Check out this dude. He runs a fake "University" yet has the nerve to make a YT video about legislation

That’s what I thought this thread was going to be about when I read the title.


I don’t know either, but if they’re not affiliated then one stole the others logo.

Screenshot 2024-05-10 at 12.45.30 PM

1 Like

That’s what I was thinking too

The CMI designation is qualified and defined. It is transparent to the public. If you think the bar is set too low for the title CMI, then that argument could be made across the board—notably CPI. Does completing a few online classes accurately describe a Certified Professional Inspector? Then, there is the CCPIA membership and what is inferred there. Is it all a scam?

You, me, and 1’000’s of other inspectors have met the same qualifications. I receive the packet with the $1,000.00 check in it regularly. All I have to do is send in the other $1,500.00 and I can use the designation. Yet I have never had to show actual proof of how many inspections that I have performed or shown that I abide by the toughest Code of Ethics. Have I? Yes, but how do I prove that. There is no knowledge-based test to be considered a Master. I had to log my hours and continuously study to take and pass a test before I received my Master’s Mechanical License. Nick wants to argue about the use of the term University but has no problem with the term Master.

The number of places that we can pay to be a “trusted” or “preferred” inspector is never ending. I get calls and emails all the time to be on some brokers preferred inspectors list. I can pay to be on numerous websites. That is my point in all of this.

1 Like


CMI is a designation for experienced inspectors. Yep, an inspector can lie or cheat, which is unfortunate, and probably should not be an inspector.

Nick defends his hard work that puts him/NACHI at the top. I suspect NACHI being an “approved college” in many states is part of that.

1 Like

It’s always possible, but we gather outside evidence of each applicant’s experience. If you ever hear an inspector saying something like “I have never had to show actual proof of how many inspections that I have performed,” you’re listening to someone who doesn’t understand that the evidence we gather is more reliable than what the applicant provides (for over-obvious reasons) and also doesn’t understand that what we demand of each applicant is different depending on what we already know. We have access to lots of indications of experience independent of what each applicant provides. Furthermore, the more we know about the applicant from these sources (length of time at InterNACHI, state license history, insurance data, Buy Back program data, course transcripts, even attendance, online inspection agreement use, etc.), the less evidence we require the applicant to provide. And the reverse is also true. There is a recent FB thread of an applicant complaining that the MICB made him get Spectora to release his entire report generation history to us because we just couldn’t find anything about him independently. It was like he didn’t exist. So we had to do a lot more investigative work (we drove him nuts) before we would award him his CMI®, which he was entitled to. Remember, we don’t need to figure out exactly how many inspections and CE hours the applicant completed (that would be almost impossible). We only need to know that the applicant surpassed the 1,000 requirement (which is a fairly simple thing for us to confirm in most cases).


I didn’t write the state statutes that restrict the use of the word “University” or the federal Trademark laws that restrict the use of the word “Master” inside our industry. Write your Congressman, I guess.

I just thought it was funny that this guy literally embroidered evidence of his crime onto a shirt and then wore the shirt in a video where he complains about a proposed statute… as if he’s a guy that gives a damn about laws. LOL.


I was curious about Indiana so I did an AI search. This is what I got:

In Indiana, the use of certain words in a company name, such as “university,” “college,” or “institution,” may be restricted or require additional approval. According to the Indiana Business Corporation Law, a corporate name must not contain language stating or implying that the corporation is organized for a purpose other than that permitted by its articles of incorporation1. This typically means that if a company is not an educational institution, it may not be allowed to use these terms without proper authorization.

As for other states, there are 29 states where non-accredited institutions face significant barriers, including restrictions on using terms like “university” or “college” in their names. These states include Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming


Neither link says anything about Indiana restricting the use if the word “university”.

The company name is a registered with the State of Indiana:

1 Like

And in Florida……


Here it is:

And I added Indiana to Reminder to Home Inspector Schools About the Use of the Terms "College" and "University" - InterNACHI® for you.

And this from the same Indiana statute:

1 Like

That isn’t a restriction, it’s a definition for the purposes of the state’s higher education system. If you’re concerned, file a complaint with the state attorney general’s office. If I’m wrong, then the state will shut them down.

Read “Representations” section I posted for Indiana. It starts with “Sec. 16. A person may not do the following:”

He reminds me of a funny video that I saw a few years back. This thug robbed someone of a bunch of cash and a ROLEX watch. That night, he posted a video of himself with all the cash while wearing the watch. LOL

1 Like

It’s not me that you need to convince Nick….

IC 21-18.5-6-22.5
Deceptive acts
Sec. 22.5. A person who knowingly and intentionally violates section 16 or 22 of this chapter commits a deceptive act that is actionable by the attorney general under IC 24-5-0.5 and is subject to the penalties and remedies available to the attorney general under IC 24-5-0.5.


Correct. Not my job. The government regulates the use of the word, not me. State AG’s job.

I have my own headaches trying explaining to one of our insureds that they agreed not to make false claims as a condition of enjoying their E&O insurance coverage, and that if he didn’t attend a university, he shouldn’t claim that he did. The ding dong actually posted a certificate of completion on his website issued by this fake university.

I share your frustrations Nick, especially when I see my competitor continually violating my states Code of Ethics by indirectly compensating realtors(they post the “evidence” on Facebook). This is the same competitor that has a video on this forum that runs a scheme that violates the COE. The same company that states that ALL of their inspectors are InterNACHI members but are not. It also drives me crazy to see other competitors using copyrighted certification logos on their websites when they don’t pay to play.

1 Like

I think Nick is just stirring the pot considering Jon is teaching a class at the Convention. lol

1 Like