Skip to content

2011-12-26

“We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. We must remember always, that accusation is not proof, and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law. We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason if we dig deep into our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men. Not from men who feared to write, to associate, to speak, and to defend the causes that were for the moment unpopular.”   – Edward R. Murrow

More Secret Meetings

2012-04-05

Perhaps we should have titled this post, “More of the Same”.  Believe it or not but the a series of special meetings have been called over the last month or so that contain a single agenda item – executive session.  Forget for a moment this is a violation of the intent of a special meeting, consider that  these special secret meetings aren’t even being properly noticed.

It’s clear the board doesn’t want to have a broader discussion of the subject matter at hand.  The subject matter you ask?  Member’s requesting to inspect records, namely the accounting records of the association.  The meetings are to determine, what if anything, is provided to members.  There is further discussion as to what the association’s policy should be about these types of requests.

MEMBERS NEED TO KNOW THESE DISCUSSIONS ARE BEING HELD IN PRIVATE BY YOUR ELECTED BOARD OF DIRECTORS.  MR. ADMIN IS ALSO BEING ALLOWED TO PARTICIPATE IN THESE SECRET MEETINGS.

As we understand it, there have been various record inspection requests made pursuant to Arizona statutes that govern non-profits.  (NAPPS is registered in Arizona.)

10-11602. Inspection of records by members; applicability

A. … any member who has been a member of record at least six months immediately preceding its demand is entitled to inspect and copy any of the records of the corporation described in section 10-11601,.during regular business hours at the corporation’s principal office, if the member gives the corporation written notice of its demand as provided in section 10-3141 at least five business days before the date on which the member wishes to inspect and copy.

These requests can include association accounting records.

There are good reasons why discussions of this nature require transparency.  NAPPS blatantly ignores them all and even allows those accused of wrong doing and inappropriate behavior to participate in the crafting of policy.  This is what NAPPS has been reduced to;  cesspool of inappropriate behavior, obfuscation, cover up and outright lies.  Let’s all pat ourselves on the back now and say again how great and effective we are.  We showed New York didn’t we.  Mess with us and you’re going to pay.

Really, we are no better than a petty thief wrapped in a robe of vanity and insecurity.  No, that is too kind.  NAPPS is a thug – a school yard bully.

NAPPS and the IRS (part II – whistleblower)

2012-04-04

Thanks to the site of member Randy Scott (http://www.randyscott.us/20th/board/napps.html), we were able to retrieve Form 990 for 2010.  As a side note, any of you governance junkies out there with extra time on your hands has got to check out his site.  Process servers continue to amaze us with their diverse skill set.  Just think, NAPPS chases all the good ones away…

Back to the topic, the 2010 Form 990.  What we immediately noticed were several changes in how the YES-NO boxes were checked but it was also a year where NAPPS moved from reporting on a fiscal basis (July to June) to a calendar year basis (Jan -Dec).  Calendar year is certainly easier to follow for most people and it was a good move for NAPPS.  The other positive change is that a board member confirmed that they received the 2010 Form 990 from treasurer Steve Janney via email.  It’s not exactly clear when they received it (before or after the form was filed) but we take it as a good sign regardless.   We haven’t been able to confirm if that was the case in 2009.

What remains problematic is this box checking thing.  It’s a bit baffling to be honest.

For example, in the 2010 filing, Box #6 is now checked YES indicating that  NAPPS has members.  That’s a good thing because we thought we were going crazy.  Imagine paying member dues all these years but never being a member.  Well relax, as of 2010, you now appear to be a member.  But, according to the Box Checker,  you still don’t have the right to elect members of the governing body (the board).   We aren’t making this up, it’s right there on the form NAPPS files with the IRS.

The other thing Box Checker did that was a BIG surprise was the following:

Part VI – Section B – Question #13 – Does the organization have a written whistleblower policy?   Answer: YES

Really?  NAPPS has a whistleblower policy?  Amazing.  We couldn’t find it but sometime between the 2009 Form 990 filing  (May  2011) and the 2010 Form 900 filing (Nov 2011), NAPPS instituted a written whistleblower policy.    What happened late 2011 to convince Mr. Admin that the box had to be checked?  Can anyone point us to this policy?

Let’s summarize folks.  You’re a member of NAPPPS but you can’t vote for the elected leaders and if you have a problem, you now are protected by the whistleblower policy that really doesn’t exist.

There are some who would call this nitpicking and in most circumstances, we would agree.  These types of errors would be expected in a draft committee report or perhaps in an early version of a board presentation but this is an official association report going to the IRS!  We spent little time going through the 990′s and this is what we uncovered.  We can only imagine what an audit would uncover.  It’s an embarrassment and there is no excuse.  Mr. Admin isn’t doing his job and the board isn’t doing theirs.  There is nothing here that gives us any degree of confidence that the rest of the associations business matters are in any better shape.  If you can be this casual with the IRS, imagine what committee expense report reconciliations look like.  Mr. Roth wrote the book on that policy.  NAPPS allowed Mr. Yellon to take $100K out of one pocket and put it into another without any substantiating documentation.  Just say it enough times and it must be true.

Pertinent screen shots below.  2010 Form 990 here.

You're a member now!

Really?

NAPPS and the IRS

2012-04-02

Below are several excerpts from the 2009 NAPPS filing with the IRS. It’s called a Form 990 and it’s the equivalent of tax return but for a non-profit.  The form was redesigned for the 2009 tax year and this is what the IRS had to say about the new form:

The IRS’s redesign of Form 990 addresses the demand for increased transparency and accountability from tax-exempt organizations. The service uses Form 990 as a tool to increase compliance and encourage tax-exempt organizations to “voluntarily” adopt good governance practices.

To increase board member involvement in the organization’s Form 990 filing process, the IRS added a question asking, “Was a copy of the form provided to the organization’s governing body before it was filed?” In addition, the form requires organizations to describe their internal Form 990 review process, including who conducted the review, timing of the review and extent of the review. If the organization does not have a review policy, now may be the time to put one in place. [emphasis added]

In an informational handout, the IRS takes a conversational tone when providing guidance to non-profit board members about their responsibilities when it comes to reviewing Form 990 for correctness.

As the board member of a not-for-profit organization, you have many responsibilities, one of which should include reviewing the organization’s Form 990. On the Form 990, the IRS specifically asks the not-for-profit organization if it provides a copy of the Form to its board members before filing the return, and to describe the process, if any, they use to review it. This indicates that the IRS feels it is good governance for boards to be involved in the Form 990 review. While your tax preparer is very knowledgeable about the actual form, they are not as involved in the daily operations of your organization as you are. It’s important that you review the form’s contents as well.

That is probably about as clear as the IRS can be when it comes to guidance.  Makes sense to us.

So here’s the bet:

How many board members actually saw Form 990 let alone reviewed it for accuracy before it was filed?

Before you answer, you may want to know that NAPPS answered YES to Question 11 in Part VI of Form 990 – that board members were provided a copy for its filing.

We’re willing to bet a considerable sum of money because the 2009 filing contains a number of notable errors and misstatements.  We won’t call them lies – the IRS doesn’t respond well when lying is involved.  We do know that Mr. Admin is responsible for making sure the association’s CPA has all the necessary and relevant documents.  We also know, from the IRS brochure, that a tax preparer isn’t as knowledgeable about the workings of the association as the members.

So if the board members did the review they were said to have done, why did they allow the wrong answers to be submitted to the IRS?  Maybe Mr. Admin simply told them; no worries, this is what I do, trust me, everything is in order.  Nope, it never got that far. Our bet is the board never saw it before the filing.

So who is responsible for providing incorrect information to the IRS?  No one we know wants to own up to that type of responsibility especially when your annual take is around $200K or so.

Let’s set that question aside for a moment and look at several items that caught our eye.

Question #6 – Does the organization have members – NO.

This is an interesting answer because by the IRS’s own definition of a member, it appears that NAPPS does have members.  Here is what they have to say:

Line 6. Answer “Yes” if the organization is organized as a stock corporation, a joint-stock company, a partnership, a joint venture, or a limited liability company. Also answer “Yes” if the organization is organized as a non-stock, nonprofit, or not-for-profit corporation or association with members. For purposes of Form 990, Part VI, member means (without regard to what a person, including a corporation or other legal entity, is called in the governing documents) any person who, pursuant to a provision of the organization’s governing documents or applicable state law, has the right to participate in the organization’s governance [emphasis added]

Question #8b – Does the organization document committee meetings? – YES.

Our belief is that committee minutes should be taken but we’ve never seen any.  Committee reports yes but never minutes.  Board members and Mr. Admin know committee minutes aren’t taken.

Question #12b – Does the organization require that officers and directors annually disclose conflicts of interest – YES.

Of course NAPPS answers yes and references the current policy which most members know by now is vague, ineffective, non-enforced and frankly, an embarrassment.  There is nothing in the NAPPS policy that REQUIRES any sort of ANNUAL disclosure.

 

The IRS created Section VI of Form 990 as a best practices guideline for non-profits.  It is our sincere hope that the incoming board of NAPPS will take their fiduciary duties seriously and carefully review IRS filings going forward.  These are not small oversights; they are significant misrepresentations and perhaps even reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of what NAPPS is and how it operates.

Oh, we almost forgot – the responsible part.  Question #15 provides that answer.

 

Link to 2009 Form 990 Filing  -   Several screenshots below.

Expanding the Audience

2012-03-30

Next week, we embark on a broader awareness campaign by messaging agencies, departments and associations who have a business interest in NAPPS.  Several agencies already follow NAPPS Watcher and we thought it appropriate to let others know about this blogs existence.

We’ve been advised that bringing attention to the current state of NAPPS leadership could cause more embarrassment than actual harm.  It’s a situation we’re sensitive to but also understand that should a healthy check and balance system exist in NAPPS, there isn’t much content for us report on.

NAPPS has struggled with transparency for many years.  Several readers have argued that some credit is due and that improvements have been made.  While there is some truth to that, it’s our belief that the membership of NAPPS ultimately decides on acceptable levels of progress and until that time comes, we are doing our part to bring positive change to the association.

Here is a partial list of the agencies we’ll be messaging.  Should you have further suggestions or specific persons that we should be contacting, please email us or post a comment.

 

Federal Trade Commission

Bureau of Consumer Protection

Julie Bush, Senior Staff Attorney

 

National Sheriff’s Association

Court Security, Transportation of Prisoners and Civil Process Committee

Sheriff John Zaruba, DuPage Co., IL

 

American Bar Association

Science & Technology Law Section

Ellen J. Flannery, Section Delegate

 

New York Department of Consumer Affair

DCA Licensing Center

Alvin Liu, Esq, Senior Attorney, Legal Division

Censorship – NAPPS Style

2012-03-24

Last week, we published a piece about a ‘private’  admonishment letter the NAPPS board sent to Jeff Karotkin.  Imagine, the National Association of Professional Process Servers telling a dues paying member they can’t utter any derogatory remarks about any member of the board or matter affecting the process service profession with regard to NAPPS activities.  Didn’t you know NAPPS is infallible?  Thin skinned we say – very thinned skin.

That’s the ironic part though because we’ve always envisioned process servers as a rough and tumble set who bootstrap themselves in the pursuit of a sometimes dangerous mission.  Lot’s of American flags, eagles,trucks, pride…  All good stuff so what’s up with this sensitivity.  And that is the core question readers should keep asking themselves.  The more you ask why, the more you begin to recognize that something is not right in NAPPS land.

Jeff K. claims that NAPPS’s attempt to silence him was because he asked questions about pending federal legislation that would have benefited most NAPPS members but at the expense of a few.  Like one of Mr. Admin’s companies.  Someone in NAPPS wasn’t interested in publicizing the potential impact this bill could have had on NAPPS members so discussion never happened.

NAPPS has a history of this practice.  In 2009, New York state member Bruce Lazarus received this cease and desist letter from then board member Fred Blum.  Now anyone who has been around NAPPS for anytime knows that Bruce does tend to speak his mind and even did a stint or two in a leadership position trying to do good.  He has been known to piss people off.

So what nerve did Bruce hit to warrant a smack down?  Perhaps it was a matter in the public domain that Fred B. wanted to keep quiet because of an embarrassment factor. Probably.  But again, this is what makes the whole NAPPS angle interesting.  If it was a personal matter that didn’t relate directly to NAPPS, why did Fred B. involve the board?  Not only did he involve the board, he took the unusual step of thanking the board for their support.

I appreciate the support I have received from the Board.  Fred Blum 2009

There is a pattern and a culture of censorship in the leadership ranks of NAPPS.  Speak out and you will be punished.  Step out of line and we will remind you of your place.

It’s these types of issues we keep coming back to.  All by itself, NAPPS continues to provide content to the NAPPS Watcher over and over again.  It’s why we are forcing the transparency issue – it’s why we keep asking questions.  And when we do, there really is never a good answer – never.  And it troubles us.

For Fun

2012-03-22
tags:

The future of process serving is an important topic and one can even make the stretch and say NAPPS has some duty in this regard.  We have our own opinions as to what NAPPS should be or not be working on but we keep those to ourselves; they are outside the scope of this blog’s stated purpose.

That said, we offer a bit of fun complements of Wired Magazine.  In its latest issue, Wired posted the results of a contest it ran about predicting the future of process serving.

You can see the results here.

 

Coming Apart

2012-03-16

Signs are emerging that people are beginning to pay attention to what the net effect of censorship is doing to NAPPS.  For several months now, we’ve been asking if anyone else found it terribly unsettling that the National Association of Profession Process Servers wraps itself in the due process flag of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution all the while systematically retaliating against its own members and covering up indiscretions of those who yield power.  The answer appears to be yes and it could be the undoing of NAPPS.

The association’s own administrator stated publicly that free speech has no place in NAPPS; that the First Amendment doesn’t apply to members.  The association’s board of directors, by lack of action, in essence condones Mr. Admin’s position.  What’s left?  Is this what NAPPS is reduced to?   The lemming membership waiting to be told what to think next…

But not everyone is remaining silent and thus is the problem for NAPPS.  Outsiders are beginning to show active interest while  the membership slowly wakes up understanding this is still America, that free speech is alive and well.

This blog is an example.  Serve-Now is an example.  Service of Process Looking Forward is an example.  Many of the proposed bylaw amendments are examples, specifically those that speak directly to the issue of free speech.  Mr. Perez and Mr. Estin are paying attention and speaking out in their own way.  The partisan debates within the board of directors are an example…

It seems to us that those who speak out care.  In fact, it can be said that they care passionately.  But here is an example of what can happen when you do.

It’s the ‘private’ (there’s that word again) reprimand letter Jeff Karotkin received from the board in 2010 with Mr. Tamaroff and Mr. Admin leading the charge.

To help you understand the context of that letter, what follows below is an excerpt from a recent Process Serving Looking Forward Facebook exchange between Jeff K. and another NAPPS member (name redacted).  Right or wrong, who can deny Jeff’s passion for wanting a better association.

NAPPS has a problem.  It exerts so many resources attempting to control the message that it is failing its duty to the membership.  Utterly.  Ironically, NAPPS has no one to blame but itself.

=======================

BEGIN MESSAGE EXCERPT

======================

I am going to get a little self righteous (OK a lot self righteous) here so deal with it or don’t. If you do not want to hear it, please don’t read any further.

“Here is the deal (name redacted) if NAPPS were actually as effective at monitoring legislation, informing its membership and otherwise giving them a forum and right to express their opinions freely and without the threat of retribution this forum and others like it would not even need to exist. That is not my opinion, it is an absolute FACT!

No one in NAPPS has been as proactive as me when it comes to challenging NAPPS to evolve. No one has written more articles and offered more informative content and important information impacting our industry than me in the last decade. I put my money, time, passion, blood sweat and tears into my cause. My CAUSE is to provide process servers and related litigation support professional with a forum to discuss, debate and otherwise share information about the challenges facing the process serving profession. My CAUSE is to leave this industry better than I found it.

(name redacted) who told you about legislation impacting Nevada process servers last year? I did. Who told Virginia process server about legislation impacting them last year? I did. Who told NAPPS about the Federal Trade Commission hearings about Sewer Service, I did. I could give another ten I did’s, the point is if the NAPPS and the people running it were so effective I would not have to be doing what I am doing.

NAPPS should be doing what I am doing, but it refuses to embrace change, it refuse to allow its members to have a meaningful discussion about topic important to the future of the industry especially if that discussion or your questions challenge the status-quo. The administrators own words two newsletters ago were:

“Too often we have had members who have spewed derogatory comments regarding another member or the Association and then defend their conduct by claiming a right of “free speech.” However, there is no First Amendment argument to the violation of our Code of Ethics. NAPPS is not a governmental entity bound by the First Amendment.”

So if you dare to make a statement that they deem derogatory, you too risk a grievance like mine and like the one filed against now ex-member Jeff Bannister.

Here is an actual language issued to me in a written reprimand:

“Therefore, the Board directs you to immediately cease and desist in making any derogatory remarks pertaining to any member of the Board of Directors, or to the Association, in any way whatsoever. There should be no derogatory remarks made by you with regard to what an individual board member of the Association may or may not be doing with any new or ongoing rules, regulations or any other matter affecting the process service profession with regard to NAPPS activities. The Board further advises that a violation of its direction, as noted above, may result in a more severe sanction taken against you.”

You might have to read that twice because it is a real gem. It says among other offensive things that if they do not like what I am saying even if it is true they can kick me out.

What did I do to deserve this Reprimand? I dared to question the then president Paul Tamaroff on the handling of United States Senate Bill 1606. I asked publicly why he chose to ignore it and not report on it to the membership; a bill that could have had a significant impact on the industry.

That is all I did. But I touched a nerve, a sensitive nerve. So the then president, set out to put me in my place and have me kicked out. It took him and his cronies’ two executive sessions to ambush me and still he failed and he is lawyer.

(name redacted) I too want to believe in Santa Clause and Unicorns but I am informed and I base my opinions on results and facts. The fact is I expect far more from my association than you do because I know firsthand just how dysfunctional NAPPS has been and continues to be. That does not mean I am going to give up on it, I am not, I am pushing as hard and as fast as I can to fix it.

Unfortunately I am not allowed to exercise my cause within the NAPPS structure. So here I am just one guy who gives a crap and is no longer afraid of what others think. My cause is not about people as you put it (name redacted) , it is Truth, Honestly and Transparency! I guess that makes some uncomfortable.

(name redacted) I suggest you get off your high horse and stop treating people on this group like we are scum because we dare to ask questions that you don’t like.

====================

END MESSAGE EXCERPT

====================

Yellon Sues NYT For $50 Million (and loses)

2012-03-15

Best defense is a good offense

When researching the Yellon story, we heard several times that Mr. Yellon had responded with a lawsuit naming the reporter and the NYT as defendants. Turns out stories are true.  Mr. Yellon quickly sued the paper (May 1999) for libel to the tune of $50,000,000.

Can’t say we blame him for reacting the way he did but you’d think he would have done his homework before taking on a publishing powerhouse.  Guess emotions got ahead of logic and common sense.  Either that or Mr. Yellon truly believes he did nothing wrong – that he was a victim.

The NYT answered and then won a motion for summary judgement dismissing Mr. Yellon’s claim.  Mr. Yellon appealed and lost that fight too, ultimately stipulating that he would go away and pay a bit of money to do so.

Copies of certain documents are available below.  Of particular interest is the courts ruling that the public had an interest in his (Mr. Yellon) qualifications and performance, and it may, arguably, be said that he acted as a public official.’

And perhaps that is the correct standard process servers and notaries should aspire to and be held accountable for.

Partial Case File – Yellon v. NYT  (pdf 1.4MB)

That Didn’t Take Long (and misc)

2012-03-12

NAPPS Watcher understands that a certain staff member from the NYC Dept of Consumer Affairs (legal dept) is attempting to track down the facebook exchange referenced in our post last week, Mr. Yellon and His Spots.  From our perspective, what’s done is done but government agencies are a funny breed – they tend to have very long memories.

======================================================================

That said, it’s time to refocus on Mr. Admin and his expenses.  This week, we’ll do a deep dive on his contract, his expenses and his reporting.  Just like Mr. Roth’s accounting though, it never adds up right.  You would think for $189K+/yr, the guy would have a working calculator.

======================================================================

The proposed Bylaw amendments are out and boy-oh-boy, are they a sight to behold!  Mr. Estin may be retired (rumor?) but you wouldn’t know it from reading his proposals; they are as strong and prescient as his work those many years ago in the Brown Palace Hotel.  Founding father for a reason say we.

Comments about proposed amendments can be made on the Conference page.  We’ll begin work on parsing through the items to help educate readers who may not have time to get through them all.

From the looks of it, this conference is going to be a roll-up the sleeves bruiser.  NAPPS Watcher remains hopeful that with several fundamental changes, the association can emerge with a framework in place that puts it back on a proper trajectory.

 

 

 

 

Mr. Yellon and His Spots

2012-03-08

Last week, a reader posed a question in response to a piece we did on disclosure, specifically the challenge the association faces in structuring a governance framework that allows fair and proper disclosure to be conducted when an individual decides to run for office.  The question was asked, “Is that in our policies or bylaws?”  The answer is no, there is no such requirement when running for office.

It’s been proven that absence of such a policy in NAPPS is harmful to the association and for candidates.  Several elections come to mind that prove this point but perhaps our disclosure argument is best illustrated by Mr. Yellon, the current NAPPS president.  For those who follow the facebook group,Service of Process Looking Forward, you’ll know that Mr. Yellon was quite active over the weekend taking questions and putting forth answers about the recently enacted regulations governing process servers in New York.

We respect the fact that Mr. Yellon takes a public position on such issues and is willing to take a hit now and then.  But if you take a step back and examine his words, the message is the same – look what we (NYSPPSA) did for you – look at what NAPPS did you for.  Sure, it’s a good story with some truth to it.  What Mr. Yellon conveniently leaves out however, is his role in how New York got where it is today.  And it’s quite a story.

A New York Times reporter named Bruce Lambert ran an article dated April 4, 1999 entitled, What Happens if Process Server Doesn’t Serve?’   Mr. Yellon is figured prominently in the article which goes into detail of how he systematically engaged in sewer service while falsifying affidavits and notary signatures.  The article goes on to say that criminal charges were brought with Mr. Yellon ultimately pleading guilty.

Testimony during hearing

Later in June 2000, the Public Safety Committee of the Suffolk County Legislature held a series of meetings to discuss citizen complaints of sewer service related to Mr. Yellon and his agency.  The chairman referred to the NYT article and in those hearings, the consensus from the committee seemed to be that legislation was needed to reign in bad process serving actors.  It took another 10 years for the regulators to finally catch up to these errant and illegal practices; what’s that saying about the wheels of justice.

Testimony during hearing

Fast forward to today.  Mr. Yellon is clearly a subject matter expert on the new regulations regarding service in NYC.  Ever since the New York situation exploded on the scene, the message process servers have consistently heard is that the problem was caused by a single rogue process server, who by the way, wasn’t a NAPPS member (i.e, it’s not us, it’s the other guys).  We know this is patently false; several agencies, many process servers and thousands of cases have come under regulatory and legal review because of sewer service and robo-signing. Now everyone knows what Mr. Yellon has known all along, that the problem of sewer service and fraudulent affidavits is systemic and has been for at least 15 years.  Mr. Yellon, as the article states, was simply ahead of his time.  So why such the big surprise when New York regulators decided to finally do something about the problem.  Based on the testimony given in 2000, New York process servers shouldn’t be surprised at all; instead they should pay homage to Mr. Yellon for all that he has done to save them.  He says as much in his facebook posts this weekend and maybe that is why his state association amended its bylaws allowing him to serve a 3rd term as president.

Readers can judge for themselves how difficult winning leadership positions would have been for Mr. Yellon if this stuff was known.  With the problem in New York peaking and NYSPPSA needing funding, Larry provided the answer.  A win-win deal and no one can argue with his success in bringing home the bacon.  NAPPS is into the deal for at least $100K.  Mr. Yellow touts this ‘victory’ (notice the terms he uses; ‘we won’ ‘they capitulated’) every opportunity he gets and that works well for him and it works out well for NAPPS.  Process servers everywhere – you need us – you should be thanking us for what we did for you.

Mr. Yellon would like you to believe, as would NAPPS, that this was a national fight. Everyone knows that, right?  That is why NAPPS chipped in the $100K.  Well, perhaps not – what if it really wasn’t?  In a close reading of the facebook postings (and referenced materials) this weekend, there appears to be an open and valid question that Mr. Yellon never was able to adequately answer nor offer any specific proof that backs up his statements.  Yet, Mr. Yellon himself is on the record stating non-NY agencies would have been impacted if NAPPS didn’t come to the rescue allowing him to justify the significant funding requests.  He is staid in his defense of that specific question but as NAPPS Watcher digs deeper, it appears Mr. Yellon has begun to back away from an absolute.  He now says things like,

“At the original onset of the draconian laws on NYC, it was the intent of the City of New York to create a law that affected every process serving agency in all 50 states.”

When asked for proof of this intent over the weekend, the response is a bristling, ‘you must be joking’.  Things like, I was there and you weren’t.  Everybody knows this was the case.  Open your eyes.  He repeats that answer again and again but as we all know, just because something is repeated a thousand times, it doesn’t necessarily make it true.  Perhaps NAPPS has this proof, some draft document perhaps?  Certainly it would need to see something in writing before doling out all that money.

Also consider for a moment, that competition in New York City appears to have been greatly diminished.  Mr. Yellon’s words last weekend; As an aside, last Monday, February 27 2012 there were 1800 licensed process servers in New York City. Yesterday, there were 497.”  How convenient is that?  Where is the NAPPS PR piece that says how they’ve helped those displaced servers?  Guess what small and solo shops; NAPPS used your dues money to screw you over – how’s that for a membership benefit?

That brings us to…what did NAPPS members really get for their money?  If you’re outside of New York or a small shop inside, you probably got didley.  In addition, you never even got a vote or say in the matter.  Jeff B. was your voice – your vote and he was ousted.  And again, Mr. Yellon was right in the thick of it, enabling and condoning the process.  He reneged on Eric V. heading up the investigation, allowed Jack L. to step in as stooge #2, all the while perched on his dais overseeing the kangaroo court.

Beware the message Mr. Yellon beckons with.  He is a charming, charismatic personality.  Looking back at the New York Times piece, it’s fair to say Mr. Yellon has arrived; he’s made the miraculous transformation from the shithouse to the penthouse.  And while it wouldn’t be fair to solely judge Mr. Yellon today on his past, we’ve come to believe that like a leopard, Mr. Yellon isn’t able to change his spots.

New York Times Article

June 20th 2000 Hearing

August 1st 2000 Hearing