Claiming $10,000

[phinsperger]

click here for Nick's post




Nick,

If you check the email I sent you on February 20, 2008 7:26 PM you will see that it talks about an issue between ESOP and Roy. You replied back to my email February 21, 2008 12:31 AM which is about 20 hours before you said you knew about. That clearly fulfils your deadline of February 21, 2000 8:15 PM.

So consequently I am taking you up on your offer of $10,000.

I would post a copy of the email that you and I both have but I am not sure if I am one of those people who are allowed to post unauthorized emails or if I am one of those people who will get booted for it.

At any rate, please let me know when I can expect the $10,000 as I am hoping to buy an infared camera with it.

Thank you.
Paul Hinsperger

[Nick Gromicko]

Email it to me and I'll see if we can post it nick.gromicko@nachi.org I don't believe ESOP copies me on complaints in their committee.

[phinsperger]

Ok, I forwar the email to you again.

But I never said, neither did your offer require, that a complaint was filed against Roy. Your offer refers to an "issue". Which there was and I mentioned this in my email.

[gporter]

Wow.

[Joe Farsetta]

Paul,

What in the hell are you talking about? The only way Nick would know of an ESOP complaint would be if ESOP asked him to act on a decision.

As no complaint against Roy made it out of committee, no such notification would have been made. As such, Nick would have no way of knowing anythind regarding this ESOP issue.

I find it ironic that you choose this non-issue as a basis for a claim against NACHI for $10,000.

[Nick Gromicko]

Here is the email you just sent me Paul:

----- Original Message -----
From: Hinsperger
To: nick.gromicko@nachi.org
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 5:02 PM
Subject: Claiming $10,000


Look down at the orginal email.


----- Original Message ----- From: nick gromicko
To: Hinsperger
Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2008 9:25 AM
Subject: Re: request for post



If I'm going to include your name, why don't you just post it? I'm lost.
-


Nick Gromicko
Founder, International Association of Certified Home Inspectors www.nachi.org
Founder, Master Inspector Certification Board, www.certifiedmasterinspector.org
Executive Director, International Association of Certified Indoor Air Consultants, www.iac2.org
Host, NACHI TV, www.nachi.tv

----- Original Message -----
From: Hinsperger
To: nick gromicko
Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2008 4:26 AM
Subject: Fw: request for post


I haven't seen it posted yet. Did I miss it or are you not going to post my request?

----- Original Message ----- From: Hinsperger
To: nick gromicko
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 6:18 AM
Subject: Re: request for post



I would prefer that you do in fact include my name. If you'll only post it without my name then I guess that will have to do. But I would prefer it included.

----- Original Message -----
From: nick gromicko
To: Hinsperger
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 12:31 AM
Subject: Re: request for post


If you want me to include your name, why don't you post it? Or do you mean NOT including your name?
-


Nick Gromicko
Founder, International Association of Certified Home Inspectors www.nachi.org
Founder, Master Inspector Certification Board, www.certifiedmasterinspector.org
Executive Director, International Association of Certified Indoor Air Consultants, www.iac2.org
Host, NACHI TV, www.nachi.tv

----- Original Message -----
From: Hinsperger
To: gromicko@msn.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 7:26 PM
Subject: request for post


Nick, as per your offer ( http://www.nachi.org/forum/showpost.php?p=97760&postcount=1 ), I am requesting that you post this for me. Please post everything listed below including my name.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


- John Bowman
- Roy Cooke
- Keith Swift
- Raymond Wand

These are names that I, and many, associate with words like Integrity, Professional, Helpful, Loyalty, and ETHICS. Yet these men (and others) have all had run ins with the ESOP committee! Why?





- James Bushart
- Frank Carrio
- Joe Farsetta

These are names that I, and many, would associate with words like quick tempered, emotional, reactive, unprofessional, vulgar and certain by no means 'ethics'. Yet these men control the ethics committee? Why?


Specific cases aside for a moment, it doesn't take a genius to see that something is fundamentally wrong here when you compare these two groups of men.

Personally, I don't think the issue is as much about one member who may, or may not have broken some rule as it is about a rouge committee with no accountability cracking the whip harder and faster when it pertains to protecting one of their own.

Paul Hinsperger

[Nick Gromicko]

I don't see any proof of my pre-knowledge of an ESOP complaint against Roy in there that would substantiate Ray's conspiracy theory that I influenced ESOP to cause Ray and Roy's recent departure so that I could do a deal with Bill Mullen and OAHPI.

[Nick Gromicko]

Ray's conspiracy theory is pure B.S. I swear to you that...

1. I didn't influence any ESOP members. Ask them! They have confirmed this.
2. I didn't have any knowledge of an ESOP complaint against Roy, our Canadian member of the year for goodness sakes! How can I influence ESOP to kick Roy out if I didn't even know an issue was being looked at in committee?????
3. I hadn't spoken to Bill in many months prior to Ray's departure. One can't really conspire with someone if one isn't in communication with them. Bill has confirmed this publicly.

That's the truth. PROVE otherwise.

[Joe Farsetta]

Paul,

- John Bowman
- Roy Cooke
- Keith Swift
- Raymond Wand

John Bowman -

John's issue with regard to an ethics complaint was decided and implemented some time ago. No mystery there. The decisions reached at the time were done so by a super majority of the committee. I was not involved in that decision.


Roy Cooke -

ESOP has no issue with Mr. Cooke. There were no decisions made and no notifications made regarding Cookie to Nick.


Keith Swift -

Keith took it upon himslf to attempt a re-write of the NACHI SOP, which was clearly within the purview of ESOP. There were no charges filed at any time, as Keith violated no rules. ESOP did state that any suggestions to the NACHI SOP would need to be reviewed by them. And the issue is.... ?

Ray Wand -

Up until a few days ago, ESOP had no issue with Ray Wand. I will not dignify your inquiry, as the Wand issue had been smeared all over this message board. Ray was responsible for his removal. Period.


There is no conspiracy, no plot, no secret knowledge, and absolutely no motifications to, or conversations with, Nick Gromicko regarding Roy at any time. Any complaint against Roy died in committee.

[James H. Bushart]

I handled the complaint that was made against Roy Cooke.

Joe Farsetta recused himself.

I began by requesting information from Roy to address the complaint that had been made against him. He refused to cooperate and gave no information to the committee in his defense.

The committee then took a full day to review the complaint against him on its own merit. The conclusion was that the complaint had no merit.

I personally informed Joe Farsetta, the Committee Chairman and the complainant of the findings of the committee.

To this date, I have informed no one else...including Roy Cooke, since he refused to participate in the process.

If there was a finding against Roy that required sanctions, Nick would have been notified. Since Nick was not notified of the complaint, he was not notified of the finding, either.

You guys are wasting your time.

If there were proof to back your claim...it would come from me and I can always use an extra $10,000.

[Nick Gromicko]

Was there a complaint against Roy? Or is that private information?

[Nick Gromicko]

Looks like you answered. Thanks.

[phinsperger]

Originally Posted by gromicko

I don't see any proof of my pre-knowledge of an ESOP complaint against Roy in there that would substantiate Ray's conspiracy theory that I influenced ESOP to cause Ray and Roy's recent departure so that I could do a deal with Bill Mullen and OAHPI.

Nick,

If you click on the image in my first post you will see that you merely stated "$10,000 cash from me to the first member who can show that I even knew that the ESOP had an issue with Roy until I read Ray's post 2 minutes ago."

There is nothing that states anyrequirement about substanting any conspiracy theroy or anything to will Bill Mullen or anything else.

I am showing that you did have knowledge of a conflict between Roy and ESOP prior to 8:13pm Feb 21. That is all. That's all your offer required to be fulfilled.

[Nick Gromicko]

In the context of proving any one of the 3 prongs needed to prove Ray's conspiracy theory, an email from you eluding to some sort of old "run-in" between Ray and ESOP does not prove that I have knowledge that ESOP has an issue with Roy.

You telling me that you think that some run-in may have existed between them in the past is hearsay. ESOP is a closed door committee, so how would you know of an issue in ESOP anyway???.... let alone be able to prove that I knew anything of it.

Furthermore, in the context of your email, the run-in was old. You list it with other very old items. And so I don't see how an old run-in relates to the context of my recent offer asking for proof of my participation in the alleged conspiracy that Ray claims lead his recent removal from this organization.

Furthemore, I don't see how one can even have a "run-in" with a committee. Do you mean an old argument with one or more committee members? That isn't a complaint that could lead to Roy being made to leave anyway... and the existance of an old argument or run-in with committee members isn't proof that I knew that ESOP had an issue with Roy in the context of my offer. 2 committee members have confirmed that they didn't inform me that they were working on any issues regarding Roy.

And finally, we find out today, that ESOP ruled that the complaint (which I knew nothing of) had no merit. No action was taken against Roy and I wasn't informed that an issue even existed with ESOP (they don't let me know what's going on in their committee). Roy wasn't kicked out. He is actually still a member. He sent me his resignation last week and I did not accept it. Ask him.

There is no conspiracy and no proof that I participated in one. I knew nothing of an ESOP issue with Roy. The complaint was ruled to have no merit and so no issues exist between them. Roy was not kicked out. He is still a member. Ask him. I did not influence ESOP. They have confirmed this. I hadn't spoken to Bill in months. He has confirmed this.

Prove otherwise.

[Marcel R. Cyr]

Originally Posted by gromicko

In the context of proving any one of the 3 prongs needed to prove Ray's conspiracy theory, an email from you eluding to some sort of old "run-in" between Ray and ESOP does not prove that I have knowledge that ESOP has an issue with Roy.

You telling me that you think that some run-in may have existed between them in the past is hearsay. ESOP is a closed door committee, so how would you know of an issue in ESOP anyway???.... let alone be able to prove that I knew anything of it.

Furthermore, in the context of your email, the run-in was old. You list it with other very old items. And so I don't see how an old run-in relates to the context of my recent offer asking for proof of my participation in the alleged conspiracy that Ray claims lead his recent removal from this organization.

Furthemore, I don't see how one can even have a "run-in" with a committee. Do you mean an old argument with one or more committee members? That isn't a complaint that could lead to Roy being made to leave anyway and it isn't proof that I knew of a complaint at ESOP in the context of Ray's conspiracy theory that could lead to Roy being kicked out. 2 committee members have confirmed that they didn't inform me that they were working on any issues regarding Roy.

And finally, we find out today, that ESOP ruled that the complaint (which I knew nothing of) had no merit. No action was taken against Roy and I wasn't informed that an issue even existed with ESOP (they don't let me know what's going on in their committee). Roy wasn't kicked out. He is actully still a member. He sent me his resignation last week and I did not accept it.

There is no conspiracy and no proof that I participated in one. I knew nothing of an ESOP issue with Roy. The complaint was ruled to have no merit and so no issues exist between them. Roy was not kicked out. He is still a member. I did not influence ESOP. They have confirmed this. I hadn't spoken to Bill in months. He has confirmed this.

Prove otherwise.

Hey, Nick.

Would this be a bad time to get a 20% increase allowance for the 2008 Awards?
Just checking.

I know the Members would like it. ha. ha.

Marcel