Rick -

Since Bill has more than a decade to go before he's eligible, he's probably
  on a plane to MO right about now to go kick some butt !!!  You couldn't
blame him.

Sue




In a message dated 6/5/2012 3:14:10 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
rmriinc@... writes:




Sue,

You don't have any powers. You and Bill Branscum had your "PI  Powers"
taken away after you two went on Social Security and started meeting  your
clients at the K&W Cafe!

You "old timers" are operating on  nothing but knowledge and experience now
babee; just in case no one told  ya.

Ricky B. Gurley.

--- In _infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com_
(mailto:infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com) ,  suesarkis@... wrote:
>
> Rick -
>
> How do you figure  that this bill takes away your right to hire
employees?
> You are  blowing it so out of proportion it should be considered criminal.
>
> This bill would give you and me rights we do not have today in that  the
> guards have to let us have the same access that the process  servers
currently
> have regarding access to gated communities. Your  employees are left with
> the same rights they have today. I wouldn't  want NON-licensed
> investigators having the same power I have, nor  should they.
>
> You can do one of two things. Either hire only  licensees or register
your
> non-licensed employees as PS. If you do  that much PSing, they should be
> registered anyway since there are so  many things we can't serve without
being
> registered such as liens,  levies and OSC's.
>
> Sincerely,
> Sue






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

RickyG, wrote the following at or about 6/5/2012 5:14 PM:
> Sue,
>
> You don't have any powers. You and Bill Branscum had your "PI Powers" taken
away after you two went on Social Security and started meeting your clients at
the K&W Cafe!
>
> You "old timers" are operating on nothing but knowledge and experience now
babee; just in case no one told ya.

Aah, Grasshopper.

Have you forgotten the words of wisdom imparted, at various times, by
Willie & Waylon?

"Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill.  Always!"


The "old timers" you so cavalierly dismiss have kicked more ass in more
places than you've yet to see.  How the hell do you think we got so old
and battered.  Still breathing and kicking so we must have done
something right.


--

Enjoy,

/Bob/
________________________________________________________________
Hrodey & Associates                                   Established 1977
     Post Office Box 366                    Member of NALI, ASIS, FBINAA,
NAPPS
Woodstock, IL  60098-0366                        NCISS, & P.A.W.L.I.
     Licensed in IL & WI                    (815) 337-4636 Voice
337-4638 Fax
              email: inquiry@... <mailto:inquiry@...>   or
rth@... <mailto:rth@...>
                Illinois License 115-000783  Wisconsin 8045-063



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

I know most of you wont like this however, for the longest time, I have felt
that licensed PI's should not be able to hire anyone off the street and put them
to work in just about any type of endeavor within the investigative field
without the proper training and experience. I know that many PI's take their
time training and working with their new employees but there are also many who
take chances, sometimes with disastrous results, and there is nothing to prevent
this from happening. If it were up to me, I would require ALL PI's employees to
first pass an ethics exam and a test to prove they are very familiar with the
legal requirements that apply to our work, particularly in areas such as
subrosa, pre-employment backgrounds, process service and the like.


Having said that however, given the current state of the laws actually governing
PI's I cannot see how AB1720 will be of help to our profession for the very
reasons given by Rick. There is nothing to be gained by allowing passage of a
law that will preclude us from using employees in any given field while failing
to put teeth in the one area that is supposed to be of help to us.


Regards,


Ronald R. DeCaro
Private Investigator - CA License No. PI21993
INTEGRATED INSURANCE INVESTIGATIONS
PO Box 888 - Mira Loma - CA - 91752-0888
Phone (951) 360-8880  Fax (951) 360-5957
E-mail: Roncaro@...



-----Original Message-----
From: suesarkis <suesarkis@...>
To: rick-vg <rick-vg@...>
Cc: freekali <freekali@yahoogroups.com>; infoguys-list
<infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tue, Jun 5, 2012 12:00 pm
Subject: [freekali] Re: http://pi-pac.org PI-PAC OPPOSES AB1720 - Landmark
Legislation Assaulting...






Rick -

How do you figure that this bill takes away your right to hire employees?  You
are blowing it so out of proportion it should be considered criminal.

This bill would give you and me rights we do not have today in that the guards
have to let us have the same access that the process servers currently have
regarding access to gated communities.  Your employees are left with the same
rights they have today.  I wouldn't want NON-licensed investigators having the
same power I have, nor should they.

You can do one of two things.  Either hire only licensees or register your
non-licensed employees as PS.  If you do that much PSing, they should be
registered anyway since there are so many things we can't serve without being
registered such as liens, levies and OSC's.

Sincerely,
Sue



In a message dated 6/5/2012 11:37:45 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
rick-vg@... writes:


Dear Professional   Colleagues,



Attached you will find our   opposition letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee
relevant to   AB1720/Torres.



On its face, AB1720 doesn’t appear   to be harmful just as the ID Card
legislation sponsored by CALI years ago didn’t,   but as we all know, has
proven to be a disaster we continue to live with     AB1720 actually takes away
our right to utilize employees which   to our knowledge is a landmark assault
against the private investigative   industry.  Further, this bill is impotent
because it lacks ANY remedy for non-compliance.



PI-PAC believes the fight should   be to expand and secure our business
opportunities, not wholesale them and   create a pattern of relinquishing our
rights and business opportunities.    Simple amendments to this would remedy the
situation, but to date both   CALI and   Assemblywoman Torres have refused to do
so as to not disrupt their   relationships with CalsPro and gated community
associations.  We disagree   with CALI that   AB1720 is bill to “fix an old
problem” when it creates landmark legislation to   “take away” a right we
now have under law.



Any   restriction against our ability to employ is not in our best interest and
not   only would AB1720 set a very dangerous precedence, it would be bad
business   too.  Lose one business right today and we’ll be sure to lose
another   tomorrow; and for what?



You may click on the link PI-PAC   in the subject line above, go to the
“Legislation” page and then click on   AB1720 for a copy of the bill.



Please let us know your thoughts   about this landmark assault on private
investigators.  We look forward to   you joining the conversation and you can
start by replying to this   email.



Very truly   yours,



Rick von   Geldern

PI-PAC













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

I have enormous respect for those that are more experienced than I; but I do
like to take my "jabs"... LOL.

I have been in bed recovering from a severe bout of food poisoning, so there has
not been much that I could do other than have a little fun on the groups with my
iPad. So Bill, save a plane ticket and spare a sick guy a "butt whoopin".

Hope everyone is doing better than I am.


Ricky B. Gurley.

RMRI, Inc.




--- In infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com, Bob Hrodey <rth@...> wrote:
>
> RickyG, wrote the following at or about 6/5/2012 5:14 PM:
> > Sue,
> >
> > You don't have any powers. You and Bill Branscum had your "PI Powers" taken
away after you two went on Social Security and started meeting your clients at
the K&W Cafe!
> >
> > You "old timers" are operating on nothing but knowledge and experience now
babee; just in case no one told ya.
>
> Aah, Grasshopper.
>
> Have you forgotten the words of wisdom imparted, at various times, by
> Willie & Waylon?
>
> "Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill.  Always!"
>
>
> The "old timers" you so cavalierly dismiss have kicked more ass in more
> places than you've yet to see.  How the hell do you think we got so old
> and battered.  Still breathing and kicking so we must have done
> something right.
>
>
> --
>
> Enjoy,
>
> /Bob/
> ________________________________________________________________
> Hrodey & Associates                                   Established 1977
>     Post Office Box 366                    Member of NALI, ASIS, FBINAA,
> NAPPS
> Woodstock, IL  60098-0366                        NCISS, & P.A.W.L.I.
>     Licensed in IL & WI                    (815) 337-4636 Voice
> 337-4638 Fax
>              email: inquiry@... <mailto:inquiry@...>   or
> rth@... <mailto:rth@...>
>                Illinois License 115-000783  Wisconsin 8045-063
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Ron -

Had the industry asked for too much all at once, we would have had
nothing.  The opponents are a multitude of rivals.  Let's crawl and  then walk
considering the history.

Sue




In a message dated 6/5/2012 5:35:50 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
Roncaro@... writes:




I know most of you wont like this however, for the longest time, I have
felt that licensed PI's should not be able to hire anyone off the street and
put them to work in just about any type of endeavor within the investigative
  field without the proper training and experience. I know that many PI's
take  their time training and working with their new employees but there are
also  many who take chances, sometimes with disastrous results, and there is
nothing  to prevent this from happening. If it were up to me, I would
require ALL PI's  employees to first pass an ethics exam and a test to prove
they
are very  familiar with the legal requirements that apply to our work,
particularly in  areas such as subrosa, pre-employment backgrounds, process
service and the  like.

Having said that however, given the current state of the laws  actually
governing PI's I cannot see how AB1720 will be of help to our  profession for
the very reasons given by Rick. There is nothing to be gained  by allowing
passage of a law that will preclude us from using employees in any  given
field while failing to put teeth in the one area that is supposed to be  of help
to us.

Regards,

Ronald R. DeCaro
Private Investigator  - CA License No. PI21993
INTEGRATED INSURANCE INVESTIGATIONS
PO Box 888  - Mira Loma - CA - 91752-0888
Phone (951) 360-8880 Fax (951)  360-5957
E-mail: _Roncaro@..._ (mailto:Roncaro@...)

-----Original  Message-----
From: suesarkis <_suesarkis@..._ (mailto:suesarkis@...) >
To: rick-vg  <_rick-vg@..._ (mailto:rick-vg@...) >
Cc:  freekali <_freekali@yahoogroups.com_ (mailto:freekali@yahoogroups.com)
>;  infoguys-list <_infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com_
(mailto:infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com) >
Sent:  Tue, Jun 5, 2012 12:00 pm
Subject: [freekali] Re: _http://pi-pac.org_ (http://pi-pac.org/)   PI-PAC
OPPOSES AB1720 - Landmark Legislation Assaulting...

Rick  -

How do you figure that this bill takes away your right to hire  employees?
You are blowing it so out of proportion it should be considered  criminal.

This bill would give you and me rights we do not have today  in that the
guards have to let us have the same access that the process  servers currently
have regarding access to gated communities. Your employees  are left with
the same rights they have today. I wouldn't want NON-licensed  investigators
having the same power I have, nor should they.

You can do  one of two things. Either hire only licensees or register your
non-licensed  employees as PS. If you do that much PSing, they should be
registered anyway  since there are so many things we can't serve without being
registered such as  liens, levies and OSC's.

Sincerely,
Sue



In a message  dated 6/5/2012 11:37:45 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
_rick-vg@..._ (mailto:rick-vg@...)   writes:


Dear Professional Colleagues,



Attached you  will find our opposition letter to the Senate Judiciary
Committee relevant to  AB1720/Torres.



On its face, AB1720 doesn’t appear to be  harmful just as the ID Card
legislation sponsored by CALI years ago didn’t,  but as we all know, has
proven
to be a disaster we continue to live with  AB1720 actually takes away our
right to utilize employees which to our  knowledge is a landmark assault
against the private investigative industry.  Further, this bill is impotent
because it lacks ANY remedy for non-compliance.



PI-PAC believes the fight should be to expand and secure our  business
opportunities, not wholesale them and create a pattern of  relinquishing our
rights and business opportunities. Simple amendments to this  would remedy the
situation, but to date both CALI and Assemblywoman Torres  have refused to
do so as to not disrupt their relationships with CalsPro and  gated community
associations. We disagree with CALI that AB1720 is bill to  “fix an old
problem” when it creates landmark legislation to “take away” a  right we
now
have under law.



Any restriction against our  ability to employ is not in our best interest
and not only would AB1720 set a  very dangerous precedence, it would be bad
business too. Lose one business  right today and we’ll be sure to lose
another tomorrow; and for  what?



You may click on the link PI-PAC in the subject line  above, go to the “
Legislation” page and then click on AB1720 for a copy of the  bill.



Please let us know your thoughts about this landmark  assault on private
investigators. We look forward to you joining the  conversation and you can
start by replying to this email.



Very  truly yours,



Rick von  Geldern

PI-PAC





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






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

Rick -

Sorry to hear you haven't been well.  I hope it wasn't your  cooking.
Regardless, we all hope for a speedy recovery.

Sue



In a message dated 6/5/2012 5:38:29 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
rmriinc@... writes:




I have enormous respect for those that are more experienced than I; but I
do like to take my "jabs"... LOL.

I have been in bed recovering from a  severe bout of food poisoning, so
there has not been much that I could do  other than have a little fun on the
groups with my iPad. So Bill, save a plane  ticket and spare a sick guy a
"butt whoopin".

Hope everyone is doing  better than I am.

Ricky B. Gurley.

RMRI, Inc.

--- In _infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com_
(mailto:infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com) ,  Bob Hrodey <rth@...> wrote:
>
> RickyG, wrote the following  at or about 6/5/2012 5:14 PM:
> > Sue,
> >
> > You  don't have any powers. You and Bill Branscum had your "PI Powers"
taken away  after you two went on Social Security and started meeting your
clients at the  K&W Cafe!
> >
> > You "old timers" are operating on  nothing but knowledge and experience
now babee; just in case no one told  ya.
>
> Aah, Grasshopper.
>
> Have you forgotten the  words of wisdom imparted, at various times, by
> Willie &  Waylon?
>
> "Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill.  Always!"
>
>
> The "old timers" you so cavalierly dismiss  have kicked more ass in more
> places than you've yet to see. How the  hell do you think we got so old
> and battered. Still breathing and  kicking so we must have done
> something right.
>
>
> --
>
> Enjoy,
>
> /Bob/
>  __________________________________________________________
> Hrodey  & Associates Established 1977
> Post Office Box 366 Member of NALI,  ASIS, FBINAA,
> NAPPS
> Woodstock, IL 60098-0366 NCISS, &  P.A.W.L.I.
> Licensed in IL & WI (815) 337-4636 Voice
>  337-4638 Fax
> email: inquiry@... <mailto:inquiry@...> or
>  rth@... <mailto:rth@...>
> Illinois License 115-000783 Wisconsin  8045-063
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message  have been removed]
>






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

Rick -

You obviously totally misunderstood my point.  This bill does NOT  allow
our employees access to these gated communities whether you HIRE new ones  or
UTILIZE the ones already on payroll.

We are NOT process servers, we are investigators.  The purpose of our
having an exception for the SIMPLE service of process, meaning subpoenae, is to
allow us to save the taxpayers and our clients lots of money whether court
appointed or privately retained.  If the client's attorney has you
interview witnesses and trusts you enough to make a decision about serving them,
or, in the alternative, gives you a flat across the board "after the
interview,  serve them" it saves the additional expenses of having to have a PS
locate and  then serve the already interviewed witness.  In other words, we get
to kill  two birds with one stone.

If we want to go into the PS business, then we should register like
everyone else.  Plain and simple.

Look, the bill gives us a little more power than we have today and that
cannot be looked upon as a negative by anyone with an IQ over 50 no matter how
  many other things you would like the bill to include.  Let's get this on
the books and perhaps later address other issues.

We are PI's, not PS's.

Sincerely,
Sue


In a message dated 6/6/2012 8:06:11 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
rick-vg@... writes:


Ms.  Sarkis,
You have misstated my  words for the premise of your reply.  I said “utilize
” employees and you  return fire with “hire employees.”  I stand by my
words as both truthful  and accurate.
To answer your  question, I figured “that” out after reading the bill and
related laws, by  speaking with the author’s office who confirmed it twice
through their legal  staff and also with CALI.  So Ms. Sarkis, how do you
figure  it would allow us to “utilize” employees or do you just not care?
Further, if you  wouldn’t want NON-licensed investigators having the same
power you have, why  would you, CALI or anyone be so anxious to acquiesce a
present right to  utilize employees by giving power to NON-licensed process
servers and their  trade association, CalsPro?
Thank you for joining  the conversation.
Sincerely,
Rick von  Geldern




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

Pinkerton and Securitas are proud to host the Open Source Intelligence (OSINT)
Training presented by Sandra Stibbards of Camelot Investigations.  The 1-Day
OSINT Training Course is being held Saturday, July 28, 2012, in Aurora, CO.  You
do not want to miss it!  The day will provide an education and information you
will not be able to acquire anywhere else.  The class is completely interactive
keeping you busy every moment and enjoying the activities.

This training course is normally taught as a 2-Day OSINT training for Federal
agents and/or employees.  The course has been condensed into 1 day to accomplish
a fast track and is now open to those outside of the Federal government sector. 
Whether you are a licensed investigator, an attorney, a paralegal, a CPA,
salesperson, security specialist, forensics specialist, etc., you will not want
to miss this class! Sign up today and take your investigative and research
skills to the next level.

This class is designed for those with advanced to even very basic computer
skills. Everyone will leave this class with a wealth of new knowledge that will
be extremely beneficial to your industry!

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE OPEN SOURCE INTELLIGENCE TRAINING COURSE

The OSINT training course provides extensive information relating to surface and
deep web searching along with advanced online search techniques & strategies,
online privacy / anonymity tools, counterintelligence techniques used by the
criminal element, utilize database systems, archiving tools and methods to
obtain archived pages & hidden information, search techniques of blogs and
social networks, geolocating, image recognition, transfer of large files, screen
shot capabilities, and analysis, organization, preparation as well as writing
reports for the information developed.

Lists of search engines, blogs, forums, social networks, etc. along with search
tools on the ways to use these items will be provided throughout the training.
You will never conduct an investigation in the same manner as you did before you
attend this class.

OUTLINE OF THE OSINT TRAINING COURSE:

�         Privacy and Proxies

�         Approaches to Searching - Basic Techniques

�         Approaches to Searching - Advanced Techniques

�         Deep Web Part 1 - People Searches

�         Deep Web Part 2 - Public Records

�         International Search Engines and Tools

�         Specialized Sites - Real Time News, Business Sites, Publication Access
and Other Open Sources

�         Deep Web Part 3 - Social Networks, Blogs, Forums and Social Media
Search Tips

�         Tools and Downloads

�         Ways to Utilize Social Media in Your Investigations

�         Organize, Analyze, Summarize & Report

Many of the attendees for this class have been federal employees or defense
contractors. The agencies attending this course have included the US Secret
Service, Federal Trade Commission, DHS Explosive Ordinance Disposal, DHS
Transportation Security Administration, Social Security Administration,
Department of Defense, NIRA (Immigration Customs Enforcement), Department of
Commerce, sheriff's offices, police departments as well as various aerospace
companies through DOD. Other attendees have been from international corporations
involved in internet investigations and security as well as the financial and
pharmaceutical industries.

This class offers something for everyone involved in the investigations
profession as well as any other type of business, large and small. Please feel
free to contact Sandra at Sandra@... for further details
about this class.

Register today as space will be limited for this event. All attendees will need
to bring their personal laptop with wireless capabilities. It is recommended
that you bring your own air card or hot spot to access the internet.  Please do
not bring government issued equipment.

Registration:

To register, contact Sandra Stibbards by email at
Sandra@....  Credit Cards and Company Checks will be
accepted. The rate is $245.00 per person in advance of the training day.  An
additional $30 will be charged if you prefer to pay the day of the training.

Discounts:

Discounts are available for active law enforcement officers and organizations
sending multiple attendees. A 10% discount will be given to all members of
PPIAC, ATAP and ASIS as well as other organizations. Contact Sandra Stibbards at
sandra@... for details.

The Food:

Coffee and light refreshments will be served in the morning.  Snacks will be
available throughout the day.  Lunch is on your own.

Important:

Bring your personal laptop with wireless capabilities. No government issued
equipment please.

Registration will begin at 7:45 am. The day will begin promptly at 8:30 am and
be completed at 4:30 pm. The lunch will be approximately Noon to 1 pm.  Training
will be held at the Securitas training facility located at 2851 S. Parker Rd.,
Suite 100, Aurora, CO, 80014.  Call Sandra Stibbards at 888-584-3393 with any
questions.

See you there!

Sandra Stibbards
Owner / President
Camelot Investigations
888-584-3393  office
888-584-6778  cellular
CA License # PI18099
TX License # A11304
sandra@...
www.CamelotInvestigations.com




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

Colleagues:

Of interest to us all.

Steven.

(Steven Rambam, CFE, CPP, PSP, PCI, CSAR, Director.)
(for: Pallorium, Inc.)

direct email: rambam@...



Begin forwarded message:

> Subject: Census records are now searchable by name
>
> photos below. Also, 1915 and 1925 New York State censuses posted
> online today for the first time searchable by name.
>
>
>
> �   1940 CENSUS-BY NAME
>
>
> NEW YORK � Americans are in for a cyber-surprise on Wednesday:
> They'll be able to plug family names into an online 1940 U.S. census
> and come up with details about the lives of New Yorkers � from Joe
> DiMaggio and Jacqueline Kennedy to their own relatives. Census
> experts say the New York data are of national interest because tens
> of millions of Americans have roots in this gateway to the nation
> through Ellis Island, and many can now dig for more personal
> information. By Verena Dobnik and Randy Herschaft.
>
>
> AP photos.
>
>
>
> http://yhoo.it/Nhm30n
>
>
>
>
> 1940 NY census records are now searchable by name
> By RANDY HERSCHAFT and VERENA DOBNIK | Associated Press � 1 hr 47
> mins ago
>
>
> NEW YORK (AP) � Americans are in for a cyber-surprise on Wednesday:
> They'll be able to plug family names into an online 1940 U.S. census
> and come up with details about the lives of New Yorkers � from Joe
> DiMaggio and Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy to their own relatives.
> Starting after midnight, it will no longer be essential to provide
> exact addresses from seven decades ago to look for a New
> Yorkconnection.
> With names, free searches of the 1940 U.S. census first made public
> in April will unlock personal information about residents of New
> York � then the largest U.S. state and an immigrant hub from which
> people moved all over the country.
> Census experts say the New York data is of national interest because
> tens of millions of Americans have roots in this gateway to the
> United States through Ellis Island, and many can now dig for more
> personal information.
> "That's the exciting aspect about this � the ability to search the
> lifetime of our mothers and fathers," said Debra Braverman, a New
> York-based independent forensic genealogist with clients seeking
> information for trust funds and estates.
> When the census was first released, "if you didn't know exactly
> where someone lived in 1940, you couldn't find them," Braverman said.
> Indexing by name is crucial to cracking the until-now closed book of
> that year's census, which by law could not be released for 72 years
> and is therefore the most recently available one.
> This U.S. census leads to China.
> Some of the work of transcribing handwritten census records into a
> computerized index was done by workers in an office outside the
> southern city of Dongguan with "very strong character recognition
> abilities," said Todd Jensen, who heads the document preservation
> service at Ancestry.com, a Provo, Utah-based family history company
> that's releasing the online New York census for 1940 using their new
> name index.
> "Given the complexity of their own language, reading and recognizing
> characters from other languages comes easier," he said.
> Also Wednesday, another historic treasure trove appears on the
> Internet for the first time: census information compiled separately
> by New York state for 1915 and 1925, indexed by name. These records
> include details about famed personalities such as Lauren Bacall, Al
> Capone, Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Houdini, who according to the
> 1925 census was born in the United States, even though most
> biographies say he was born in Hungary.
> The interest in roots is so intense that 37 million hits temporarily
> crashed the National Archives provider site when the 1940 census was
> released on April 2. Many who logged on hoping for results hit the
> wall, frustrated for lack of specific locations required for results.
> Braverman, a Manhattan resident, uncovered details about her 84-year-
> old father's family because he remembered his family's Brooklyn
> address before his bar mitzvah in 1940, when he was 13.
> "His memory was spot on," his daughter said.
> But the Brooklyn childhood address her mother remembered didn't
> match, so they will try to find the information again this week.
> Former New York Mayor Ed Koch hit the jackpot when it came to his
> family history, which is contained in all three censuses � the
> federal one, as well as the New York ones from 1915 and 1925.
> The 87-year-old Koch participated in a preview search conducted by
> Ancestry.com, which is making all three census records available
> online.
> His said his father came from Europe, alone at age 16, eventually
> raising a family in a Bronx apartment. For years, "I told people
> that we lived in abject poverty," he said. A series of census
> records from the time would prove him wrong.
> They showed that the Depression-era rent for the Kochs' five-room
> Bronx apartment was $75 a month, "and that was a lot of money at the
> time," Koch said.
> "All my life, I was telling people I was very poor, but I learned we
> did not live in abject poverty; I was born into a middle-class
> family," he said.
> The New York world of the 1940 census includes names that later
> became famous, including Katharine Hepburn, John D. Rockefeller Jr.,
> J.D. Salinger, Kennedy and Ella Fitzgerald.
> The 1940 census by name index will be available for all states
> possibly as early as this fall.
> While New York is the biggest state whose census records are already
> name-indexed, a number of smaller states also have been made name-
> accessible by Ancestry.com and two other companies, FamilySearch.org
> and MyHeritage.com.
> New York state censuses for 1915 and 1925 are available online for
> the first time via a link that says "find family history for free"
> to anyone providing a New York ZIP code and email address.
> The state censuses show "every New Yorker from the famous to the
> infamous to everybody in between," said Kathleen Roe, director of
> archives and records management at the New York State Archives.
> A perfect example of this melting pot is Babe Ruth, who appeared in
> the 1925 census as "George H. Ruth" and listed his occupation as
> "Base Ballplayer." He was living by the Grand Concourse near Yankee
> Stadium, which would later be dubbed "The House That Ruth Built."
> The Ruth family neighbor was Joseph Weinstock, an Austrian immigrant
> working in manufacturing and his Russian-born wife, the census shows.
> "So here was the future American baseball hero living next door to
> an immigrant family making it in the United States," Roe said. "What
> a great American story! And that's what you can find out walking
> through a neighborhood with census records."
> The censuses released this week offer "one of the greatest
> collections of historic voices you'll ever find," said Roe, adding
> that if read together, they trace whole families as they move around.
> The census data also include such information as occupation, whether
> immigrants were naturalized citizens, and whether they owned or
> rented their homes � in other words, sketches of communities, said
> David M. Kleiman, president of Heritage Muse Inc., a New York-based
> genealogy technology firm.
> "What we're all looking for is the story of the family � what made
> my grandparents the way they were, which made my parents the way
> they were, which made me what I am," he said.
> ___
> Ancestry.com: www.ancestry.com/newyork
> New York State Archives: www.archives.nysed.gov
> ___
> Follow Verena Dobnik at http://www.twitter.com/VerenaChirps and
> Randy Herschaft at http://twitter.com/HerschaftAP
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Copyright 2012, The Associated Press
>
> Caption
>
> This detail of an image taken from microfilm and provided by
> Ancestry.com shows a section of a page from the 1925 New York State
> census with an entry for George H. Ruth, fifth from top. George H.
> "Babe" Ruth is one of many notable New Yorkers who will be
> searchable online by name when the 1915 and 1925 New York States
> censuses and the 1940 U.S. Census become searchable by family name
> at midnight, June 5, 2012. (AP Photo/Ancestry.com)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Copyright 2012, The Associated Press
>
> Caption
>
> This image taken from microfilm and provided by Ancestry.com shows a
> detail of a ledger page from the 1925 New York State census with
> entries for Harry and Beatrice Houdini. Magician Harry Houdini is
> one of the many notable New Yorkers who will be searchable online by
> name when the 1915 and 1925 New York States censuses pluethe 1940
> U.S. Census become searchable by family name at midnight, June 5,
> 2012. (AP Photo/Ancestry.com)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Copyright 2012, The Associated Press
>
> Caption
>
> This image taken from microfilm and provided by Ancestry.com shows a
> detail of a page from the 1915 New York State Census with the family
> of barber  Gabriel Capone. Capone's son, Alfonse, listed third from
> the bottom, went on to be one of the most notorious organized crime
> figures of the Twentieth Century. He is one of many notable New
> Yorkers who will be searchable online by name when the 1915 and 1925
> New York States censuses and the 1940 U.S. Census become searchable
> by family name at midnight, June 5, 2012. (AP Photo/Ancestry.com)
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Copyright 2012, The Associated Press
>
> Caption
>
> Independent forensic genealogist Debra Braverman poses with a
> photograph of her grandparents, Harry and Edith Braverman, her
> father Sidney, and his younger brother Donald, Tuesday, June 5,
> 2012, in New York. Braverman located her family's data in the 1940
> census data earlier this year when her now 84 year-old father
> remembered his 1940 street address. After midnight Wednesday,
> Americans will be able to plug family names into an online 1940 U.S.
> census and come up with details about the lives of New Yorkers -
> from Joe DiMaggio and Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy to their own
> relatives. (AP Photo/Kathy Willens)
>
> Summary
>
> Date: 06/05/2012 08:09 PM
> Slug: 1940 Census-By Name
>
>
>
>
>
> Copyright 2012, The Associated Press
>
> Caption
>
> In this April 6, 2012 photo provided by Ancestry.com, clerical
> workers in Dongguan, China decipher English script on handwritten
> census forms so that the data from the 1940 U.S. Census can be
> entered and searchable online. After midnight Wednesday, June 6,
> 2012, Americans will be able to plug family names into an online
> 1940 U.S. census and come up with details about the lives of New
> Yorkers - from Joe DiMaggio and Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy to their
> own relatives. (AP Photo/Ancestry.com, Todd Jensen)
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Copyright 2012, The Associated Press
>
> Caption
>
> Independent forensic genealogist Debra Braverman shows the census
> data for her grandparents Harry and Edith Braverman, her father
> Sidney, and his younger brother Donald, Tuesday, June 5, 2012, in
> New York, after locating their data in the 1940 census data the day
> after it was put online. Braverman located her family's names when
> her now 84-year-old father remembered his 1940 street address. After
> midnight Wednesday, Americans will be able to plug family names into
> an online 1940 U.S. census and come up with details about the lives
> of New Yorkers - from Joe DiMaggio and Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy to
> their own relatives. (AP Photo/Kathy Willens)
>
>
>
>
>
> Copyright 2012, The Associated Press
>
> Caption
>
> This image taken from microfilm and provided by Ancestry.com shows
> two pages from the 1925 New York State Census with an entry for
> George H. Ruth, shown eighth from the bottom on the left hand side.
> George H. "Babe" Ruth is one of many notable New Yorkers who will be
> searchable online by name when the 1915 and 1925 New York States
> censuses and the 1940 U.S. Census become searchable by family name
> at midnight, June 5, 2012. (AP Photo/Ancestry.com)
>
> Summary
>
>
> Date: 06/05/2012 08:23 PM
> Slug:  1940 Census By Name
> Headline:
>
>
>
>
> Copyright 2012, The Associated Press
>
> Caption
>
> This image taken from microfilm and provided by Ancestry.com shows a
> detail from a 1940 U.S. Census ledger page with an entry for
> Jacqueline Bouvier, second from top. Bouvier, who became Jacqueline
> Kennedy when she married John F. Kennedy, is one of the many notable
> New Yorkers whose name will come up electronically if searched on
> the Internet when the 1940 U.S. Census becomes searchable by family
> names at midnight, Wednesday, June 5, 2012. (AP Photo/Ancestry.com)
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Copyright 2012, The Associated Press
>
> Caption
>
> This image taken from microfilm and provided by Ancestry.com shows
> two pages from the 1925 New York State Census that include an entry
> for Edward Koch, appearing at the top of the page at right. Koch,
> who went on to practice law and become the mayor of New York City,
> is one of many notable New Yorkers who will be searchable online by
> name when the 1915 and 1925 New York States censuses and the 1940
> U.S. Census become searchable by family name at midnight, June 5,
> 2012. (AP Photo/Ancestry.com)
>
> Summary
>
>
>
>
>
> Copyright 2012, The Associated Press
>
> Caption
>
> FILE- In this file photo provided by the National Archives at
> College Park, an enumerator interviews a woman for the 1940 Census.
> The 1940 U.S. Census plus the 1915 and 1925 New York Censuses will
> be searchable online by family name, without needing often forgotten
> addresses from seven decades ago. (AP Photo/National Archives at
> College Park, File)
>
>






Pallorium, Inc.
P.O. Box 155 - Midwood Station
Brooklyn, New York 11230 USA
(001) 212-969-0286
____________

http://www.pallorium.com

TWITTER: @pallorium and @stevenrambam
____________

* Licensed Investigators * Database Services *

* U.S.A. Affiliates in New York, Texas, Louisiana and California *

* IIN * WAD * WIN * NAIS * ION * AIIP * NCISS * BOMP * COIN *
* ASIS * ACFE * IOA * INTELNET * ALDONYS * TALI * SPI * ACFCS *

____________

Join the "INVESTIGATIONS" group at: www.peoplefinder.net/newsgroup.html
A private, secure and noncompetitive group for investigative
professionals.


P   Please consider the environment before printing this email.






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

If the call came through a landline. NEXT time immediately dial #57 on the phone
the Call came to. You have to pay $2.00 to have the phone company and the police
if needed to investigate. It's obviously to late now, but good info for the
future.

Charles Williams
Telstar Investigations Inc.
Lic. 11-2414. (Virginia DCJS)
702 443 0380
866 374 8532

----- Reply message -----
From: oracleintl@...
To: <infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [infoguys-list] Help  . . . Oh yes indeed, you MUST report this
Date: Tue, Jun 5, 2012 21:13


Oh yes indeed, you MUST report this.  I can just hear it now.

"Hello, police I want to file a report.  Someone I cannot identify  appears
to have called me randomly and accidentally from a blocked number I  cannot
identify and said something somewhat sexual."

I just wanna be the officer that takes that report so I can send you out
for one of these.

_http://zapatopi.net/afdb/_ (http://zapatopi.net/afdb/)

Bill



In a message dated 6/5/2012 12:16:58 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
paulboanno2001@... writes:




Hi,

Received a weird obscene phone call the other night. A  message was left
from a man talking about his encounter with a women the night  before, and it
was kinda strange. It appears random, and a wrong  number however could I
perhaps follow up on that and report it? The call  was blocked, and have not
received anymore since then. No threats were made,  however it was somewhat
sexual.

Paul

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






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



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

LinkedIn confirms 'some' passwords leaked
Security researcher says more than 6.5M passwords likely compromised
By _Jaikumar Vijayan_
(http://www.computerworld.com/s/author/241/Jaikumar+Vijayan)
June 6, 2012 05:15 PM ET


Computerworld - In response to  widespread reports of a massive _data
breach_
(http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9227816/Update_LinkedIn_probing_reports_\
of_massive_breach)  at LinkedIn, the company Wednesday confirmed
that passwords belonging  to "some" of its members have been compromised.
In a carefully worded _blog post_
(http://blog.linkedin.com/2012/06/06/linkedin-member-passwords-compromised/) ,
LinkedIn director Vicente Silveira
said the company  has confirmed that an unspecified number of hashed passwords
posted publicly on  a Russian hacker forum earlier this week, "correspond to
LinkedIn accounts."
Silveira made no mention of how the passwords may have ended up on the
forums  but noted that LinkedIn is continuing to investigate.
"Members that have accounts associated with the compromised passwords will
notice that their LinkedIn account password is no longer valid," Silveria
said.
Users of the social networking site for professionals will also receive an
email from LinkedIn with instructions on how to reset their passwords. The
email  will not contain any links that users will need to click on to reset
their  password, he noted. Affected customers will also receive a note from
LinkedIn  with more information on what happened and why they are being
asked to reset  their passwords, Silveira said.
Earlier Silveira had posted a separate note urging LinkedIn members to
change  their passwords and providing them with tips on how to create strong
passwords.
Silveira was responding to numerous reports earlier Wednesday that hackers
accessed close to 6.5 million hashed passwords from a LinkedIn database and
  posted it publicly on a Russian hacker forum. According to _security_
(http://www.computerworld.com/s/topic/17/Security)  researchers  who had seen
the compromised data, more than 300,000 of the hashed passwords  have already
been decrypted and posted online in clear text.
LinkedIn had earlier said it was looking into those reports but had not
confirmed the breach.
Tal Be'ery, security research leader at Imperva, claims to have seen the
stolen data and said much more than 6.5 million passwords might have been
compromised.
According to Be'ery, the passwords that have been posted online appear to
be  only those passwords that the hackers needed help in cracking. What the
breached  password list is missing are the usual easy-to-guess passwords that
people  commonly use to control access to online accounts, he said. The
LinkedIn  password file does not contain any of the common passwords that
Imperva's  researchers have typically run across when analyzing similar password
breaches,  he said.
"Most likely, the hacker has figured out the easy passwords and needs help
with less common ones." So it's likely that only the more complicated
passwords  have been revealed so far, he theorized.
The breached list shows that LinkedIn did not use best practices in
protecting the passwords, he said. The hashes that were used to mask the real
passwords were so-called unsalted SHA-1 hashes. SHA-1 is a hashing algorithm
that is used to protect passwords. Because SHA-1 isn't foolproof, security
experts have for some time recommended that organizations use a technique
called  "salting" to make passwords harder to crack. With salting, an
application  applies a random string of characters to a password before it is
hashed.
The  process ensures that even if two passwords are identical, their hashes
will be  unique.
In an apparent response to the focus on the unsalted hashing issue,
Silveira  noted that LinkedIn recently added enhanced security measures for
salting
and  hashing its password databases. Silveira's post does not indicate when
LinkedIn  began the practice.
The compromise is a big deal for LinkedIn users, said John Pescatore, an
analyst with Gartner. "LinkedIn definitely had to have some kind of serious
security incident for this to happen. And they probably had lax security
policies or controls for a simple unsalted hash file like this to exist," he
said.
One worrisome aspect of the breach is that it could enable more targeted
phishing attacks, he said. "LinkedIn is a great research site for hackers
creating targeted phishing attacks to go after system administrators, CFOs,
etc." he said. "If they had access to the non-public parts of people's
LinkedIn  profiles we will see even better targeted phishing attacks."
_Jaikumar Vijayan_
(http://www.computerworld.com/s/author/241/Jaikumar+Vijayan)  covers data
security and privacy issues,  financial services security
and e-voting for Computerworld. Follow  Jaikumar on Twitter at
(http://twitter.com/jaivijayan)  _@jaivijayan_ (http://twitter.com/jaivijayan) 
or
subscribe to  _Jaikumar's  RSS feed_
(http://rss.computerworld.com/computerworld/s/feed/keyword/JaikumarVijayan)
(http://rss.computerworld.com/computerworld/s/feed/keyword/JaikumarVijayan) . 
His e-mail address is
_jvijayan@..._ (mailto:jvijayan@...) .


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

Charles -

It is *57, not #57.  Also, it is not quite as simple as one might like  but
it is doable.  Here's a generic instruction for anyone  interested:

How to Put an End to Unwanted or Harassing Phone  Calls







Copyright � 1992 - 2012
Privacy Rights Clearinghouse

Posted October 1992



Revised April 2012





This  is for informational purposes only. We are not able to counsel
stalking  victims.

     1.  _Introduction_
(http://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs3-hrs2.htm#introduction)
     2.  _What  makes a phone call harassing?_
(http://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs3-hrs2.htm#1)
     3.  _How  often do I have to get these calls to make it harassment?_
(http://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs3-hrs2.htm#2)
     4.  _Who  should I contact when I get harassing calls?_
(http://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs3-hrs2.htm#3)
     5.  _What  can my local phone company do if I am receiving harassing
calls?_ (http://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs3-hrs2.htm#4)
     6.  _Is  the phone company always able to solve harassing phone call
problems?_ (http://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs3-hrs2.htm#5)
     7.  _What  can I do to stop harassing calls without going to the phone
company or  police?_ (http://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs3-hrs2.htm#6)
     8.  _What  is the "pressure valve" strategy?_
(http://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs3-hrs2.htm#7)
     9.  _What  precautions can I take to prevent harassment?_
(http://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs3-hrs2.htm#8)
     10. _How  can I stop telemarketing calls?_
(http://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs3-hrs2.htm#9)
     11. _Sometimes my phone rings and there is no one on the line. What  is
happening?_ (http://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs3-hrs2.htm#10)
     12. _What can I do to stop other kinds of unwanted calls?_
(http://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs3-hrs2.htm#11)
     13. _Can  I use Caller ID to stop unwanted calls?_
(http://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs3-hrs2.htm#12)
     14. _What does Privacy Manager do?_
(http://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs3-hrs2.htm#13)

1. Introduction
Obscene or harassing phone calls can be one of the  most stressful and
frightening invasions of privacy a person experiences. And  unwanted phone
calls, while a minor problem when compared with threatening  calls, can still be
a major inconvenience. Fortunately, there are steps you can  take to help
put an end to these unwelcome intrusions.
2. What makes a phone call  harassing?
When someone calls and uses obscene or threatening  language, or even heavy
breathing or silence to intimidate you, you are  receiving a harassing
call. It is against the law in California and other states  to make obscene or
threatening calls. (California Penal Code section 653m, Penal  Code section
422-422.1)
3. How often do I  have to get these calls to make it harassment?
Just one unwelcome call can be harassing; but usually  your local phone
company will not take action unless the calls are frequent.  However, if a call
specifically threatens you or your family with bodily harm,  the phone
company will generally take immediate action.
4. Who should I contact when I get harassing  calls?
Local phone companies have varying policies on  whether to call the phone
company or the police first. Some recommend that you  first call the phone
company's business office and explain the problem. A  representative will
connect you with the "annoyance desk." Other phone companies  may require you to
file a formal complaint with local law enforcement before  they will deal
with the matter. To find out what your phone company's policy is,  contact
the business office and ask for assistance.  AT&T policies are  available
online at their _Annoyance Call Bureau site_ (http://contact.bellsouth.com/acc/)
.   Click on "Annoyance Call Types" for specific guidance.  Verizon
policies  are available at their _Unlawful Call Center_
(http://www22.verizon.com/residentialhelp/phone/general+support/support+tools/ge\
neral/95622.htm)  and
at _Annoyance Call Complaint Handling  page_
(http://www22.verizon.com/wholesale/clecsupport/content/1,,east-wholesale-resour\
ces-res_annoy_s,00.html) .

For serious threats, if life or property are  threatened, or if calls are
obscene, you should call the police and file a  report. Provide as much
information to law enforcement as you can. Indicate the  gender of the caller
and
describe the caller's voice. Note the time and date of  the call(s). What
did the caller say? How old did he/she sound? Did the caller  seem
intoxicated? Did he/she have an accent or speech impediment? Was there any 
background
noise? Was a phone number/name displayed on the Caller ID  device?
5. What can my local phone company do if I am receiving  harassing calls?

If the calls are frequent or particularly  threatening, the phone company
can set up a "Trap" on your  phone line. The Trap allows the phone company to
determine the telephone number  from which the harassing calls originate.
You must keep a log noting the time  and date the harassing calls are
received. Traps are usually set up for no more  than two weeks. The phone
company
does not charge a fee for Traps.
A phone company service called Call  Trace may also be able to help track
down harassing calls. Immediately  after receiving a harassing call, you
enter the code *57 on your phone and the  call is automatically traced. Call
Trace is easier than using a Trap since the  customer does not have to keep a
phone log. But Call Trace technology works only  within the local service
area. (Look in the "Customer Guide" section of the  phone book or the phone
company's web site for a description of your local  service area.)
Call Trace must be set up in advance by the  individual receiving harassing
calls, and it requires a fee for use. However, in  situations where the
phone company would ordinarily use a Trap, you might not be  charged if the
phone company suggests that Call Trace be used as an alternative.  Be sure to
ask.
The information collected from Call Trace or from a  Trap is turned over to
law enforcement personnel, not the customer. Law  enforcement officers try
to stop the harassing calls by either warning or  arresting the harasser.
With both Call Trace and a Trap, your phone  conversations are not listened to
or recorded by the phone company.
6. Is the phone company always able to solve harassing  phone call
problems?
No. If the caller uses a phone booth or multiple  phone lines, the phone
company and law enforcement officials may never get  enough identification to
take further action. In cases like these, changing your  phone number might
help. Also, you might want to get an unlisted or unpublished  number. In
addition, the tips listed below for discouraging other types of  unwanted calls
may be of help.
7. What can I do to stop harassing calls without going to  the phone
company or police?
First, simply hang up on the caller. Do not engage in  conversation.
Typical crank callers are seeking attention. You have "made their  day" if you
say
something to them or express shock or anger.
If the silent treatment does not work, you might try  putting a message
like this on your voice mail system:

I'm  sorry I/we can't come to the phone right now but you must leave a
message.  I/we are receiving annoyance calls and the phone company has a trap on
this  line. If you do not leave a message I/we will assume that you are the
  annoyance caller and this call will be traced.

If you answer the phone and the harassing caller is  on the line, another
suggestion is to say: "Operator, this is the call." Then  hang up. Or say the
word "trap," what time it is and the date; then hang  up.
8. What is the "pressure valve"  strategy?

Some threatening calls are part of a larger pattern  of abuse, such as
stalking. Some experts recommend in these situations to get a  new phone number,
but keep the phone number being called by the harasser and  attach a voice
mail machine or message service to that line. Turn the phone's  ringer off
and don't use that phone line for anything other than capturing the  calls of
the harasser.
This is the pressure valve strategy. The harasser  will continue to call
the unused number and will think that he/she is getting  through. Instead, you
are simply using the number to gather evidence. You will  want to save tape
recordings of the calls.Get another phone number for your use,  and be sure
it's unlisted and unpublished. Give the number to trusted friends  and
relatives only. Do not give it to your bank, credit card company or credit
bureau. Put passwords on all of your phone accounts (local, long distance, and
mobile). Tell the phone companies in writing that they must not disclose any
  account information to anyone but yourself, and only when the correct
password  is given.
9. What precautions can I take to prevent  harassment?

Do not disclose personal information when called by  someone you do not
know. They might be checking out the residence for possible  robbery or other
crime. If the caller asks what number they have called, do not  give it.
Instead, ask them to tell you what number they dialed.
To prevent being targeted for obscene calls and heavy  breathing, women
should only list their first initial and last name in the phone  directory.
Having an unlisted number is another option.
Children should be instructed to never reveal  information to unknown
callers. Instead, they should be taught to record the  caller's name and phone
number along with date and time.
Do not include your telephone number on the outgoing  message of your voice
mail service if you wish to keep your number private. By  omitting your
phone number from your message, you prevent random dialers and  people with
Call Return (explained below) from capturing this  information.
10. How can  I stop telemarketing calls?

The  most effective and easiest way to prevent telemarketing calls is to
register  your home and personal phone number(s) with the National Do Not Call
Registry  operated by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).

You can sign up for the  Do Not Call Registry two ways:
     *   The FTC's toll-free phone number is 888-382-1222  (TTY:
866-290-4236)
     *   Online registration is available at the FTC's web site,
_www.donotcall.gov_ (http://www.donotcall.gov/)


11. Sometimes my phone rings and there is no one on the  line. What is
happening?

Many people are frightened when they receive  "hang-up" calls. They wonder
if someone is harassing them, or if a burglar is  checking to see if they
are not home. In most cases, these calls are from  telemarketers. (For
additional information on telemarketing, see Fact Sheet  5,
_www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs5-tmkt.htm_
(http://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs5-tmkt.htm) .)
Many telemarketers use "predictive dialing"  technology to call consumers.
A computer dials many phone numbers in a short  period of time. When an
individual answers, the computer seeks a sales  representative who is not
occupied at that time and connects the call. If all of  the sales reps are on
calls, the consumer hears dead silence. These are  "abandoned calls."
Abandoned calls or calls that result in prerecorded  messages are among the
top reasons consumers complain to the Federal Trade  Comission (FTC) and
the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). To address the  growing number of
complaints about these "robocalls," the FCC, on February 15,  2012, adopted
new rules.
Under the revised rules, a telemarketer cannot make  "robocalls" without
your prior written consent. In addition, the "established  business
relationship" exception has been eliminated. These two major changes  will
become
effective in early 2013. Other provisions, to be phased in through  early 2012,
require telemarketers that use "robocalls" to offer an opt out  before the
prerecorded message or sales representative begins the sales pitch.  The FCC
has also reduced the number of abandoned calls allowed, to be effective  in
early 2012.
To read the FCC's consumer guide on "robocalls," and  find out how to
complain see: _www.fcc.gov/guides/robocalls_
(http://www.fcc.gov/guides/robocalls)
If you  are receiving many abandoned calls a day, you can call the
annoyance department  of your local phone company and ask that a Trap be placed
on
your line. In  extreme situations, the phone company might be willing to
contact the offending  telemarketer and request that your phone number be place
on its "do not call"  list. If the repeated calls are from a malicious
individual who is harassing you  rather than a telemarketer, the phone company
will report the number to law  enforcement as described in the beginning of
this guide.
California Public Utilities Code 2875.5 requires telemarketers to limit
abandoned calls to  fewer than 1% of their total call volume. For information
visit _www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html_ (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html)
.
12. What can I do to stop other kinds of unwanted  calls?

Sometimes calls are annoying but are not serious  enough to involve law
enforcement as is necessary with either a Trap or Call  Trace. These might
include telemarketing sales calls, wrong numbers, overly  aggressive bill
collectors, and prank calls. There are several steps you can  take to discourage
such unwanted calls.
An answering machine or a  voice mail service is one of the best ways to
limit unwanted  calls. An answering machine records messages when you are not
available and can  also be used to screen your calls. Similar to an
answering machine, a  voice mail service or an answering service can  also
discour
age unwanted calls.
Another product on the market is an attachment to the  telephone called an
"inbound call blocker." It allows only  those callers who enter a special
numeric code onto their touchtone phone pad to  ring through to your number.
This device is highly effective in preventing  unwanted calls. However, you
must be certain to give the code to  everyone you want to talk to. Even so,
you could miss important calls  from unexpected sources, like emergency
services.
Several vendors sell such call screening devices.  Check the web site of
Privacy Corps (_www.privacycorps.com_ (http://www.privacycorps.com/) ) or call
(888) 633-5777. You can also check the web sites of online electronics
retailers for  call blocking products. No endorsements are  implied.
In most areas of the country, Custom  Calling services are available from
the local phone company which can  help limit unwelcome calls. However,
before you sign up, look carefully at the  services to be certain they will work
in your situation and are worth the  monthly fee. Also remember that many of
these features only work within your  local service area. Calls coming from
outside the area might not be affected by  these features. (Consult the
"Customer Guide" section of the phone book or the  company's web site to find
out the boundaries of your local service area.) Keep  in mind, these services
require a fee, either month-to-month or per-use. To  avoid having to pay
for call screening on an ongoing basis, consider purchasing  a device that
attaches to the telephone, such as the call screening devices  mentioned above.
     *   Call  Screen (*60): Your phone can be programmed to reject calls
from  selected numbers with a service called Call Screen (some phone companies
might  use a different name). Instead of ringing on your line, these calls
are routed  to a recording that tells the caller you will not take the call.
With Call  Screen, you can also program your telephone to reject calls from
the number of  the last person who called. This allows you to block calls
even if you do not  know the phone number. Most phone companies charge a
monthly fee for this  service.

Call Screen is not a foolproof way to stop unwelcome  calls. A determined
caller can move to a different phone number to bypass the  block. Also, Call
Screen does not work on long distance calls from outside your  service area.
     *   Priority  Ringing: You can assign a special ring to calls from up
to 10 numbers  - the calls you are most likely to want to answer. The rest
can be routed to  voice mail. There are ways callers can get around Priority
Ringing when it is  used as a screening tool. The harasser can switch phone
lines and avoid the  distinctive ring.

     *   Call  Return (*69): This service allows you to call back the number
of the  last person who called, even if you are unable to answer the phone.
Some  people suggest that Call Return can be used to stop harassing callers
by  allowing you to call the harasser back without knowing the phone
number. Use  caution with this method of discouraging harassing callers,
however,
as it  could actually aggravate the problem. This service is paid on a
per-use  basis.

13. Can I use Caller ID to stop unwanted  calls?

With Caller ID, customers who pay a  monthly fee and purchase a display
device can see the number and name of the  person calling before picking up the
phone. Some people believe Caller ID will  help reduce harassing or
unwelcome calls. Others, however, raise privacy  concerns about the technology
since subscribers to the service can capture  callers' phone numbers without
their consent.
To help consumers protect the privacy of their phone  numbers, state public
utilities regulators (for example, the California Public  Utilities
Commission) require local phone companies to offer number blocking  options to
their customers.
There are two blocking options to choose from. If the  customer chooses Per
Line Blocking (called Complete  Blocking in California), their phone number
will automatically be  blocked for each call made from that number. If the
customer chooses  Per Call Blocking (called Selective Blocking  in
California), the phone number is sent to the party being called  unless *67 is
entered before the number is dialed. When the number is  blocked by either of
these methods, the Caller ID subscriber sees the word  "private" or "anonymous"
on the Caller ID display device.
Because of these blocking options, Caller ID is not  likely to allow you to
capture the phone number of the determined harasser. Most  harassers will
block their phone numbers or will call from payphones. However,  Caller ID
can be used by people receiving harassing calls to decide whether to  answer.
They can choose not to pick up calls marked "private" or numbers they  don't
recognize.
A companion service to Caller ID, called  Anonymous Call Rejection (ACR),
requires an incoming call from  a blocked number to be unblocked before the
call will ring through. Use of this  feature forces the harasser to disclose
the number - by entering *82 - or to  choose to not complete the call. But a
determined harasser can get around this  feature by using a payphone. This
service can be added to a consumer's local  phone service for a fee or at no
charge depending on the carrier. It is  activated and deactivated with the
touchtone code *77.
14. What does Privacy Manager  do?
Most local phone companies offer a service called  Privacy Manager. It
works with Caller ID to identify incoming  calls that have no telephone numbers.
Calls identified as "anonymous,"  unavailable," out of area" or "private"
must identify themselves in order to  complete the call. Before your phone
rings, a recorded message instructs the  caller to unblock the call, enter a
code number (like the inbound call blocking  devices mentioned above), or
record their name. When your phone rings, you can  choose to accept or reject
the call, send it to voice mail, or send a special  message to telemarketers
instructing them to put you on their "do not call"  list.



Sincerely  yours,
Sue
________________________
Sue  Sarkis
Sarkis Detective Agency





(est. 1976)
PI  6564
_www.sarkispi.com_ (http://www.sarkispi.com/)

1346 Ethel  Street
Glendale, CA 91207-1826
818-242-2505

"one Nation under God" and "in GOD we  TRUST"


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

never heard of #57, good tip.  what exactly does it do and do you have to hang
up first before dialing the #57?
 


 
Dondi(Dee)Lucia Frigerio-Holmes
The Looking Glass, LLC
Phoenix, AZ 85060
AZ License #1597140 & 1597141
phone:623/252-2223 fax: 602/680-7850
www.thelookingglassinvestigations.com
Member of IOA, SCFIA, Infragard.

--- On Wed, 6/6/12, section13281@... <section13281@...> wrote:


From: section13281@... <section13281@...>
Subject: Re: [infoguys-list] Help . . . Oh yes indeed, you MUST report this
To: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, June 6, 2012, 11:13 PM



 



If the call came through a landline. NEXT time immediately dial #57 on the phone
the Call came to. You have to pay $2.00 to have the phone company and the police
if needed to investigate. It's obviously to late now, but good info for the
future.

Charles Williams
Telstar Investigations Inc.
Lic. 11-2414. (Virginia DCJS)
702 443 0380
866 374 8532

----- Reply message -----
From: oracleintl@...
To: <infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [infoguys-list] Help . . . Oh yes indeed, you MUST report this
Date: Tue, Jun 5, 2012 21:13

Oh yes indeed, you MUST report this. I can just hear it now.

"Hello, police I want to file a report. Someone I cannot identify appears
to have called me randomly and accidentally from a blocked number I cannot
identify and said something somewhat sexual."

I just wanna be the officer that takes that report so I can send you out
for one of these.

_http://zapatopi.net/afdb/_ (http://zapatopi.net/afdb/)

Bill



In a message dated 6/5/2012 12:16:58 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
paulboanno2001@... writes:

Hi,

Received a weird obscene phone call the other night. A message was left
from a man talking about his encounter with a women the night before, and it
was kinda strange. It appears random, and a wrong number however could I
perhaps follow up on that and report it? The call was blocked, and have not
received anymore since then. No threats were made, however it was somewhat
sexual.

Paul

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

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

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








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

It notifies the telephone carrier you have received a unwanted suspicious
annoying call. And you are requesting a carrier investigation of the number
whether blocked or not. Which could lead to a police inquiry if necessary. I
have used it in Virginia on landlines. Not sure if it works on cells. One
important thing. You must dial #57 before another call comes in on this line.
And they the carrier will contact you and notify you in advance of the $2.00
billing.
It's good for prank annoying and unwanted calls on landlines.

Charles

Charles Williams
Telstar Investigations Inc.
Lic. 11-2414. (Virginia DCJS)
702 443 0380
866 374 8532

----- Reply message -----
From: "Dee Holmes" <mydogsrule123@...>
To: <infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [infoguys-list] Help  . . . Oh yes indeed, you MUST report this
Date: Thu, Jun 7, 2012 02:23


never heard of #57, good tip.  what exactly does it do and do you have to hang
up first before dialing the #57?
 


 
Dondi(Dee)Lucia Frigerio-Holmes
The Looking Glass, LLC
Phoenix, AZ 85060
AZ License #1597140 & 1597141
phone:623/252-2223 fax: 602/680-7850
www.thelookingglassinvestigations.com
Member of IOA, SCFIA, Infragard.

--- On Wed, 6/6/12, section13281@... <section13281@...> wrote:


From: section13281@... <section13281@...>
Subject: Re: [infoguys-list] Help . . . Oh yes indeed, you MUST report this
To: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, June 6, 2012, 11:13 PM



 



If the call came through a landline. NEXT time immediately dial #57 on the phone
the Call came to. You have to pay $2.00 to have the phone company and the police
if needed to investigate. It's obviously to late now, but good info for the
future.

Charles Williams
Telstar Investigations Inc.
Lic. 11-2414. (Virginia DCJS)
702 443 0380
866 374 8532

----- Reply message -----
From: oracleintl@...
To: <infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [infoguys-list] Help . . . Oh yes indeed, you MUST report this
Date: Tue, Jun 5, 2012 21:13

Oh yes indeed, you MUST report this. I can just hear it now.

"Hello, police I want to file a report. Someone I cannot identify appears
to have called me randomly and accidentally from a blocked number I cannot
identify and said something somewhat sexual."

I just wanna be the officer that takes that report so I can send you out
for one of these.

_http://zapatopi.net/afdb/_ (http://zapatopi.net/afdb/)

Bill



In a message dated 6/5/2012 12:16:58 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
paulboanno2001@... writes:

Hi,

Received a weird obscene phone call the other night. A message was left
from a man talking about his encounter with a women the night before, and it
was kinda strange. It appears random, and a wrong number however could I
perhaps follow up on that and report it? The call was blocked, and have not
received anymore since then. No threats were made, however it was somewhat
sexual.

Paul

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

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

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








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



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

You have to hang up first.

Charles Williams
Telstar Investigations Inc.
Lic. 11-2414. (Virginia DCJS)
702 443 0380
866 374 8532

----- Reply message -----
From: "Dee Holmes" <mydogsrule123@...>
To: <infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [infoguys-list] Help  . . . Oh yes indeed, you MUST report this
Date: Thu, Jun 7, 2012 02:23


never heard of #57, good tip.  what exactly does it do and do you have to hang
up first before dialing the #57?
 


 
Dondi(Dee)Lucia Frigerio-Holmes
The Looking Glass, LLC
Phoenix, AZ 85060
AZ License #1597140 & 1597141
phone:623/252-2223 fax: 602/680-7850
www.thelookingglassinvestigations.com
Member of IOA, SCFIA, Infragard.

--- On Wed, 6/6/12, section13281@... <section13281@...> wrote:


From: section13281@... <section13281@...>
Subject: Re: [infoguys-list] Help . . . Oh yes indeed, you MUST report this
To: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, June 6, 2012, 11:13 PM



 



If the call came through a landline. NEXT time immediately dial #57 on the phone
the Call came to. You have to pay $2.00 to have the phone company and the police
if needed to investigate. It's obviously to late now, but good info for the
future.

Charles Williams
Telstar Investigations Inc.
Lic. 11-2414. (Virginia DCJS)
702 443 0380
866 374 8532

----- Reply message -----
From: oracleintl@...
To: <infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [infoguys-list] Help . . . Oh yes indeed, you MUST report this
Date: Tue, Jun 5, 2012 21:13

Oh yes indeed, you MUST report this. I can just hear it now.

"Hello, police I want to file a report. Someone I cannot identify appears
to have called me randomly and accidentally from a blocked number I cannot
identify and said something somewhat sexual."

I just wanna be the officer that takes that report so I can send you out
for one of these.

_http://zapatopi.net/afdb/_ (http://zapatopi.net/afdb/)

Bill



In a message dated 6/5/2012 12:16:58 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
paulboanno2001@... writes:

Hi,

Received a weird obscene phone call the other night. A message was left
from a man talking about his encounter with a women the night before, and it
was kinda strange. It appears random, and a wrong number however could I
perhaps follow up on that and report it? The call was blocked, and have not
received anymore since then. No threats were made, however it was somewhat
sexual.

Paul

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

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

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








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



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

Have not used it in years...but I remember it as star 57. Suggest u try both
ways unto you get a response. I just tried it and because I have Vonage received
no response.
A call to your local carrier service should clear it up. As I only use Vonage
for my office and toll free lines.

Charles Williams
President /Compliance Agent
Telstar Investigations Inc
http://telstarinvestigations.com
License ID# 11-2414
Sent from my iPad
Reply address : falcon16@...
866 374 8532
1602 Bell View Blvd
#365
Alexandria, VA. 22307

On Jun 7, 2012, at 3:33, suesarkis@... wrote:

>
> Charles -
>
> It is *57, not #57. Also, it is not quite as simple as one might like but
> it is doable. Here's a generic instruction for anyone interested:
>
> How to Put an End to Unwanted or Harassing Phone Calls
>
> Copyright © 1992 - 2012
> Privacy Rights Clearinghouse
>
> Posted October 1992
>
> Revised April 2012
>
> This is for informational purposes only. We are not able to counsel
> stalking victims.
>
> 1. _Introduction_
> (http://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs3-hrs2.htm#introduction)
> 2. _What makes a phone call harassing?_
> (http://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs3-hrs2.htm#1)
> 3. _How often do I have to get these calls to make it harassment?_
> (http://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs3-hrs2.htm#2)
> 4. _Who should I contact when I get harassing calls?_
> (http://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs3-hrs2.htm#3)
> 5. _What can my local phone company do if I am receiving harassing
> calls?_ (http://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs3-hrs2.htm#4)
> 6. _Is the phone company always able to solve harassing phone call
> problems?_ (http://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs3-hrs2.htm#5)
> 7. _What can I do to stop harassing calls without going to the phone
> company or police?_ (http://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs3-hrs2.htm#6)
> 8. _What is the "pressure valve" strategy?_
> (http://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs3-hrs2.htm#7)
> 9. _What precautions can I take to prevent harassment?_
> (http://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs3-hrs2.htm#8)
> 10. _How can I stop telemarketing calls?_
> (http://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs3-hrs2.htm#9)
> 11. _Sometimes my phone rings and there is no one on the line. What is
> happening?_ (http://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs3-hrs2.htm#10)
> 12. _What can I do to stop other kinds of unwanted calls?_
> (http://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs3-hrs2.htm#11)
> 13. _Can I use Caller ID to stop unwanted calls?_
> (http://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs3-hrs2.htm#12)
> 14. _What does Privacy Manager do?_
> (http://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs3-hrs2.htm#13)
>
> 1. Introduction
> Obscene or harassing phone calls can be one of the most stressful and
> frightening invasions of privacy a person experiences. And unwanted phone
> calls, while a minor problem when compared with threatening calls, can still
be
> a major inconvenience. Fortunately, there are steps you can take to help
> put an end to these unwelcome intrusions.
> 2. What makes a phone call harassing?
> When someone calls and uses obscene or threatening language, or even heavy
> breathing or silence to intimidate you, you are receiving a harassing
> call. It is against the law in California and other states to make obscene or
> threatening calls. (California Penal Code section 653m, Penal Code section
> 422-422.1)
> 3. How often do I have to get these calls to make it harassment?
> Just one unwelcome call can be harassing; but usually your local phone
> company will not take action unless the calls are frequent. However, if a call
> specifically threatens you or your family with bodily harm, the phone
> company will generally take immediate action.
> 4. Who should I contact when I get harassing calls?
> Local phone companies have varying policies on whether to call the phone
> company or the police first. Some recommend that you first call the phone
> company's business office and explain the problem. A representative will
> connect you with the "annoyance desk." Other phone companies may require you
to
> file a formal complaint with local law enforcement before they will deal
> with the matter. To find out what your phone company's policy is, contact
> the business office and ask for assistance. AT&T policies are available
> online at their _Annoyance Call Bureau site_
(http://contact.bellsouth.com/acc/)
> . Click on "Annoyance Call Types" for specific guidance. Verizon
> policies are available at their _Unlawful Call Center_
>
(http://www22.verizon.com/residentialhelp/phone/general+support/support+tools/ge\
neral/95622.htm) and
> at _Annoyance Call Complaint Handling page_
>
(http://www22.verizon.com/wholesale/clecsupport/content/1,,east-wholesale-resour\
ces-res_annoy_s,00.html) .
>
> For serious threats, if life or property are threatened, or if calls are
> obscene, you should call the police and file a report. Provide as much
> information to law enforcement as you can. Indicate the gender of the caller
and
> describe the caller's voice. Note the time and date of the call(s). What
> did the caller say? How old did he/she sound? Did the caller seem
> intoxicated? Did he/she have an accent or speech impediment? Was there any
background
> noise? Was a phone number/name displayed on the Caller ID device?
> 5. What can my local phone company do if I am receiving harassing calls?
>
> If the calls are frequent or particularly threatening, the phone company
> can set up a "Trap" on your phone line. The Trap allows the phone company to
> determine the telephone number from which the harassing calls originate.
> You must keep a log noting the time and date the harassing calls are
> received. Traps are usually set up for no more than two weeks. The phone
company
> does not charge a fee for Traps.
> A phone company service called Call Trace may also be able to help track
> down harassing calls. Immediately after receiving a harassing call, you
> enter the code *57 on your phone and the call is automatically traced. Call
> Trace is easier than using a Trap since the customer does not have to keep a
> phone log. But Call Trace technology works only within the local service
> area. (Look in the "Customer Guide" section of the phone book or the phone
> company's web site for a description of your local service area.)
> Call Trace must be set up in advance by the individual receiving harassing
> calls, and it requires a fee for use. However, in situations where the
> phone company would ordinarily use a Trap, you might not be charged if the
> phone company suggests that Call Trace be used as an alternative. Be sure to
> ask.
> The information collected from Call Trace or from a Trap is turned over to
> law enforcement personnel, not the customer. Law enforcement officers try
> to stop the harassing calls by either warning or arresting the harasser.
> With both Call Trace and a Trap, your phone conversations are not listened to
> or recorded by the phone company.
> 6. Is the phone company always able to solve harassing phone call
> problems?
> No. If the caller uses a phone booth or multiple phone lines, the phone
> company and law enforcement officials may never get enough identification to
> take further action. In cases like these, changing your phone number might
> help. Also, you might want to get an unlisted or unpublished number. In
> addition, the tips listed below for discouraging other types of unwanted calls
> may be of help.
> 7. What can I do to stop harassing calls without going to the phone
> company or police?
> First, simply hang up on the caller. Do not engage in conversation.
> Typical crank callers are seeking attention. You have "made their day" if you
say
> something to them or express shock or anger.
> If the silent treatment does not work, you might try putting a message
> like this on your voice mail system:
>
> I'm sorry I/we can't come to the phone right now but you must leave a
> message. I/we are receiving annoyance calls and the phone company has a trap
on
> this line. If you do not leave a message I/we will assume that you are the
> annoyance caller and this call will be traced.
>
> If you answer the phone and the harassing caller is on the line, another
> suggestion is to say: "Operator, this is the call." Then hang up. Or say the
> word "trap," what time it is and the date; then hang up.
> 8. What is the "pressure valve" strategy?
>
> Some threatening calls are part of a larger pattern of abuse, such as
> stalking. Some experts recommend in these situations to get a new phone
number,
> but keep the phone number being called by the harasser and attach a voice
> mail machine or message service to that line. Turn the phone's ringer off
> and don't use that phone line for anything other than capturing the calls of
> the harasser.
> This is the pressure valve strategy. The harasser will continue to call
> the unused number and will think that he/she is getting through. Instead, you
> are simply using the number to gather evidence. You will want to save tape
> recordings of the calls.Get another phone number for your use, and be sure
> it's unlisted and unpublished. Give the number to trusted friends and
> relatives only. Do not give it to your bank, credit card company or credit
> bureau. Put passwords on all of your phone accounts (local, long distance, and
> mobile). Tell the phone companies in writing that they must not disclose any
> account information to anyone but yourself, and only when the correct
> password is given.
> 9. What precautions can I take to prevent harassment?
>
> Do not disclose personal information when called by someone you do not
> know. They might be checking out the residence for possible robbery or other
> crime. If the caller asks what number they have called, do not give it.
> Instead, ask them to tell you what number they dialed.
> To prevent being targeted for obscene calls and heavy breathing, women
> should only list their first initial and last name in the phone directory.
> Having an unlisted number is another option.
> Children should be instructed to never reveal information to unknown
> callers. Instead, they should be taught to record the caller's name and phone
> number along with date and time.
> Do not include your telephone number on the outgoing message of your voice
> mail service if you wish to keep your number private. By omitting your
> phone number from your message, you prevent random dialers and people with
> Call Return (explained below) from capturing this information.
> 10. How can I stop telemarketing calls?
>
> The most effective and easiest way to prevent telemarketing calls is to
> register your home and personal phone number(s) with the National Do Not Call
> Registry operated by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).
>
> You can sign up for the Do Not Call Registry two ways:
> * The FTC's toll-free phone number is 888-382-1222 (TTY:
> 866-290-4236)
> * Online registration is available at the FTC's web site,
> _www.donotcall.gov_ (http://www.donotcall.gov/)
>
> 11. Sometimes my phone rings and there is no one on the line. What is
> happening?
>
> Many people are frightened when they receive "hang-up" calls. They wonder
> if someone is harassing them, or if a burglar is checking to see if they
> are not home. In most cases, these calls are from telemarketers. (For
> additional information on telemarketing, see Fact Sheet 5,
> _www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs5-tmkt.htm_
(http://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs5-tmkt.htm) .)
> Many telemarketers use "predictive dialing" technology to call consumers.
> A computer dials many phone numbers in a short period of time. When an
> individual answers, the computer seeks a sales representative who is not
> occupied at that time and connects the call. If all of the sales reps are on
> calls, the consumer hears dead silence. These are "abandoned calls."
> Abandoned calls or calls that result in prerecorded messages are among the
> top reasons consumers complain to the Federal Trade Comission (FTC) and
> the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). To address the growing number of
> complaints about these "robocalls," the FCC, on February 15, 2012, adopted
> new rules.
> Under the revised rules, a telemarketer cannot make "robocalls" without
> your prior written consent. In addition, the "established business
> relationship" exception has been eliminated. These two major changes will
become
> effective in early 2013. Other provisions, to be phased in through early 2012,
> require telemarketers that use "robocalls" to offer an opt out before the
> prerecorded message or sales representative begins the sales pitch. The FCC
> has also reduced the number of abandoned calls allowed, to be effective in
> early 2012.
> To read the FCC's consumer guide on "robocalls," and find out how to
> complain see: _www.fcc.gov/guides/robocalls_
> (http://www.fcc.gov/guides/robocalls)
> If you are receiving many abandoned calls a day, you can call the
> annoyance department of your local phone company and ask that a Trap be placed
on
> your line. In extreme situations, the phone company might be willing to
> contact the offending telemarketer and request that your phone number be place
> on its "do not call" list. If the repeated calls are from a malicious
> individual who is harassing you rather than a telemarketer, the phone company
> will report the number to law enforcement as described in the beginning of
> this guide.
> California Public Utilities Code 2875.5 requires telemarketers to limit
> abandoned calls to fewer than 1% of their total call volume. For information
> visit _www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html_ (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html)
> .
> 12. What can I do to stop other kinds of unwanted calls?
>
> Sometimes calls are annoying but are not serious enough to involve law
> enforcement as is necessary with either a Trap or Call Trace. These might
> include telemarketing sales calls, wrong numbers, overly aggressive bill
> collectors, and prank calls. There are several steps you can take to
discourage
> such unwanted calls.
> An answering machine or a voice mail service is one of the best ways to
> limit unwanted calls. An answering machine records messages when you are not
> available and can also be used to screen your calls. Similar to an
> answering machine, a voice mail service or an answering service can also
discour
> age unwanted calls.
> Another product on the market is an attachment to the telephone called an
> "inbound call blocker." It allows only those callers who enter a special
> numeric code onto their touchtone phone pad to ring through to your number.
> This device is highly effective in preventing unwanted calls. However, you
> must be certain to give the code to everyone you want to talk to. Even so,
> you could miss important calls from unexpected sources, like emergency
> services.
> Several vendors sell such call screening devices. Check the web site of
> Privacy Corps (_www.privacycorps.com_ (http://www.privacycorps.com/) ) or call
> (888) 633-5777. You can also check the web sites of online electronics
> retailers for call blocking products. No endorsements are implied.
> In most areas of the country, Custom Calling services are available from
> the local phone company which can help limit unwelcome calls. However,
> before you sign up, look carefully at the services to be certain they will
work
> in your situation and are worth the monthly fee. Also remember that many of
> these features only work within your local service area. Calls coming from
> outside the area might not be affected by these features. (Consult the
> "Customer Guide" section of the phone book or the company's web site to find
> out the boundaries of your local service area.) Keep in mind, these services
> require a fee, either month-to-month or per-use. To avoid having to pay
> for call screening on an ongoing basis, consider purchasing a device that
> attaches to the telephone, such as the call screening devices mentioned above.
> * Call Screen (*60): Your phone can be programmed to reject calls
> from selected numbers with a service called Call Screen (some phone companies
> might use a different name). Instead of ringing on your line, these calls
> are routed to a recording that tells the caller you will not take the call.
> With Call Screen, you can also program your telephone to reject calls from
> the number of the last person who called. This allows you to block calls
> even if you do not know the phone number. Most phone companies charge a
> monthly fee for this service.
>
> Call Screen is not a foolproof way to stop unwelcome calls. A determined
> caller can move to a different phone number to bypass the block. Also, Call
> Screen does not work on long distance calls from outside your service area.
> * Priority Ringing: You can assign a special ring to calls from up
> to 10 numbers - the calls you are most likely to want to answer. The rest
> can be routed to voice mail. There are ways callers can get around Priority
> Ringing when it is used as a screening tool. The harasser can switch phone
> lines and avoid the distinctive ring.
>
> * Call Return (*69): This service allows you to call back the number
> of the last person who called, even if you are unable to answer the phone.
> Some people suggest that Call Return can be used to stop harassing callers
> by allowing you to call the harasser back without knowing the phone
> number. Use caution with this method of discouraging harassing callers,
however,
> as it could actually aggravate the problem. This service is paid on a
> per-use basis.
>
> 13. Can I use Caller ID to stop unwanted calls?
>
> With Caller ID, customers who pay a monthly fee and purchase a display
> device can see the number and name of the person calling before picking up the
> phone. Some people believe Caller ID will help reduce harassing or
> unwelcome calls. Others, however, raise privacy concerns about the technology
> since subscribers to the service can capture callers' phone numbers without
> their consent.
> To help consumers protect the privacy of their phone numbers, state public
> utilities regulators (for example, the California Public Utilities
> Commission) require local phone companies to offer number blocking options to
> their customers.
> There are two blocking options to choose from. If the customer chooses Per
> Line Blocking (called Complete Blocking in California), their phone number
> will automatically be blocked for each call made from that number. If the
> customer chooses Per Call Blocking (called Selective Blocking in
> California), the phone number is sent to the party being called unless *67 is
> entered before the number is dialed. When the number is blocked by either of
> these methods, the Caller ID subscriber sees the word "private" or "anonymous"
> on the Caller ID display device.
> Because of these blocking options, Caller ID is not likely to allow you to
> capture the phone number of the determined harasser. Most harassers will
> block their phone numbers or will call from payphones. However, Caller ID
> can be used by people receiving harassing calls to decide whether to answer.
> They can choose not to pick up calls marked "private" or numbers they don't
> recognize.
> A companion service to Caller ID, called Anonymous Call Rejection (ACR),
> requires an incoming call from a blocked number to be unblocked before the
> call will ring through. Use of this feature forces the harasser to disclose
> the number - by entering *82 - or to choose to not complete the call. But a
> determined harasser can get around this feature by using a payphone. This
> service can be added to a consumer's local phone service for a fee or at no
> charge depending on the carrier. It is activated and deactivated with the
> touchtone code *77.
> 14. What does Privacy Manager do?
> Most local phone companies offer a service called Privacy Manager. It
> works with Caller ID to identify incoming calls that have no telephone
numbers.
> Calls identified as "anonymous," unavailable," out of area" or "private"
> must identify themselves in order to complete the call. Before your phone
> rings, a recorded message instructs the caller to unblock the call, enter a
> code number (like the inbound call blocking devices mentioned above), or
> record their name. When your phone rings, you can choose to accept or reject
> the call, send it to voice mail, or send a special message to telemarketers
> instructing them to put you on their "do not call" list.
>
> Sincerely yours,
> Sue
> ________________________
> Sue Sarkis
> Sarkis Detective Agency
>
> (est. 1976)
> PI 6564
> _www.sarkispi.com_ (http://www.sarkispi.com/)
>
> 1346 Ethel Street
> Glendale, CA 91207-1826
> 818-242-2505
>
> "one Nation under God" and "in GOD we TRUST"
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>

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

Sue,

I have always found your posts both informative and entertaining, but I
think there is a bigger picture here.  The B&P section is clear on who
is exempt, but 1720 contradicts with the exemption.  When it was first
written, I looked at it and thought it was a great idea and supported
it.  I did not agree with it after it was amended and it was clear that
concession were made at the expense of our industry.  Its not about
rivals Sue, its about having a voice and expressing yourself, and if you
agree or don't at least you are able too.  We don't have to live in this
one voice mentality, because quite frankly, the majority of Pi's in CA
did not vote CALI as the supreme lobbyist/voice for this profession.  I
would like to see an amendment to include our employees, as the section
allows for that, and will lobby for it to happen.  Lets move forward,
not backward.

With kindest regards,

Raymond Guillermo, LPI
Counsel Investigations, Inc.
CA #26840


On 6/6/2012 3:58 PM, Rick von Geldern wrote:
>
> Dear Ms. Sarkis and Interested Parties,
>
> No, Ms. Sarkis your point was well understood; it's just wrong.
>
> Investigators ARE also process servers.  Why?  Because we're
> authorized and exempted from registration under 22350 B&P.  Further,
> after obtaining our 6,000 hours of qualified work experience, we are
> state-tested in the PI Exam on our "knowledge of laws that regulate
> process serving."
>
> Process servers on the other hand, are unregulated and have ZERO
> testing or knowledge requirements to become registered.  So, why
> should process servers have greater rights and protections over
> private investigators?  PICA just offered classes to their membership
> in Sacramento as part of their Legislation Day experience with Tony
> Klien for the purpose of expanding their investigative businesses with
> process service opportunities.
>
> If you read how AB1720 would amend 415.21(a), it was amended to read
> "sole" purpose to serve process.  In other words, (for anyone else
> with a negative 50 IQ), entering a gated community with papers to
> serve precludes ANY investigation.  Yes, that clearly means
> interviewing witnesses among the things you mention private
> investigators do as part of an investigation.  In fact, that's the
> deal the bill's sponsor, CALI, has reportedly made with CalsPro so
> they wouldn't oppose the AB1720.   We would not oppose AB1720 if as
> investigators we were able to retain our right to utilize our
> employees and conduct related investigation.  We believe CALI is
> selling private investigators short by sponsoring AB1720 and deal
> making with CalsPro behind the scene to limit our utilization of
> employees and to conduct related investigation.
>
> You mention getting the law on the books and addressing the other
> issues later.  Do you mean in a fashion similar to the ID Card debacle
> also delivered to the industry by CALI, or are you expecting someone
> else to do that for you too?  We are addressing these issues BEFORE
> they are on the books, but if the industry wants to live with the
> limitations for whatever benefit they may perceive, so be it.  If not,
> they should feel free to email me move forward with a purpose, not
> merely a much overdue CALI legislative win to regain credibility that
> comes at the expense of the PI industry.
>
> Please join the conversation so the PI industry gets it right for a
> change.  Permission granted to repost.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Rick von Geldern
>
> XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
>
> Rick -
>
> You obviously totally misunderstood my point. This bill does NOT allow
> our employees access to these gated communities whether you HIRE new
> ones or
> UTILIZE the ones already on payroll.
>
> We are NOT process servers, we are investigators. The purpose of our
> having an exception for the SIMPLE service of process, meaning
> subpoenae, is to
> allow us to save the taxpayers and our clients lots of money whether
> court
> appointed or privately retained. If the client's attorney has you
> interview witnesses and trusts you enough to make a decision about
> serving them,
> or, in the alternative, gives you a flat across the board "after the
> interview, serve them" it saves the additional expenses of having to
> have a PS
> locate and then serve the already interviewed witness. In other words,
> we get
> to kill two birds with one stone.
>
> If we want to go into the PS business, then we should register like
> everyone else. Plain and simple.
>
> Look, the bill gives us a little more power than we have today and that
> cannot be looked upon as a negative by anyone with an IQ over 50 no
> matter how
> many other things you would like the bill to include. Let's get this on
> the books and perhaps later address other issues.
>
> We are PI's, not PS's.
>
> Sincerely,
> Sue
>
>
> In a message dated 6/6/2012 8:06:11 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
> rick-vg@... <mailto:rick-vg%40eyesonu.com> writes:
>
> Ms. Sarkis,
> You have misstated my words for the premise of your reply. I said "utilize
> " employees and you return fire with "hire employees." I stand by my
> words as both truthful and accurate.
> To answer your question, I figured "that" out after reading the bill and
> related laws, by speaking with the author's office who confirmed it twice
> through their legal staff and also with CALI. So Ms. Sarkis, how do you
> figure it would allow us to "utilize" employees or do you just not care?
> Further, if you wouldn't want NON-licensed investigators having the same
> power you have, why would you, CALI or anyone be so anxious to
> acquiesce a
> present right to utilize employees by giving power to NON-licensed
> process
> servers and their trade association, CalsPro?
> Thank you for joining the conversation.
> Sincerely,
> Rick von Geldern
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>


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

Ray  -

I fully understand what you are saying.  However, upon careful  examination
of the history of the bill, the analysis and the amendment, it is  very
obvious to me that issues were raised.  Let's face it, the industry  has taken
beatings over the years thanks to people like Pellicano, Victoria Tade  and
others.

The analysis clearly says that the bill does not include our  employees.
Someone obviously raised what they considered to be a serious  issue, a red
flag of sorts, and an amendment was proposed.   Since the issue is obviously
a thorn in someone's side, we have to live  within the confines of that
which we can win.   Remember,   your staff can still continue to sub-serve the
guards as is outlined  in Bein v. Brechtel-Jochim Group.

As is typical for CALI, the bill, at present, is poorly written.   However,
it does give us something we do not have today.  With that  said, go with
it and then come back at a later time to address the  discriminating aspect
of the code section.

I will end by saying that, no, I do not like the bill the way it is
currently written.  However, having fought in the political arena for over  4
decades I say you play with what you are dealt and then slowly but surely
attempt to smooth out the wrinkles.

Sincerely,
Sue



In a message dated 6/7/2012 7:53:43 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
groups@... writes:

Sue,

I have always found your posts both informative and  entertaining, but I
think there is a bigger picture here.  The B&P  section is clear on who is
exempt, but 1720 contradicts with the  exemption.  When it was first written, I
looked at it and thought it was  a great idea and supported it.  I did not
agree with it after it was  amended and it was clear that concession were
made at the expense of our  industry.  Its not about rivals Sue, its about
having a voice and  expressing yourself, and if you agree or don't at least you
are able  too.  We don't have to live in this one voice mentality, because
quite  frankly, the majority of Pi's in CA did not vote CALI as the supreme
lobbyist/voice for this profession.  I would like to see an amendment to
include our employees, as the section allows for that, and will lobby for it
to happen.  Lets move forward, not backward.

With kindest  regards,

Raymond Guillermo, LPI
Counsel Investigations, Inc.
CA  #26840


On 6/6/2012 3:58 PM, Rick von Geldern wrote:

Dear Ms. Sarkis and Interested  Parties,
No, Ms. Sarkis your point was well  understood; it’s just wrong.
Investigators ARE also process  servers.  Why?  Because we’re authorized
and exempted from  registration under 22350 B&P.  Further, after obtaining our
6,000  hours of qualified work experience, we are state-tested in the PI
Exam on  our “knowledge of laws that regulate process serving.”
Process servers on the other hand, are  unregulated and have ZERO testing
or knowledge requirements to become  registered.  So, why should process
servers have greater rights and  protections over private investigators?  PICA
just offered classes to  their membership in Sacramento as part of their
Legislation Day  experience with Tony Klien for the purpose of expanding their
investigative  businesses with process service opportunities.
If you read how AB1720 would amend  415.21(a), it was amended to read “sole”
  purpose to serve process.  In  other words, (for anyone else with a
negative 50 IQ), entering a gated  community with papers to serve precludes ANY
investigation.  Yes, that  clearly means interviewing witnesses among the
things you mention private  investigators do as part of an investigation.  In
fact, that’s the deal  the bill’s sponsor, CALI, has reportedly made with
CalsPro so  they wouldn’t oppose the AB1720.   We would not oppose AB1720 if
as investigators we were able to retain our right to utilize our employees
and conduct related investigation.  We believe CALI is selling  private
investigators short by sponsoring AB1720 and deal making with  CalsPro behind
the
scene to limit our utilization of employees and to  conduct related
investigation.
You mention getting the law on the  books and addressing the other issues
later.  Do you mean in a fashion  similar to the ID Card debacle also
delivered to the industry by CALI, or are you  expecting someone else to do that
for you too?  We are addressing these  issues BEFORE they are on the books,
but if the industry wants to live with  the limitations for whatever benefit
they may perceive, so be it.  If  not, they should feel free to email me move
forward with a purpose, not  merely a much overdue CALI legislative win to
regain credibility that comes  at the expense of the PI industry.
Please join the conversation so the PI  industry gets it right for a
change.  Permission granted to  repost.
Sincerely,
Rick von  Geldern
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX



Rick -

You obviously totally misunderstood my  point. This bill does NOT allow
our employees access to these gated  communities whether you HIRE new ones
or
UTILIZE the ones already on  payroll.

We are NOT process servers, we are investigators. The  purpose of our
having an exception for the SIMPLE service of process,  meaning subpoenae,
is to
allow us to save the taxpayers and our clients  lots of money whether court
appointed or privately retained. If the  client's attorney has you
interview witnesses and trusts you enough to  make a decision about serving
them,
or, in the alternative, gives you a  flat across the board "after the
interview, serve them" it saves the  additional expenses of having to have
a PS
locate and then serve the  already interviewed witness. In other words, we
get
to kill two birds  with one stone.

If we want to go into the PS business, then we should  register like
everyone else. Plain and simple.

Look, the bill  gives us a little more power than we have today and that
cannot be  looked upon as a negative by anyone with an IQ over 50 no matter
how
many other things you would like the bill to include. Let's get this on
the books and perhaps later address other issues.

We are PI's,  not PS's.

Sincerely,
Sue


In a message dated 6/6/2012  8:06:11 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
_rick-vg@..._ (mailto:rick-vg@...)  writes:

Ms. Sarkis,
You have misstated my words for the premise of your reply. I said  “utilize
” employees and you return fire with “hire employees.” I stand  by my
words as both truthful and accurate.
To answer your question,  I figured “that” out after reading the bill and
related laws, by  speaking with the author’s office who confirmed it twice
through their  legal staff and also with CALI. So Ms. Sarkis, how do you
figure  it would allow us to “utilize” employees or do you just not care?
Further, if you wouldn’t want NON-licensed investigators having the same
power you have, why would you, CALI or anyone be so anxious to acquiesce  a
present right to utilize employees by giving power to NON-licensed  process
servers and their trade association, CalsPro?
Thank you for  joining the conversation.
Sincerely,
Rick von Geldern

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







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

We are looking for an assist in Safford Arizona tomorrow, (Friday evening
and Saturday evening) for surveillance. Please contact off list if
interested.

Thank you
Gil

Gil  Whitlock
Associated Research & Investigations, Ltd
800-720-8955
_www.associated-research.com_ (http://www.associated-research.com/)


THE  INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION ARE ATTORNEY
CLIENT  PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION, INVESTIGATIVE WORK PRODUCT AND CONFIDENTIAL
IN NATURE.  ITS USE IS SOLELY FOR THAT OF THE ATTORNEY AND HIS/HER CLIENT.
ANY OTHER USE IS  STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN
ERROR PLEASE DESTROY  AND ADVISE THE SENDER.

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

Greetings,

We are up to 20,256 members up over 250 in the last week.

I would like to share a few things with you today.

1. My contract with Credit Counsel, Inc ended as of Friday. A month before I was
expecting it to. My resume is still at http://sbtresume.weebly.com

2. Networking.......How many of you are actually doing it.  What ever
you do and what ever business you are in it is always important to
network. How do you know that the person in front of you at the grocery
checkout does not own a multi-million dollar corporation and have a
great deal in unpaid claims. We can all use that to fall into. Talk to
everyone.

I am always networking and especially on this group once a week. I keep
my name in front of you.  I got a call from a gentleman several weeks
ago and met with him last week. He presented a position to me of which i
  like the concept and the program and am hopeful that it will become my
final home. That is how much I believe in this product.


3. One of the many things I have noticed about our industry and others
is that many companies want experience. How does one get the experience
without it being given. Graduating high school and college students
would jump at the opportunity to intern for your firm.  I've also been
told that although I am experienced I am over qualified. Interesting
quandary that we are all in.


Have you been considering setting up a skip unit in your collection
department? Do you need to know how to do it. Does your team need
training? Check out the top skiptrace trainer in the industry.
http://www.skiptraceconsultants.com
Understand that they come to you. It is not over the phone or a webinar,
  that everyone can sleep to, but in person. Best way to do it.

Are you keeping track of the hits on your website. I am using a free and
accurate counter.
http://www.histats.com

For those of you that do not know my contract will be expiring at the
end of June. It would be very nice to have a new home for the long haul.
  My resume is at http://sbtresume.weebly.com.

Have you seen our newly designed website:
The website is http://rzdinvestigativegroupinc.weebly.com/. I have found it to
definitely be worth the $23.70 for 6 months. I made
my money back with 1 case. Remember that this is ONLY a tool. It may or
may not help you.

Do not forget it is still $49.95 per year to get the additional
exposure. We are still averaging 1000 hits per week, so this equates to a
  no brainer and you should all be signing up for the additional
exposure. http://creditandcollectionsvendorrecommendations.weebly.com/

Are you looking for a new job or career change in 2012? Let people know
and post your resume in The Credit & Collection Resume Place. Make
certain that you are creating an online resume and then provide us with
the link. We will make certain that it gets out to the right people.

Will you be outsourcing your skips or POE searches?
Please visit: http://thepoelocator.weebly.com/

Are you looking for a 3rd party agency to place business with? We can help you
do that.
Check out http://thedebtcollectionconnection.weebly.com


Would you like to join our mailing list?
We are in the process of building that at this moment and would welcome everyone
on board.
Please visit http://linkedincreditandcollections.weebly.com/

Please link in with us as well. The more contacts we have the stronger we
become.

Don't forget to check out our Facebook page
https://www.facebook.com/pages/RZD-Investigative-Group-Inc/19684811283?bookmark_\
t=page

Are you using Twitter? Would you like to follow us on Twitter? Our Twitter is
Skipconsult.

Please subscribe to our blog and feel free to participate.
http://skiptraceconsultant.wordpress.com/

Thank you and of course if we can help you please call 954-722-0473

Thank you,

Steve Taylor
Group Manager/Founder
�
Steve Taylor
President
RZD Investigative Group, Inc
Skiptrace Consultants�
P.O Box 741342
Boynton Beach, Fl 33474

(954)722-0473

FL License A2600003
http://www.skiptraceconsultants.com
http://skiptraceconsultant.wordpress.com
http://sbtresume.weebly.com
http://thepoelocator.weebly.com
http://thedebtcollectionconnection.weebly.com
http://creditandcollectionsvendorrecommendations.weebly.com/

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

Gretchen -

I could not have said it any better.  I totally agree with you.   Barring
exceptional cases where a PI's special expertise might be needed,  PI's
should be serving process only on cases they are working.  That was  the
original
intent of 22350 B&P.

Back when CAPPS introduced AB496, I contacted Aghazarian's office when the
analyst wrote such a poor legislative outline.  It was obvious she didn't
have a clue coupled with the fact that the bill was a little defective
which could have been easily cured.  I was shocked at the dribble  which poured
forth from CALI.

If PI's truly paid attention to the law, it is all about  remuneration.
For the most part through the years, I didn't charge for SOP  although I would
include it in my invoice just for verification that it was  done.  I would
outline that I did "this and that and this and that and SOP  from 2:30 pm to
6 pm" and would then charge for 3.5 hrs.  There would be NO  itemization
for the SOP as it was inclusive.  Therefore, I usually  conducted myself
outside the parameters of 22350 and wasn't too concerned to  begin with.

Any PI that is trying to make a living serving process isn't worth their
weight in dung and should be put out of business.  We are PI's and should
conduct ourselves accordingly.  The RPS's should bear the brunt of the
serves.  PI's should handle their own clients and exceptional cases.

Since PI's are not precluded from SOP when barred from entry by a guard,
doorman, etc. I don't understand what their concern is since they can, as
stated by the court in Bein v Brechtel-Jochim Group, conduct a sub-serve on
the  doorman, guard, etc.  It's been that way for about 20 years.

Oh, and for the record, I've attended seminars conducted by Tony years ago
and I own the book.




Sincerely  yours,
Sue
________________________
Sue  Sarkis
Sarkis Detective Agency


(est. 1976)
PI  6564
_www.sarkispi.com_ (http://www.sarkispi.com/)

1346 Ethel  Street
Glendale, CA 91207-1826
818-242-2505

"one Nation under God" and "in GOD we TRUST"




In a message dated 6/8/2012 5:36:14 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
venturaprocessserver@... writes:




I just get tired of hearing Private Investigators WHINE about not  being
able to do all the same things that Registered Process Servers  can.  PIs are
SO protective of their industry and rightly so but they  want to GET income
to serve papers (which is NOT their industry) without  SPENDING money to get
registered as  Process Server.  They don't  want others "dabbling" in their
industry but they don't mind  "dabbling" in other industries.  Where in B &
  P §7512 et seq. does it mention ANYTHING about serving process?  {Other
than, of course §7522(m) that provides an RPS  with an exemption from the PI
Act while serving process}.  Where  is it written that licensed PIs have some
special privilege to serve legal documents?  B  & P §22350 allows PIs to
earn compensation related to serving process  without registering, which is
very good for you all, but nowhere in the PI Act does it talk  about serving
legal documents as one of the special duties of a  PI.



As many of you know, I have given many presentations to both PICA  and CALI
to help the members LEARN how to serve process PROPERLY.  I take great
exception to ANYONE "dabbling"  in a business like process serving......this
includes many Registered  Process Servers as well as Private Investigators.
There are many PIs  that are also RPSs.  There are many RPSs that have been
serving papers  for years and couldn't pass a test on Process Serving laws so
the problem of  lack of knowledge universal.  Why is it that PIs want to
earn money  serving papers but are SO RESISTANT to getting Registered and
attending  classes like Tony Klein's classes?  I am constantly telling PIs about
Tony's books and classes but very few ever buy his book or attend.  They
are not interested in educating themselves to serve process lawfully correct,
  they just want the income from it.  BTW, this goes for RPSs too but at
least they buy the book.



As I stated in my post, B & P §22350 only ALLOWS PIs to legally earn money
serving more  than 10 serves a year.  Other than that, PIs are NO different
in the law that a  regular person serving process.  PIs fall under CCP
§414.10 when serving  a Summons and under CCP §1987(a) when serving a
subpoena.....nothing more,  both of which my sister can get paid to do
......just not
more than 10 in a  year.  PIs have NO rebuttable presumption when signing a
Proof of Service  (Evidence Code §647).  Fees incurred by a PI to effect
service ARE NOT fully recoverable (CCP  §1033.5(a)(4)(B)) like they are for an
RPS.  PIs, when serving process,  fall under the classification of "Anyone
over the age of 18" and therefore, in  regards to access at gated communities,
why not open CCP §415.21 to ANYONE  serving process who shows their
Driver's License and a copy of the legal  documents?  Wouldn't my sister or
anyone
else over 18 be entitled to "do  their job" and serve the papers given to
them at a gated  community?



PIs may be "licensed and regulated" in their own field but there is
ABSOLUTELY NO licensing or  regulation of PIs when it comes to service of
process.


And in regards to Mr. Von Geldern's last comment "with the recent problems
in California with  ABC Process Serving, one probably should consider the
benefits to consumer by  regulating process servers throughout California."
.....really?............how much more "regulated" can you get than the State
Bar or the Government or a Municipality?  I am sure you are well aware of
all the corrupt lawyers, elected officials, judges, in addition to Private
Investigators that are ALL from "regulated" industries...........Do you
really  think "regulation" keeps out the crooks?



I, like others, am simply voicing my opinion.

Gretchen D. Lichtenberger, C.C.P.S.
Registered Process Server
MCLE  Provider #14761 for State Bar of California
1746 S. Victoria Ave. #171,  Suite F
Ventura, CA 93003-6190
(805) 340-4179
_venturaprocessserver@..._ (mailto:venturaprocessserver@...)
_www.ayouvebeenserved.com_ (http://www.ayouvebeenserved.com/)

Gretchen D. Lichtenberger
Paralegal &  Judgment Enforcement
"Justice Matters"
1000 Town Center Drive, Suite  300
Oxnard, CA 93036-1117
(805)  642-7368
justicemattersnow@...
www.justicemattersnow.com

"First they ignore you,
then they laugh at you,
then they fight you,
then  you  win"              ~~Mahatma Gandhi


Proud Member of:
NAPPS    ~  National Association of  Professional Process Servers
CALSPro ~ California Association of Legal  Support Professionals
CAJP        ~  California Association of Judgment  Professionals
VCPA       ~ Ventura County  Paralegal Association







____________________________________
  From: PI PAC  <pipac4you@...>
To: SueSarkis@...;  infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com; roncaro@...;
thePIgroup@yahoogroups.com;  cbarger@...;
cjacobs@...; mkern@...;  wendy@...;
dtsvs@...;
l.kirlin@...;  rporambo@...;
info@...;
  rstitts@...; jeremiah@...;
bbarger@...; alliancestatus@...; 
jackb@...;
bbody@...; tom@...;  sierratrackers@...;
jim_daniel@...; joshdarty@...;  aestin@...;
mitch@...;
service@...;  service@...; raymondhowell@...;
steve@...;  skern@...; venturaprocessserver@...;
orders@...;  contact@...; service@...;
john@...;  rbaattorneysvcs@...; harrynorman@...;
tpalma@...;  hopepeck@...; kpelletier@...;
notariesbycr@...;  skirah@...; marksrogers77@...;
lloyd@...;  wspserver@...;
sturdeeservices@...;
dlurata@...;  mark@...; info@...;
gotchaca@...;
donna@...; pat@...;
cmxattysvc@...; petezirolli@...; chris@...;
zimmerpi@...; Iliana.Ramos@...; rick-vg@...
Sent: Friday, June 8, 2012  1:04 PM
Subject: Re: Landmark  Legislation Assaulting PI  Industry


Gretchen,



I applaud the good work  and training that you do and have enjoyed your
training  classes.



Concessions, handy work or life-saving legacy?   If you’d like to have
the legislative successes of Francie Koehler and CALI  working
specifically for process servers, I’d be happy to pay for  her
registration and a bus ride providing she gets out of my  business.
What’s good for Francie Koehler and CALI hasn’t proved to be good  for
private investigators and we’re still living with her/their  messes.



I have nothing personally against process servers,  however, private
investigators don’t need Koehler & Co. making deals  that limit our
business with those who legislate your business.  I  hope you can
appreciate the distinction.  Having said that, with the  recent
problems in California with ABC Process Serving, one probably  should
consider the benefits to consumer by regulating process  servers
throughout California.



Your comments are well taken  and  appreciated.



Rick




----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

From:  Gretchen [mailto:_venturaprocessserver@..._
(mailto:venturaprocessserver@...) ]
Sent:  Friday, June 08, 2012 11:54 AM
To: _rick-vg@..._ (mailto:rick-vg@...) ; Francie Koehler
Cc: _SueSarkis@..._ (mailto:SueSarkis@...) ;
_infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com_ (mailto:infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com) ;
_roncaro@..._ (mailto:roncaro@...) ; Jeffrey Mason;
_thePIgroup@yahoogroups.com_ (mailto:thePIgroup@yahoogroups.com) ;  NLLI;
_cbarger@..._ (mailto:cbarger@...) ;
_cjacobs@..._ (mailto:cjacobs@...) ;
_mkern@..._ (mailto:mkern@...) ; _wendy@..._
(mailto:wendy@...) ;
_dtsvs@..._ (mailto:dtsvs@...) ;
_l.kirlin@..._ (mailto:l.kirlin@...) ;
_rporambo@..._ (mailto:rporambo@...) ;
_info@..._ (mailto:info@...) ;
_rstitts@..._
(mailto:rstitts@...) ;  _jeremiah@..._
(mailto:jeremiah@...) ;
_bbarger@..._ (mailto:bbarger@...) ;
_alliancestatus@..._ (mailto:alliancestatus@...) ;
_jackb@..._ (mailto:jackb@...) ;
_bbody@..._ (mailto:bbody@...) ; _tom@..._
(mailto:tom@...) ;
_sierratrackers@..._ (mailto:sierratrackers@...) ;
_jim_daniel@..._ (mailto:jim_daniel@...) ; _joshdarty@..._
(mailto:joshdarty@...) ;
_aestin@..._ (mailto:aestin@...) ; _mitch@..._
(mailto:mitch@...) ; _service@..._ (mailto:service@...)
;
_service@..._ (mailto:service@...) ;
_raymondhowell@..._ (mailto:raymondhowell@...) ;
_steve@..._ (mailto:steve@...) ;
_skern@..._ (mailto:skern@...) ;
_venturaprocessserver@..._ (mailto:venturaprocessserver@...) ;
_orders@..._ (mailto:orders@...) ;
_contact@..._ (mailto:contact@...) ;
_service@..._ (mailto:service@...) ; _john@..._
(mailto:john@...) ;
_rbaattorneysvcs@..._ (mailto:rbaattorneysvcs@...) ;
_harrynorman@..._ (mailto:harrynorman@...) ;
_tpalma@..._ (mailto:tpalma@...) ; _hopepeck@..._
(mailto:hopepeck@...) ;
_kpelletier@..._
(mailto:kpelletier@...) ;  _notariesbycr@..._
(mailto:notariesbycr@...) ;
_skirah@..._ (mailto:skirah@...) ; _marksrogers77@..._
(mailto:marksrogers77@...) ; _lloyd@..._
(mailto:lloyd@...) ;
_wspserver@..._ (mailto:wspserver@...) ;
_sturdeeservices@..._ (mailto:sturdeeservices@...) ; 
_dlurata@..._
(mailto:dlurata@...) ;
_mark@..._ (mailto:mark@...) ;
_info@..._ (mailto:info@...) ; _gotchaca@..._
(mailto:gotchaca@...) ;
_donna@..._
(mailto:donna@...) ;  _pat@..._
(mailto:pat@...) ;
_cmxattysvc@..._
(mailto:cmxattysvc@...) ;  _petezirolli@..._
(mailto:petezirolli@...) ;
_chris@..._ (mailto:chris@...) ; _zimmerpi@..._
(mailto:zimmerpi@...) ; _Iliana.Ramos@..._
(mailto:Iliana.Ramos@...) ;  Tony
Klein; David Nill; Mike Belote
Cc: Brett Peters
Subject: Re:  Landmark Legislation Assaulting PI Industry



Obviously, Mr. Von  Geldern has chosen to add my email, as well as
others, onto his  distribution list regarding this topic.  I didn't
want to get into  this battle but I need to make a few comments to
clarify a few things, just  like Brett did, so misinformation is  not
propagated.



First--ANYONE lawfully serving legal process  is a "process server".
ANY person over the age of 18 who is not a party may  lawfully serve a
Summons (CCP §414.10).  ANYONE, including a party to  the action, may
lawfully serve a Subpoena (CCP §1987(a)).  When those  persons are
serving those documents, they are "process servers" at that  moment.
If someone wants to make money as a "process server", they  must
Register as a "process server".  One only becomes a REGISTERED  process
server if they comply with B & P §22350 et seq.  For  clarity, the law
states that any natural person who makes more than 10  services for
specific compensation, whether given or expected, relating to  service
of process MUST become Registered (B & P §22350(a)).  The  "Exemptions"
(ie P.I.s, attorneys, etc) listed in B & P §22350(b) ONLY  allow those
persons who are exempt to serve more than 10 services in a  calendar
year FOR COMPENSATION without becoming Registered......nothing  more,
nothing less.  It ONLY means those exempted persons are  lawfully
allowed to make money serving process without registering as a  Process
Server.  It does NOT confer any other rights upon those  exempted
persons.



Second....to denigrate Registered Process  Servers is very
unprofessional.  Mr. Von Geldern said "Process servers  on the other
hand, are unregulated and have ZERO testing or knowledge  requirements
to become registered.  So, why should process servers  have greater
rights and protections over private investigators?" and  "after
obtaining our 6,000 hours of qualified work experience, we  are
state-tested in the PI Exam on our “knowledge of laws that  regulate
process serving." and "she has the galls to ask that PI’s register  as
process servers in an unregulated industry where $200.00 and  an
application to avoid controversy".

I would like to point out a  very important consideration.  Regardless
to the amount of hours  logged, regardless to the number of classes
taken, regardless to the amount  of studying done, regardless to the
Degrees or licenses obtained, I would  submit that a "professional" is
someone who studies the law pertaining to  their professions and always
abides by those laws with integrity.  I  can name MANY, MANY private
investigators and attorneys who don't know the  first thing about
serving legal documents or what constitutes a valid  service.
Likewise, I know many RPSs who have been serving papers for  decades
who don't know the laws regarding serving process.  If PIs  want to
"dabble" in process serving to make extra money, they SHOULD  become
registered AND become knowledgeable about the laws of service  of
process.  Just because an industry is or isn't "regulated"  doesn't
change the fact that a person working in a particular field has  an
obligation to know the laws regarding their industry.  Yes, I am a  RPS
in an "unregulated" industry and very proud to be an RPS.  I am  always
educating myself regarding the laws and the case law to make sure  I
always know the proper way to effect a lawful service.  I don't  have
to wait for the industry to "regulate" me, I can "regulate" myself  by
continually studying the laws governing my profession.

Most  people do whatever it takes just to pass the "exam", be it
attorneys, PIs,  insurance agents, security brokers, etc. but then
FORGET everything they  learned cramming for that exam.  After passing
the exam, their only  objective is to make money, not to better
themselves by continuing to learn  more about the laws.  How many
people read the California Driver's  Handbook just before taking their
driving test?  Then, pass the test  and don't know the rules of the
road.  Those Drivers have a "license"  in a "regulated" industry.
Passing a test or taking driver's training does  NOT make them a "good
driver".  Nor does it make them knowledgeable  about the laws relating
to having that Driver's License.  Did you know  that anyone having a
California Driver's License has consented to service  of process at the
address on their license?  Check out Vehicle Code  §1808.21(c).  Just
because one has a "license" in a "regulated"  industry does NOT make
one anymore a professional or good at their chosen  profession than
someone without a license in an "unregulated"  industry.

Third--just a little food for thought.....how would CALI or  PICA
reacts if CALSPro wanted a "concession" so that Registered  Process
Servers could interview the Witness that they just served with  a
Subpoena?.........just saying............."concessions" can go  both
ways.

Every industry has its flakes no matter how many  "licenses" those
people have and no matter what it took to get those  licenses.  A
person who is a true professional should not be measured  by anything
other than their knowledge and ability to get the job done  lawfully
correct.

Gretchen D. Lichtenberger, C.C.P.S.
Registered  Process Server
MCLE Provider #14761 for State Bar of California
1746 S.  Victoria Ave. #171, Suite F
Ventura, CA 93003-6190
(805)  340-4179

_venturaprocessserver@..._ (mailto:venturaprocessserver@...)

www.ayouvebeenserved.com


Gretchen  D. Lichtenberger
Paralegal & Judgment Enforcement
"Justice  Matters"
1000 Town Center Drive, Suite 300
Oxnard, CA  93036-1117
(805) 642-7368
_justicemattersnow@..._ (mailto:justicemattersnow@...)
www.justicemattersnow.com

"First  they ignore you,
then they laugh at you,
then they fight you,
then you win"     ~~Mahatma Gandhi

Proud Member  of:
NAPPS    ~  National Association of Professional Process  Servers
CALSPro ~ California Association of Legal Support  Professionals
CAJP        ~ California Association of  Judgment Professionals
VCPA      ~ Ventura County Paralegal  Association






----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

From:  Rick von Geldern <_rick-vg@..._ (mailto:rick-vg@...)
>
To: Rick  von Geldern <_rick-vg@..._ (mailto:rick-vg@...) >
Sent:  Thursday, June 7, 2012 9:18 AM
Subject: FW: Landmark Legislation Assaulting  PI Industry



True, I don’t believe everything I hear, especially  when it’s coming
out of Francie Koehler’s mouth after her failed and  deceptive
legislative efforts concerning the Mandatory Continuing  Education
(MCE) bill and the PI ID Card debacle that PI’s are still living  with.
Need more be said?  Garbage in = garbage out.



Why  is a private investigative association protecting process servers
to the  detriment of licensed and state-tested private investigators
(6,000 just to  sit for the test that includes “laws that govern
process serving”) and she  has the galls to ask that PI’s register as
process servers in an  unregulated industry where $200.00 and an
application to avoid  controversy?



If Francie is trying to start a war between  private investigators
against process servers it’s about to the “game on”  stage.




----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

From:  _SueSarkis@..._ (mailto:SueSarkis@...)  [ mailto:
_SueSarkis@..._ (mailto:SueSarkis@...) ]
Sent: Thursday,  June 07, 2012 8:46 AM
To: _groups@..._ (mailto:groups@...) ;
_rick-vg@..._ (mailto:rick-vg@...)
Cc: _infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com_ (mailto:infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com)
;  _roncaro@..._ (mailto:roncaro@...) ;
_freekali@yahoogroups.com_ (mailto:freekali@yahoogroups.com) ;
_NLLI-Official-Members@yahoogroups.com_
(mailto:NLLI-Official-Members@yahoogroups.com)
Subject:  Re: Landmark Legislation Assaulting PI Industry



Ray   -



I fully understand what you are saying.  However, upon  careful
examination of the history of the bill, the analysis and  the
amendment, it is very obvious to me that issues were raised.   Let's
face it, the industry has taken beatings over the years thanks  to
people like Pellicano , Victoria Tade and others.



The  analysis clearly says that the bill does not include our
employees.   Someone obviously raised what they considered to be a
serious issue, a red  flag of sorts, and an amendment was proposed.
Since the issue is obviously  a thorn in someone's side, we have to
live within the confines of that  which we can win.  Remember,  your
staff can still continue to  sub-serve the guards as is outlined in
Bein v. Brechtel-Jochim  Group.



As is typical for CALI , the bill, at present, is poorly  written.
However, it does give us something we do not have today.   With that
said, go with it and then come back at a later time to address  the
discriminating aspect of the code section.



I will end by  saying that, no, I do not like the bill the way it is
currently  written.  However, having fought in the political arena for
over 4  decades I say you play with what you are dealt and then slowly
but surely  attempt to smooth out the  wrinkles.



Sincerely,

Sue





In a  message dated 6/7/2012 7:53:43 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
_groups@..._ (mailto:groups@...)   writes:

Sue,

I have always found your posts both informative and  entertaining, but
I think there is a bigger picture here.  The B&P  section is clear on
who is exempt, but 1720 contradicts with the  exemption.  When it was
first written, I looked at it and thought it  was a great idea and
supported it.  I did not agree with it after it  was amended and it was
clear that concession were made at the expense of  our industry.  Its
not about rivals Sue, its about having a voice and  expressing
yourself, and if you agree or don't at least you are able  too.  We
don't have to live in this one voice mentality, because quite  frankly,
the majority of Pi's in CA did not vote CALI as the  supreme
lobbyist/voice for this profession.  I would like to see an  amendment
to include our employees, as the section allows for that, and  will
lobby for it to happen.  Lets move forward, not  backward.

With kindest regards,

Raymond Guillermo,  LPI
Counsel Investigations, Inc.
CA #26840


On 6/6/2012 3:58  PM, Rick von Geldern wrote:

Dear Ms. Sarkis and Interested  Parties,



No, Ms. Sarkis your point was well understood; it’s  just wrong.



Investigators ARE also process servers.   Why?  Because we’re
authorized and exempted from registration under  22350 B&P.  Further,
after obtaining our 6,000 hours of qualified  work experience, we are
state-tested in the PI Exam on our “knowledge of  laws that regulate
process serving.”



Process servers on the  other hand, are unregulated and have ZERO
testing or knowledge requirements  to become registered.  So, why
should process servers have greater  rights and protections over
private investigators?  PICA just offered  classes to their membership
in Sacramento as part of their Legislation Day  experience with Tony
Klien for the purpose of expanding their investigative  businesses with
process service opportunities.



If you read  how AB1720 would amend 415.21(a), it was amended to read
“sole” purpose to  serve process.  In other words, (for anyone else
with a negative 50  IQ), entering a gated community with papers to
serve precludes ANY  investigation.  Yes, that clearly means
interviewing witnesses among  the things you mention private
investigators do as part of an  investigation.  In fact, that’s the
deal the bill’s sponsor, CALI ,  has reportedly made with CalsPro so
they wouldn’t oppose the AB1720.   We would not oppose AB1720 if as
investigators we were able to retain our  right to utilize our
employees and conduct related investigation.  We  believe CALI is
selling private investigators short by sponsoring AB1720  and deal
making with CalsPro behind the scene to limit our utilization  of
employees and to conduct related investigation.



You  mention getting the law on the books and addressing the other
issues  later.  Do you mean in a fashion similar to the ID Card debacle
also  delivered to the industry by CALI , or are you expecting someone
else to do  that for you too?  We are addressing these issues BEFORE
they are on  the books, but if the industry wants to live with the
limitations for  whatever benefit they may perceive, so be it.  If not,
they should  feel free to email me move forward with a purpose, not
merely a much  overdue CALI legislative win to regain credibility that
comes at the  expense of the PI industry.



Please join the conversation so the  PI industry gets it right for a
change.  Permission granted to  repost.



Sincerely,



Rick von  Geldern



XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Rick  -

You obviously totally misunderstood my point. This bill does NOT  allow
our employees access to these gated communities whether you HIRE new  ones
or
UTILIZE the ones already on payroll.

We are NOT process  servers, we are investigators. The purpose of our
having an exception for  the SIMPLE service of process, meaning subpoenae,
is to
allow us to save  the taxpayers and our clients lots of money whether court
appointed or  privately retained. If the client's attorney has you
interview witnesses  and trusts you enough to make a decision about
serving them,
or, in the  alternative, gives you a flat across the board "after the
interview, serve  them" it saves the additional expenses of having to have
a PS
locate and  then serve the already interviewed witness. In other words, we
get
to kill  two birds with one stone.

If we want to go into the PS business, then  we should register like
everyone else. Plain and simple.

Look, the  bill gives us a little more power than we have today and that
cannot be  looked upon as a negative by anyone with an IQ over 50 no matter
how
many  other things you would like the bill to include. Let's get this on
the  books and perhaps later address other issues.

We are PI's, not  PS's.

Sincerely,
Sue


In a message dated 6/6/2012 8:06:11  A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
_rick-vg@..._ (mailto:rick-vg@...)   writes:

Ms. Sarkis,
You have misstated my words for the premise of  your reply. I said “utilize
” employees and you return fire with “hire  employees.” I stand by my
words as both truthful and accurate.
To answer  your question, I figured “that” out after reading the bill and
related  laws, by speaking with the author’s office who confirmed it twice
through  their legal staff and also with CALI . So Ms. Sarkis, how do you
figure it  would allow us to “utilize” employees or do you just not care?
Further, if  you wouldn’t want NON-licensed investigators having the same
power you  have, why would you, CALI or anyone be so anxious to acquiesce a
present  right to utilize employees by giving power to NON-licensed process
servers  and their trade association, CalsPro?
Thank you for joining the  conversation.
Sincerely,
Rick von Geldern

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











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

Dear Colleagues:

I recently read a story in the NY Daily News about a CA PI helping to
free Brian Banks from prison after 25 years. (Attaboy, guy...I hope
CALI, or somebody, or a lot of somebodies, gives you an award.) See
excerpt below.

Question: I have worked in CA hundreds of times, and covert recording
has always been an annoying issue in all of the cases. It's my
understanding that CA is an all-party state except for a very few
types of situations...i.e. extortion, police permission etc. So, how
did the CA PI not get prosecuted? Is it because the LAPD did the right
thing and ignored the recording for the greater good? (If they did,
attaboy to them, too.) Or was what he did legal for some reason? If
yes, and there's an exclusion for PIs, etc, I'd sure like to know how
that works, so that in the future I, or one of the CA PIs that I'm
working with, can take advantage of it.

Steven.



"...The private investigator who helped get the rape charges against
former prep school football star Brian Banks dismissed said he had one
chance to get a confession out of Banks� accuser.
XXX told NBC Los Angeles that he wired up his office with hidden
cameras and microphones for a meeting with Banks� accuser, Wanetta
Gibson, last year. ...
XXX said he�d known Banks since he played football with his son at
Long Beach Polytechnic High. ...To elicit a confession, Banks and XXX
arranged for Gibson to meet with Banks in XXX�s office.
She told him she would be willing to help get his name cleared � but
didn�t want to risk giving up a $1.5 million settlement her family had
received.
�I don�t want to have to pay it back, because that would take a long
time,� she said.
Banks convinced her to return the next day to meet with XXX.
During that meeting, she recanted everything � not knowing she was on
camera.
XXX and Banks turned the evidence over to the California Innocence
Project, which helped get Banks� conviction thrown out last month.
The former prep star is now pursuing his dream to play pro
football. ..."




(Steven Rambam, CFE, CPP, PSP, PCI, CSAR, Director.)
(for: Pallorium, Inc.)

direct email: rambam@...



Pallorium, Inc.
P.O. Box 155 - Midwood Station
Brooklyn, New York 11230 USA
(001) 212-969-0286
____________

http://www.pallorium.com

TWITTER: @pallorium and @stevenrambam
____________

* Licensed Investigators * Database Services *

* U.S.A. Affiliates in New York, Texas, Louisiana and California *

* IIN * WAD * WIN * NAIS * ION * AIIP * NCISS * BOMP * COIN *
* ASIS * ACFE * IOA * INTELNET * ALDONYS * TALI * SPI * ACFCS *

____________

Join the "INVESTIGATIONS" group at: www.peoplefinder.net/newsgroup.html
A private, secure and noncompetitive group for investigative
professionals.


P   Please consider the environment before printing this email.






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

I need a Process Server in the area of Holyoke, MA. This is for a case out of
Columbia, MO..

Please feel free to contact me via phone; if interested: (573) 529-4476.


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 Fax: (877) 795-9800
EMERGENCY LINE: (573) 234-4871

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


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

This might apply if the recording took place in California:


Cal. Penal Code § 633.5 provides: "Nothing in Section ... 632 ... prohibits one
party to a confidential communication from recording the communication for the
purpose of obtaining evidence reasonably believed to relate to the commission by
another party to the communication of the crime of extortion, kidnapping,
bribery, any felony involving violence against the person." MOREOVER, "nothing
in ... Section ... 632 ... renders any evidence so obtained inadmissible."


Ronald R. DeCaro
Private Investigator - CA License No. PI21993
INTEGRATED INSURANCE INVESTIGATIONS
PO Box 888 - Mira Loma - CA - 91752-0888
Phone (951) 360-8880  Fax (951) 360-5957
E-mail: Roncaro@...



-----Original Message-----
From: S.R. <newsgroups@...>
Sent: Sat, Jun 9, 2012 11:07 am
Subject: [infoguys-list] California no longer all-party state (for recordings)?


Dear Colleagues:

I recently read a story in the NY Daily News about a CA PI helping to
free Brian Banks from prison after 25 years. (Attaboy, guy...I hope
CALI, or somebody, or a lot of somebodies, gives you an award.) See
excerpt below.

Question: I have worked in CA hundreds of times, and covert recording
has always been an annoying issue in all of the cases. It's my
understanding that CA is an all-party state except for a very few
types of situations...i.e. extortion, police permission etc. So, how
did the CA PI not get prosecuted? Is it because the LAPD did the right
thing and ignored the recording for the greater good? (If they did,
attaboy to them, too.) Or was what he did legal for some reason? If
yes, and there's an exclusion for PIs, etc, I'd sure like to know how
that works, so that in the future I, or one of the CA PIs that I'm
working with, can take advantage of it.

Steven.



"...The private investigator who helped get the rape charges against
former prep school football star Brian Banks dismissed said he had one
chance to get a confession out of Banks� accuser.
XXX told NBC Los Angeles that he wired up his office with hidden
cameras and microphones for a meeting with Banks� accuser, Wanetta
Gibson, last year. ...
XXX said he�d known Banks since he played football with his son at
Long Beach Polytechnic High. ...To elicit a confession, Banks and XXX
arranged for Gibson to meet with Banks in XXX�s office.
She told him she would be willing to help get his name cleared � but
didn�t want to risk giving up a $1.5 million settlement her family had
received.
�I don�t want to have to pay it back, because that would take a long
time,� she said.
Banks convinced her to return the next day to meet with XXX.
During that meeting, she recanted everything � not knowing she was on
camera.
XXX and Banks turned the evidence over to the California Innocence
Project, which helped get Banks� conviction thrown out last month.
The former prep star is now pursuing his dream to play pro
football. ..."




(Steven Rambam, CFE, CPP, PSP, PCI, CSAR, Director.)
(for: Pallorium, Inc.)

direct email: rambam@...



Pallorium, Inc.
P.O. Box 155 - Midwood Station
Brooklyn, New York 11230 USA
(001) 212-969-0286
____________

http://www.pallorium.com

TWITTER: @pallorium and @stevenrambam
____________

* Licensed Investigators * Database Services *

* U.S.A. Affiliates in New York, Texas, Louisiana and California *

* IIN * WAD * WIN * NAIS * ION * AIIP * NCISS * BOMP * COIN *
* ASIS * ACFE * IOA * INTELNET * ALDONYS * TALI * SPI * ACFCS *

____________

Join the "INVESTIGATIONS" group at: www.peoplefinder.net/newsgroup.html
A private, secure and noncompetitive group for investigative
professionals.


P   Please consider the environment before printing this email.






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



------------------------------------

<p><hr></p>
To subscribe, send an empty message to <a
href="mailto:infoguys-list-subscribe@yahoogroups.com">infoguys-list-subscribe@ya\
hoogroups.com</a><br/>
To unsubscribe, send a message to <a
href="mailto:infoguys-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com">infoguys-list-unsubscrib\
e@yahoogroups.com</a><br/>
<p><hr></p>Yahoo! Groups Links







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

Ronald:

Thanks, I'd seen that...I'm guessing that since Rape involves "any
felony involving violence against the person", and the PI was
investigating an old rape, recording was OK?

Steven.


On Jun 10, 2012, at 4:29 AM, infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com wrote:

>
> Cal. Penal Code § 633.5 provides: "Nothing in Section ... 632 ...
> prohibits one party to a confidential communication from recording
> the communication for the purpose of obtaining evidence reasonably
> believed to relate to the commission by another party to the
> communication of the crime of extortion, kidnapping, bribery, any
> felony involving violence against the person." MOREOVER, "nothing
> in ... Section ... 632 ... renders any evidence so obtained
> inadmissible."




(Steven Rambam, CFE, CPP, PSP, PCI, Director.)
(for: Pallorium, Inc.)

direct email: rambam@...


THIS EMAIL ADDRESS IS FOR NEWSGROUP ACTIVITY ONLY.
PRIVATE MESSAGES SENT TO THIS ADDRESS ARE AUTOMATICALLY DISCARDED BY
THE MAILSERVER.


Pallorium, Inc.
P.O. Box 155 - Midwood Station
Brooklyn, New York 11230 USA
(001) 212-969-0286
____________

WEB: http://www.pallorium.com

TWITTER: @stevenrambam  @pallorium
____________

* Licensed Investigators * Database Services *

* U.S.A. Affiliates in New York, Texas, Louisiana and California *

* IIN * WAD * WIN * NAIS * ION * AIIP * NCISS * BOMP * COIN *
* ASIS * ACFE * IOA * INTELNET * ALDONYS * TALI * SPI * ACFCS *

____________

Join the "INVESTIGATIONS" group at: www.peoplefinder.net/newsgroup.html
A private, secure and noncompetitive group for investigative
professionals.


P   Please consider the environment before printing this email.






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

I'd argue that way.



Ronald R. DeCaro
Private Investigator - CA License No. PI21993
INTEGRATED INSURANCE INVESTIGATIONS
PO Box 888 - Mira Loma - CA - 91752-0888
Phone (951) 360-8880  Fax (951) 360-5957
E-mail: Roncaro@...



-----Original Message-----
From: S.R. <newsgroups@...>
To: infoguys-list <infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sun, Jun 10, 2012 9:44 pm
Subject: [infoguys-list] CA recording





Ronald:

Thanks, I'd seen that...I'm guessing that since Rape involves "any
felony involving violence against the person", and the PI was
investigating an old rape, recording was OK?

Steven.

On Jun 10, 2012, at 4:29 AM, infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com wrote:

>
> Cal. Penal Code § 633.5 provides: "Nothing in Section ... 632 ...
> prohibits one party to a confidential communication from recording
> the communication for the purpose of obtaining evidence reasonably
> believed to relate to the commission by another party to the
> communication of the crime of extortion, kidnapping, bribery, any
> felony involving violence against the person." MOREOVER, "nothing
> in ... Section ... 632 ... renders any evidence so obtained
> inadmissible."

(Steven Rambam, CFE, CPP, PSP, PCI, Director.)
(for: Pallorium, Inc.)

direct email: rambam@...

THIS EMAIL ADDRESS IS FOR NEWSGROUP ACTIVITY ONLY.
PRIVATE MESSAGES SENT TO THIS ADDRESS ARE AUTOMATICALLY DISCARDED BY
THE MAILSERVER.

Pallorium, Inc.
P.O. Box 155 - Midwood Station
Brooklyn, New York 11230 USA
(001) 212-969-0286
____________

WEB: http://www.pallorium.com

TWITTER: @stevenrambam  @pallorium
____________

* Licensed Investigators * Database Services *

* U.S.A. Affiliates in New York, Texas, Louisiana and California *

* IIN * WAD * WIN * NAIS * ION * AIIP * NCISS * BOMP * COIN *
* ASIS * ACFE * IOA * INTELNET * ALDONYS * TALI * SPI * ACFCS *

____________

Join the "INVESTIGATIONS" group at: www.peoplefinder.net/newsgroup.html
A private, secure and noncompetitive group for investigative
professionals.

P   Please consider the environment before printing this email.

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









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

Need Montana Motor Vehicles run under business name. Anyone that can assist,
please contact me off list with cost and tat.

Thank you

thelookingglass2@...

Dondi(Dee)Lucia Frigerio-Holmes
The Looking Glass, LLC
Phoenix, AZ 85060
AZ License #1597140 & 1597141
phone: 623/252-2223 fax: 602/680-7850
www.thelookingglassinvestigations.com
Member of IOA, SCFIA and Infragard

Thanks to all that responded




Dondi(Dee)Lucia Frigerio-Holmes
The Looking Glass, LLC
Phoenix, AZ 85060
AZ License #1597140 & 1597141
phone: 623/252-2223 fax: 602/680-7850
www.thelookingglassinvestigations.com
Member of IOA, SCFIA and Infragard

Thank you all for your responses. The request for a Process Server in MA., has
been handled.


Ricky B. Gurley

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

This article from New York Law Journal has been sent to you by roncaro@....



Judge Rejects 'Unorthodox' Plea to Permit Service by Facebook
Mark Hamblett
2012-06-12 00:00:00



A federal judge has rejected using Facebook as an alternative method of serving
process on a party in a lawsuit who has been hard to find.


Southern District Judge John Keenan (See Profile) told Chase Bank it could not
use the social media website to track down and serve a woman with a history of
providing fake or out-of-date addresses and who allegedly obtained a credit card
in her mother's name and then made numerous purchases.


Instead, Keenan authorized service in Fortunato v. Chase Bank USA, 11 Civ. 6608,
to Nicole Fortunato by publication in four local newspapers to cover four areas
where Fortunato had listed addresses and a fifth area listed on her Facebook
page as her current location.


Chase Bank secured a default judgment in New York Supreme Court in 2009 against
Nicole's mother, Lorri Fortunato, for $1,243 in unpaid credit card bills and
recovered the money by garnishing her wages.
Lorri Fortunato then brought claims against the bank for violation of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act, abuse of process and conversion, claiming that another
person fraudulently opened up an account using her name.
In November 2011, Keenan gave Chase leave to implead Nicole Fortunato for
contribution, indemnification, breach of contract, account stated, fraud and
unjust enrichment.
The bank hired an investigator who was unable to locate Nicole or an address
where she might live. It then asked the judge to authorize service of process by
e-mail, Facebook message, publication and delivery to Lorri.


Under N.Y. CPLR 308, service of process may be effected by (1) personal service;
(2) delivery to "a person of suitable age and discretion at the actual place of
business, dwelling place or usual place of abode of the person to be served; (3)
service on an agent; or (4) so-called "nail and mail service," nailing service
to a person's door and then mailing them a copy.


Section 308(5) allows a court to direct another method of service where service
by these means is "impracticable."


After being unable to locate Nicole at addresses she had given in the New York
localities of Shandaken, Patterson, Wingdale and Newburgh, the investigator
found what she believed to be Nicole's Facebook profile that included her
personal e-mail address and listed her location as Hastings, N.Y. Keenan was
satisfied that service by normal means was impracticable, but he could not agree
that service by private Facebook message, e-mail to the address listed on her
Facebook profile and a third alternative, delivery of the summons and complaint
to Lorri, were reasonably calculated to notify Nicole.


"Service by Facebook is unorthodox to say the least, and this court is unaware
of any other court that has authorized such service," Keenan said. "Furthermore,
in those cases where service by email has been judicially approved, the movant
supplied the Court with facts indicating that the person to be served would be
likely to receive the summons and complaint at the given email address."
He said Chase had set forth no facts that would "give the Court a degree of
certainty that the Facebook profile its investigator located is in fact
maintained by Nicole or that the email address listed on the Facebook profile is
operational and accessed by Nicole."


"Indeed, the Court's understanding is that anyone can make a Facebook profile
using real, fake or incomplete information, and thus, there is no way for the
Court to confirm whether the Nicole Fortunato the investigator found is in fact
the third-party Defendant to be served."


The judge said he was "similarly skeptical" of effecting service on Lorri
Fortunato. "By all accounts, Lorri and Nicole are estranged (unsurprising in
light of the fact that Nicole allegedly stole her mother's identity), Lorri has
not been in touch with her daughter for years, and Lorri does not have any
recent contact information for her daughter." Moreover, he said, such service is
not appropriate given that Lorri and Nicole "are essentially counter parties in
this suit."


Gregory Gorski, Mark Mailman and John Soumilas of Francis & Mailman in
Philadelphia and Brian Bromberg of Manhattan represent Lorri Fortunato. Soumilas
in an interview faulted Chase for garnishing his client's wages even though she
presented proof of her identity and maintained accounts at the bank in good
standing. "We wish they had taken that level of care in determining who the
proper debtor is—they continue to hold her garnished funds," he said. "It's
very ironic they are so diligent about trying to track down the daughter now,
but seemed to be not at all diligent in determining who they should have sued in
the first place."


Thomas Stagg and Brian Lacoff of Stagg, Terenzi, Confusione & Wabnik in Garden
City represent Chase. Stagg did not return a call for comment.


@|Mark Hamblett can be contacted at mhamblett@....


http://www.law.com/jsp/nylj/PubArticleNY.jsp?id=1202559018925


Ronald R. DeCaro
Private Investigator - CA License No. PI21993
INTEGRATED INSURANCE INVESTIGATIONS
PO Box 888 - Mira Loma - CA - 91752-0888
Phone (951) 360-8880  Fax (951) 360-5957
E-mail: Roncaro@...


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