Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

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.

Posted

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.

Posted

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?

Posted

"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?

Posted

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.

Posted

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?

  • 4 weeks later...
Posted

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.

Posted

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?

Posted

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?

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...