IPS Network Blog

My Network works with a few organizations that exist to deter police misconduct. One of the best known organizations is the Police Complaint Center (PCC). A former client of ours asks, “I have been the victim of police harassment in my town of xxxxxx. Every time I complain, the internal affairs department says my case has no merit! What can I do?” In small towns, an internal affairs department usually consists of one to three police officers who supposedly investigate complaints of police brutality/misconduct. They’re a waste of time and taxpayer money! Although the so called “Internal Affairs Department” has concluded that you weren’t harassed [or the victim of police brutality] does not mean you are legally prevented from bringing a cause of action against the police officer and/or the police department in a court of law. The IA report will be brought up as evidence against your lawsuit; however, you can easily persuade a jury that the IA report has been “sugarcoated” in favor of the...

A Process Server of this Network asks, " what protections do I have as a process server in Massachusetts, if any? . . . Lets say that I am pushed down a flight of stairs while serving a subpoena issued by a United States Court because a person was pissed that they got served. What laws, if any, in Massachusetts, would assist me in getting justice?" Answer: It is a violation of Federal Law to assault and/or wound a Process Server. Since Federal Law trumps State Law, I will only write about the Federal. It does not matter if you're a constable, deputy sheriff, appointed by the court to serve process (special process server), or a disinterested process server. All that matters is the following: you are serving court related process for a United States Court (subpoenas, motions, etc.); AND you are authorized by law or court rules to serve the process; AND the person who assaulted you knows, or should know, that you are a process server (this is why most process servers carr...

I was asked to describe the paralegal services I provide in the simplest way possible. Here is my brief explanation as how I see and interpret my paralegal services: The simplest explanation: I, as a paralegal, am a disinterested third party who is credible, in the eyes of the court of law, who acts as a mediator when disputes arise between two or more parties. Detailed explanation: I, as a paralegal, am a disinterested third party who is credible, in the eyes of the court of law, who acts as a mediator when disputes arise between two or more parties. I am not an attorney, although the court recognizes me as a legal professional who has very similar obligations and duties as an attorney licensed to practice law. As a paralegal I hold many different responsibilities, including, but not limited too the following: Investigator = I must ensure that the information given to me is accurate. Additionally, I must investigate every aspect of a case I am requested to service – if ...

If you're interested in purchasing a high-quality Process Server badge like the one shown below, please visit our online store . Please note that the online store is currently being edited and more products will be made available in the future. Currently you can purchase the following products: Process Server ID cards (PVC card) Process Server Badge (high quality) Notary Public ID cards (PVC card) If you have any suggestions, please send us an email . Thanks, Korey

Attention Members: Please excuse the delay in my post. I've been extremely busy lately and haven't had the time to blog. A motion was made by Troy a month or two ago about proposed changes concerning the notaries public of this Network. (Scroll down and read his proposal). Our members have voted to accept his policy change. Therefore, the old text reads (pg. 73 of the Massachusetts Notary Public & Legal Support Network's manual): "Any commissioned Massachusetts Notary Public may become a member of this Network once their status is confirmed by the Governor's Council. However, a Notary may be denied membership if their commission has any valid complaints on file with the Commonwealth. . . What constitutes a “valid” complaint will be at the discretion of the Founder. . ." and shall be changed to: "A commissioned Notary Public, pursuant to MGL c. 222 s. 1, is eligible for membership in this Network if the Notary works in the legal field and has at least ...

I had to laugh today. One of my process servers had to serve a document at Shriver Job Corps. It was a simple demand letter that any disinterested person could serve. Regardless, my server went inside Job Corps and asked to see the people he was attempting to serve. One person was unavailable so he served it on an agent of Job Corps. The other person was the head of security. He handed the gentleman the paper and the security guard looked up and said to him, "do you know you're on Federal property?" The guard went on to spew some bullshit story about how he, as an officer on federal property, cannot be served. My server explained to him that it doesn't matter what type of property it is. So, once again, the guy said, "do you know you're on Federal property?" Irritated, my process server said in a sarcastic tone, "do you know you're only a security guard! I don't care if this is holy ground and you're the Pope!" He served the paper...

As of January 2008, membership in this Network will be by invitation only . This new policy will not affect current members, however. Furthermore, every affiliate must possess two year's of experience and must pass a C.O.R.I. check. Anyone who has ever been convicted of a felony, any drug related offenses (under 10 years old), domestic abuse, and/or any crimes directed towards a police officer, will not be eligible for membership. There are no fees or dues owed once you become a member. Any money owed to you for services will be paid by the client requesting the service (i.e., attorney). Why the policy change? This matter was voted on by the current (800) members throughout Massachusetts -- 428 members voted in favor of this motion, while the remaining 372 members voted against this motion.