who does them for GP.


                  I believe you Sue.. I have no doubt that you could file a civil
                  action in this case (in any case for that matter)..

                  My point was not that a private person could not file on this case,
                  but that I did not believe the state of California would see this
                  case as something to spend the taxpayers money on. And because I am
                  talking about California, I also stated that I could be wrong.. I do
                  know that anytime the state of California will not extradite a
                  violent offender from the state of Florida, on a felony sexual
                  assault warrant, that there is a good possibility that the state of
                  California will not get too involved in a misdemeanor licensing
                  violation...

                  I am off to court, talk to ya later Sue. Have a good day and take
                  care..




                  Rick.


                  RMRI, Inc.
                  Columbia, Missouri
                  (888) 571-0958
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.