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


What have I done? :

  • Read page 13 foot notes at South Brooklyn Legal from 2010
  • I asked about the NAPPS IRS reports as early as October 2011. Specifically why taxes are evaded, over 400K in the last five years, relating to the branch office additional advertising revenue.
  • I asked about the UIHJ international trade expenditures of NAPPS and the various relationships to the administrators business, the board of directors businesses and other influential members.
  • I asked if we use comparable data as required by the IRS in large contracts such as the the one issued on November 17, 2012 in the amount of $1,200,000.00 million dollar contract to the administrator.
  • I asked why some influential companies and software vendors on the board of directors have over 90% of their business made up of NAPPS members only.
  • I made written complaints starting as early as March 15, 2012 to the IRS and USDOJ of which they all acknowledged receipt.
  • The Docket Published Notice


Specific issues regarding Crowe 2013_08_13 letter:

  • Just like the election of Couch in violation of bylaws the expulsion did not meet our own rules. First it was a special meeting without supporting cause of why it is so important. Second the Boston compromise was all members would be notified by an email blast 48 hours before special meetings. I think my derivative demand which was three days away from being ripe is why they did it.
  • I never said $7,500.00 a month I said $2,500.00 a month.
  • Mr Crowe assertion that his contract is not based on a percentage of revenue is a dispute neither of us can prove. It was in a telephone conversation. Look at the how the board handled the details of the current board action of his million dollar contract approval and his last full contract and you decide based on the in depth review who is running the crew.
  • Reported in the minutes Mr Crowe contract is clearly showing 10% first three years 3% next two. Lets look at the language and ask the question is the rate increase every year or the group of years? However or whatever it is interpreted it is a the board who didn't do its job evaluating Crowe proposal. Go here to look at my reasonable interpretation
  • Mr Crowe says he was not the chair of the Branch off committee that Lippman was always present.
  • In a Facebook group I stated that Mr Crowe just got a million dollar five year contract. I know one person who responded in the thread and several who witnessed it.
  • Mr Crowe presentation of the lawsuit is lacking. The complaint is not that I have standing as a tax payer. I have standing as a victim of criminal retaliation for exposing his enterprise of schemes to defraud all the NAPPS members. I have standing under Racketeering and Influence Corrupt Organization act based on the predicate act of the Sarbanes Oxley 18 USC 1513 retaliation for making complaints to law enforcement agencies. The fact this cause will be a case of first impression makes it complex.
  • Case was never dismissed an interlocutory appeal occurred prior to the tolling of the dismissal. It will come back as the judge committed fundamental error and opined one day short of my allowed time to respond.
  • Mr Crowe comments he has an inherent right that people should not question him or he percieves it as questioning his integrity. I have to refer him to this video Alec Ross Director of Innovation and I must refer him to this page of this web site 5 stages of decline
  • The "While you were sleeping" email address what occurred. Crowe Blum and their Crew elected Couch who was unqualified. This member was the first note you had on this and THEN THEY the crew addressed the content of the "stealing" it in the following docket. Essentially saying dont believe these emails and in the other side of their mouth acting on truth of the email.
  • Which brings us to the tax issue. NAPPS has not filed on May 15, 2013 for the year 2012. They instead filed an extension until August 15, 2013. I highly suspect they will file another extension to the final date allowable of November 15, 2013. Why do you think that is? I think it is because like the couch experience as they are communally kicking my ass the are communally covering their own. They file that fraudulent return after me notyfying them two years in a row quite loudly there could be serious consequences beyond what they are alread facing. You can follow along here for when they file by going to the Foundation Center here.

I was met with resistance and non responses from NAPPS leadership throughout. Then the disgruntled NAPPS leaders thinking transparency and accountability to members was a bad thing for them they took action. The action they took was to expel me on January 7, 2013 for my IRS questions and complaints. Not only was I expelled but CROWE even denied my $35.00 subscription to the Docket Sheet! (look on the inside cover of the Docket it is a general subscription not just for members)(update the January-February 2013 issue of the Docket, Crowe is sharp he removed the $35.00 subscription from the inside cover that has been there for 20 years of issues so you will have to look at the prior issues to find it. Thanks for reading my comments!) . I will make it easy for you here is the January February issue with the $35.00 removed and here is the prior issue as it was for the past 20 years with the $35.00 there. It is clear to me the board through Crowe's stern control is locking down information from those who appropriately study it. In fact the most recent conference agenda is also banned from ALL member review as it was available for the past two conferences.

My questions appeared as criticism to the individuals running the enterprise. My general questions were in private first beginning at least 2010 starting with FAPPS. As I later learned the state associations are vehicles of NAPPS. In fact the NAPPS holds in abeyance AG's process thereby giving the state to deal control of the national member(s) within their competitive market. I was not expelled from the state association as I resigned first as I understood the way the National uses the state associations to perfect its schemes. The state charter have become an agent for the purposes of the national for good or for bad. Here is the national policy abeyance

  1. Is NAPPS so weak that it can't take criticism?
  2. Is NAPPS afraid of public comments about itself?
  3. Does a word with so many synonyms and definitions belong in our Code of Ethics?
  4. Should it be a violation of our Code of ethics so a member can face discipline or possible expulsion for contradicting the Association or holding it accountable? Andy Estin Current Board member

The following are the actual documents relating to the expulsion that the board, the administrator and other influential members responded with. If you just look at their basis for the expulsion, the subsequent continued support you will be primed for my response. Those documents are marked follows:


The complaint emailed 11/21/2012 President Yellon v Scott
January 7, 2013 President Yellon v. Scott Bd The Decision
January 25, 2013 Acknowledgement of reconsideration Scott R ReqforRev
February 11, 2013 President Yellon_Scott Reconsideration Denied

If you read just above without considering my response you may find a causation link to my IRS complaints for the expulsion. A clear and convincing violation of Sarbanes Oxley law. In my responses you will find a board member calling IRS forms government garbage 2 hours before the expulsion letter was issued. In that email he further chastised me for bringing the matter to the attention of the IRS. Stating "what do you want to cause an audit"?

The following are the sequence in time of all documents involving the expulsion from their letters to my responses:

The complaint issued:
The complaint emailed 11/21/2012 President Yellon v Scott
(check out the date of TAMAROFF's cover letter then check out the YELLON's complaint letter. Find the discrepancy Notice in Yellon complaint not one piece of evidence is supplied by him. Seems like most is from CROWE)

A fax I sent detailing concerns, conflicts sent on November 25, 2012

My response took the form of two independent sections. Both were sent together for a combined total of 197 pages including exhibits.

December 2, 2012 Response 1 of 2 because of the size they were broken into 25 page sections
December 2 AG response 1 of 2 from web_Part1
December 2 AG response 1 of 2 from web_Part2
December 2 AG response 1 of 2 from web_Part3
December 2 AG response 1 of 2 from web_Part4

December 2, 2012 Response 2 of 2 because of the size they were broken into 25 page sections
December 2 AG response 2 of 2_Part1
December 2 AG response 2 of 2_Part2
December 2 AG response 2 of 2_Part3
December 2 AG response 2 of 2_Part4

The Board's decision
President Yellon v. Scott Bd Decision

The Reconsideration request

The acknowledgement of the reconsideration
Scott R ReqforRev

The final decision of this NAPPS board
President Yellon_Scott Reconsideration Denied. !

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