"My Engineer on Call" ...

Nah. The$200 kickbacks that you pay](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uu24QHWqtgE) are even too blatantly unethical for even most ethically challenged inspectors to accept.

This discussion is about the compensation (as stated in the contract that participating inspectors sign) they receive from you in the form of “incentives” that you exchange for the private and personal information that was entrusted to them by their clients. I am referring to the contractual agreement that you forbid them to discuss with their clients or to even acknowledge its “existence” and that describes their monthly quotas.

That is much more interesting.

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

He suddenly questions that one of his forms of kickbacks is inconsistent with the code of ethics? LOL.

Why would any one form of compensation be unethical while other forms of compensation are not? Why should he suddenly care? The last time Joe Farsetta gave him a reading on the ethical standards as they applied to his scam … he accused Joe of not providing an “honest” answer.

This is getting better …

At least, for the public who is reading this, there is confirmation by the alarm systems salesman that among various other forms of compensation he is also paying a $200 kickback to certain home inspectors in return for the private and personal information that they sold to him about the home buyers who hired them to do home inspections.

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

It’s laughable that you want Farsetta to weigh in.

When he doesn’t agree with you, you get rather, lets say, irritable.

FYI- I have not now the ESOP to provide pre rulings.

They react to complaints.

**You know like the ones from multiple inspectors that charged you with ethics and message board violations.

The same ones the ESOP determined you did indeed violate.**

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

I don’t think you understand.

But as usual your ineffective denials continue.

I think the only reasonable course of action is to put P. Nathan Thornberry in charge of all things ESOP. He seems to have all the answers. Nick?

When the chairman of the ESOP Committee demanded that the alarm leads broker reveal information about his products and services at the time they were being ethically challenged by home inspectors, their attorneys and their CPAs so that they could be reviewed for compliance with the association’s ethical standards … the alarms lead salesman refused to provide him with any information and, instead, declared information about his products and services as “proprietary” and then threatened the chairman of the ESOP Committee (Joe Farsetta) with frivolous lawsuits for asking the question.

He also threatened the home inspectors who, having consulted with professionals and were advised not to participate, published the advice of their attorneys and CPAs for other inspectors to read with the same frivolous lawsuits. He had an attorney email a threatening letter to each “offending” inspector and demanded that they delete the posts where they warned other inspectors about the advice that their attorneys and CPAs had provided to them.

Now … when he thinks it serves him … he offers to provide a tip of his unethical iceberg for review of its application to the code of ethics and demands an opinion. LOL

Carefully read this question he posed for an ethical review:

By Thornberry’s creative wording of this question … is the home inspector selling private information about his client to Thornberry and receiving a kickback of $200 … or has he worded the question in such a manner that it is the home inspector who is selling the alarm system to his client, himself? Slick, huh?

Remember … he had also stated that his unlicensed engineering services (which the state in which his company operates from has ordered him to cease and desist) was being promoted as “100% compliant” with the same verbal attacks against anyone who suggested otherwise.

Perhaps with his recent concerns about the potential for inspectors participating in his scams as being unethical … he can explain why those who contract with him are prohibited, by contract, from disclosing even the “existence” of their business relationship with him to the home buyer whose personal and private information he is purchasing from their home inspector.

What will he say next? How many inspectors are actually falling for this?

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

Oh how I would love to know what Nathan’s current blood pressure is. :wink:

Since you asked …

In my opinion … home inspectors who enter into secret agreements with you (that they are prohibited from disclosing to their clients) to sell their clients’ personal information to you … in exchange for any compensation … is unethical. Slipping clauses into their inspection agreements that allow you to bypass “no call” lists while continuing to conceal from their clients that they are selling you personal information that they have been entrusted with is unconscionable. Inspectors who are doing this should be stripped of their membership from this … and every other … professional association.

It is also my opinion … that home inspectors who betray the trust of their clients in this manner who work in states that license them … should have their licenses revoked. (Perhaps the fact this type of activity violates the law in certain states is why you forbid home inspectors who contract with you from revealing the “existence” of their contract with you).

Now … in that you have the founder of NACHI’s photograph promoting you on every one of your posts that contain lies and misrepresentations about the conduct of your alarm lead harvesting activities … it is likely that he would continue to ignore the same ethics committee that has already found you guilty of multiple ethical violations stemming from complaints sent to them from all across the United States. I think you have found safe haven, here … but it does not make what you do right or ethical, in my opinion.

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

NACHI no longer has an enforceable ethics code.

Nick has made sure of that. :frowning:

You’re safe here Nathan.
Carry on with your brilliant marketing strategy where the world gets to hear over and over your lies, denials and obfuscations.

Brilliant, just brilliant.

Once again … you continue to craft your question as if it is the home inspector who is “offering alarm systems”. It is not. It is youafter the home inspector has sold you personal information about his client … who is offering the alarm systems to his clients. Like you said … you buy the lead from him to beat your competitors to his client who rely upon public information.

Once again … when a home inspector accepts compensation from you in any form and in return for the private information that his client has entrusted to him, fails to disclose his contractual relationship with you to his client, slips language into his contract that allows you to bypass a “no call” list that the client may have enrolled in … that inspector has, in my opinion, acted unethically.

ASHI’s code of ethics, according to president of the Mid Atlantic Chapter of ASHI, has published the same.

Your twists and spins mean nothing.

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

Hey Jack Daniels,
Are you selling private information that belongs to your client to an alarms lead broker (being compensated with “incentives”) and concealing from your client your agreement to be compensated by the broker, after including in your contract certain language that does not identify the broker or any specific company but, instead, simply obtains their permission to receive telephone contact that the broker can use to bypass a “no call” list?

What are your thoughts about the people who supply the leads to brokers so that they can dothis?:p:p

Inspectors are not offering your alarm systems … nor are you offering them on an “inspectors behalf”.

To the contrary, your contractual relationship with the inspector forbids that he disclose to anyone the very “existence” of his relationship with you. The spin you are attempting to place on this by your carefully worded questions is intentionally misleading.

When an inspector sells his clients’ personal information to you, honors his commitment to you by concealing his compensation from you for providing his clients’ personal information, inserts language into his agreement with his client that allows you to bypass “no call” regulations that his client may be participating in … that inspector has violated several state laws and every conceivable ethical standard and deserves to be stripped of his membership and have his license (where applicable) revoked.

Of course, you - on the other hand - can simply find a new source of fresh meat, as you well know.

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

Lies about me coming from this kid are, in fact, complimentary.

None of his personal attacks have anything to do with the fact that he has solicited members of NACHI to participate in his unlicensed business activity regarding the purchase and resale of engineering services, that he contracts them to meet quotas to provide private information about their clients for his alarm lead sales scam in exchange for compensation, that he arranges for them to insert language into their inspection agreements that allows him to bypass “no call” lists and that he forces them, by contract, to conceal their business arrangement with him from the client that they are betraying by selling their private information to him.

It is illegal, in some states, and unethical everywhere, for home inspectors to enter into these agreements and betray their clients confidence in this manner, no matter how he may try to spin it.

So many lies in 3 short lines.

Keep it up kid.

If your shovel wares out, we’ll send you a new one if no other reason to see you continue to bury yourself the rest of the way.