Posts Tagged ‘Rugen’
Baby Lisa Part (4): Amateur Hour!
Well my audience will just have to forgive me; but it is time to say what needs to be said. There are always a few “media vultures” out there in the world, and we can see at least one showing up every day here on the Lisa Irwin Case.
I have had a pretty busy week, working PAYING cases, so I have not had much time to blog about this case in the past five days. Not to brag, but last week was somewhere around a $10,000.00 week for me. It is always important to take care of your paying clients first, and then focus on the topic that interest you. I have had to focus on paying clients. Apparently not all Private Investigators have paying clients to focus on; so they can try to play “Commentator” on cases like the one we are discussing here. Tonight I want to talk about how a “mediocre at best” Private Investigator can harm a case like this, and how a good Private Investigator can help a case like this.
I suppose the first place to start is with the approach that should be taken when working any case as a Private Investigator. One of the most important things to remember is that when it comes to how a Private Investigator works a case, the approach in at least one aspect is much like how a Doctor approaches a patient’s care; First Do No Harm! Often times in the Private Investigation business it is just as important to know what NOT to do as it is to know what to do. If you are a Private Investigator, the “Do No Harm Approach” requires one to be honest with theirself. A good Private Investigator’s first question to himself or herself should be: “Am I qualified to handle this case”? Think of it like this, you would not perform heart surgery on a patient if you did not have the necessary skills, training, and credentials to do so; would you? And if all you have done as a Private Investigator is serve subpoenas and conduct some “cheating spouse surveillance”, what makes you think you are qualified to even give any intelligent commentary on a Child Abduction Case, much less participate in such a case? I take exception to how one of my colleagues seems to want to insert himself into this case and act as if he is some kind of authority on the Lisa Irwin Abduction. What he is doing is selfish, harmful, and has the potential to take away valuable media resources from where they need to be. I will first call your attention to a post made by Mr. Ronald Rugen on 10/25/2011 which is pictured below:
Ron Rugen on Lisa Irwin "Defense"
Kris Cantil is a highly experienced Criminal Defense Investigator from Utah, that has spend more time adjusting her make-up in a courthouse bathroom than Mr. Rugen has in a courthouse. She is well qualified to understand the intricacies of a criminal defense case, and to certainly understand what a criminal defense case is. Click on her name and you can see her qualifications. Kris Cantil works for Kane Consulting and her question to Mr.Rugen is important and “dead on”. Folks, the attorneys working for Lisa Irwin’s parents are NOT a “Defense Team” at this point in time, they are simply trying to keep the focus on looking for the person that abducted Lisa Irwin, going on the assertion that the child was in fact abducted. despite what the media wants to title the attorney or attorneys here; there can be no defense without a prosecution and there has not even been an arrest made yet much less a prosecution. The harm in making statements like this is that it gives the public the inaccurate illusion that the parents of Lisa Irwin are the culprits in her disappearance. Now while I am not ready to say that Lisa Irwin’s parents had nothing to do with her disappearance, I am certainly not willing to point the finger at them just yet. The fact is that there just is not enough evidence to make a determination either way at this point in time. Attorney Cyndy Short was right when she said that “this is how people get wrongfully convicted”, these types of presumptuous statements make the public think that there is something that they don’t know but the person making this statement knows that may indicate guilt, which in turn causes public pressure to be put on the Police, which in turn often times impedes their investigation. This can all have the effect of making people rush to judgment in a case where evidence needs to be dispassionately analyzed. These cases have to be worked with a high degree of objectivity, which apparently Mr. Rugen does not have:
Ron Rugen Admits He Has Not Been Objective
it is not hard to see from reading Mr. Rugen’s comment above that by his own admission he has not been very objective in regards to this case. he has “jumped to conclusions”, and implied that Lisa Irwin’s parents had something to do with the disappearance of their child. This is NOT what a good Private Investigator would do. A good Private Investigator would check out everything, including the parents; but he or she would be objective and receptive to reasonable and logical scenarios so as to not easily dismiss something that might be the key to solving this case.
I have personally worked two (2) Child Abduction Cases, and successfully concluded each one within one (1) week. Now, I will admit that both of these cases were non-custodial parental abduction cases; one (1) from Los Angeles, California over seven years ago for an attorney named Shirlee Bliss and one (1) here locally where we recovered the child in Kansas City, MO for the father named Orlando Hayes. These cases are easier than a “Stranger Abduction Case”, none the less they do require objectivity, professionalism, and the ability to keep a “low profile”. My Lead Investigator, Karen Giboney has worked multiple non-custodial parental abductions and “stranger abduction cases” Someone should as Mr. Rugen how many of these cases he has worked?
The media can be a useful tool in helping to solve cases like this. The media gets the word out so that citizens can be on the look out for the child and so that if there is someone out there that knows something they will know who to call and talk to about it. It is self serving and selfish for a Private Investigator to try to inject himself into a case like this for the sake of trying to get some publicity and attention. Someone should ask Mr. Rugen who hired him to work on this case?
Folks, it is important that you don’t give this mediocre at best Private Investigator the attention he is seeking, and you stay focused on the important media aspects of this case. Follow what the media is reporting about possible sightings. Follow what the media is reporting about person’s of interest. Keep your eyes and ears open for information that may relate to those topics, instead of following an “armchair quarterback” that serves subpoenas for a living and has high aspirations of being some kind of a recognized news commentator on cases that he has no experience in what so ever. If I had experience that Mr. Rugen has in the Private Investigation Business, I’d stay out of the media and keep my opinions to myself for being afraid that those opinions might come back to haunt me later on. PICTURE that, if you will…….
Ricky B. Gurley.
Baby Lisa Part (1): Jealousy and Shameless Self Promotion?
We have all seen the news here in Missouri and I think we all know who “Baby Lisa” is by now; but for those that don’t below are some news links for you to read:
Google News Article About Baby Lisa Irwin
Eyewitnesses In Baby Lisa Irwin Case
Cadaver Dogs Make Hit In Baby Lisa Irwin Case
Now after reading the articles and becoming familiar with this case, one can see that it is a case that has captured a lot of people’s attention. This case is getting quite a bit of publicity and it is certainly considered a high-profile case. This is also a prime case for a good Private Investigator to join in on and work on behalf of the family. This is a good case for a Private Investigator. And we actually have a person that is working this case for the family in what the media has characterized as a Private Investigator. Mr. Bill Stanton is in Kansas City and working this case. Mr. Stanton is from New York, New York, with a background in Law Enforcement and Private Security. While Mr. Stanton was working in the Private Security Sector he did a lot of work for the various News Media Agencies and undoubtedly garnered some contacts in the media that may be very useful in the Baby Lisa Irwin Case. Mr. Stanton seems to be a good fit for a case like this, in which the media can be utilized to help recover Baby Lisa Irwin. So, it sounds like we have a decent person, well suited for this type of work on the case.
But…. Some people just can’t leave the best possible situation alone. And some people don’t like to see others get spotlight that they think they are so richly entitled to… There has been several complaints here in Missouri about Mr. Stanton working this case simply because he is not licensed as a Private Investigator here in Missouri. One person in particular has been very verbal about this case, Private Investigator Ron Rugen from Kansas City, MO. I personally know Mr. Rugen, and I can tell you that Mr. Rugen is an EXCELLENT Process Server. He can deliver a subpoena to a person tha tis a party to a legal case like nobody’s business! Mr. Rugen has apparently had some problems with Mr. Stanton working this case involving Baby Lisa Irwin, and has been quite vocal about it. Now, Mr. Rugen contends that he is legally obligated to report Mr. Stanton to our Private Investigator Licensing Board here in Missouri if Mr. Stanton does not have a Private Investigator’s License. Mr. Rugen is effectively saying that he has no choice but to report Mr. Stanton because he suspects that Mr. Stanton is practicing as a Private Investigator without a license. Let’s examine this for a minute. First let me give you a frame of reference for the rules and statutes here in Missouri that regulates the Private Investigation Business. Below is a link to the rules and statutes that regulate the Private Investigation Business here in Missouri.:
Missouri PI Board Rules and Statutes
The rules for reporting unlicensed activity fall under 20 CSR 2234-7.010 Code of Conduct. Now lets examine the rules for reporting unlicensed activity:
If you will look on page three (3) of the Code of Conduct you will see this if you read carefully:
(C) Aiding Unlicensed Practice.
1. Private investigators shall neither permit nor suffer any person with whom they are associated to practice the profession without being properly licensed.
2. Private investigators shall promptly report to the board any person who appears to be unlawfully practicing the profession without a license.
A. Private investigators may consult with the person who appears to be unlawfully practicing the profession without a license regarding the circumstances, and if reasonably satisfied that no violation has occurred, choose not to notify the board.
B. Private investigators need not investigate the conduct of the person who appears to be unlawfully practicing the profession without a license in such circumstances. Reporting the conduct to the board discharges the private investigator’s duty under this section.
C. An anonymous complaint to the board does not comply with the provisions of this section.
D. No action will be taken by the board against a private investigator who has made a report pursuant to the provisions of this section unless malice is shown to be the motive for an untruthful report.
I highlit the part of the code for reporting unlicensed activity to the Missouri Board of Private Investigator Examiners. As we can very plainly see there is no hard and fast rule that absolutely requires one to report suspicions of unlicensed activity to the Missouri Board of Private Investigator Examiners. As a matter of fact, there is a specific provision in the rules that allow a Licensed Private Investigator to make an inquiry with the person that he or she believes is practicing without a license in an effort to determine whether there is cause to make a complaint, or if making a complaint would amount to no more than a baseless allegation. So, the statement that one must report all suspicious activity to the Missouri Board of Private Investigator Examiners is not completely accurate. In cases where there is some question as to whether or not a person is operating illegally as a Private Investigator in Missouri by not being licensed, the licensed Private Investigator that is aware of these suspicions has the option to first consult with the person they suspect of conducing unlicensed activity to see if this is in fact really occurring.
Now with regard to Mr. Bill Stanton, there is no doubt that he is not licensed here in the state of Missouri as a Private Investigator. A simple check of the Occupational Licensing database will reveal that Mr. Bill Stanton does not hold a Private Investigator’s license in Missouri. Anyone can check this Occupational Licensing Database, it is available to the public and can be found at this link: Missouri Occupational Licensing Database. So, it is simple to come to the conclusion that Mr. Bill Stanton is not a Missouri Licensed Private Investigator. However, before making a complaint with the Missouri Board of Private Investigator Examiners, what we have to determine is whether or not the activity that Mr. Stanton is conducting can be defined as conducting the business of a Private Investigator without a license. Media reports and media assigned titles do not rise to the level of cause to believe that Mr. Stanton is conducting Private Investigator business without a license. I think that the most appropriate approach to this situation would be to first contact Mr. Stanton and ask what types of his activities he is conducting, in what capacity he is working for the family in, and to go over the rules and statutes with him in order to give him and understanding of where the line is in what activities he can legally conduct and can’t legally conduct.
I must admit that I am a little disappointed in Mr. Rugen’s lack of understanding of our rules governing Private Investigators here in Missouri. I also have to wonder why Mr. Rugen has inserted himself into this case to begin with? Was Mr. Rugen contacted by the family to assist in locating Baby Lisa Irwin? Was Mr. Rugen contacted by Law Enforcement to consult to them with some special skill that he has in trying to locate Baby Lisa Irwin? While Mr. Rugen is an EXCELLENT Process Server; I am not aware of any special skills that he has that would enable him to offer some unique assistance to Law Enforcement in a Missing Child Case. I wonder (and I hope I am wrong), but I wonder if Mr. Rugen is just not trying to use this case to get himself some media attention? I really hope that this is not the case because I think that it would take a pretty selfish person to put their “need” for attention before that of a baby child’s need for as much media focus as possible to try to bring her safely home. I took the time to choose one of the better and most appropriate pictures I have of Mr. Rugen for this blog, which accurately portrays him.
Ron Rugen From Rugen Team Website
I will follow up with a case analysis on this case from a member of my staff that has over 22 years of Law Enforcement Experience with 12 of those years being a Detective with a Regional Major Case Squad, tomorrow night. I think the public needs a close look at what is happening with this case, and I’d like to try to help focus the public on trying to find Baby Lisa Irwin.
As always, thank you for your time. Stay tuned!
Ricky B. Gurley.
