the Eagle Has Landed


Keep informed join the email list now through by clicking here. Or visit the hottest Facebook discussion group called Process Server's Big Blue Tent Everyone who strives for open and transparent discussion is welcome.

The Purpose:

The web site is by design to discuss the trade of process serving, this includes non profit associations that are granted tax exempt status related to their interest in the trade of process serving. It is designed to critically discuss the issue of process serving industry. It is non commercial. By design this page will be used to share with and petition government legislators and rule makers so they can be fully informed via direction to and interaction with its content as it may relate to their legislative or regulatory (civil or criminal) activities regarding process servers.

By Entering and remaining in this site:

By entering you agree that you will contact us at with any questionable material for removal. You must be specific as to what in your opinion is improper and the basis or authority for it being improper.

Fair Use:

This is a non commercial interest and all material posted here will be used for the purpose above.

OUR user blog:

To interact and discuss any of the material here go to our blog for anonymous comments here.

Click here

crowe cookie jar


LAWSUITS & Reports
JUNE 1971 445 F.2d 792 UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Robert WISEMAN, Defendant-Appellant. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Herman RICK, Defendant-Appellant. Nos. 445, 469, Dockets 35286, 35636. United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. Argued Jan. 8, 1971. Decided June 30, 1971

SERVICE OF PROCESS IS A PUBLIC FUNCTION! And sewer service has been a problem for a long time.


1973 Columbia Law Review SEWER SERVICE! NYColumbiaLawReport1972


1995 Licensing board Biases 1995

Martin STIVERS etal
Nevada State Private Investigators Licensing Board; ETAL
United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted March 16, 1995.
Decided for plaintiff Dec. 1, 1995.

The above case title is a very interesting case from Nevada in 1995 attacking the licensing board biases for not approving a person to work in the related trade(s) of process serving. Decided in Plaintiffs favor. That opinion is here!

1999 NAPPS Docket "What Happen If Process Server Doesn't Serve"

2004 Sherman Act Anti Trust 2004

NAPPS and Washington
state association as defendents in Federal lawsuit in 2004

2004 NAPPS Through Paul Tamaroff hijack Georgia Process Server Association

2011 DeGuelle v. Camilli, No. 10-2172, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 24868 (7th Cir. Dec. 15, 2011)

A new federal court ruling creates an avenue for employees to rely on the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) to pursue retaliation claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO)

2012 Sykes v. Mel S. Harris and Associates LLC, Samserv, William Mtolok, et al New York Southern District Court (nysd) Docket Number: 1:09-cv-08486 Pacer Case Number: 352986 Date filed: 2009-10-06 Date terminated: Pending Date last filing: 2012-11-30

Class certified September 4, 2012 click here

The principal in the SamServe litigation as defendant is now apparently working with Larry Yellon NAPPS immediate past president and current director with Intercounty Group

The date to keep in mind are Fact Discovery due by 5/24/2013. Expert Discovery due by 8/2/2013. Following completion of discovery, the Parties shall arrange a pre-motion conference with the Court to discuss dispositive motions.

This will open in a new window and in order to get back here just close it.

9. 2013 Non Compete process server case Florida


9. 2013 08 01 The link has the decision
In Driver Privacy Case, Second Circuit Requires Data Resellers to Exercise Reasonable Care: The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled today in Gordon v. Softech that under the Driver Privacy Protection Act data brokers may be liable for the use of personal information that they obtain from DMVs and then sell to others. "Based on the language of the statute, its structure, and its legislative history, we conclude that the DPPA imposes a duty on resellers to exercise reasonable care in responding to requests for personal information drawn from motor vehicle records," the federal appeals court announced. The court cited the sensitivity of the personal information available through motor vehicle records, including social security numbers, medical or disability information, and home addresses. In reversing the decision of the lower court, the appeals court said It is not enough for a reseller to simply provide a "drop down list" of permissible purposes. EPIC filed an amicus brief arguing that strict liability was necessary to ensure that resellers take adequate precautions to avoid impermissible downstream uses of sensitive personal data that individuals are required to provide to obtain a drivers license. The court essentially adopted a position between the lower court decision and the position urged by EPIC. For more information, see EPIC: Gordon v. Softech Int'l, Inc. (Jul. 31, 2013)









This page was last Updated Monday June 15, 2015 12:47 PM