9:00 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. - State Capitol Building, Room 4202
2 p.m. – State Capitol Building, Room 4203
(Please note room change when hearing reconvenes at 2 p.m.)
The Senate Committee on Business, Professions and Economic Development (BP&ED) and the Assembly Committee on Business and Professions (B&P), collectively “the Committees”, will be reviewing the Bureau of Security and Investigative Services (Bureau), along with other Department of Consumer Affairs programs, on March 23 18, 2015 at the State Capitol starting at 9:00 a.m.
In regards to the Bureau, the Sunset Review process entails the Committees reviewing the Bureau’s operations for regulating the industries under the Bureau’s jurisdiction and, if applicable, identifying what changes should be made to improve the overall effectiveness and efficiency of the Bureau to ensure that the interests of California’s consumers are protected against incompetent practice or illegal activities.
Each Board/Bureau/Committee (Program) being reviewed is given approximately 60 minutes, which includes time for public comment. Below is a tentative outline of the agenda for each review:
Program presents short “Overview” of its current regulatory operations
Program Responds to Issues, Problem Areas, Questions, and Recommendations identified by the Committees Public Comment is taken Comment by Professional Individuals, Groups, or
Associations is taken Closing Comment by the Program
Approximately two weeks prior to the date of the hearing, the Bureau will receive a “Background Paper” prepared by staff of the Committees for the hearing. This document provides background information concerning the issues staff of the Committees have identified for each program, and where appropriate, staff recommendations to address those issues. The Background Paper will be available to the public on the Senate BP&ED Committee’s Website at the following link:
Upon completion of the hearings, the Bureau will have 30 days to submit written responses to all of the issues and recommendations raised by the Committees’ staff on the Background Paper and during the hearing. Certain recommendations may require legislative changes which would be included in a “Sunset Bill” for the Bureau authored by the Committees.
If you have any questions please contact Noreene DeKoning at noreene.dekoning@dca.ca.gov or 916-575-7054. Make sure to reference “BSIS Sunset Hearing” in the subject line of the e-mail.
A copy of this Notice has been posted on the Bureau's website. Click here to view a copy of the Notice.
SMALL CLAIMS COLLECTIONS ASSISTANCE (LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT)
Putting a Lien on the Debtor's Real Property
To collect from a debtor who will not pay you, you can file a lien on the debtor's real property (like a house or land). This way when the debtor tries to sell or refinance his or her home, you can get paid your judgment plus accrued interest from the escrow. If you choose not to wait for the debtor to sell or refinance the property, you can look into "foreclosing" on the judgment lien. This means that you force the debtor to sell the property and pay you with that money. This only works when there is enough equity in the property to pay all the liens as well as the costs of foreclosure.
Prepare an Abstract of Judgment – Civil and Small Claims (Form EJ-001). All the required information must be included or the lien will not be valid.
Take or mail 2 copies of the completed Abstract of Judgment to the court so that the Abstract can be certified by the clerk of the court. There is a fee (about $25) for this. If you use mail, be sure to include an envelope addressed to yourself and with sufficient postage so that the court can return the certified Abstract of Judgment to you.
Take the certified Abstract of Judgment and 1 copy to the county recorder's office in the county where you believe the debtor owns real property. Click to find a county recorder. There will be a recording fee (about $20).
The county recorder will provide notice to the debtor that you have recorded the Abstract of Judgment.
You will not be paid automatically, but if the debtor refinances or sells the property, you may get paid your money with interest.
If you believe the debtor owns property in more than 1 county, you will have to repeat this process for each county. Only 1 Abstract of Judgment needs to be recorded per county, even if there are multiple properties within a single county.
Some county assessors will confirm if a debtor owns real property over the phone, or you may be able to find that information online at the county assessor's website. Click to find your county tax assessor.
Having the debtor's house or other real property sold at public auction
This is a relatively complex way to collect a judgment. If you still want to do it, follow these steps:
Start by getting information about the real property from the county assessor's office and the county recorder's office. Does a bank or other lender have an interest in the property? Are there other owners of the property?
Give the sheriff or marshal written instructions and pay their fees. Click to find your county sheriff. The sheriff will probably have a form of "Real Property Levy Instructions." The fees will probably be about $1,000.
An officer will then serve a Notice of Levy on the debtor and you.
If the real property is a dwelling, you must ask the court for an order of sale. You must do this within 20 days of receiving notice that the levy has been made. You can use a Request for Court Order and Answer (Form SC-105)to do this.
After 120 days, an officer will then serve a "Notice of Sale" on the debtor. The notice will be posted in a public place and on the property. It is served on the occupant of the property, if there is one. The notice also is published in the local newspaper and mailed to any lienholders.
Proceeds from the sale must be distributed within 30 days after the sale.
Collect From the Debtor's Bank Account or Safe Deposit Box
You can get a levy on the debtor's bank account or safe deposit box. You will need to know the branch where the accounts are kept, and sometimes you also have to know the account number. Check with your small claims advisor or sheriff/marshal for more information on the procedures in your county.
Then prepare instructions for the sheriff/marshal explaining what you want them to levy (take). Check with your levying officers to see if they have a local form or prepare your own. Click to find your local sheriff.
In many counties you will need to hire a process server to serve the bank with the Notice of Levy (Enforcement of Judgment) (Form EJ-150) in order to get the money from the account or property from the safe deposit box. If you hire a process server, he or she generally will prepare the instructions as a part of their fee.
At the time of levy or promptly after the levy, a process server or sheriff/marshal must also serve (personally or by mail) the judgment debtor with copies of the writ, notice of levy, and the Exemptions From the Enforcement of Judgments (Form EJ-155). Check to see if you are responsible for providing these forms for service.
The judgment debtor has 10 days to oppose the bank levy before the sheriff sends the money to the creditor. The debtor has to file a Claim of Exemption (Form EJ-160). If he or she does, you have the right to oppose it. The court then may have a hearing to decide whether to turn all or some of the money over to you as the creditor or let the judgment debtor keep it.
Click to learn about a Claim of Exemption for levies or other nonwage garnishments and how to oppose it.
**************************************
If the debtor is employed, you can get an Earnings Withholding Order to garnish the debtor's wages until you are paid. You have the right to collect up to 25 percent of the amount over the federal minimum wage that the debtor earns (as long as it is not exempt under other rules). This only works if the other person is employed by someone else. A wage garnishment does not work against someone who is self-employed.
Prepare an Application for Earnings Withholding Order (Wage Garnishment) (Form WG-001).
Hire a process server or the sheriff/marshal to serve the employer with the necessary papers for the wage garnishment.
The process server or sheriff/marshal will usually fill out the Earnings Withholding Order (Form WG-002) using the information from the Writ of Execution. But you may have to fill it out yourself. This form has instructions on the back for the employer explaining how much money to garnish (take) from the debtor's wages.
The process server or sheriff/marshal must also serve the employer with the Employer's Return (Wage Garnishment)(Form WG-005) and Employee Instructions (Wage Garnishment) (Form WG-003). You may have to provide these forms to the process server or sheriff/marshal.
For more information contact Paul Cazalet, a State of California licensed Private Investigator
since 1994, Paul Cazalet can be reached via telephone at (818) 310-6711 or (818) 390-7296,
or by email at
A PMC Investigator can rule out any underlying "issues" as well as make recommendations to help you receive the answers you NEED !
From SURVEILLANCE to LIE DETECTION...
PMC WILL GET YOU THE ANSWERS YOU NEED !
(Click Here to visit our web site)
Very Affordable $245 Certified Polygraph Lie Detection Examinations.
Over 30 years of Lie Detection and Investigative Experience
Available at your location or at our offices
Male and Female Certified Polygraph Examiners
Remote-viewing/monitoring is available by True live video;
other options include videotaping of the examination
Multiple examiners to serve you Test is $245 if it is pertaining to a
cheating spouse/relationship
Polygraph Examiners available 7Days a week !
Days, Nights, Weekends...
Very Reasonable Rates...
"no additional cost for nights or weekends"
Lie Detection Testing can be scheduled within ONE HOUR !
This information has been provided by Paul Cazalet, P.I., an Investigator for PMC Professional Services, a State of California Licensed Private Investigative Agency located in Los Angeles.
Los Angeles Private Investigator and Los Angeles Polygraph Examiner
Information provided by Paul Cazalet, P.I.,
of
PMC Professional Services, St.Lic.# PI16819
"A State of California Licensed Private Investigative Agency since 1994"
Process Server's Possibly Illegal Arrest Caught on Camera
August 05, 2013 by Kimberly Faber
In the latest development in an ongoing investigation into a Texas judge, a process server was arrested while attempting to serve Judge Layne Walker legal documents in a courtroom. Process server Steve Hartman was trying to serve Walker with a federal summons regarding a civil rights complaint alleging mistreatment of a local criminal defense attorney and civil rights leader at the courthouse.
According to signed witness affidavits, Hartman crossed the bench, shoved papers in a deputy's face, and tried to push past to reach the judge. The arrest, however, was captured on video through the process server’s ballpoint pen camera. It's now been revealed that the captured footage may contradict what the signed affidavits say happened.
Hartman’s attorney believes that his rights were violated and declares that the witness affidavits signed by Sergeant Steve Broussard (shown in the video), Deputy Sharon Williams (shown in the video), and attorney Joe Vazquez, are not truthful.
“The video contradicts all of the witness affidavits,” the attorney said in an interview with the news station. “None of the affidavits contain truthful evidence. The video is very clear on that.”
The video contradicts all of the witness affidavits. None of the affidavits contain truthful evidence. The video is very clear on that.
Attorney John Morgan
Hartman’s disbelief is clear. “Here I am under the assumption that I’m on the same team as these people,” he said. “I just can’t believe it.” He was charged with hindering a proceeding by disorderly conduct. Upon his release, his possessions were return to him with the exception of the ballpoint camera pen. A mini screwdriver was in its place. Further investigation revealed that Sergeant Broussard had taken the pen home with him before entering it into evidence.
With the release of the video, an internal investigation of the incident is now underway and Sergeant Broussard has been placed on paid leave.
But according to the report, some law enforcement officials say there’s more to the video that has not been released. “They didn’t specify what it shows, but they did imply that it more clearly supports statements made by the witnesses,” the reporter said.
A longer version of the courtroom incident video was recently uploaded to YouTube. The six-minute video can be viewed below:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVEFkX1hLh0
The differences in witness accounts and what is shown in the video are compared below.
Witness Accounts:
Hartman approached Sergeant Steve Broussard
He then crossed the bar, the area that separates courtroom personnel from the public.
Hartman tried to get to the judge’s bench and was intercepted by Sergeant Broussard
Hartman attempted to push past Broussard
Harman shoved papers in Deputy Williams’ face
There was yelling in the back of the courtroom
The above information was drawn from witness statements by Sergeant Steve Broussard, Deputy Sharon Williams, and attorney Joe Vazquez as presented by 12news.
What the Video Shows:
Hartman approaching the bench
Deputy Williams approaches Hartman, who says: “I’m a process server. I need to serve process on the judge.”
Williams whispers something that is not clear and goes to Broussard, during which Hartman says, “You can’t not allow me.”
Broussard approaches Hartman pointing toward the door and says, “You’re going out or you’re going under arrest.”
Hartman is taken to the back of the room and handcuffed (handcuffing not visibly shown)
Hartman is taken into a holding room where his possessions are confiscated.
The incident took place on May 28th, but this was not the first encounter
between Hartman and Judge Walker. A complaint filed by Hartman prior to the courtroom service attempt alleges that Judge Walker pulled a gun on him while he was attempting to serve a subpoena for civil records at the judge’s home. Further investigation reveals that this is just one occurrence in a long string of events involving the judge.
According to several news sources, Judge Walker is under investigation by the Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct due to allegations of corruption. Over a year ago, private investigator Philip Klein discovered that the judge may have been misusing money from the Texas Indigent Defense Fund. The same WND report shares that state and court records reveal accusations that Walker, “purportedly interfered in a child custody dispute involving an attorney he did not like.” The involved attorney, John Morgan, was representing Klein at the time. He is the same John Morgan that now represents Steve Hartman.
Hartman has been a licensed process server since 2008, and is now suing the judge, the involved deputies, and a court coordinator as well as The County of Jefferson Texas and The State of Texas. Hartman is claiming loss of income, loss of business, mental anguish, and loss of enjoyment of life, and seeks $250,000 from The State of Texas, $250,000 from Judge Walker, and $250,000 each from the involved deputies and court coordinator. Further allegations that the judge and deputies dismantled his phone, downloaded its contents, and are now calling Hartman’s contacts to intimidate them are included in the complaint. A timeline of the day’s events can be viewed below.
Timeline of events (according to the complaint):
What initially may have been the story of law officers working against rather than in aid of a process server is now another investigation into the potential corruption of Judge Walker and the Jefferson County Court. Hartman states that he chose to serve Walker at his place of employment for safety reasons, but many questions arise from the incident. Should Hartman have waited outside of the courtroom for a recess? Should the judge remain on the bench while under investigation? Were the sergeant and deputy at fault and abusing their powers or simply following orders? A number of questions remain unanswered as many details are still unclear in this case, but the overarching question of the matter is this: is this just another example of law enforcement working against process servers?