Originally Posted By: gromicko This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
ASHI attacks NACHI again.
The American Society of Home Inspectors (ASHI) recently went back to court and filed an Action In Equity (C.C.P. Chester County No. 03-03932) seeking an injunction which would bar defendants (NACHI and Nick Gromicko, individually) from having any direct contact (via the internet or otherwise) for any purpose with its own NACHI members who happen to also belong to ASHI.
A court hearing is scheduled for next Monday, July 28th. If ASHI is successful NACHI and Nick Gromicko would no longer be able to communicate with NACHI members who also belong to ASHI. Nick could not even RSVP dinner by telephone to his own NACHI Chapter heads as many also belong to ASHI. It would also prevent ASHI members from receiving inspection work from NACHI's numerous lead-generating web-sites.
ASHI's barrage of legal attacks reveal their worries about the growing success of the NACHI's Real Estate Referral Network and their scheme to prevent their own inspectors from enjoying the financial rewards that NACHI delivers.
NACHI is represented by Jim Munnis of Carosella and Ferry, Attorneys at Law.
Originally Posted By: jmyers This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Nick,
I would love to say that I am surprised but nothing they do would surprise me. Even after all the legislative crap that is hitting the fan, the SH** just does not ever seem to come to an end.
I do tend to agree with you that they are worried over losing more of their membership. I for one am very curious how many of those inspectors that have joined both will rejoin, and which ones will the rejoin which association. I think the answer is obvious but we will just have to wait and see if time agrees with us.
Originally Posted By: Nick Gromicko This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
That pesky little first ammedment is driving ASHI nuts. Truth and the freedom to speak it is a hell of a weapon. It makes this country great. That is why we have no moderator on this board…censorship is unAmerican.
I'll stack the truth up against their personal attacks anytime.
Nick
PS Breaking news: Attorney Jim Munnis has just informed me that they filed yet another law suit against NACHI. I haven't read it yet. They use 2 law firms per suit against us. At least we all know where their membership dues go.
Originally Posted By: gbeaumont This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Hi Nick, it’s so reasuring to know where their members money goes, I would hate to think that they were doing anything positive with it for the benefit of their members, or heaven forbid the industry at large
Originally Posted By: jmyers This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Nick,
I do believe there is a law which would hold them accountable for filling too many frivilous lawsuits. If they are going to continue on this route I would certainly look into making them financially accountable for their trouble! 
Glad to hear the court had the wisdom to see there was no merit to this claim. I wish them continued wisdom in the suits to follow.
Now all of us know they are losers, shame they had to prove it to everyone!
Originally Posted By: Nick Gromicko This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Thanks Peter:
You're right. We got their members on the run...running right to NACHI to join. I'm happy to see they're finally getting something in return for their annual dues http://www.nachi.org/benefits.htm
Joe:
I think in England, the loser of a lawsuit pays all legal costs, but maybe Gerry knows. American rule (each side pays its own way) is different. There is a Rule 11, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This law lets federal (not PA) judges sanction lawyers and clients who file and pursue lawsuits in unreasonable ways. It used to be that you had to show bad faith, not just unreasonableness (it is easier to show someone is unreasonable than it is to show they were acting in bad faith). Sanction is the term for getting your expenses back in a lawsuit from the other side. I don't think Pennsylvania adopted Rule 11. A former attorney of mine once told me he could ask for 3 times legal costs if the suit was frivolous but I don't know, I have never heard of a defendant getting their legal fees paid by a frivolous plaintiff (in PA).
Anyway, ASHI's suits aren't frivolous...they're just dumb. Its like they never read the first amendment. Aside from freedom of speech, the first amendment prohibits government from compelling us to join a particular association (ASHI)...thats the free to assemble part (NACHI)... and we are actually "assembling" and "associating" here on this message board as we speak...or should I say type.
Enjoy your freedoms and fight (2nd amendment) all that try to take them from you. Better dead than red.
Originally Posted By: gbeaumont This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Hi Nick,
Yes your correct about English jurisprudence, In most civil suits the costs are born by the loser, unless the court feels that some blame for the litigation rest with the winner (ie they had not tried hard enough to reach settlement without recourse to law).
It is a shame that that is not the law in Pa as that would certainly curtail some of these frivolous suits.
Originally Posted By: jfarsetta This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Nick,
With the quantity of lawsuits that ASHI is filing, and the costs associated with defending yourself and NACHI each time this happens, surely you can prove ,or at the very least allege, that ASHI is violating your rights and causing financial hardship. If they were the AGs office, you'd have one hell of a malicious prosecution case ready for launch.
Although each suit is weighed on its own merits,,,, there must surely be some precedent or legal standing within PA offering some recourse or satisfaction every time they drag us into court. Although Endland's judicial system provides for the loser to pay both sides legal expenses, there may be some parallel allowanced for individuals or organizations who are unfairly targeted by another organization or individual (s)
Perhaps it's time to bring the feds into this. Sounds like intimidation to me. ORGANIZED intimidation, using member dues to file and litigae these lawsuits.. Classic David versus Goliath. The RICO statute may be your best defense. This sounds like classic racketeering to me. Intimidation, protection, restraint of trade, attempted civil rights violations. RICO is a pretty damn good fit. And, I suspect that it wouldn't be a very hard sell to convince a federal prosecutor to move forward. They may need a little help connecting the dots, but the dots are still there...
Originally Posted By: jmyers This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Joe H.
While it has been years since I actually needed an attorney, I do remember them stating something along the line of filing a suit in criminal court, not civil court. It has something to do with them filing frivolous lawsuits and causing financial hardship. I don't remember exactly what the criminal behavior was but at that time it could be done.
It makes perfectly good sense to me since they are filing so many frivolous lawsuits that those behaviors should be considered harassing and financially burdensome. 
Check with your attorney again, lets make sure that is correct.
