PRETEXT GUIDELINES
LEGAL AND ILLEGAL PRETEXTS
Some Important Questions And Answers
By: Steve Levivoff, Ph.D.

I have business cards, stationary, etc. set up under a false name,
insurance company, and phone/fax. Two weeks ago was the first time
I used this alias to get some information from a witness (who, had
he known I was a PI probably would not have spoken with me).

Now today while picking up the check from the lawyer, he got wind
that "someone" from an insurance agency had contacted the manager at
the place where his client had been hurt. He told me that as long
as I get the information, he doesn't care but that I might want to
think about ethics.

QUESTION: Is it unethical to say that I am So and So from XYZ
Insurance and give them a card if I think that they would not give
the same info to a PI?

Nothing personal, but it seems to me that the attorney came up with the
wrong issue, leading you to come up with the wrong question. In other
words, neither we as investigators, nor the attorney who was taking
action on behalf of his client, are involved in philosophical debate as
a profession; though the academic discussion of ethics may be
interesting, it has no impact on whether the client ultimately wins or
whether the investigator ultimately gets the information for which he or
she is paid.

Ergo, the question shouldn't be whether something is ethical, but
whether it's *legal.* Here are a few points to consider:


1. If you are licensed whether under a mandatory licensure statute or a
voluntary licensure option in your geographic area, does your
licensure law or policy have a rule against using "pretext" (the
common term for assuming a false identity)?

Pennsylvania often frowns upon using pretext, so I have chosen to
remain unlicensed. When I operate as an investigator, I do so under
a colleague's license and do not engage in pretext. When I do
"investigative research," I do so as a journalist, and use pretext -
and my handy dandy laser printer - to beat the band.

2. If you are using pretext (a) with an official governmental agency;
(b) to obtain private information, the confidentiality of which is
protected by statute (such as a person's medical records); (c) to
gain information with intent to defraud; or (d) to obtain
information which places you in a position in which you could be
sued for invasion of privacy, what you are doing is very likely
illegal.

3. On the other hand, if you're a good investigator, you should surely
know how to cover your tracks. The law will more likely tolerate
your activities if they expose someone *else's* illegal or unethical
activities. Needless to say, if you're going to assume any role,
you better know your stuff. In other words, if you want to
identify yourself as a priest, there's nothing to prevent you from
doing so providing it's not with intent to defraud - but you better
know some theology so you don't get tripped up. A good investigator
should be able to speak *many* types of jargon. Don't get caught
doing a Jon Lovitz impression (remember his compulsive liar
character?); if you can't pull it off as a natural, don't try to
pull it off at all.

4. Ditto on illegality if you are assuming an identity which involves a
licensure-based field. Even if there is good cause to use pretext,
you should avoid identifying yourself as a physician, attorney,
psychologist, or member of another profession that is regulated by
licensure. (In other words, don't put yourself in a position in
which you can be accused of practicing a profession without a
license.)

5. Be careful of the impact of your pretext if you are going to take
the stand in a case. If you have used pretext in an obvious manner,
the opposing side will try to discredit you on that basis. Needless
to say, if you are going to testify in a case as an investigator,
your credentials better be air-tight.

6. In terms of ethics . . . I expose diploma mills, questionable
credentials, bogus resumes, and fraudulent activities for a living.
(If you're wondering about the investigative tie-in, what I do is
useful to attorneys who are seeking the low-down on expert witnesses
hired by the opposing team. Not only is it fun to discredit many of
them *before* they take the stand, it pays off for the clients.) If
I use pretext to expose someone who is blatantly committing fraud, I
have no ethical problem with that. Moreover, I have never had the
need to use pretext when investigating the governmental end of a
person's credentials.

7. Pretext should be used *only* when you can't obtain information
under truthful means. Very often, you'll find that you don't have
to use pretext at all. Moreover, unless you're good at pulling off
another role, you shouldn't even try. In other words, if you're a
good investigator, you have trained yourself in the fine art of
spotting bullshit. Therefore, you should always assume that there's
someone who's going to be able to spot bullshit on your part.

8. With all that said, the bottom line comes from the great
contemporary philosopher Robin Williams: "Joke 'em if they can't
take a fuck." Providing we don't do anything blatantly illegal, we
get paid for information. That means getting the job done - and
getting the scoop - in the words of Malcolm X, by any means
necessary.

Steve Levivoff, Ph.D.
P O Box 552, Ambler, Pa., 19002-0552
Phone: 610-272=4072. E- Mail: 76624.3766@compuserve.com
Investigative Research and Credentials Verification

RELATED LINKS
World's Best Pretexts Article
Pretext Books

RETURN TO NAIS NEWSLETTER MENU