Thread: Question of Texas Home inspectors

I have a TREC (Texas Real Estate Commission) specific question. I inspected a foreclosure about 2 months ago. The buyers backed out of the house for reasons unrelated to the house itself. I was contacted yesterday by another potential buyer who wanted to know if I could sell him my inspection from two months ago. I guess he thinks it will be less expensive than getting another full blown inspection. My question: What are the TREC rules if any about me removing the name of the original client and selling him a no-name copy of the report, with an attached statement that this inspection was done 2 months ago. Any gotcha's in there for me ?

I have not comitted anything to this 2nd buyer, he just asked me so I am reflecting on his question.

Thanks

Gene

Similar Threads:

• Without any guidelines for inspectors, how do you know your home ... - Nashua Telegra
• Critics say NH lags on regulating home inspectors - Foster's Daily Democrat
• Regulate builders, inspectors of houses - Nashua Telegraph (subscription)
• Regulate builders,inspectors of houses - Nashua Telegraph (subscription)
• Saving Money With Home Inspectors

Gene,

Would not go there or even think about such. It is opening up so many ethical concerns it is not even funny.

Makes no difference if original client backed out of deal. That inspection was good and that time and date of that inspection.

You know that once you leave a property, following an inspection, things can change.

Not sure how a new client would even know that you inspected the property before to begin with.

I've inspected the same property 3 times over the course of 3-4 months. Different clients, but all NEW inspections and a NEW report for the new clients.

I did not tell them that I've been at the site before and inspected for another client. That information is between me and each respective client.

Again ... not sure how the new client knew you have even been there before, but it may have been via your close brokerage relationship and someone saying something they should not have said.

Keep your hands on top of the table and do a new inspection with the proper fee for the new client.

Originally Posted by Gene South

My question: What are the TREC rules if any about me removing the name of the original client and selling him a no-name copy of the report, with an attached statement that this inspection was done 2 months ago. Any gotcha's in there for me ?
Thanks

Gene

Gene ... that sounds like something a less than ethical RE-Agent would do.

Hey Nolan, yes, you are right of course. Thanks for the advice.

I'm sure TREC would string you up and hang you from the nearest oak if they caught you doing such a thing.

rick

Hi Rick, yes, I agree. I was just asking the question about the TREC guidelines. I wasn't planning on doing it because it did not feel right.

About a year ago I was asked the same question and declined then also.

Thanks

Gene

Gene,

I am with Nolan. Do the inspection again and charge for it. You do not know what happened to that property after you inspected it.

I once inspected the same property six times. With a new report each time. I knew things would change after the inspection and was not such if any repairs had been done or not. I charged my inspection fee each time and went happily to the bank.

Tom

I, and I think many others have wording in our inspection agreement contracts that the inspection is for sole exclusive use of the client and that the report is only to be used and relied on by the original client.

It is a nightmare to get a call a few months after the initial inspection from an unknown buyer who wants to ask questions about your inspection, even though he didn't pay you a penny, or is complaining that you missed something. Of course, your buyer may have backed out, but that should only make the report 'dead'. The relationship that you built with your buyer and the care that you took on his inspection is never appreciated by someone who is hoping to save money and not get an inspection..... and who you've never met!

Originally Posted by Gene South

I inspected a foreclosure about 2 months ago. The buyers backed out of the house for reasons unrelated to the house itself. I was contacted yesterday by another potential buyer who wanted to know if I could sell him my inspection from two months ago. Gene

Gene: Let me preface my remarks. I am an inspector/engineer for 40 years with a law degree. I offer education to inspectors from a legal aspect as time permits.

Generally, here is what you will face in court. Background: The Law views you as a "Servant" to the "Master" (your client). These terms come from ancient common law but are still in effect today. You have what is called a "fiduciary" duty to your "master". That is 1) a duty of care 2) a duty of loyalty and 3) a duty of obedience (all under the law). Ok so far?

The duty of loyalty means that you cannot make personal profit off the back of your "master" i.e. client.

If you sell this new "client" your "master's" report, you have breached your fiduciary duty of loyalty to the original client. You have stolen the "master's property". That is, your original client, NOT YOU own the property i.e. the report.

In such case, your original client may "disgorge" (legal term) you of all profits you make plus damages and possibly punitive damages like own your house.

Here is how you might want to handle the situation. You have in your mind, information concerning the original inspection. What is in your mind is your property, not the original client's information. He/she owns the report, not your mind. OK?

You must redo the inspection but you can offer the new client a discount based on your general information concerning the property. Works out for you and and the new client.

Vince

When posed with the following question a while back:

Does a Texas home inspector have any fiduciary responsibilities to their clients? It is, of course, clear that real estate brokers and agents do have such fiduciary responsibility and that is clearly defined in the Occupations Code and the Real Estate Act. On the other hand, while several of the aspects of a fiduciary responsibility are discussed in the Inspectors section of the Occupation Code and TREC Rules, there does not seem to be the same level of definition in those sections.

1. Does a Texas home inspector have true fiduciary duties or responsibilities to their clients?
2. Is that opinion backed up by law, rule or case law?

TREC replied with:

No, an inspector is not a fiduciary.

Assistant General Counsel
Texas Real Estate Commission

So, there you have it....seemingly opposing opinions.

Originally Posted by Mike Boyett

When posed with the following question a while back:
TREC replied with:

So, there you have it....seemingly opposing opinions.

State soverignty under the Constitution permits each state to enact laws that differ from other states. For instance, PA does not require motorcycle helmut use, the adjacent state of NY does.

I prefaced my initial reponse with the disclaimer that I am not familiar with Texas requirements. Apparently, Texas statutory law says you have no duty of care or loyalty to your client (fiduciary duty) but a real estate agent does? Without benefit of the statutory lanquage, something seems amiss. Generally, you must act in your profession pursuant to statutory requirements. Read the rules and be a good soldier.

Vince

Originally Posted by Vincent Haller Smith

State soverignty under the Constitution permits each state to enact laws that differ from other states. For instance, PA does not require motorcycle helmut use, the adjacent state of NY does.

I prefaced my initial reponse with the disclaimer that I am not familiar with Texas requirements. Apparently, Texas statutory law says you have no duty of care or loyalty to your client (fiduciary duty) but a real estate agent does? Without benefit of the statutory lanquage, something seems amiss. Generally, you must act in your profession pursuant to statutory requirements. Read the rules and be a good soldier.

Vince

As a person who was not born but was pretty much raised in TX and has adopted it as his home state; I learned that TX has many legal quarks. Most date back to when the Republic was formed. Not unlike Australia, Texas was settled by a diverse group of individuals who found the the long arm of the law could not touch them in Texas.

[quote=Scott Patterson;143754]I learned that TX has many legal quarks.

Thanks Scott: Many states, not just Texas, has legal quirks.Your point is well taken.

Originally Posted by Scott Patterson

As a person who was not born but was pretty much raised in TX and has adopted it as his home state; I learned that TX has many legal quarks. Most date back to when the Republic was formed. Not unlike Australia, Texas was settled by a diverse group of individuals who found the the long arm of the law could not touch them in Texas.

This is why I tell my clients including the client today that I inspect for no one (even though the TREC says I do) including any agent, seller or buyer. I inspect a home like I were buying it. The client just buys the list of concerns of the property. That is the way it should be throughout the country. I inspect for no one but sell the concerns to the person that is thinking of buying the home. This way no one can have influence over my findings in that particular home. In essence I am getting permission from a party that is selling the home to inspect the home. I am not inspecting my clients home or future home but a sellers home that the client in contemplating buying. They have not given their hand shake to buy the home. They have not yet decided to buy it. They are thinking of buying it and depending on the findings and what they may be able to negotiate they may or may not buy it.

Okay, I'm not a TEXAS Home Inspector, and I'm not an Attorney licensed to practice law in Texas, but I'd have concerns about what you propose. I would recommend if you wanted to explore further you consider sending in a letter to TREC for review, or consult with a private attorney familiar with the statutes and adminstrative rules, civil law, and criminal law in Texas.

Standards of Practice (Section 535.227-535.233 of the Rules are the minimum standards for inspections by TREC-licensed inspectors.

I would say that might be a falsified, forgery or adulterated inspection report, based on a "conversion" or "taking", theft, etc. of the first client's paid for "inspection" and resulting "report" wherein by Texas rules the client for whom the inspection was performed must be named/identified in the required to be produced by rule, inspection "report" itself. They (client #1) paid "quantum merit" for the "inspection" service and therefore the legally required (in texas) to be produced, resulting "report". The second proposed client did not, and its two months later, first client hasn't been mentioned, as having been consulted, providing permission for the dissemination or USE, and hasn't been offered any consideration for the USE/conversion of the service (time, and resulting report information) THEY bought and paid for.

If this proposed adulterated/bootleg/doctored edited (different client named/inserted into first client's report) second, unrelated client report was not contemporaneously produced and was not based upon an inspection having been performed and paid for by client #2, {it as I understand your proposed scenario, is resulting from a specific inspection having already been paid for on behalf of a different client (client #1), and performed and reported on behalf of client #1 at that time.} Same property, no new inspection, second specifiic named client and based upon a stale INSPECTION on behalf of another, not this second distinctly separate and unique client, it might be considered to be a fraudulent or deceptive practice (not just by TREC but by civil law - contracts, trade, and criminal statutes).

I believe you will find those aspects well covered under consumer, trade, practices, and the criminal statutes and the "rules" sections pertaining to standards of practice for texas home inspectors regulated by TREC.

The standards include a definition of the term "Report", the "Report" is to be completed as per rules 535.222-223, must perform each inspection to the minimum levels prescribed by the standards, or the inspector must follow the "Departure Provisions".and this doesn't meet that criteria, as an existing single family home, not under construction, and real estate transaction.

It would appear the language of Rule 535.222 is very precise.

(Title 22, Part 23, Chapter 535, Subchapter R or the Texas Administrative Code)

535.222 Inspection Reports
http://info.sos.state.tx.us/pls/pub/readtac$ext.TacPage?sl=R&app=9&p_dir=&p_rloc=&p_tl oc=&p_ploc=&pg=1&p_tac=&ti=22&pt=23&ch=535&rl=222

Originally Posted by 535.222

(a) For each inspection, the inspector shall:

(1) prepare a written inspection report noting observed deficiencies and other items required to be reported; and

(2) deliver the report within a reasonable period of time to the person for whom the inspection was performed.

(b) The inspection report shall include:

(1) the name and license number of the responsible inspector;

(2) the name and license number of the apprentice or real estate inspector, and the signature of the inspector's sponsoring professional inspector, if applicable;

(3) the address or other unique description of the property on each page of the report; and

(4) the client's name

Source Note: The provisions of this §535.222 adopted to be effective February 1, 2009, 33 TexReg 9240

And would prohibit the practice you proposed in your question.
and does not meet the expemption provisions of Rule 535.223 (6) (A) which excepts re-inspections of a property performed for the SAME CLIENT, not re-issuances of the same inspection report for subsequent clients, nor re-generating inspection reports produced and based upon inspections for a different client in the name of an unrelated party.

535.227 (6) & (8) define "Inspect" and "Report" as pertaining to the rules and Standards of Practice. They are co-dependant as to existing single family to four family residences and real estate transactions not under construction, not on behalf of a builder/contractor.

Then there is Rule 535.220. (quite lengthy so I'll just note especially applicable sub paragraphs and make a few comments).


See:

535.220(a);

535.220(b)(1) .protect first client, how can one legitimately promote best interest of second client with illegitimate use/conversion of first client's inspection and therefore use/conversion of first client's report? Especially if not consultation, permission given, and no consideration (payment) to first client for the use? If indeed there was meritorious value of the first inspection and report thereof, and you are seeking to SELL to second client - at a profit over the actual printing/copying of the report itself, then since that time and effort was contractually obviously already reasonably priced (you agreed to performance for whatever you already charged first client), you no longer "own" the report, or the time, fruits, workproduct of the first client's inspection - first client has already paid you your agreed upon price for that service;

535.220(b)(3),If there is no "inspection" for the new client there can be no legitimate "report" for the client;

535.220(c)(1);

Very importantly as to the DUTY due, even if not a "fiduciary" on behalf of client #2, (haven't seen citation or the GC letter):

525.220(c)(3) The inspector accepts the DUTY of protecting the public against fraud, misrepresentation or unethical practices in the field of real estate inspections (There can be no inspection "report" for client two without an inspection for client two, a separate and distinct one for each individual client of each individual property);

525.220(e)(4) An inspector shall not receive a fee or other valuable consideration, directly or indirectly for referring services that are not settlement services or other products to the inspector's client without the client's consent.;

525.220(e)(5) The section does not prohibit an inspector from paying or receiving a fee or other valuable consideration, such as to or from a contractor, for services actually rendered. (in your proposed scenario, there was or would have been no services actually rendered to client number 2, as there was no inspection performed FOR client 2);

Most especially and importantly:

525.220(e)(7) Inspectors shall not disclose inspection results or client information without prior approval from the client (this would be client #1) Inspectors, at their discretion, may disclose observed immediate safety hazards to occupants exposed to such hazards when feasible. The "rules" and TREC cannot control the (unauthorized) re-distributions by others to whom client #1 may have intitially authorized sharing of their original report (such as the seller/owner), or shared that report with, but it DOES control YOUR activities and release of that information/knowledge to other parties (your proposed client #2) without client #1's consent. The inspection "report" must name the Client (client #1) for whom the "inspection" service was performed (this was and is still client #1). Unless and until you perform a separate ("each" from first quote and citation on this post above) "inspection" for client #2, there can be no report on this property for client #2 with client #2's name on it. Backdating a report for client #2 with client #2's name on it but date of original "inspection" for client #1, may be not only a problem with the TREC authority, but other "legal" issues. Dating such a report current date, but basing on OLD inspection for another - again, a potential "problem", I don't see a legitimate way to do so.

I do believe this has been asked and answered of General Counsel and/or board/comittee positions before, in some manner, I do not recall how the response was phrased. It does appear obvious from the "SOP" that the practice would be verbotten based on what I quickly referenced above.

The inspection and report for client #1 was performed, paid for and produced at the behest of client #1. The inspection report is workproduct paid for by client #1. Conversion to client #2 and creation of a "report" for and in the name of client #2 without having performed a ("each") inspection for client #2 IMHO would be a serious 'problem" with TREC, could be a serious problem, civil courts with client #1, and possibly a criminal problem (client #1 victim, also possibly client #2 as a victim or as an accomplice/ receipt fo stolen/converted "property" and or benefactor of "services" or co-conspirator). Then there is the question of how the "doctored" report is delivered, forwarded to others, etc. U.S. mail, wire transmission, internet, common carrier, and if it travels over state lines.

Seems the above MIGHT be of issue, throwing it out there for your consideration and for the attorney contributing to chew on (so to speak).

[quote=H.G. Watson, Sr.;143797]Okay, I'm not a TEXAS Home Inspector, and I'm not an Attorney licensed to practice law in Texas, but I'd have concerns about what you propose.

Mr. Watson,

You raise some interesting points. So, let's see if we can break this down a bit. I proposed "...If you sell this new client your master's report, you have breached...." I additionally stated "what is in your mind is your property, not the original client's information."

The key words are "property" as opposed to "information". OK so far? Now, lets review your post. I assume the statute you posted is true and correct.

You and 535.220(b)(1) says "protect first client". This is the fiduciary duty of loyalty that I referred to previously. So, we do agree that the inspector may NOT sell client #1's report to client #2 as per the rule (breach of duty). The remaining rules are repetitive and beyond this discussion.

Next, you and the statute use the terms "conversion". You use the term quantum merit. The latin term is spelled quantum meruit which in English is translated "unjust enrichment" which is a cause of action under the law. This legal phrase means that you can be sued and "disgorged" of any profit you UNJUSTLY earned by selling a report to client#2 for which you did no work i.e. unjustly enriched.

The term "conversion" as used in the statute you mention means that you have taken "dominion and control" over anothers property. This is a tort (civil) action, not a criminal offense. For instance, you borrow your neighbors lawn mower with her permission and decide not to give it back - this is converting her property to your use. You have purchased that property under the law and can be sued for the value of the mower. In our case, you can be sued for the value of the client #1's report. O.K. so far?

Now, to the kicker which you have failed to understand and that is OK, most people would not understand. Client #1's report is their property. If you sell that report you have CONVERTED that property for your own use i.e. dominion and control. If you sell that report to client #2, you are in breach of your fiduciary duty to that client. You have made another few hundred bucks and not taken a step out of the office. You have been unjustly enriched and may be sued under a Quantum meruit action. OK so far. Think we agree.

HOWEVER, WHAT IS IN YOUR MIND IS YOUR KNOWLEDGE AND DOES NOT BELONG TO CLIENT #1, #2, #3 OR #4. Remember, I said you can sell the new report to client #2 at a discount. Why? When you inspect the same property for client#2 you go to the property and notice the size of the basement has not changed. You have the measurements in your head or on field notes so you do not have to physically measure and so on. This is called INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY which belongs to you. Client#2 is issued a new and separate report - you got lucky because you happened to do this property for another client and have knowledge of that property. Therefore, if you are honest, you would offer client#2 a discount on your INTELLECTUAL KNOWLEDGE of the property in question. This is purely ethical and honest.

[quote=H.G. Watson, Sr.;143797]

I do believe this has been asked and answered of General Counsel and/or board/comittee positions before, in some manner, I do not recall how the response was phrased. It does appear obvious from the "SOP" that the practice would be verbotten based on what I quickly referenced above.

The inspection and report for client #1 was performed, paid for and produced at the behest of client #1. The inspection report is workproduct paid for by client #1. Conversion to client #2 and creation of a "report" for and in the name of client #2 without having performed a ("each") inspection for client #2 IMHO would be a serious 'problem" with TREC, could be a serious problem, civil courts with client #1, and possibly a criminal problem (client #1 victim, also possibly client #2 as a victim or as an accomplice/ receipt fo stolen/converted "property" and or benefactor of "services" or co-conspirator). Then there is the question of how the "doctored" report is delivered, forwarded to others, etc. U.S. mail, wire transmission, internet, common carrier, and if it travels over state lines.

Seems the above MIGHT be of issue, throwing it out there for your consideration and for the attorney contributing to chew on (so to speak).

Dear Mr. Watson: I assume you are a first or second year law student gone fishin. Yes, the inspection was produced for and is the first client's property. You use the term "work product" You have apparently not taken Civil Procedure yet - two different animals my friend. You have apparently taken criminal law and verbotently use the term "Accomplice" - WRONG, WRONG.

Leave the world of law school for a moment and enter the real world. I propose a hypotheses to you. Anwer it in the IRAC method please. Remember, it is the analysis that will get you points, not the conclusion. I will take off points for circular conclusionary analysis.

Inspector has in his head the measurments of building "A" performed for Client X. Inspector proceeds to inspect Building A for client Y. Inspector has on record the building measures 24' by 36'. Would you be dumb enough to measure that same building again? Measure again for client Z for client M and client O and client T? Would the judge expect you to? Would the judge consider you dishonest or in breach if you did not measure?. There is theory, then there is the real world. As you progress through law school, you will blend the two.

[quote=Vincent Haller Smith;143882][quote=H.G. Watson, Sr.;143797]

Dear Mr. Watson:

If you would like to debate the law and legal theory, I would be pleased to accomodate you. Email me personally rather than take up time on this forum. You do raise some interesting points.

I used the term "Blend". That is blend theory with everyday real life. So should it be "People who reside in crystaline edifices should refrain from hurling geological specimens" OR should it be "People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones"? THINK ABOUT IT.

Originally Posted by Vincent Haller Smith

...which you have failed to understand ...

...INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY...

... Therefore, if you are honest, you would offer client#2 a discount on your INTELLECTUAL KNOWLEDGE of the property in question. This is purely ethical and honest.

This is funny. I haven't failed to understand anything. You make many assumptions. The suggestion that any HI in Texas must offer a discount because they have previously inspected a property, or that to fail to do so is in some way less-than-ethical or honest is nothing more than insulting and unworthy of a response, especially to one "claiming" to be an attorney, an engineer, or a home inspector.

Reference the enlarged, bolded, colored and underlined quoted section above: THAT IS SO VERY "WRONG" ON SO MANY LEVELS. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if most evey TX HI who reads your comment hasn't already chosen to ignore you, but most HIs in general who might have read that comment. (Although I suspect few, if any, have or will actually read through your last three posts).

Originally Posted by Vincent Haller Smith

Dear Mr. Watson: I assume you are a first or second year law student gone fishin. Yes, the inspection was produced for and is the first client's property. You use the term "work product" You have apparently not taken Civil Procedure yet - two different animals my friend. You have apparently taken criminal law and verbotently use the term "Accomplice" - WRONG, WRONG.

Leave the world of law school for a moment and enter the real world. I propose a hypotheses to you. Anwer it in the IRAC method please. Remember, it is the analysis that will get you points, not the conclusion. I will take off points for circular conclusionary analysis.

Inspector has in his head the measurments of building "A" performed for Client X. Inspector proceeds to inspect Building A for client Y. Inspector has on record the building measures 24' by 36'. Would you be dumb enough to measure that same building again? Measure again for client Z for client M and client O and client T? Would the judge expect you to? Would the judge consider you dishonest or in breach if you did not measure?. There is theory, then there is the real world. As you progress through law school, you will blend the two.

You make many wild assumptions, mischaracterizations of what was said and what was not said, and it is you who fail to read, understand, digest, etc. You carry on about measurements - you suggest that during a texas home inspection, a texas home inspector would and should perform in a sub-standard, or less-than-complete home inspection because he has performed an inspection previously on the property at another time for a different client? You seem to be advocating less-than dillegent performance even with your non-applicable "measurement" containing examples.

How dare you nit-pick a typo (missing "u" in meruit), "Mr. Smith" your own posts are littered with formatting, spelling errors/typos, etc. ("anwer"). Your own disjointed writing style, carrying on with common law theory, etc. you presume to mischaracterize what I did and did not say. My post was not solely directed to YOUR commentary, was ON TOPIC to the Original Post. The OP referred to TREC and Texas home inspectors/inspections.

IRAC...points...WHO THE HECK DO YOU THINK YOU ARE?
You were not the addressee of my post, I WILL NOT be dictated to, YOU ARE NOT "the boss" of me, you are neither my mentor, my advisor, my professor, my judge, my audience, or my master. Frankly from your own demonstrated misrepresentations/mischaracterizations, petty remarks, insulting, rude, off-topic, defamatory, and disruptive, commentaries on the instant "string" as well as your own demonstrated mixed metaphores, circular logic, flawed arguments, and exagerated ego, importance, you have SOME NERVE dictating, demanding how and where someone ELSE participates on this forum, let alone off-board.

Originally Posted by Vincent Haller Smith

Dear Mr. Watson:

If you would like to debate the law and legal theory, I would be pleased to accomodate you. Email me personally rather than take up time on this forum. You do raise some interesting points.

I used the term "Blend". That is blend theory with everyday real life. So should it be "People who reside in crystaline edifices should refrain from hurling geological specimens" OR should it be "People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones"? THINK ABOUT IT.

Where did you use the term "blend"? "used" is past tense - where was "blend" used? Oh, I see in the immediate vomiting three posts you just made, the concluding assumptions, insults, stupendous assignations you were making included the word blend as you fictionalized.

It is YOU who seemingly are engaging in a one-sided "debate" regarding "legal theory" on this forum and topic string, and had just went on to demand format and participation format and limits upon others than yourself. AGAIN, WHO DO YOU THINK YOU ARE?

You then go on to make reference to glass houses and stones...MAN are you DEBATING/RESPONDING TO YOUR SELF? Those last three posts were YOURS. YOU addressed them to ME. Talk about the iron "pot" calling the "skillet" "black"! My preceeding post was adressed to the TOPIC STRING, not personally and solely to YOU.

Someone claimed to be quoting a communication from an UNNAMED "Assistant" General Counsel for TREC. Well, since General Counsel and Deputy General Counsel are posts at TREC, filled by different persons over the years, non-of-which have been found to have NEVER contradicted statute, rules, etc. in correspondance, "opinions" etc. but no link, citation, reference, OR DATE was given by the party who posted/attributed such remarks, I doubt as represented.

I cited THREE references wherein DUTY and PROTECT regarding general public and client appear in the TAC regarding Licensed Texas Home Inspection activities. Perhaps Texas Administrative Code has a different, special, unique definition of fiduciary or fiduciary duty or the Occupations Code may, or perhaps some particular area of statutes, codes, etc. in Texas, even perhaps a reviewed court opinion has been made that defines "fidicuary" differently than your modified reference and "common law" theory.


You are unregarded in any position, condition, standing or capacity to "accomodate" me in any way whatsoever, as demonstrated and evidenced by your participation on the instant topic string.

wow....

Originally Posted by RANDY NICHOLAS

wow....

As inspectors, we stick our necks out with opinions and because of that- we are very vulnerable to attack from others, even though we try to help those whom choose to attack us.

As posters on this forum, we are vulnerable to the public. We have to learn to take the bad with the good. Unfortunately, some folks live in an "isolated world", never having learned the advantage of civilized discussion.

All we can do is feel sorry for them.

Mr. Smith, I appreciate your time and expertise given here.
I for one, find your comments spot on and easily understood, something frequently lacking when discussions of the law are undertaken.
Too bad that some here are threatened and feel they must defend their supposed intellectual standing.
Some I have long had on my ignore list since they contribute little of profit to the discussion and quite regularly descend into name calling and "shouting" to prove themselves.
I mistakenly removed the ignore setting temporarily just to see what the hub-bub was about and see if there was anything of value in their statements. As usual I found the same crass deplorable attitude on display.
The usual suspect will be returned to my ignore list forthwith!

Originally Posted by Jim Luttrall

Mr. Smith, I appreciate your time and expertise given here. The usual suspect will be returned to my ignore list forthwith!

Jim: Thank you for your comments. I suspect this person is a frustrated law student or more likely an inept attorney who is trying to drum up some business. What a shame.

Originally Posted by Vincent Haller Smith

Jim: Thank you for your comments. I suspect this person is a frustrated law student or more likely an inept attorney who is trying to drum up some business. What a shame.

No Sir! And that would be you, along with your unaccredited on-line diploma mill degree claims and "credentials", shameful indeed.

Northwestern California University! Cough, cough, ptooey!

http://www.nwculaw.edu/cgi-bin/nwcu/faq.html#12

Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr.

No Sir! And that would be you, along with your unaccredited on-line diploma mill degree claims and "credentials", shameful indeed.

Northwestern California University! Cough, cough, ptooey!

http://www.nwculaw.edu/cgi-bin/nwcu/faq.html#12

Mr. Watson (do you have a first name?):

In general, the ABA, as a matter of protocal (politics) has refused to approve any distance law school but is now considering entry into the 21st century and the age of the internet as so many other institutions have wisely done over the past 20 years. Abraham Lincoln's law education was earned via correspondence school - he was a brilliant lawyer. Northwestern Cal. has an excellent reputation for graduating attorneys now serving as judges, public defenders and district attorneys. This school is extremely tough and most students flunk out after the first year. Enough said.

Let's make this VERY, VERY CLEAR, I did not attend law school with the intention of practicing law. There are too many attorneys (mechanics) as it is, some driving cabs for a living. I have an existing lucrative business, why would I want to give it up?

Rather, I wanted to add to my professional knowledge. I got burnt a couple of times so I decided to get a legal education and pass that information onto others. I made that clear on this post. Many physicians, educators, stock brokers and engineers are graduates of my school which absolutely requires thousands of hours of legal study and proctored examinations.

Their intention, as mine was to gain a legal education so we may thoroughly understand legal theory, substantive law and legal procedure in the event of a suit. Very practical. I would likely be lousy at representing a party as I am too honest lol. I very clearly stated that I am offering general legal education only. I am up-front. How about you? I have yet to see your verifiable credentials as to an inspector or your legal education. Please advise.

Best my friend. I look forward to relevant discourse as to this forum without personal attack.

Vince

P.S. I think Mr. Watson is attempting to Hack this site. Be careful in opening anything by "Mr. Watson". Just after I posted this PS, his latest message was instantly erased from the site. I have called my friend, an ivestigator who is checking into this persons alleged web site.

Originally Posted by Vincent Haller Smith

P.S. I think Mr. Watson is attempting to Hack this site. Be careful in opening anything by "Mr. Watson". Just after I posted this PS, his latest message was instantly erased from the site. I have called my friend, an ivestigator who is checking into this persons alleged web site.

Absolute fantasy and falsehoods!

Mr. Hannigan has been notified.