An Argument Against Electronic Service of Process

Currently, existing law in many states provides for alternative means of service using any resource deemed appropriate to provide actual notice to the party being served IF ordered by the court. Is the Constitutional right to "due process of law" being threatened? Could the implementation of new technologies preclude the current procedure of making application to the court for an order directing alternative service?

As a private investigator (CA PI#24790) who specializes in "due process", Michele Dawn of RASCAL's Research & Location Services is actually working on cases where the subject was improperly served because of the "loosey-goosey" statutes that allow service to be made without proper verification by the server. Tightening up access to personal identifiers may seem, on the surface, to be protecting the American people. In actuality, it facilitates the problems of the American people as a result of bad serves.

Without the ability to verify the entity being served, and with the pressures being placed on the process servers by the legal and the collection communities to "just serve the paper", millions of Americans are finding themselves being defaulted on cases they never knew existed. How many of the volume service companies are finding themselves in the position of either serving the paper as directed or losing a lucrative monthly income? How many have been told "The post office says they're getting mail there...just drop it"? Many agencies insist that the attorney or collector put this in writing, but many others actually find themselves having to decide between their livelihood and their ethics.

Electronic service of process is currently available and being used by large companies who have contracts with corporate Agents for Service, such as CSC, but this is an option that they have agreed to implement. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) allows for service by email as of January 2009 IF there is an email address on file. If the documents have been electronically filed, and there is NOT an email address readily available, then the petitioner must first notify the defendant of the filing by telephone, and no later than the next day, by overnight delivery service, or with consent, via facsimile. To implement electronic service as the generally accepted method of service upon the vast population of the United States would be difficult, at best.

If "electronic service" ever supercedes the methods currently preferred, then we are going to be looking at a reversal to the days of "guilty until proven innocent". While technology has great potential for expediting information to the masses, it has yet to be proven as a reliable resource for expediting information to persons individually. Think of how many times any of you hit the "delete" key in one day, or ignore the telephone if you don't recognize the number calling. And then think how complicated your life would be if you were intimidated into reading ALL of your correspondence, and answering ALL of your calls because one of them might be informing you of a pending action.

Michele Dawn, RPS#117 Riverside
and Licensed PI #24790 California
RANCHO ATTORNEY SERVICE OF CALIFORNIA
& RASCAL'S RESEARCH & LOCATION SERVICES
28465 Old Town Front Street, Suite 318
Temecula, CA 92590
(951) 693-0165 or fax (951) 693-4056
email to: RascalProcess@aol.com