WANT TO SUBMIT
A COMMENT?
Go to FAQ #5 for instructions
|
Click on "Add Reply" to post your comment
Topic is locked
|
|
| Author |
Messages |
|
wreiter
Posts:6
 |
| 08/06/2012 1:58 PM |
|
Makes both technical and substantive amendments to ACJA § 7-204 regulating private process servers. A pending rule petition (R -12-0021) proposes amendments to Rules 4(d) and 4(e), Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure, to strike the “registration” requirements in the rules and instead place these in ACJA § 7-204. The proposed amendments also incorporate best practices in the regulatory arena, modeling many of the changes after ACJA § 7-201: General Requirements. (ACJA § 7-201 applies to the regulation of a number of professions under the authority of the Supreme Court.)
For more information about this proposal, please contact: Anne Hunter, Compliance Unit Manager - Certification and Licensing Division, at(602)452-3415, ahunter@courts.az.gov.
Comment deadline: September 21, 2012 |
Attachment: 7-204 Public Comment Version August 2012.pdf
|
|
|
|
Andih1997
Posts:1
|
| 08/17/2012 7:28 PM |
|
I strongly believe that process servers need protection from being told we are tresspassing. The Starr case in Paradise Valley made case law and apparently noone knows about it. As a process server, we are supposed to be treated equally to law enforcement when serving papers for the courts. Our ID badges specifically state we are "certified officers of the superior court" Yet, we are not given the courtesy or protection we are entitled to be given.
Respectfully submitted,
Andi Hillis
Private Process Server #7415 |
|
|
|
|
Arizona Association of Certified Process Servers
Posts:2
|
| 09/05/2012 6:27 PM |
|
Response to Proposed ACJA 7-204 Changes
The following is the official response of the Arizona Association of Certified Process Servers to the proposed changes to ACJA 7-204:
A. We approve and endorse the use of “certified” process server as opposed to registered process server, which now coincides with the now adopted changes by the AOC to Rule 4 in the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure. This is the proper designation for a certified process server, who has to take the necessary steps to become and remain certified. Registered (the current designation) infers that a process server had to do nothing more than sign up to become a process server.
B. A major issue that is omitted and inexplicably not addressed in these proposed changes is the need for pre-certification training (PCT), which we deem to be the most glaring deficiency that exists in the entirety of ACJA 7-204. Our Association is dedicated to thoroughly professionalizing the certified process server community in Arizona. We seek to have mandated in this year’s updating of ACJA 7-204 a regimen of pre-examination training. To be specific, we are convinced as professionals that 40 hours of pre-examination training for all candidates to become certified process servers in Arizona is warranted and desperately needed. Currently, there is no pre-examination training required, a program deficiency that is inappropriate on all levels and acts to the detriment of the courts, the legal profession, practitioners, and the public. To remedy this deficiency, we have proposed a training regimen that includes 20 hours of classroom training centered upon terminology, statutes, the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure, case law, regulations in the Arizona Code of Judicial Administration, local rules, documents, filing procedures, safety, and ethics, and 20 hours of field-simulated situational classroom training, which will help the new practitioner to overcome obstacles to the service of process in the field that are not afforded through the current grossly deficient examination and pre-qualification requirements.
Why such pre-examination training is absolutely needed:
Candidates are currently provided only with a less than detailed study guide from which they are expected to learn a myriad of information related to terminology, statutes, rules of civil procedure, case law, regulations, documents, safety, and ethics. Clearly this is too challenging for most candidates to adequately grasp. The materials are generally too technical to be adequately understood to an acceptable level via mere reading. We believe pre-examination training can easily be implemented in the same manner that the current continuing education (CE) is implemented. Current CE approved trainers can also create the necessary courses for PCT and become approved to teach them with minimum burden on and no expense to the Supreme Court. We are in favor of 40 pre-certification training hours to be completed before taking the initial written examination to become a certified process server. Pre-examination training will create a higher standard of competency of incoming new servers who will in turn have a better understanding of what is required for them to complete proper service of process. Our goal is to fully perfect this important court function, and to create, maintain, and increase the industry’s level of professionalism among all practitioners, as is done in all related professions.
What pre-examination training will accomplish:
• Provide professional-level classroom instruction and guidance for all candidates before they enter the field to serve any legal documents.
• Provide field-simulated instructional training in the classroom before they enter the field and serve any legal documents and interact with the public, court staff, law enforcers and others.
• Provide the legal profession with competent practitioners exiting the examination.
• Provide employers with trained and knowledgeable employees exiting the examination.
• Provide the public with highly competent practitioners exiting the examination.
• Reduce dramatically the number of complaints and relieve the Courts from the current burden of said complaints.
• Reduce significantly errors in the field.
• Improve safety via safer practices utilized by pre-trained certified process servers.
Pre-examination training has been ignored in this profession since the drafting of ACJA 7-204, much to the detriment of all parties. It is far beyond the time to correct this gross program deficiency, which is easy and inexpensive to mandate and administrate. This requisite addition will have immediate and lasting effects upon the courts throughout Arizona as well as law enforcers, attorneys, clerks of court, and the public.
C. Currently, Certificates of Attendance for required continuing education classes are submitted every three years with renewal packets, rather than a more controlled annual submission that would help ensure that mandated continuing education classes are being taken annually as prescribed to maximize the benefits of such training. This has allowed many practitioners to avoid and not participate in the required annual training. Though new measures are being introduced in these proposed changes to eliminate loopholes for CE, without pre-examination training, any incoming server would not be required to engage in any education until day 364 of their first year of becoming a server. This authorizes an officer of the court to do a duty for the court and a service for the legal profession and the public with absolutely zero training. It is an absurd and an abomination, and it is a perfectly preventable circumstance.
D. We are strongly opposed to omitting the requirement for references in application materials. We are taken aback by the fact that the primary reasoning behind omitting this requirement is that it creates a burden upon the staff of the courts. Our question is, “Whom does the court want serving process?” The Supreme Court is saying that this omission removes a burden, but aren't you creating a huge burden on court staff to allow any eligible person in the United States an opportunity to potentially attain certification? Are you not creating a burden on the court when servers are missing key character traits which should be mandated for a person representing such an authority? This shouldn't be a question of burden but a question of professionalism. You require references because there should be individuals certified who can show character to the legal community, including the court first, and those individuals are worthy of such a reference. With the omission of references, the courts are likely to take the program to mean that a qualified person may not need to be a person who carries such professional traits and therefore creating an industry that further undermines the image of the courts and the private process server program at every level. Removing the need for references takes this profession backward, while it is our mutual duty to take it forward.
E. We are strongly opposed to the proposed change to allow non-Arizona residents to become certified process servers in Arizona. Aside from creating undue competition, we believe for one to properly perform the function of service of process within the state of Arizona one should be a resident of the state. How do we hold a process server accountable in another state after he or she does numerous bad serves in Arizona and then returns to his or her home state? Who gets to suffer the price for that? The client, of course. We are strongly in favor of retaining the current regulation which requires one year of Arizona residency to become a certified process server. At an absolute minimum, one should be required to be an Arizona resident before applying to become a certified process server in Arizona.
F. We are strongly opposed to the revision that if CE activity comprises eight or more hours of credit in one day, the documentation shall include an agenda that specifies the time allocated to each topic and the time for breaks and a lunch break. This proposed change creates an undue burden on both CE instructors and all process servers. It is known that process servers are trusted to file and use Certificates of Service, which are filed with the courts under penalty of perjury and that what they are stating in the document is what is true and correct. Process servers also undergo background screening to ensure integrity is found in a process server's past and present and that no fraudulent behavior has been noted. The requirement of providing references is also a part of discovery for the qualified potential process server. These are all requirements put in place to ensure that the applicant is one of excellent moral stature. The insulting and inconceivable practice of requiring servers to make a list during the class time of their CE training of when they used the bathroom or ate lunch is a notion that we find degrading, disrespectful, and demeaning. If process servers are not being truthful in regard to their actual time of CE attended, the presiding judge has the authority to strip the process server's certification. In reality, the Supreme Court should allocate reasonable time to enhance the program by requiring pre-examination training, which would also help ensure integrity to the program and the importance of Continuing Education. Most process servers in Arizona attend 10-hour classes, so this change would negatively impact virtually every process server in Arizona.
G. We are in favor of the proposed change to eliminate the current loophole that exists where a current certified process server can go three years without completing any CE, then purposely let their certification expire, and then reapply as a new applicant to bypass CE. This practice has frequently occurred in the past and has resulted in serious practitioner deficiencies in the field.
H. We are also in favor of eliminating provisional certifications currently being offered. As stated, it creates the possibility where applicants begin to serve process but then later have their certification revoked once the results of their background checks are completed. This proposed change would create an inability for a convicted felon or an applicant who wasn't a law abiding citizen to not have the temporary authority to represent the court. This proposed change will serve to prevent probable resultant negative press related to the courts, the state and county bar associations and the certified process server industry.
I. We agree entirely that a certified process server should not impersonate a police officer, or any other government official.
J. We are in agreement on a minimum requirement of a high school diploma for every certified process server. We believe this helps to raise the bar on the level of professionalism in the field.
K. We are strongly opposed and vehemently disagree with any allowance or set-aside order which allows a convicted felon to become a certified process server. A certified process server performs an important function in the legal system. In fact, it is more than a function, it is a vital duty. This duty when performed represents the court, attorneys, the bar, the public, and the overall legal system. The legal system will not be improved nor will our industry of process service if convicted felons are allowed to serve process. The concrete definition of our industry as stated in A.R.S 11-445 (I), “A process server is an Officer of the Court”, would be strongly undermined by such a revision, creating a general lack of respect for those who deserve this title.
We are also sponsoring needed legislation that once passed would have a positive impact on our profession, as well as remove obstacles that currently seriously hinder the service of process in many instances. Allowing convicted felons certifications would severely impede the opportunity to pass this much-needed legislation.
It is our hope that the above comments coming from those who are certified process servers and are the ones in the field performing the function of service of process on a daily basis will be strongly considered.
Respectfully submitted,
Cameron Janati- Secretary
Arizona Association of Certified Process Servers
|
|
|
|
|
nasha
Posts:4
|
| 09/06/2012 6:57 PM |
|
Michael K. Jeanes
Clerk of the Superior Court in and for Maricopa County
620 W. Jackson St., Ste. 3017
Phoenix, AZ 85003
nasha@cosc.maricopa.gov
The following changes are recommended to section 7-204 of the Code regarding Process Servers.
In subsection E(3)(c)(3) regarding Initial Certification and reexaminations, there was an oversight where the last word should be “examination,” not “reexamination.”
In subsection H(1)(g) regarding Complaints, clarification is recommended by replacing “an initial report of misconduct” with “a complaint of misconduct.” Although modeled after the confidentiality section of ACJA 7-201, “initial report” is not used or defined anywhere else in either Code section. “Complaint” will conform to the existing terminology and eliminate potential ambiguity. |
|
|
|
|
Arizona Association of Certified Process Servers
Posts:2
|
| 09/11/2012 10:12 AM |
|
Response to Proposed ACJA 7-204 Changes
The following is the official response of the Arizona Association of Certified Process Servers to the proposed changes to ACJA 7-204:
A. We approve and endorse the use of “certified” process server as opposed to registered process server, which now coincides with the now adopted changes by the AOC to Rule 4 in the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure. This is the proper designation for a certified process server, who has to take the necessary steps to become and remain certified. Registered (the current designation) infers that a process server had to do nothing more than sign up to become a process server.
B. A major issue that is omitted and inexplicably not addressed in these proposed changes is the need for pre-certification training (PCT), which we deem to be the most glaring deficiency that exists in the entirety of ACJA 7-204. Our Association is dedicated to thoroughly professionalizing the certified process server community in Arizona. We seek to have mandated in this year’s updating of ACJA 7-204 a regimen of pre-examination training. To be specific, we are convinced as professionals that 40 hours of pre-examination training for all candidates to become certified process servers in Arizona is warranted and desperately needed. Currently, there is no pre-examination training required, a program deficiency that is inappropriate on all levels and acts to the detriment of the courts, the legal profession, practitioners, and the public. To remedy this deficiency, we have proposed a training regimen that includes 20 hours of classroom training centered upon terminology, statutes, the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure, case law, regulations in the Arizona Code of Judicial Administration, local rules, documents, filing procedures, safety, and ethics, and 20 hours of field-simulated situational classroom training, which will help the new practitioner to overcome obstacles to the service of process in the field that are not afforded through the current grossly deficient examination and pre-qualification requirements.
Why such pre-examination training is absolutely needed:
Candidates are currently provided only with a less than detailed study guide from which they are expected to learn a myriad of information related to terminology, statutes, rules of civil procedure, case law, regulations, documents, safety, and ethics. Clearly this is too challenging for most candidates to adequately grasp. The materials are generally too technical to be adequately understood to an acceptable level via mere reading. We believe pre-examination training can easily be implemented in the same manner that the current continuing education (CE) is implemented. Current CE approved trainers can also create the necessary courses for PCT and become approved to teach them with minimum burden on and no expense to the Supreme Court. We are in favor of 40 pre-certification training hours to be completed before taking the initial written examination to become a certified process server. Pre-examination training will create a higher standard of competency of incoming new servers who will in turn have a better understanding of what is required for them to complete proper service of process. Our goal is to fully perfect this important court function, and to create, maintain, and increase the industry’s level of professionalism among all practitioners, as is done in all related professions.
What pre-examination training will accomplish:
• Provide professional-level classroom instruction and guidance for all candidates before they enter the field to serve any legal documents.
• Provide field-simulated instructional training in the classroom before they enter the field and serve any legal documents and interact with the public, court staff, law enforcers and others.
• Provide the legal profession with competent practitioners exiting the examination.
• Provide employers with trained and knowledgeable employees exiting the examination.
• Provide the public with highly competent practitioners exiting the examination.
• Reduce dramatically the number of complaints and relieve the Courts from the current burden of said complaints.
• Reduce significantly errors in the field.
• Improve safety via safer practices utilized by pre-trained certified process servers.
Pre-examination training has been ignored in this profession since the drafting of ACJA 7-204, much to the detriment of all parties. It is far beyond the time to correct this gross program deficiency, which is easy and inexpensive to mandate and administrate. This requisite addition will have immediate and lasting effects upon the courts throughout Arizona as well as law enforcers, attorneys, clerks of court, and the public.
C. Currently, Certificates of Attendance for required continuing education classes are submitted every three years with renewal packets, rather than a more controlled annual submission that would help ensure that mandated continuing education classes are being taken annually as prescribed to maximize the benefits of such training. This has allowed many practitioners to avoid and not participate in the required annual training. Though new measures are being introduced in these proposed changes to eliminate loopholes for CE, without pre-examination training, any incoming server would not be required to engage in any education until day 364 of their first year of becoming a server. This authorizes an officer of the court to do a duty for the court and a service for the legal profession and the public with absolutely zero training. It is an absurd and an abomination, and it is a perfectly preventable circumstance.
D. We are strongly opposed to omitting the requirement for references in application materials. We are taken aback by the fact that the primary reasoning behind omitting this requirement is that it creates a burden upon the staff of the courts. Our question is, “Whom does the court want serving process?” The Supreme Court is saying that this omission removes a burden, but aren't you creating a huge burden on court staff to allow any eligible person in the United States an opportunity to potentially attain certification? Are you not creating a burden on the court when servers are missing key character traits which should be mandated for a person representing such an authority? This shouldn't be a question of burden but a question of professionalism. You require references because there should be individuals certified who can show character to the legal community, including the court first, and those individuals are worthy of such a reference. With the omission of references, the courts are likely to take the program to mean that a qualified person may not need to be a person who carries such professional traits and therefore creating an industry that further undermines the image of the courts and the private process server program at every level. Removing the need for references takes this profession backward, while it is our mutual duty to take it forward.
E. We are strongly opposed to the proposed change to allow non-Arizona residents to become certified process servers in Arizona. Aside from creating undue competition, we believe for one to properly perform the function of service of process within the state of Arizona one should be a resident of the state. How do we hold a process server accountable in another state after he or she does numerous bad serves in Arizona and then returns to his or her home state? Who gets to suffer the price for that? The client, of course. We are strongly in favor of retaining the current regulation which requires one year of Arizona residency to become a certified process server. At an absolute minimum, one should be required to be an Arizona resident before applying to become a certified process server in Arizona.
F. We are strongly opposed to the revision that if CE activity comprises eight or more hours of credit in one day, the documentation shall include an agenda that specifies the time allocated to each topic and the time for breaks and a lunch break. This proposed change creates an undue burden on both CE instructors and all process servers. It is known that process servers are trusted to file and use Certificates of Service, which are filed with the courts under penalty of perjury and that what they are stating in the document is what is true and correct. Process servers also undergo background screening to ensure integrity is found in a process server's past and present and that no fraudulent behavior has been noted. The requirement of providing references is also a part of discovery for the qualified potential process server. These are all requirements put in place to ensure that the applicant is one of excellent moral stature. The insulting and inconceivable practice of requiring servers to make a list during the class time of their CE training of when they used the bathroom or ate lunch is a notion that we find degrading, disrespectful, and demeaning. If process servers are not being truthful in regard to their actual time of CE attended, the presiding judge has the authority to strip the process server's certification. In reality, the Supreme Court should allocate reasonable time to enhance the program by requiring pre-examination training, which would also help ensure integrity to the program and the importance of Continuing Education. Most process servers in Arizona attend 10-hour classes, so this change would negatively impact virtually every process server in Arizona.
G. We are in favor of the proposed change to eliminate the current loophole that exists where a current certified process server can go three years without completing any CE, then purposely let their certification expire, and then reapply as a new applicant to bypass CE. This practice has frequently occurred in the past and has resulted in serious practitioner deficiencies in the field.
H. We are also in favor of eliminating provisional certifications currently being offered. As stated, it creates the possibility where applicants begin to serve process but then later have their certification revoked once the results of their background checks are completed. This proposed change would create an inability for a convicted felon or an applicant who wasn't a law abiding citizen to not have the temporary authority to represent the court. This proposed change will serve to prevent probable resultant negative press related to the courts, the state and county bar associations and the certified process server industry.
I. We agree entirely that a certified process server should not impersonate a police officer, or any other government official.
J. We are in agreement on a minimum requirement of a high school diploma for every certified process server. We believe this helps to raise the bar on the level of professionalism in the field.
K. We are strongly opposed and vehemently disagree with any allowance or set-aside order which allows a convicted felon to become a certified process server. A certified process server performs an important function in the legal system. In fact, it is more than a function, it is a vital duty. This duty when performed represents the court, attorneys, the bar, the public, and the overall legal system. The legal system will not be improved nor will our industry of process service if convicted felons are allowed to serve process. The concrete definition of our industry as stated in A.R.S 11-445 (I), “A process server is an Officer of the Court”, would be strongly undermined by such a revision, creating a general lack of respect for those who deserve this title.
We are also sponsoring needed legislation that once passed would have a positive impact on our profession, as well as remove obstacles that currently seriously hinder the service of process in many instances. Allowing convicted felons certifications would severely impede the opportunity to pass this much-needed legislation.
It is our hope that the above comments coming from those who are certified process servers and are the ones in the field performing the function of service of process on a daily basis will be strongly considered.
Respectfully submitted,
Cameron Janati- Secretary
Arizona Association of Certified Process Servers
|
|
|
|
|
Independent Professional Process Servers of America
Posts:4
|
| 09/20/2012 5:56 PM |
|
Janet Johnson
Clerk of Court, Arizona Supreme Court
1501 W Washington Suite 402
Phoenix, Arizona
85007
Re: Process Server Regulation and rules
September 20, 2012
Dear Honorable Janet Johnson:
Independent Professional Process Servers of America Incorporated (IPPSOA) is a national non-profit association of professional process servers incorporated in the State of Florida. We currently cover 27 states and have over 150 professional process servers listed at http://www.ippsoa.com
First, IPPSOA would like to extend our congratulations at your appointment to this very important seat of judicial prudence with Arizona Supreme Court.
Our correspondence to you today is in regards to the Arizona Supreme court considerations in regulating professional process servers or amending the current regulations. As the Arizona Supreme court recognizes at issue here is the fundamental process of Due Process. Due Process is a constitutional provision in the United States through amendment 5 and 14 of the bill of rights and has its rightful companion in every one of its states constitutions.
Due Process as it relates to the steps in the process serving field is a quite simple understanding. It means that every person has a right to know when a charge is brought against them criminally or civilly that could take their liberty or take their property.
In reviewing the stakeholders of this industry there is a growing disturbing trend. It is a trend where stakeholders are using government to create a market place. Many are using the government to create a market place that regulates, not to protect the fundamental purpose of protecting constitutional due process, but to reduce competition through government regulations.
Is there empirical evidence that the constitutional protection of Due Process will be better met if we discarded other capable individuals of providing notice through gate keeping/regulation? Will the certified list you have imply that only those certified can serve process? Even though Arizona Subpoenas, Federal Summons, Federal Subpoenas and over 40 states jurisdictional process can still be served outside your rules within your state?
Another constitutional concern not addressed in this amendment or this rule is a jurisdictional question relating to Arizona giving up its rule/law making authority to a foreign jurisdiction. Arizona is not alone in this practice but it does not make the unity of law any clearer. Arizona has in its Rule 4.2(b). Direct Service
“Service of process may be made outside the state but within the United States in the same manner provided in Rule 4.1(d)-(l) of these Rules by a person authorized to serve process under the law of the state where such service is made. Such service shall be complete when made and time for purposes of Rule 4.2(m) shall begin to run at that time, provided that before any default may be had on such service, there shall be filed an affidavit of service showing the circumstances warranting the utilization of this procedure and attaching an affidavit of the process server showing the fact and circumstances of the service.”
At first glance this would seem like a simple solution but it discounts those Arizona citizens right to govern itself by allowing 49 states across the country to determine what a valid serve in a foreign state location is for Arizona courts jurisdiction. How would an Arizona citizen move a Florida legislator to represent them in creating the kind of license approved to serve a process without the state of Arizona involving Arizona cases?
I believe Alaska and Arizona are among the only states in the union that give foreign licensing bodies the right to determine for Arizona and Alaska citizens what constitutes good service of process in Alaska or Arizona courts served without Arizona or Alaska. In Arizona it may have been the simple legislative decision it gave their citizens representation to determine who is authorized to serve its process to citizens legislators in the other 49 states.
Finally I mentioned the regulations are being used all across the country to prevent or control competition. This is fundamentally contrary to a pure economy where ingenuity is rewarded and ambition is nurtured. If any industry needs government regulations in order to cap, prevent new entrants, and protect a group than it may be time that old group moves on to other purposes.
In Florida the 20th judicial circuit put a cap of 125 on process servers. I challenged it and it was removed. In Texas there was a move to do the same thing it never materialized. Everyone agrees government creating markets, especially preventing citizens from other states from entering it would be quickly defeated as unconstitutional upon a proper challenge. Another way was found to get to the same goals of market influence, market caps etc. That way is sweeping the country by creating educational requirements, and other regulatory schemes that has little to do with the implementation of the simple constitutional notice requirement of Due Process. In fact a side benefit to this process is third party providers of educational and certification systems making money off their successfully regulated market place.
I ask before you make any moves you question the motives of the education providers, the current market leaders, and whether government controlled market place is in the best interest of due process.
Our one request to convince us this process is not influenced by market isolationism of those proposing it and it is this:
When you create the list we request you allow all qualified process servers eligible to serve process in the state of Arizona are allowed on it. That you do not limit it to only those you “certify” as qualified because that is not the exclusive definition of qualified process server within your state lines. In effect if you take that position you prejudice other federal and state qualified process servers from doing business in your state. This process would be potentially threatened under article IV Section 1 of the US constitution popularly known as the Full Faith and Credit Clause.
If you do not include all persons eligible to serve process in Arizona such as other states process within Arizona and Federal government process and Arizona subpoenas than the list is market place based and inferred under the color of law exclusivity in a states marketplace.
Proposed example in content of full faith and credit
ARIZONA PROCESS SERVER ELIGIBILITY LIST
NAME Arizona* Federal** Other States*** All Subpoenas****
John Smith x x x x
Jane Smith x x x
John Doe x x x
Jane Doe x x x
*Arizona qualified to serve Arizona state issues process
**Federal qualified to serve Federal issued process including Arizona Federal districts
***Other states self declared qualified to serve other states process
****All subpoenas including states of Arizona issued
Those who request addition to the list who are not certified should be nominally charged to not further gate keep the marketplace from new entrants. I have put an acceptable legend under the table. The legend should not infer approval of a market place participant. Qualified is qualified. If the regulation and the creation of a “qualified list” are about qualifications those certified by Arizona are equally qualified to the other market place participants listed above and by excluding those from the list will be excluding them from equal representation under the law.
Sincerely yours,
Randy A Scott
Administrator
Independent Professional Process Servers of America, Incorporated
(a national nonprofit association incorporated in Florida FEIN # 45-5489198)
343 Hazelwood Ave S
Lehigh Acres, Florida
33936
Telephone: 239.300.7007
Email: randy@ippsoa.com
Website : http://www.ippsoa.com
|
|
|
|
|
Independent Professional Process Servers of America
Posts:4
|
| 09/20/2012 6:05 PM |
|
| Hyperlinks removed in PDF and Word documents as TOS requires. Reattached for formatting purposes of proposed certified list |
|
|
|
|
Independent Professional Process Servers of America
Posts:4
|
|
|
Click on "Add Reply" to post your comment
Topic is locked |
|
|
|
ActiveForums 3.6
|
|