kurt Posted July 19, 2015 Report Share Posted July 19, 2015 I wonder how membership will feel about being dragged into this. Download Attachment: HomeSafe v InterNACHI a.pdf 749.2 KB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghentjr Posted July 19, 2015 Report Share Posted July 19, 2015 The members probably won't be directly involved. The money if any will come from the NACHO coffers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurt Posted July 19, 2015 Author Report Share Posted July 19, 2015 Read all of it again, particularly Facts #8 & #11. What's it really mean? That's what courts do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garry Sorrells Posted July 19, 2015 Report Share Posted July 19, 2015 The members probably won't be directly involved. The money if any will come from the NACHO coffers. And where does the money in the coffers come from???? Kinda like saying the government will pay for something. Can guarantee the Founder will not be affected by anything that happens, he will just raise the costs to belong and maintain his income flow. An since he controls everything who is to stop him. In general the membership will follow like sheep. Only option is to vote with feet and leave association and that is unlikely. It seems that it may be more of a religion than an association where the leader can do no wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghentjr Posted July 19, 2015 Report Share Posted July 19, 2015 I should have been more clear. Nacho will have to pay out of either its operating budget or the dictators pockets. The members will then have the choice to re-up or not. I think Nacho made a huge mistake in getting into this area from the getgo. No good can ever come of trying to give folks things they aren't entitled to or paid for especially when you can get sued, and telling them its ok. As to the language in the agreement lawyers always like to write that way. 8 says they made a deal. 11 says Nacho did not keep its end of the bargain and will pay some amount. (at least that's what I get out of it) The facts seem to be well documented. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garry Sorrells Posted July 19, 2015 Report Share Posted July 19, 2015 I should have been more clear. Nacho will have to pay out of either its operating budget or the dictators pockets. The members will then have the choice to re-up or not. ............................................... And where was that money generated and who will be replacing it in the grand scheme. Just like the Fed, State and Local Gov. If someone sues the fed gov and win who pays? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc Posted July 19, 2015 Report Share Posted July 19, 2015 You want to know where the pits are in this profession, look to HomeSafe and all who consort with them. Marc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurt Posted July 19, 2015 Author Report Share Posted July 19, 2015 "Dragged" was not succinct. What Homesafe does have is a nice list of everyone using IR that provides the road map for future harassment. So, maybe pinpointed or named. And, the money that theoretically goes to Homesafe has to come out of a budget somewhere, probably the same budget that provides all those "benefits" one joins Nacho for, and the same budget that Nick uses for the seemingly substantial amount of litigation he's constantly either threatening or engaging in. Maybe it's all a speed bump in the Nacho trajectory to......where the heck is it going, anyway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Les Posted July 19, 2015 Report Share Posted July 19, 2015 Kurt makes a good point, that Nick has provided HomeSafe with some really good data. I think this is very important and as inspectors, we really should review our individual positions re infrared work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chad Fabry Posted July 20, 2015 Report Share Posted July 20, 2015 It sure makes it hard to know who to root for. Asshole 1, or Asshole 2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurt Posted July 20, 2015 Author Report Share Posted July 20, 2015 [:-eyebrow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garry Sorrells Posted July 20, 2015 Report Share Posted July 20, 2015 Kurt makes a good point, that Nick has provided HomeSafe with some really good data. I think this is very important and as inspectors, we really should review our individual positions re infrared work. Makes me wounder if Inacki states in the applications that they will be sharing your information with others, specifically Homesafe? Or is passing information on members signed away some where else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nolan Kienitz Posted July 22, 2015 Report Share Posted July 22, 2015 Here is a link to the Lafayette County - Mississippi - Court Cases. Documents have a fee attached if so inclined. Court Cases - Lafayette County - Mississippi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nolan Kienitz Posted August 18, 2015 Report Share Posted August 18, 2015 INachi / Nick Gromicko now have two counter-suits: Download Attachment: InterNACHI-sues-HomeSafe-and-Kevin-Seddon.pdf 844.91 KB Download Attachment: InterNACHI-motion-to-pierce-HomeSafe-coporate-veil.pdf 69.24 KB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc Posted August 18, 2015 Report Share Posted August 18, 2015 If we're lucky, the two will spend themselves out of existence trying to topple each other. Now wouldn't that be grand? Marc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurt Posted August 18, 2015 Author Report Share Posted August 18, 2015 I think they've found the perfect relationship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Meiland Posted August 18, 2015 Report Share Posted August 18, 2015 "Defendant affirmatively pleads the equitable defense of unclean hands" Sounds interesting... might have to google that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurt Posted August 18, 2015 Author Report Share Posted August 18, 2015 I just did.... The clean hands doctrine is a rule of law that someone bringing a lawsuit or motion and asking the court for equitable relief must be innocent of wrongdoing or unfair conduct relating to the subject matter of his/her claim. It is an affirmative defense that the defendant may claim the plaintiff has "unclean hands". However, this defense may not be used to put in issue conduct of the plaintiff unrelated to plaintiff's claim. Therefore, plaintiff's unrelated corrupt actions and general immoral character would be irrelevant. The defendant must show that plaintiff misled the defendant or has done something wrong regarding the matter under consideration. The wrongful conduct may be of a legal or moral nature, as long as it relates to the matter in issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurt Posted August 18, 2015 Author Report Share Posted August 18, 2015 Been reading thru these... Maybe Nick will figure this out for everyone, only in a different way that previous. First, he wanted in on the action. Now, he appears to be saying there's no action. Has anyone heard Nick change positions before? Does he do that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Katen Posted August 18, 2015 Report Share Posted August 18, 2015 I just did.... The clean hands doctrine is a rule of law that someone bringing a lawsuit or motion and asking the court for equitable relief must be innocent of wrongdoing or unfair conduct relating to the subject matter of his/her claim. It is an affirmative defense that the defendant may claim the plaintiff has "unclean hands". However, this defense may not be used to put in issue conduct of the plaintiff unrelated to plaintiff's claim. Therefore, plaintiff's unrelated corrupt actions and general immoral character would be irrelevant. The defendant must show that plaintiff misled the defendant or has done something wrong regarding the matter under consideration. The wrongful conduct may be of a legal or moral nature, as long as it relates to the matter in issue. How on earth could a court figure that out until after the trial is over? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurt Posted August 18, 2015 Author Report Share Posted August 18, 2015 Sometimes they don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BADAIR Posted August 19, 2015 Report Share Posted August 19, 2015 oops Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now