Terms of Use - IMPORTANT: Please Read!

All visitors to this site are subject to the following Terms of Use:

This website is owned and maintained by Realocracy.  The information found on this site contains both FACTS and OPINIONS.  You are strongly encouraged to independently verify all facts and form your own opinions. The information published on this site is provided as a courtesy only, and does not necessarily express the opinions of Realocracy's owners, officers, employees, agents, etc.  While Realocracy has tried to ensure the information being provided is complete, accurate and reliable, no warranties or guarantees are made to that effect. 

We have also tried to ensure that file downloads offered on this site are free from viruses, but we do not guarantee it.  Be sure that you are using up-to-date virus protection before downloading any files from this site or from any other website.

Although this site contains paid advertisements, Realocracy does not endorse any of the products or services shown on this site.  You are advised to thoroughly investigate any business or individual you find on this site or any other website, prior to transacting business or entering into any agreements.  While this site contains links to other internet sites, these links are not endorsements of any products, services, information, etc. offered on such sites.

Realocracy disclaims any and all liability for comments made by our readers.  Sometimes the truth hurts, and sometimes people just say things that are hurtful.  If you are easily offended, you are not welcome here - so leave now.  Realocracy always reserves the right, in its sole and exclusive discretion, to delete and/or modify any comment as we deem appropriate.  However, we believe in free speech and will generally only censor comments in extreme cases.

Any and all liability for incorrect or incomplete information, defective products or services, offensive materials or comments, electronic viruses, etc. obtained on this site or any of its links is hereby disclaimed by Realocracy, its owners, officers, insurers, employees, agents and the like.

All visitors to this site who make 'comments' are also subject to our "Comment Rules".

 

COMMENT RULES

By making a comment on this site, you agree to these Comment Rules, and to our Terms of Use.

Furthermore, you agree to accept full liability and responsibility for all of your comments, irrevocably releasing and indemnifying Realocracy, its employees, owners, officers, agents, insurers, etc. from any and all claims or causes of action based upon any damages which may result as a consequence of, or relating to any comments you make on this site.  Realocracy, its officers, employees, owners, agents and insurers disclaim any and all liability for all comments.

Your comments should relate to the post you are commenting on.  The content of a comment should NOT focus on your company, product or service.  It is okay to mention what you do or the company you work for in your comment, but IF and ONLY IF it is relevant…don’t stretch it!  Your comment should not be an advertisement.  No comment spamming!

Comment on subjects that you know about.  State information as fact only if you know it is true.  If you aren’t sure of something, say so.  If you are giving an opinion, say so.  If you use information from questionable sources, say so.  Immediately correct any incorrect information you write in your comments, as they become permanent content on the site.

Do NOT plagiarize or steal content.  Always properly cite your sources if you use something that is not completely your own.  Give URL's for any online sources you reference.  Obey and respect copyright and other laws.

It is okay to write informally, but ALWAYS be professional and avoid making comments that might unnecessarily offend others.  Do not unnecessarily attack or badmouth people or businesses.  If you must mention negatives, do not give names of companies or people involved unless it adds necessary or relevant information to your comment.

Be honest.  Disclose any conflicts of interests.

Realocracy, in its sole discretion, reserves the right to edit or remove comments that do not meet our requirements.  Making comments on this site is a privilege, NOT a right!  Realocracy also reserves the right to revoke the comment privileges of any visitor, at any time, for any reason.

Please blog responsibly!

Comments

[Peter J. Leeds]

As the current chair person for the Home Inspector Rules and Standards Committee at the AZ Board of Technical Registration, a voluntary pro bono position, by which I "give back" to my industry, and with my first hand knowlege of the Board Members (also volunteers with Public Welfare as their only motivation, and the Board Staff, I can promise all the readers of this Blog, that the AZ BTR is first class. Don't be swayed by the hateful retoric of this site, likely just sour grapes.

[Shannon]

So Mr. Chair Person, I say again... If you really care about truth and reality, just ask Ronald Dalrymple or Manuel Maltos this SIMPLE question, and let us know the answer:

"Why is the BTR claiming they do not have to follow the steps required under AAC R4-30-120 through R4-30-126 when they are processing certain home inspector complaints?” and please be sure to get the rule or statute number that allows said exemption.

If you can't answer that simple question, all the "hoorays" and "yea team" comments don't really do much for me, especially since they're all coming from people who are connected to the BTR. If 'public welfare' is truly the concern at the BTR, certainly they are concerned about observing a registrant's Constitutional right to due process?

I'll look forward to hearing back from you with an answer from the BTR.

[another dan]

As a home inspector only,with out any legal knowelge, maybe you can help me understand this issue properly.
From my perspective I've seen 2 state employees convicted by 1 named and several unnamed.
You are asking me and others to Ask the people that you felt done you wrong, to admit to me,and them so I, we tell you that info.
I don't know what else you expect from us other than telling you the facts that we are aware of about these two men.
Instead of believing us you determined that we are biased, and question our creditability.
To me this sounds to me this is a major legal concern, that needs to addressed by the legal commuinty, not Home Inspectors that voluniter on state required committees.

Disclosure.
You are claiming to have all kinds of support from unmamed people that sent letters to state legistlators.
Would it not be proper to disclose to those legistlators that you also enlisted the support of an owner of a national HI org, [with an open to the public website] that's been convicted and fined of defrauding the public in his home state 7-8 years ago, and to this date he denys any responsibialty.

Would it not also be proper to disclose that this same person has made it very well know that he and several of his members are out to destroy ASHI, state lic, and will stop at nothing to achieve that?

Would it not be proper to disclose that One of his members, with an open to the public criminal record] publicy stated, on the open to the public chat board, that he will lie and do what ever it takes to win in reguards to state licensing.

Would it no be proper to disclose,to the AZ legistlators, that the owner of the org that you enlisted to help you along with this same member, and a few others in the same HI org have been on a mission to complete that by bashing ASHI or any other non -member of that HI org. in every state that is considering HI licensing.

Would it not also be proper to disclose that the owner of the org that you enlisted to help you, threatned the State a few years ago that he would sue them if they did not comply to his demamds Those demands were to protect one of his members that did not comply with AZ Lic requirents..

Would it not also be proper to disclose that the owner of this same org stated, on an open to the public chat board] that the BTR should be done away with, and inspectors should be reguated by the ROC?

[Shannon]

Dan -
No, it would not be proper to make irrelevant disclosures about things I don't know to be true (and don't care really). I assure you there's no vast conspiracy with Nick... I contacted Nick, and asked him to put a link to this website on NACHI.org. He did. End of story... I don't know Nick personally and I didn't do a background check before I contacted him. Is that why you can't bring yourself to acknowledge there's a problem at the BTR - because you think Nick agrees with me?

I knew this guy who was selling his house because he was going through a divorce. The house was worth about twice what he owed on it, but he only wanted to sell it for exactly what he owed + Realtor commissions. In other words, he didn't want to make any profit because he didn't want his ex-wife to get half of that profit. I remember thinking, 'this guy's dumber than a bag of hammers'. He was willing to hurt himself as long as it hurt his ex-wife too. I think your hate for Nick is very similar to this guy's hate for his ex-wife. You're not even willing to say that it's wrong for the BTR to deny a home inspector due process because you think Nick agrees? That's just crazy.

Even if what you say about Nick's background is true, I'm not sure what it has to do with the price of tea in China. Are you saying it somehow affects my credibilty? Are you alleging I'm somehow guilty of something by association because I asked him to put a link to this website on NACHI.org? That's quite a stretch, isn't it Dan?

You stated that you have "seen 2 state employees convicted by 1 named and several unnamed." First, I personally recommended to many people NOT to use their full names on this website because we've already seen some retaliatory behavior since Scott confronted the BTR - and I fully expect him to see many future BTR complaints as a result of confronting the BTR. And since most everybody at the BTR has probably seen this website, anyone who puts their full name on a negative comment about the BTR might also be a target for unfair treatment. I care about others in my industry and wouldn't want to see that happen to them. I might also add that you are not using your full name either, and did NOT voluntarily disclose who you were until I brought it up.

Second, nobody 'convicted' anybody at the BTR, I'm simply stating the facts. Scott recorded the BTR staff as they violated his rights. So rather than taking a chance on getting caught up in their lies, they didn't deny what happened. They instead claimed they didn't have to follow the steps required by AAC R4-30-120 through R4-30-126... but they won't say why. Would you really buy that? I didn't think so.

Since they don't want to answer the question, they're dancing around it instead. If they had a good answer, they could have just provided it to Scott months ago and it never would have gone here. Scott gave them an opportunity to resolve this quietly, within the BTR but they were too stupid to take it. Apparently, they're pretty confident they can walk all over home inspectors' rights and people like you will come running to their defense rather than questioning their improper behavior.

Although I do think ASHI is in danger of becoming irrelevant, I don't think it's Nick's doing. If anything, he's sitting back drinking a beer and laughing as AZ-ASHI self-destructs because people like you won't deal with reality. Badmouthing Nick doesn't do anything to ensure that home inspectors are treated fairly by the BTR in the future. But asking the BTR to be accountable for violating somebody's right to due process might stop it from happening to the next guy. So let's stick to the facts as you suggested...

Just ask your friends "Mr. D" and "Manny" this SIMPLE question, and let us know the answer:

"Why is the BTR claiming they do not have to follow the steps required under AAC R4-30-120 through R4-30-126 when they are processing certain home inspector complaints?” and please be sure to get the rule or statute number that allows said exemption.

I'll look forward to hearing back from you with an answer from the BTR.

[Shannon]

Comments on this post are being closed in order to direct future comments to the MESSAGE BOARD:

http://www.homeinspectorsarepeopletoo.com/2008/01/message-board-m.html