In every person's life there exists the PUBLIC,the PRIVATE and the SECRET. That is an ABSOLUTE TRUTH for everyone of us.
Most government jobs involve a background investigation as part of the hiring process. Years ago, the Metropolitan Washington DC Police Department learned the hard way what happens when short cuts are taken to move the hiring process along.
In the private sector, background investigations for top-level positions are just as essential but rarely conducted. When I have suggested this, most times I've been told, "If I ask him to undergo a background investigation, he probably won't want the job."
In police work we call that a CLUE.
Confirming that your next CEO doesn't have prior lien's or convictions can only help you pick the right person. Confirming that the person you're about to hire to handle YOUR MONEY has not stolen before should bring "peace of mind." Confirming that any candidate has been truthful on his job application is a fundamentally sound business practice.
Common sense dictates that money spent up front to confirm you've chosen the right person is much better spent than money spent as part of a severence package.
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Monday, July 5, 2010
CORROBORATION
CORROBORATION - To strengthen or support with other evidence; make more certain. Dictionary.com
Corroboration is an ESSENTIAL element in THE SYSTEM.
In criminal court, CONFESSIONS must be CORROBORATED. In divorces, ADMITTING ADULTERY must be CORROBORATED.
Many Clients are arrested when there is PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE they committed a crime. I have worked many cases for Clients who have been arrested under circumstances where the PROBABLE CAUSE is nothing more than an UNCORROBRATED ALLEGATION. My job is to determine if the STATE is able to CORROBORATE that allegation.
CORROBORATING ADULTERY is much easier (and cheaper) than PROVING ADULTERY. If you desire a quick divorce, hiring a private investigator to CORROBORATE ADULTERY is worth what you pay.
HIRING A COMPETENT ATTORNEY is always the FIRST STEP. HIRING A COMPETENT PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR to CORROBORATE YOUR CASE is the way to assure you achieve a FAIR OUTCOME.
Corroboration is an ESSENTIAL element in THE SYSTEM.
In criminal court, CONFESSIONS must be CORROBORATED. In divorces, ADMITTING ADULTERY must be CORROBORATED.
Many Clients are arrested when there is PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE they committed a crime. I have worked many cases for Clients who have been arrested under circumstances where the PROBABLE CAUSE is nothing more than an UNCORROBRATED ALLEGATION. My job is to determine if the STATE is able to CORROBORATE that allegation.
CORROBORATING ADULTERY is much easier (and cheaper) than PROVING ADULTERY. If you desire a quick divorce, hiring a private investigator to CORROBORATE ADULTERY is worth what you pay.
HIRING A COMPETENT ATTORNEY is always the FIRST STEP. HIRING A COMPETENT PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR to CORROBORATE YOUR CASE is the way to assure you achieve a FAIR OUTCOME.
Monday, May 24, 2010
INVESTIGATION versus ACCUSATION
INVESTIGATION - An organized, cognitive process to determine the truth.(Tom Chase)
ACCUSATION - The act of accusing or state of being accused. (Dictionary.com)
The detective's job is to OBJECTIVELY conduct a comprehensive and unbiased enquiry. That effort is then documented in the investigative report.
When the facts are there the investigative report takes you through what happened and leads to a conviction.
When the facts are not there, the investigative report serves as the template for how the defense will fulfill its responsibility to competently and zealously represent the accused.
OBJECTIVITY is the key.
When the report is written OBJECTIVELY, that narrative documents an INVESTIGATION. When the report is written SUBJECTIVELY, that effort is an ACCUSATION. The TRUTH is established through INVESTIGATION not ACCUSATION.
The State has tremendous power when it chooses to arrest someone. When an arrest is pursuant to an INVESTIGATION, that is justice. When an arrest is pursuant to ACCUSATION, that is when you need an EXPERIENCED, COMPETENT private investigator.
ACCUSATION - The act of accusing or state of being accused. (Dictionary.com)
The detective's job is to OBJECTIVELY conduct a comprehensive and unbiased enquiry. That effort is then documented in the investigative report.
When the facts are there the investigative report takes you through what happened and leads to a conviction.
When the facts are not there, the investigative report serves as the template for how the defense will fulfill its responsibility to competently and zealously represent the accused.
OBJECTIVITY is the key.
When the report is written OBJECTIVELY, that narrative documents an INVESTIGATION. When the report is written SUBJECTIVELY, that effort is an ACCUSATION. The TRUTH is established through INVESTIGATION not ACCUSATION.
The State has tremendous power when it chooses to arrest someone. When an arrest is pursuant to an INVESTIGATION, that is justice. When an arrest is pursuant to ACCUSATION, that is when you need an EXPERIENCED, COMPETENT private investigator.
Sunday, May 16, 2010
WHICH SIDE ARE YOU WORKING FOR?
When I contact someone for interview I make sure he/she knows who I am; that I am a PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR; that I AM NOT a police officer and that I have been engaged by an attorney on behalf of a client.
This usually leads to the question, "Which side are you working for?"
When I reply that I am employed by the accused, I explain further that my goal is to determine what they saw, what they heard, what they know and if possible who else was there. I explain that the purpose of my enquiry is to determine WHAT HAPPENED.
This usually leads to the question, "Which side are you working for?"
When I reply that I am employed by the accused, I explain further that my goal is to determine what they saw, what they heard, what they know and if possible who else was there. I explain that the purpose of my enquiry is to determine WHAT HAPPENED.
Many times the person will tell me, "I've already talked to the police, it's all in their report." While that may be the case, the SIXTH AMENDMENT to the CONSTITUTION provides for a defendant "to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusations" and provides for "a compulsory process for obtaining witnesses. ." An independant investigation always identifies issues and observations that were not discovered previously.
Regardless of who is paying the bill, the the goal is the same - to establish THE TRUTH.
Friday, April 23, 2010
EXPECTATIONS & THE SYSTEM
The SCALES OF JUSTICE have been used to illustrate how THE SYSTEM decides who "wins," and who doesn't. While those scales look great during the intro of Perry Mason and other shows, tipping them in your favor doesn't always cause the COURT to rule in your favor.
Predicting how the COURT will rule is a roll of the dice. You can't rely on IT to agree with you. You can't rely on IT to hear your message. Sometimes you can't even rely on IT to stay awake!
Explaining this is one of the first conversations I have with a new client. Recognizing that anything can happen, is paramount in establishing REASONABLE and ACHIEVABLE expectations.
Everyone looks for JUSTICE from the COURT. The trick is determining what JUSTICE really is in the COURT'S eyes.
My friend and mentor Bob Hargis came up with what I've found to be the best EXPECTATION for JUSTICE. Here is what he said.
"At the end of the day, when judges sit in chambers and discuss the days cases, when they believe NEITHER PARTY IS TOTALLY SATISFIED, then JUSTICE was SERVED."
NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH!
Predicting how the COURT will rule is a roll of the dice. You can't rely on IT to agree with you. You can't rely on IT to hear your message. Sometimes you can't even rely on IT to stay awake!
Explaining this is one of the first conversations I have with a new client. Recognizing that anything can happen, is paramount in establishing REASONABLE and ACHIEVABLE expectations.
Everyone looks for JUSTICE from the COURT. The trick is determining what JUSTICE really is in the COURT'S eyes.
My friend and mentor Bob Hargis came up with what I've found to be the best EXPECTATION for JUSTICE. Here is what he said.
"At the end of the day, when judges sit in chambers and discuss the days cases, when they believe NEITHER PARTY IS TOTALLY SATISFIED, then JUSTICE was SERVED."
NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH!
Sunday, March 28, 2010
EDWIN F. NIKIRK
Back in 19 ought 77 during my first week in the police academy we were blessed and fortunate to enjoy the time and wisdom of Edwin F. Nikirk. For more than four decades Mr. Nikirk was one of the most notorious and knowledgable defense attorneys in the United States.
I refer to him as "notorious" with the utmost respect. He advocated for his clients with dignity, class, tenacity and effectiveness. His clients were acquitted often. That is why he was considered to be "notorious." When he "won" he didn't rub anyone's nose in it.
Though his time was valuable beyond our comprehension, Mr. Nikirk spoke to each and every academy until he was physically unable to leave his home.
During that visit, Mr. Nikirk shared several messages that made "all the difference" during my police career. The title of his lecture was "Legal Guilt v. Moral Guilt."
Before Mr. Nikirk's presentation, for an impressionable police recruit, the thought of defending someone without learning if he/she "did it" was unimagineable and tantamount to unconscionable. Then he brought up that "thing" called the United States Constitution.
In the same manner that Mr. Nikirk used to convince jurors they "must acquit," he talked with us about the need to "legally" prove that someone broke the law. That meant we had to prove our case in a way that would withstand judicial review.
As he was explaining this fundamental yet revolutionary point, he dropped the second "pearl" on me. The purpose of an investigation is to establish the truth.
That one made complete and total sense. "Of course I'd stick to the truth in my quest to solve a case."
Then he dropped the the most precious pearl when he told us, "if you uncover something favorable to the Defendant, you are obligated to include that in your investigation."
What he was talking about was exculpatory evidence or information - "tending to clear from a charge of fault or guilt."
During the next 30 years, as I worked cases or discussed them with my colleagues, Mr. Nikirk was always sitting on my shoulder. The way he explained it was easy to understand. The way he presented it was impossible to forget.
I refer to him as "notorious" with the utmost respect. He advocated for his clients with dignity, class, tenacity and effectiveness. His clients were acquitted often. That is why he was considered to be "notorious." When he "won" he didn't rub anyone's nose in it.
Though his time was valuable beyond our comprehension, Mr. Nikirk spoke to each and every academy until he was physically unable to leave his home.
During that visit, Mr. Nikirk shared several messages that made "all the difference" during my police career. The title of his lecture was "Legal Guilt v. Moral Guilt."
Before Mr. Nikirk's presentation, for an impressionable police recruit, the thought of defending someone without learning if he/she "did it" was unimagineable and tantamount to unconscionable. Then he brought up that "thing" called the United States Constitution.
In the same manner that Mr. Nikirk used to convince jurors they "must acquit," he talked with us about the need to "legally" prove that someone broke the law. That meant we had to prove our case in a way that would withstand judicial review.
As he was explaining this fundamental yet revolutionary point, he dropped the second "pearl" on me. The purpose of an investigation is to establish the truth.
That one made complete and total sense. "Of course I'd stick to the truth in my quest to solve a case."
Then he dropped the the most precious pearl when he told us, "if you uncover something favorable to the Defendant, you are obligated to include that in your investigation."
What he was talking about was exculpatory evidence or information - "tending to clear from a charge of fault or guilt."
During the next 30 years, as I worked cases or discussed them with my colleagues, Mr. Nikirk was always sitting on my shoulder. The way he explained it was easy to understand. The way he presented it was impossible to forget.
Monday, March 1, 2010
(LACK OF) POLICE SERVICE
The absence of genuine public service at police departments continues to amaze me.
When I was on the job I was told endless stories by friends and acquaintances about their encounters with officers or departments who essentially refused to do their job. Quite frankly I refused to believe most of them. Since retiring and "turning to the dark side," I've encountered each of them, and more.
When I attempt to obtain information on behalf of a client and I'm being stonewalled, the last thing I want is to pull the old "thirty-year retired lieutenant card."
This situation, as my friend and counselor Alan Winik has said many times, "stinks like a fish . . from the head back."
Police chiefs set the tone for the agency they lead. Those that are led by educated, caring and progressive chiefs serve their communities with honesty, transparency and competency. Those that are led by chiefs who buy into the "us versus them" mentality foster and provide for this lack of professional service.
Persitency is the key to accomplishing a goal, especially when dealing with the police. Knowledge is also key when trying to establish the truth.
When you call on an officer for help and his response to your request is, "there's nothing we can do," dont buy it. When you provide a public service, there is always something you can do.
When I was on the job I was told endless stories by friends and acquaintances about their encounters with officers or departments who essentially refused to do their job. Quite frankly I refused to believe most of them. Since retiring and "turning to the dark side," I've encountered each of them, and more.
When I attempt to obtain information on behalf of a client and I'm being stonewalled, the last thing I want is to pull the old "thirty-year retired lieutenant card."
This situation, as my friend and counselor Alan Winik has said many times, "stinks like a fish . . from the head back."
Police chiefs set the tone for the agency they lead. Those that are led by educated, caring and progressive chiefs serve their communities with honesty, transparency and competency. Those that are led by chiefs who buy into the "us versus them" mentality foster and provide for this lack of professional service.
Persitency is the key to accomplishing a goal, especially when dealing with the police. Knowledge is also key when trying to establish the truth.
When you call on an officer for help and his response to your request is, "there's nothing we can do," dont buy it. When you provide a public service, there is always something you can do.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
"COMPULSORY PROCESS FOR OBTAINING WITNESSES IN HIS FAVOR"
The Sixth Amendment guarantees more than "a speedy and public trial. . ." It also provides for a process for obtaining witnesses.
Many times this right is conveniently forgotten by those who swear an oath to "protect and defend the Constitution" - cops and prosecutors.
Interviewing witnesses is about establising the truth. Who pays for this effort (the government or the accused) is inconsequential. The process is the same. It also is quite simple.
You contact someone, confirm their identity and ask:
1. What did you see?
2. What did you hear?
3. What were you told?
4. How certain are you?
Since retiring and crossing "to the dark side," I have been critized by former colleagues and taken before the Court for "soliciting" witnesses. When the truth was told, the Court confirmed my efforts were proper and the allegations were false.
The Constitution protects EVERYONE. During my police career, I "protected and defended" all whom I dealt with; victim and suspect alike. Since retiring, nothing has changed.
Many times this right is conveniently forgotten by those who swear an oath to "protect and defend the Constitution" - cops and prosecutors.
Interviewing witnesses is about establising the truth. Who pays for this effort (the government or the accused) is inconsequential. The process is the same. It also is quite simple.
You contact someone, confirm their identity and ask:
1. What did you see?
2. What did you hear?
3. What were you told?
4. How certain are you?
Since retiring and crossing "to the dark side," I have been critized by former colleagues and taken before the Court for "soliciting" witnesses. When the truth was told, the Court confirmed my efforts were proper and the allegations were false.
The Constitution protects EVERYONE. During my police career, I "protected and defended" all whom I dealt with; victim and suspect alike. Since retiring, nothing has changed.
Saturday, January 9, 2010
REGARDLESS OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES, LEAVE THE CHILDREN OUT OF IT
This post is personal. . totally personal.
CHILDREN, not the parents, are the true VICTIMS of divorce. The changes that occur, which they have absolutely no control over, will be life altering for them.
When parents divorce, the children are thrust into two very different worlds. They worry if they played a role in the decision to divorce. They also yearn for their parents to reconcile.
If a parent truly cares about their child, the last thing he/she will do is ask the child to take sides. Parental alienation syndrome is alive and well. If only the alienating parent could think of the child, instead of him/herself.
When I discuss issues with a client who is contemplating or in the midst of divorce, I always stress the importance of counseling. Counseling is important for many reasons, the most lasting is what you will learn from it.
Your counselor will expose you to many issues that brought about the disolution of your marriage. These issues will include the fundamentals of interpersonal relationships, establishing boundaries within your relationships, listening to your partner when they communicate needs, and most importantly, keep the children out of it.
A loving parent will recognize that children need both of their parents. A loving parent will recognize and accept that expecting a child to pick a side is detrimental to their well being. A loving parent will encourage their child to maintain a relationship with the ex-spouse, not prohibit it.
When experiencing a divorce, the children should be protected from becoming "collateral" damage. The divorce has nothing to do with them. By keeping them out of things, you protect them from the fallout, which is "as it should be."
CHILDREN, not the parents, are the true VICTIMS of divorce. The changes that occur, which they have absolutely no control over, will be life altering for them.
When parents divorce, the children are thrust into two very different worlds. They worry if they played a role in the decision to divorce. They also yearn for their parents to reconcile.
If a parent truly cares about their child, the last thing he/she will do is ask the child to take sides. Parental alienation syndrome is alive and well. If only the alienating parent could think of the child, instead of him/herself.
When I discuss issues with a client who is contemplating or in the midst of divorce, I always stress the importance of counseling. Counseling is important for many reasons, the most lasting is what you will learn from it.
Your counselor will expose you to many issues that brought about the disolution of your marriage. These issues will include the fundamentals of interpersonal relationships, establishing boundaries within your relationships, listening to your partner when they communicate needs, and most importantly, keep the children out of it.
A loving parent will recognize that children need both of their parents. A loving parent will recognize and accept that expecting a child to pick a side is detrimental to their well being. A loving parent will encourage their child to maintain a relationship with the ex-spouse, not prohibit it.
When experiencing a divorce, the children should be protected from becoming "collateral" damage. The divorce has nothing to do with them. By keeping them out of things, you protect them from the fallout, which is "as it should be."
Saturday, January 2, 2010
The Truth about Adultery
I get calls from potential clients who want me to, "prove adultery so he/she gets nothing." "Nothing" could be further from the truth.
Proving adultery DOES provide for a quicker divorce. In Maryland, divorce on grounds of adultery may be granted in 90 days. Under other grounds, the waiting period is at least 1 year.
Proving adultery DOESN'T guarantee you "the gold mine," and your cheating spouse, "the shaft." Proving adultery WON'T guarantee you get custody of the children and WON'T eliminate your responsibility to pay child support. Proving adultery WON'T disqualify your spouse from receiving alimony.
That said, there are circumstances where proving adultery may be beneficial. Divorce is about SETTLEMENT. Very few divorces are decided by the Court. Knowledge and information is beneficial to your ability to negotiate a SETTLEMENT. In certain instances, proving adultery may motivate your spouse to SETTLE rather than continue to litigate.
If you believe your spouse is unfaithful or you are contemplating a divorce for other reasons, BEFORE contacting a private investigator, speak with an attorney.
The attorney will discuss the various grounds, of which adultery may very well apply. During this meeting the attorney will help you determine if the expense to prove adultery, "at the end of the day," is worthwhile.
On the other hand, if you just, "gots to know," by all means, contact a reputable private investigator.
Most people enter a divorce with no prior experience. You will rely on your attorney and private investigator to advocate tenaciously and investigate thoroughly. In the long run, it will be money well-spent so long as the EXPECTATIONS established are REASONABLE and ACHIEVABLE.
Proving adultery DOES provide for a quicker divorce. In Maryland, divorce on grounds of adultery may be granted in 90 days. Under other grounds, the waiting period is at least 1 year.
Proving adultery DOESN'T guarantee you "the gold mine," and your cheating spouse, "the shaft." Proving adultery WON'T guarantee you get custody of the children and WON'T eliminate your responsibility to pay child support. Proving adultery WON'T disqualify your spouse from receiving alimony.
That said, there are circumstances where proving adultery may be beneficial. Divorce is about SETTLEMENT. Very few divorces are decided by the Court. Knowledge and information is beneficial to your ability to negotiate a SETTLEMENT. In certain instances, proving adultery may motivate your spouse to SETTLE rather than continue to litigate.
If you believe your spouse is unfaithful or you are contemplating a divorce for other reasons, BEFORE contacting a private investigator, speak with an attorney.
The attorney will discuss the various grounds, of which adultery may very well apply. During this meeting the attorney will help you determine if the expense to prove adultery, "at the end of the day," is worthwhile.
On the other hand, if you just, "gots to know," by all means, contact a reputable private investigator.
Most people enter a divorce with no prior experience. You will rely on your attorney and private investigator to advocate tenaciously and investigate thoroughly. In the long run, it will be money well-spent so long as the EXPECTATIONS established are REASONABLE and ACHIEVABLE.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
