 |
 |
|
Rick von Geldern:
Here's a message I received from the San Joaquin District Governor and the person who was recently credited by Francie Koehler as putting on the best CALI meeting she'd ever attended (November 2008). Folks, I was also present today and Dennis tells it like it was and is. Very sad to see the President of CALI talk about us as incompetents and a danger to our clients but for the savior of Mandatory CE while avoiding the cancer of our industry, Unlicensed Activities. We deserve better.
-----Original Message-----
Subject: Stunned Dear fellow CA Licensed PI’s Today will be a turning point in my career. I feel somewhat broken. I attended a CA Legislative Committee Hearing today at the state capital regarding SB202. What ever you or I feel about the bill is not what is important today. Frankly, I am just stunned to the point of rigor, incredulous. I sat in that hearing and I heard the President of the largest PI organization in the world tell our state law makers that all California Licensed Private Investigator are a danger to the consumer. In all of my 22 years as a LPI, it was the first time I ever felt ashamed of my profession. Now, I know that I am not a threat to the consumer, and neither are you. I was ashamed because it was the President of the largest PI organization in the world throwing us under the bus, rather than standing up for us. I don’t know what to say. The only redeeming factor was hearing the President of another CA PI organization step up and represent our industry as trust worthy and honest and not a danger to the consumer. What is wrong with that picture! Am I in the wrong PI organization? CA PI’s, please think about what is being done to our industry, and by whom. Because of “public information issues”, we PI’s are being singled out as a problem, while the unlicensed “public information providers”, and “other investigators” have no regulation at all. I believe that our long recorded high standard of respectable service to the consumer is being damaged by “information providers” who think by some stretch of the imagination, or “inflation of the ego”, that that is PI work. Do we need to get the “Info Providers” out of our industry? They are not regulated and they are a problem for us and apparently the consumer. Of course SB 202 is not about information or the consumer, is it! No, it is about profits to prospective CEP’s. I ask you, can’t we obtain professional continuing education without having to convince the public and the state law makers that we are a danger to the consumer? Really, because if it were so important that we have CE as the only way to protect the consumer, then why doesn’t the President of the largest PI organization in the world offer that training? Do we have to support SB 202 as a scarifice to establish our already perfect professional standing? If SB 202 fails, will “they” continue to say we are a threat to the consumer? If SB 202 passes, will we all of a sudden be professionals again? I was a professional on "Leg Day", what happened to that? Wow, I thought a good reputation was based on the application of your work and inter-action with the consumer, not whether or not we are regulated. Hell, BSIS is suppost to "Regulate" us. I don't hear them complaining. I can under$tand $enator Harmon $aying $omething like that, he’$ being paid. But the President of the largest PI organization in the world? Ouch!! I need to go walk in a big circle for a while. I am just too blown away to function. R.E.S.P.E.C.T. Dennis Raymond, CPIC
PI12370, CPIC0003
OPPOSED TO SB202
A: Your Call...But the Defense is: "Privileged Communication". See Bottom of this Page for More Info & June 30th Hearing Research on the above...as it comes in.
| |
Some weeks ago, I got my CALI invoice, and there was a June 30 (tomorrow) deadline to pay in order to guarantee a place in the CALI directory. After 20+ years as a member of CALI, I am not renewing. I have been viewing the e-mails back and forth, and wanted to get a sense of where things were headed before making a final decision. I do not want to pay money to an organization that uses my money and other members' money against our interests. I never particularly used to care about where the money went specifically. I figured it went to salaries and lobbyists and the directory, or whatever. But CALI knows darn well there there is a groundswell of antagonism and resentment about the legislation, and apparently is not backing down. Their representation that most of us want this legislation has never been backed up with hard stats, and I for one was never polled. Feel free to post this, or maybe it automatically goes out. I figure somebody helping to run CALI will see it. Goodbye, CALI.
L.A. CLAIMS & INVESTIGATIONS Good bye, Cali.
Robert Hughes
Sarah Michelotti
I'm will check out PICA. For now, I'm very pleased with SCFIA.
Scott Cullings PI 15077
Brent Harnish - July 09, 2009 Tom: After retiring from law enforcement on a forced disability I pursued what many thought would seem to be natural. I soon learned that there was a lot more work involved than anticipated and watched other retired officers disappear from the scene. It seemed as if those of us who really were strong enough to “work” would be successful, not the one’s who had coasted through their careers. In 1993 I hadn’t joined CALI and waited several years to gain more real life experience which focused on W/C surveillances and eventually a lot of insurance fraud work. When I did join CALI I met several people who had just re-joined because of their prior experience with the politics of the organization had simply not renewed their membership. I remained with CALI for several years, dropped it for a period of time because of not seeing positive results and then started up several years ago. Once SB 202 hit the ground and the actions of the CALI board became public I went ballistic. Just unable to comprehend how the board was able to push the issue without the input of it’s membership. Or was there? I don’t know because no one asked my opinion. Earlier this year I tried to view SB202 with an open mind but with significant apprehension. As it happened, one day while attending the N.C.F.I.A. conference in Monterey I saw Zimmer manning the CALI booth. The venders obviously had to pay money to show their wares and I couldn’t help but wonder why CALI was at the conference with the exception of trying to enlist more members. However, I soon found out. While I briefly discussed SB202 with Zimmer he was encouraged to explain to the membership how and why the bill came to pass. He was courteous but I quickly learned he had no interest in listening to my opinion. Instead, he had a petition in his hands which he was shoving in anyone’s faces if they approached the table which was in support of the bill. I personally witnessed an attorney walk up to the table being curious of CALI. Instead of learning anything about CALI he was handed the petition for the bill. The attorney explained to Zimmer that he’s already required to take the CE courses and have found them a “pain in the ass”. Zimmer smiled and continued to hold the petition in front of him which resulted in the attorney telling Zimmer yet again that while he was against the mandatory education he’d like to be supported of N.C.F.I.A. and went ahead to sign the petition. More recently, when I posted a question to the CALI list regarding the mechanics of resigning I was sincere in my question. What I didn’t expect were several attacks by people who proclaimed to be “professional investigator” that is according to their web sites. I was slammed for apparently attacking Zimmer and based upon this outrageous action by the extreme CALI supporters and the manner in which SB202 had been pushed I decided to follow through with the resignation. The next day Zimmer e-mailed me and said he’d call within several days to discuss my concerns. He ended up calling the following day and at no time did he ask my opinion nor did he ask if I had questions about the bill. Instead, all he asked was whether I was serious about resigning. When I simply said “Yes” he said that he’d check with someone else to make sure that action was taken. Apparently, I’m now on the resignation list but I still receive the CALI list. I must apologize for this long winded memo but I thought it was worthwhile for you to be aware of my personal interaction with Zimmer and CALI. I still wonder, what did CALI do for me? Keep up the good work. Brent Harnish
Mid Peninsula Inves Svc
|
|
Although it appears that she [Joanna Gin, Associate Consultant Business, Professions and Economic Development Committee] tried to remain neutral, it is obvious that she has been given false information.
She states, in part, "Based on the three examples provided by the sponsors, there have been 12 PIs that have acted unscrupulously, amounting to 1.2% of the industry".
For starters, she is grossly exaggerating the numbers by failing to state that the percentage would include CA licensees only since she's basing the percentage on the almost 10,000 CA licensees.
However, how many of the 10 PI's indicted by the federal grand jury were California licensees? NONE!!
Although there was a CA PI originally involved, a Richard Downing, I do not believe he was indicted.
The only other person from CA was NOT a licensed PI. Noah Wieder of Encinitas owned a database company or two.
Based on her figures as presented in her analysis, the figure should actually be reflected as .02%.
Sincerely yours,
Sue
Sarkis Detective Agency (est. 1976)
As if that will happen. Number 2: The analyst made several mistakes in her assessment. Rick Von Geldern painstakingly prepared a large document which the analyst admitted she didn't read. That isn't the biggest oversight however. I was present at the hearing where the Assemblyman stated on the record that he had not read the analyst's report because he had been told the day before that these hearings were cancelled. THEN, he and others leafed through papers, held side bar discussions and the chairwoman stood up and walked away from her seat to whisper to other members about God only knows what. If you have never been to see your government at work, I suggest that you pack a bag and take a trip to the State Capitol and WATCH for yourselves. That said, I can assure you that it is my opinion that the vote was decided long before anyone took a stand. Madam Chairwoman, at the start and end of the time alloted for this hearing that she thought this was a good piece of consumer protection legislation and limited the testimony to two speakers totallying five minutes. In fairness, she did allow three of those in opposition to speak but held firmly to the five minute time limit. After that period, she allowed all the others in attendance to walk up to a floor mike, state their name, the organization they represent and whether or not they were in sopport or opposition. Please pay particular attention to the statements above where I said that NO-ONE on the committee paid any real attention to any salient point for or against this or any other measure that date. I drove a very long way and had several important statements that would have taken less than 1 minute to read and was not afforded the opportunity to be heard. I spent my money on gas, food and lodging and am very disheartened with the legislative process. By the way, I invited you to ride share with me, the company would have been welcome. I do not think that the Appropriations Committee will be different but I will attend. I will be a bit more insistant that I get a chance to be heard. I will be recommending a series of letters on a weekly basis. They will be short and to the point and I will ask that you send them to each Assembly Man or Woman and to the Governor on a weekly basis. These letters, in my opinion, should not be inflamitory but fact based statements that matter. I will than ask each and everyone of you to take time to attend the floor vote with a short and clear statement in opposition in hopes that the floor will pay more attention to the fact based arguments. Lastly, I will be calling for a telephone, fax and hard copy letter writing "grass roots" initiative to the Governor. DISCLAIMER: Although I hold positions in multiple professional organizations and associations, the above are MY personal thoughts and opinions and are not NECESSARILY reflective of those of the organizations or associations. Respectfully, Matthew A. Garrison We had 2 relatives who signed the United States Declaration of Independence and we are firm believers that "A Good Patriot Questions his Lying Government" , please keep up the good fight and let us know when and where we can help. My fingers are ready to write letters.
Kimberly Acuna, PI, RPS
Deanne Acuna, CLI, CII
Acuna & Associates Investigative Services
PICA.....A PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATION WORKING TO PROMOTE AND SUPPORT THE PRIVATE INVESTIGATIVE INDUSTRY. PICA MEMBERS THINK PROFESSIONAL The Professional Investigators of California (PICA) operates this open and uncensored forum (list serve) solely for the benefit of its subscribers/members. Any and all opinions and content is solely the responsibility of the individual poster(s) and may not reflect the views of PICA or other members.Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PICA_ASSOCIATION/ The One Asshole Rule |
|
After contact w/ the available eye-witnesses thus far, we have:
Jim read a brief scripted piece to the Committee that essentially stated there were new laws and no requirement for PIs to know the new laws and that consumers could be harmed. The statement was more in the fashion of Private Investigator's who lack MCE could unknowingly or unwittingly be harmful or a danger to Consumers and their privacy rights.
It was not flattering and it was certainly said in a way calculated to elicit a positive vote for SB 202 by the legislators. It was spin. Just the same old bullshit, but rather than have him say that only one licensee has received a discipline citation during the past five years, he chose to reference the cases where investigators screwed the pooch, like the HP fiasco, and others that have little, if anything to do with licensed California PIs.
It's exceedingly offensive how Zimmer & CALI approach this. Zimmer is selling us all short to advance SB202. We understand that the intent was to play on the emotions of the law makers regarding consumer protection but the crux of the matter was that nothing is being done to restrict the access by those who are proven to be untrustworthy.
There was something about identity theft. We know that an instant thought was...that there are a great number of individuals, like used car salesmen and women, who can have multiple felonies...that are allowed unrestricted access to full consumer credit reports and DMV print outs.
We are licensed, bonded, and insured; and some have personally been intrusted with protecting some of the most sensitive information and dignitaries this country has ever had to protect. Still, we were all painted with the same unflattering brush. Dennis Raymond was rightly offended.
The Secretary for the Committee can likely produce an audio copy of this Hearing. *
I don't think I am the only one, but I contacted the secretary of the Legislative B & P committee and I am already in the process of getting a copy of the audio tapes. I should have a copy in my hands by July 10th. Jim's scripted replies should seem suspect to anyone who thinks! I've personally talked to Jim and Francie regarding this and every time they dance around the issues. Unlicensed activities should be the priority, they put consumers at risk! Here are some PI's that Jim thew at me regarding PI's who have put us all in hot water. Andrew Delio: Convicted last week of impersonating a federal office and wire fraud. This guy lost his PI license in 1996, got a new one in 2001. BSIS dropped the ball. Read this article, this guy is a loon. BSIS should have protected consumers by not allowing him another license. The Rebecca Schaeffer Murder in 1989: DMV information sold by a CA PI to an AZ PI, who sold it to a stalker who murdered her. This resulted in closure of DMV records. Robert John Bardo lied to an AZ PI and got her address for $250. I did not see anywhere where a CA PI gave out her info. Even if one did, he/she gave out the info to an AZ PI who did not do his/her homework. The AZ PI who is still doing his thing. Anthony Pellicano: Wiretapping, bribery, threats...I can't really say anything about Pellicano other than the attorneys who hired him after all of their MCLE should have known they could be held liable for this PI's actions. [A principal can be civilly liable for the torts of a servant or agent, committed within the scope of employment, also applies to the relationship existing between a hirer and private investigator. Noble v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. (1973) 33 Cal.App.3d 654 : THE PELLICAN’S MESS – ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR ATTORNEYS WHO HIRE PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS IN THE WAKE OF PELLICANO© By: David B. Parker & Pierre B. Pine] I'm sure Pellicano knew what he was doing. Would MCE work for him? I did not work for the attorneys who hired him. Scott Shaw: False allegations against a couple resulting in their incurring $60,000 in costs to refute the allegations of a criminal conviction, kidnapping and financial fraud. Check out this link. Enough said. Nunez v. Melgar Investigations: PI liable for torts committed during WC investigations. After two AME's showed Nunez claim compensable, Argonaut Insurance still decided to pursue the case as a fraudulent claim. I can't say that anyone can justify 20 - 25 pretext calls a day, or shooting film over a six foot tall fence (ALL ALLEGEDLY.) Nunez did not submit direct evidence that all the events were committed by Melgar Investigations. The evidence was circumstantial. Nunez v. Melgar Investigations, IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE, August 30, 2004, APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Victor H. Person, Judge. Reversed. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC248046. Nothing could justify what the PI's ALLEGEDLY did. I did not read anything about Nunez submitting any direct evidence. Why is Jim using this as an example of another bad PI? Show me some hard proof! I don't want to bail on CALI, I think it can be a great organization. If these tapes end up proving Jim full of crap, I'll make the meeting in June and ask for his resignation personally. Dear CA PI's, I have not read it, but I have had read to me, Mr. Zimmer's response. His attemtps to distract you is apparent. I am not "the opposition", I am a member who opposes. I am not trying to destroy CALI, he is doing a better job than I could ever. I am not going to go into it all again, just let me say, that what Mr. Zimmer has responded with was his "prepared introduction", I quess he has a hard time remembering who he is. The last line is very telling. He has not given you any information on "the discussion", (answering the Senators questions about SB202). Gee, I wonder why? I stand by my assestment of his position at that hearing, and his position on the matter in general, and I suggest to you that what ever he said, or says he said, he was and is on the wrong side of our interest, in this issue. Your all smart enough to figure it out, just think about it. Nice try Mr. Zimmer, but again, you are not telling the WHOLE TRUTH, and I am not an enemy of CALI, and I have no reason to lie. Will you ever learn? Pathetic. Dennis Raymond
PI12370, CPIC0003
OPPOSED TO SB202
To: BODO BODO Date: Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 3:37 PM Subject Jim Zimmer "Comments" Dear Investigators, I should preface my comments by stating that I am a 17 year CALI member, though a frequent but low profile critic of how CALI is run. I'm not involved in CALI politics in any way. I am on record against SB 202 in an editorial here: http://www.crimetime.com When the allegation was made that Jim Zimmer made these comments about private investigators, I simply did not believe it. From everything I had seen and heard over the years, Jim was our biggest proponent and would never be a detractor. In fact, he's been a class act and a strong representative of our profession. An example of being a "class act" is maintaining a steady, professional demeanor in the face of personal attacks. I contacted the original person posting this allegation asking for clarification and corroboration. No reply was received back. To date, no corroboration of these allegeded statement has been made public by anyone else. (To my knowledge.) In the interest of fairness, IF such statements were proven to be made, Jim should have every right to explain his remarks and, if appropriate, to retract them and correct the official record. This is especially true if the alleged comments were from unprepared remarks, not a prepared statement. Speaking off the cuff, especially in a stressful situation, it is EASY or at least POSSIBLE to say things one simply didn't mean to say. I enjoy the PI Informer list and have read this page with interest and thanks for letting me join your conversation.
Robert Scott, P.I.
[* NOTE: The above "June 30th Hearing Research" has been reviewed by both Matt Garrison and Rick von Geldern who were both witnesses to Jim Zimmers remarks. Both stand behind the above characterization. It is accurate to the best of their recollections. - bodo] O U T R A G E Soni Melgar - July 07, 2009 I have stayed out of the fray (but have supported opposition to SB202 from the start) and was unaware until today that a case involving my firm was cited as a need FOR SB202. I respond now in defense of my firm and reputation but also in astonishment that...
Soni Melgar
SMI, Inc
I may have received the poll but never participated and probably deleted. Under the subject heading, why did it state, "Please respond by April 8" We receive so many e-mails from the list serve and I wonder why the subject didn't read, "CALI Member Poll - Need response by April 8." This e-mail subject heading does not infer that CALI is looking for input or is official in nature. She may have needed someone for subcontract work by April 8. The subject heading is critical and to leave it so vague leaves many members out of the poll.
Sam Andreano
|