CAHPI.. Restricting Trade ?

[Roy D. Cooke, Sr]

Originally Posted by clawrenson

If it's a "secret self-appointed group" - how would you know? fact or fiction or based on your assumption.

Seems like a bit of an oxymoron statement! My official appointment was approved by HRDC and CMHC representing a national education in Canada.

Fact is you and Bill refuse to answer questions asked and information is not given.
Did you pay the $100.00 to NACHI yet that you said you would or are you just going to evade again as per usuall .
Claude , they do take credit cards

Roy Cooke

[Claude Lawrenson]

My point being that you continue to pander to misleading people about your status. "A NATIONAL CERTIFICATION HOME INSPECTOR." Are you a national certificate holder or a nationally certified home inspector - or just a CMI and CHI? This is misleading and deceptive to unknowing consumers. It alludes to mimicking national certification. It's the exact same issue facing CAHPI National and the NCA - that "copy cats" are trying to mislead or tend to deceive the public. Yes it is covered under the business practices act - if it tends to deceive.
It is an unfair practice for a person to make a false, misleading or deceptive representation. 2002, c. 30, Sched. A, s. 14 (1).
A representation using exaggeration, innuendo or ambiguity as to a material fact or failing to state a material fact if such use or failure deceives or tends to deceive

My next point being blaming others may help deflect the issue or concern that "we" all need to be cleaning up in our own back yard - before we start pointing fingers at others, and always knocking their shortcomings!

BTW: And yes, my offer still stands if you can prove you are a national certificate holder.

[Roy D. Cooke, Sr]

Originally Posted by clawrenson

My point being that you continue to pander to misleading people about your status. "A NATIONAL CERTIFICATION HOME INSPECTOR." Are you a national certificate holder or a nationally certified home inspector - or just a CMI and CHI? This is misleading and deceptive to unknowing consumers. It alludes to mimicking national certification. It's the exact same issue facing CAHPI National and the NCA - that "copy cats" are trying to mislead or tend to deceive the public. Yes it is covered under the business practices act - if it tends to deceive.
It is an unfair practice for a person to make a false, misleading or deceptive representation. 2002, c. 30, Sched. A, s. 14 (1).
A representation using exaggeration, innuendo or ambiguity as to a material fact or failing to state a material fact if such use or failure deceives or tends to deceive

My next point being blaming others may help deflect the issue or concern that "we" all need to be cleaning up in our own back yard - before we start pointing fingers at others, and always knocking their shortcomings!

BTW: And yes, my offer still stands if you can prove you are a national certificate holder.

Yep just as I expected your word is worth nothing .
You are nothing but a trouble maker who does not help NACHI and its members.
Sorry but this is the last I will be comunicating with Bill and Claude on this BB.
They both can not give information they evade and ignore and LIE continually ,both are usless Home inspectors and selfish looking out for them selves only and are in this for them selves.
I am sure Neither has paid NACHI duews.

Roy Cooke

Claude you should be ashamed of your self .

[rwand1]

Claude

Why has CAHPI not corrected, recanted what Mr. Mullen has been stating. Comments in published newspapers where factually and negligent made or at the very least left uncorrected. You knew them to be untrue, CAHPI new them to be untrue, and Mr. Mullen certainly new them to be untrue.

Now either you and your group take responsibility or you don't, which is it?
Bill says the CMHC release is legit, while CMHC says it was not to be released. Which story is correct?

[rwand1]

Claude said,

Roy what is a "national certification home inspector" or "nationally certified home inspector"? I am glad you opened that can of worms. It speaks highly of exageration and ambiguity. It's misleading. Being a certified home inspector is very different than claiming to be a nationally certified inspector. If you have proof to officially prove otherwise - I will gladly donate $100 to NACHI to a charitable cause of your choice. Feel free to privately email to me your proof.

Just like OAHI knowingly and falsely accused those of us who happen to be dual members of misusing a designation (CHI) which didn't quite stand up to further scrutiny, intimidated members, threatened members, and reported members all in an effort to expunge members or to restrict their right to trade through negligent actions borne out of fear, bullying, stupidity, and ignorance. One of those people who undertook and directed that action was none other than the President of OAHI and Secretary on the CAHPI Board.

Claude, if you want to live in a glass house don't throw stones.

I am still waiting for you or Bill Bob and or the BOD to recant the negligent statements made by Bill in the Sarnia Observer and the London Free Press. When pushed on the issue Mr. Mullen cannot differentiate between fact and fiction, and knowingly lets fiction be presumed as fact. Not once but on repeated occassions.

Yes Claude some house cleaning is needed. Who is misleading whom?

[Roy D. Cooke, Sr]

Claude said

Quote:
Roy what is a "national certification home inspector" or "nationally certified home inspector"? I am glad you opened that can of worms. It speaks highly of exageration and ambiguity. It's misleading. Being a certified home inspector is very different than claiming to be a nationally certified inspector. If you have proof to officially prove otherwise - I will gladly donate $100 to NACHI to a charitable cause of your choice. Feel free to privately email to me your proof.

Originally Posted by rwand1

Just like OAHI knowingly and falsely accused those of us who happen to be dual members of misusing a designation (CHI) which didn't quite stand up to further scrutiny, intimidated members, threatened members, and reported members all in an effort to expunge members or to restrict their right to trade through negligent actions borne out of fear, bullying, stupidity, and ignorance. One of those people who undertook and directed that action was none other than the President of OAHI and Secretary on the CAHPI Board.

Claude, if you want to live in a glass house don't throw stones.

I am still waiting for you or Bill Bob and or the BOD to recant the negligent statements made by Bill in the Sarnia Observer and the London Free Press. When pushed on the issue Mr. Mullen cannot differentiate between fact and fiction, and knowingly lets fiction be presumed as fact. Not once but on repeated occassions.

Yes Claude some house cleaning is needed. Who is misleading whom?

Well Claude got his proof but as per usuall he has lots of BS and has decided that he will not be sending his Donation in my Name to NACHI . I asked for the money to go to the smoke alarms for the hard of hearing .
Bill Mullen is another who has lots of BS and does not give true information . With leaders like this it is easy to see why few want any thing to do with the secret society who are trying to control the Canadian Home Inspectors . Sorry I did say that I would be staying away but feel all should know what Bill and Claude to are like .

Roy Cooke .. CMI ..the important letters ... CMI

Added..Please stay tuned the other shoe will drop in a week or so.

[rwand1]

Claude you stated you were not aware of any monies from CMHC being given to OAHI. Yet in the documents leading up to the AGM this was stated in the following document.

From the Draft 2006 Financial Statement of OAHI

5.
DEFERRED SUBSIDIES
Funds were received from the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation to subsidize the training of members, by allowing them to take specialized courses.

Now given that taxpayers money has been given to CAHPI-OAHI which has been on record as targeting and intimidating and enforcing a rule contrary to its by-laws, which turns out it could not enforce, I think CMHC should be made aware of contributions to another self regulating body that clearly has been negligent in its actions, words and demands.

Just how much money CMHC gave and to whom and to what specialized courses is open for review. Given the quality and the attitude about the financial matters someone needs to be held accountable.

[Claude Lawrenson]

5.
DEFERRED SUBSIDIES
Funds were received from the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation to subsidize the training of members, by allowing them to take specialized courses.

Does that mean that taking a course offered and paid for by CMHC to a group of OAHI participants such as "Train the Trainer" or "Predelivery Inspection" now makes the association beholden to the wishes of taxpayers?

Training such as that is often subsidized or sponsored - remember Whistler?

[rwand1]

What courses were provided? Thats the question. Its not shown in the Financial documents.

Further why has the Secretary of CAHPI from Ontario, and President of OAHI abusing his authority knowingly using his position to make demands, intimidate, and single out NACHI members who use CHI knowing he did not have the power or authority to do so. If taxpayers money is being used to conduct Witch hunts then something is definetly wrong. It also demonstrates OAHI is not worthy of administering the National! How long are members going to be duped, and lied to?

Why were statements made in papers known to be false not corrected? You and others knew them to be materially incorrect. You folks are not a power unto yourselves, but thats the way the game is being played.

[Claude Lawrenson]

Does NACHI or any other organization and person doing the same?

Is there really a need to point out examples from within this own forum?

There are many similar such statements spread about here! Just because the information or misinformation is posted here - it does not mean that it not laughed or mocked on other inspection forums even in the USA. People are intuitive and smart enough over time to draw their own conclusions.

Also is it ever distinctly possible that facts get misconstrued?

I am not the gatekeeper - and fail to see why you choose to make it "my" responsibility to correct them. However I do agree that the same rings true -

You folks are not a power unto yourselves, but thats the way the game is being played.

As far the actual courses provided - I gave you my best guess - that does not mean it's a matter of fact. Or that it may be something else. I know of those ones only because of my participation and work with CMHC. However, I cannot vouch that those are the exact same courses/ or where such money was noted.

Perhaps some real "power to be" at OAHI should be able to respond to that question, if you ask the question appropriately.

[rwand1]

Claude I did find this, so I stand corrected.

DEFERRED SUBSIDIES
Funds were received from the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation to subsidize the training of members, by allowing them to take specialized courses.
OAHI did receive monies from CMHC...the amount is some $12,000 that is shown in the 2006 OAHI Balance Sheet. OAHI may have received more and utilized some for training. The "deferred" portion, which began showing up on the OAHI Balance Sheet in 2004 reflects the unused portion. In other words, OAHI has the money but not offered the training...OAHI seems to be enjoying the interest it accrues. Frankly, I would have thought that CMHC would have had restrictions on how those monies were utilized.

As to asking OAHI it is unforuntate they choose not to answer, I am not the only one getting answers, and you were on record as not getting timely replies either re your upgrade. So it does no good to ask OAHI anything because they don't play by the rules and as overseers of the National they don't appear to be playing fair either.