For the record. I contacted my attorney and requested the case number for the Califonia Superior Court, in Los Angeles, so that I could give it to Joe Ferry. However, my attorney’s “case-closed” documents are in storage. Of course, he remembers me and wants to assist me in this indeavor, which is a matter of public record. Regardless, he requested the case name, which I couldn’t remember, and we’re both still looking, so to speak. Rest assured, I won’t let this drop until Joe Ferry has the information he requested.
Keith,
I was going to try to help you search for it but apparently they charge $4.75 per search to do it by name. Here’s a link to the court’s site http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/civilCaseSummary/index.asp?CaseType=Civil
Thanks so much. Off to asn inspection, this morning. Will track the info later today, and the info to Joe, and end this thread with a “moral-to-the-story.”
Thanks to the diligent effort of John St. George, who was scheduled to be my expert witness if this case had gone to trial, and who I regard as being preeminent among inspectors and among the wisest of legal counsels, I now have information on this case for Joe Ferry. It is Los Angeles Superior Court case BC248740, Ralph Williams vs Simon, dated June 13th 2002. Regardless, it dissappointed me to have my honesty questioned publically on the NACHI message board, but I managed to appreciate the irony that it was questioned by an attorney and not an inspector. Perhaps that’s Joe Ferry’s job, or perhaps that’s in his nature. I take my faith from Mark Twain, who said: “I can lie, but I won’t.” Regardless, let’s see what moral inspectors can draw from this sad tale. I didn’t tell the whole story, and here’s a detail that I omitted in the interests of brevity. At the request of the plaintiff’s wife, I returned to the property long after the inspection to look at some cracks that were developing, cracks that we were both aware had not been there when I completed my inspection. I told her in no uncertain terms exactly what the cracks indicated, structural movement, and that she should expect them to get worse. However, I can sincerely report that she showed no interest in blaming me for this unhappy state of affairs. Significantly, her attorney was equally aware of the pristine condition of the house when I did my inspection, and of my innocence as an inspector. And yet, knowing that I had deep-pockets, he chose to name me, proving that he put the pursuit of money above the pursuit of truth and justice. That makes him no different than a criminal in my eyes. In short, the case was perfectly legal extortion. Is it really any wonder that attorneys are almost universally despised? I yearn for a judicial system that I can repect, and not one that is so easily corrupted. Take care, there are blue-collar terrorists among us.
Don’t forget the white-collar terrorists, like those at Enron, Woldcom, etc. And we must not forget the governmental terrorists, like King George II.
Agreed. I grow old, I grow old, but is King George 11 still among us? God save the Queen.
:shock:Come on Russel. George Bush - “Terrorist” On what planet?:mad:
You did state recently that you were a Republican. That doesn’t mean blind allegiance, but “terrorist”
Maybe you should take this discussion to the not for everyone area.
Not “terrorist.” Please don’t edit my messages for me. 
“Governmental terrorist” was the term I used. Big Brother is here, and he’s watching your phone calls, your bank account, your library card, etc. It’s going to get worse before it gets better. Of course, my own personal opinion is that World War III is here; it’s just in a different form than WWI and WWII.
Let’s remember what this thread was all about, and forget about politics, which most of us would agree is but a fleeting image of what it could be. I’m voting for ending the thread, unless Joe Ferry feels it necessary to have the last word, which I’ll gladly grant him.
No editing intended Russel, but your inference was unclear to me at least. By the way I don’t consider government tracking of bank records of those suspected of actual terroristic plots to be of concern. The NYT may have the right to publish what the government tracks but the leaker didn’t have the right to spill the classified beans. With recent revelations its somewhat easy to make the case that the tools are working. I don’t like giving up any freedoms anymore than you do, but this is a very unconventional war. It may well be WWIII and at this point the outcome is less than certain.
Good inspectors, and bad inspectors, right?
I’m a bad inspector. I’ll punish myself by withholding the Scotch, the Everclear, the Lone Star beer, and all the other things that I don’t drink, as well as the marijuana, cigarettes, cigars, and all the other things that I don’t smoke. Man, I’m being hard on me, aren’t I? :twisted:
Either do I. I wish that’s all they were doing, but I suspect we’ll never know the truth because there’s just waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much secrecy under this King, although such secrecy is in keeping with historical precedents under monarchies.
For the information of any interested party, I am now in possession of the case, case summary, and disposition. The case was actually filed and date-stamped April 16, 2001.
Keith,
Sorry to here the news.I had a doctor try to start up with me on an area of damage I listed in her condo she was buying.She later said a painter had found a crack in the brick at a corner of the garage and ran up to some baywindows that were heavly deteriorated at 4 yrs old.Exterior framed/Plywood siding.She contacted me and wanted my issurance would pay for the damage that was there all along.This was not the case the painter tearing the board used the space between the brick veneer wall to use as leverage and caused the damage.THEIR OUT THERE BEWARE!
Long live the King!!!
I think I saw him on Aisle 14 doing the Jailhouse Rock.
Some national politicians should join our local San Diego politicians (cunningham et al.) doing the Jailhouse Rock!
I went to the LA County site and got the following docket:
“BERMAN LEE JAY - Mediator
COX CAROLE J. - Defendant/X-Defend/X-Compl
FREDGANT PERRY R. LAW OFFICES OF - Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner
KIRTLAND & PACKARD - Attorney for Defendant/Respondent
KRISHEL DANIEL L. ESQ. - Attorney for Defendant/Respondent
LA CHANCE JAMES T. ESQ - Attorney for Defendant/Respondent
LAJOLLA LAW GROUP - Attorney for Deft/Respnt
PANOREX REALTY INC. - Defendant/Respondent
PARAMOUNT PROPERTIES - Defendant/X-Defend/X-Compl
RALPH ADRIENNE - Plaintiff/Petitioner
RALPH WILLIAM - Plaintiff/Petitioner
SHARP KENT L. - Attorney for Defendant/Respondent
SIMON JEFFREY D. - Defendant/Respondent
SPILE & SIEGAL - Attorney for Deft/X-Deft/X-Comp
SWIFT INSPECTIONS - Defendant/Respondent
SWIFT KEITH - Defendant/Respondent”
That’s a hell of a lot of parties. In Keith’s original post, he made it sound like he was the only party singled out in this litigation by a completely unmeritorious plaintiff - ‘terrorist’ I believe was his word. I count seven attorneys in this confusing docket.
I expressed considerable initial skepticism that the case could possibly have gone down in the manner that Keith had suggested, to wit, an aggrieved client against a lone innocent home inspector who had been fraudulently deceived by a nefarious home owner, who had gotten off scot-free.
Turns out that Keith is the last person named in this litigation. In other words, six other defendants were named before Keith, including the primarily responsible home owner who had affirmatively concealed massive defects in the property.
Keith blames his insurer for ‘rolling over’ and paying to get out of this case. I guarantee that the ‘roll over’ payment was very nominal in the context of the overall settlement in this case and completely justifiable from a business standpoint. Nuisance value, at best.
The story does point out the considerable exposure that HIs - and their insurers - face in the home inspection milieu. Multiple parties + big damages = increased likelihood of being involved in litigation. If you’re innocent, the best policy is to get out as cheaply as possible.
Joe Say’s "
Kieth blames his insurer for rolling over and paying to get out of this case. I guarantee that the roll over payment was very nominal in the context of the overall settlement in this case and completely justifiable from a business standpoint. Nuisance value, at best."
I feel this is wrong and if the insurance companies made a stand and won.
I do not know what the law is but I do have common sense if they one they should be able to get there cost Plus Plus
and this would soon put a stop to these type of stupid law suits .
The inspector looses big time the only ones who seem to win are the lawyers.
This is not proper the way I see it and can only lead to more lawyers and more cost in the end to John Q public.
Roy Cooke Sr
The insurance company would absolutely have won had it taken a stance but it would have been a Pyrrhic victory. How many Pyrrhic victories are you willing to pay premiums for?
If insurers took every case to trial, premiums would be unaffordable. I would bet that the insurer paid very little to get out of this case.
My in red above .I feel this is what should happen do you mean common sense does is not the law in The USA. If that is the way it is I think it stinks .
This always comes back to John Q public paying more and more for less and less .
Roy Cooke sr .