Reported Post by canderson5

As for sanctions that people are clamoring for:

  1. A violation of the COE used to have consequences.

  2. A conscious decision was made by Nick and Chris to change those consequences.

If, over the years, persons A, B, C and D are penalized for violating XYZ of the COE, fine. When person E makes the same violations, they should receive the same punishment.

The paradigm changed last year. Person E violates XYZ of the COE and no sanction is allotted. If that is the case, then you can’t now take Persons F,G, and H and re-implement the punishment that Persons A,B,C AND D received while at the same time allowing Person E to get away scott free.

Sanctions should be consistent. It is when they are not consistent that there should be complaints.

The entire fault with the system, is that the person charged is not given the charge, not given the evidence brought against them, not given a chance to defend themselves.

Here is The fault with the system. You can’t tell a guy you booted for something you did (I can’t tell you what), you violated a persons ethics (we can’t tell you who), and the evidence is very strong (but we can’t show you it and you can’t defend yourself).

Oooo by the way, don’t do it again and we don’t want to see, hear or know your side of the story.

The lack of knowing who brought the complaint, what was the complaint, when the complaint took place and the right to defend yourself is just unfair.

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

There you go again with those NAMBLA comments Assberry.

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

That’s funny Assberry.

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

Your right Assberry, it’s not funny, it’s hilarious.
Just attribute your NAMBLA comments to Nick.
You’re a little pussboy.

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

LOL.

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

Somehow … in the mind of a lowlife thief, it is a “scam” when people pledge not to do business with him. Go figure.

Using this reasoning, then every member of NACHI also should resign including yourself, since we aren’t supposed to associate with him. If you have a problem with him, then deal with it. Just because I signed a pledge, does not mean I accept anything and everything that other who have signed the pledge say or do. I have condemned his words, just as I condemn the words you use when compare people to being members of NAMBLA.

I have not attacked you or your products. Keep me out of your pissing match.

F uck you needle-dick, I am responsible for no one but myself, please eat s hit & die. :twisted:

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

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

What could it be about this small, meaningless act taken by a small group of people that a dishonest and unethical lead broker could find so threatening?

LOL.

Especially when it’s a group of a bunch of losers who presumably have failed as home inspectors.

Makes you wonder, doesn’t it?

Makes you wonder, doesn’t it? What about the tens of thousands of other inspectors who refuse to get involved with his unethical and illegitimate enterprises and who don’t publicly pledge not to … but simply do it? Are they morons, too?

Home inspectors don’t necessarily have to be stupid or dishonest to do business with this crook … but it sure helps.