ARSA info request for Izzy

re: those specific TRA BoD members, current or retired, who where among those who perpetrated, aided or abetted the motor certification fraud

[note: let me be perfectly clear that I do not believe that all board members are responsible, and in particular new members had nothing whatsoever to do with past actions; hence I do not use the term "TRA board", but rather "members of the TRA board"]

personnally I do not wish to see anyone charged, let alone convicted or sentenced with a crime (depite my ALLEGING there guilt [better, Gary?]). Especially in so far as no claims were ever denied on that basis, and no serious injuries or non-trivial property damage incurred to my knowledge.

MY POINT is that individuals who have demonstrated disregard for the issues should not be in positions of leadership or influence

even moreso in times when we are struggling to establish our credibility in the eyes of the law and the public

many companies make mistakes, even serious legal ones. Part of the resolution is the dismissal of the ones personally responsible for the offending decisions. A resolution which can allow TRA to go forward would be no different. Members (myself included) need to be able to depend on the integrity of its leadership, especially as (1) that leadership is intimately enaged in the NFPA processes that ultimately lead to regulations (in states where adopted) and in policy making decisions that affect our safety and financial security (protection from liability). Even more so as TRA processes are not open to members (the board asserts that members delegate deliberation and decision making to the board, and there is no requirement for member consultation).

certainly the past actions are more serious than those for which other members have been expelled.

- iz

Jerry Irv> >

Not even that.

Innocent in the eyes of the criminal justice system RESULT log.

I said "at NAR".

Jerry

Ray, as usual you are completely distorting the issue

I never discussed, for example, TRA "closed door" or "black box" decision making policies. They assert that they have been delegated deliberation and decision-making power by the membership.

my comments regarding (dis)honestly have to do with fraudulent motor certification and mismanagement of funds.

there is no comparable history in ARSA

- iz

They must have a class or a vetting scheme for TRA members because it is a universal element of the culture of the "zealots" within the organization.

Mere Jerry

Perfect summary.

yes, I was simply providing source material to show whether or not any organizations policy with respect to a membership requirement as a prerequisite for user certification has any basis in [regulations derived] from NFPA codes.

as oppposed to entirely being internally developed policy.

- iz

Jerry Irv> >

But if you have a fraudulant mindset you see fraud in other people. That is a form of transference.

Kosdon, Rogers, Kelly and Dunakin suffer from that.

Jerry

Yep. My point was to reinforce the distinction, which is real.

No, I mean innocent until proven guilty. I've seen plenty of opinion and BS but no proof that would stand up in court. (And since you are making accusations of _criminal_ actions, any evidence that wouldn't stand up in court is non-evidence.)

That's an opinion, and is up to the membership, not you alone.

Surely you don't believe that's the only resolution available? All or nothing, just "off with their heads!"

That's not entirely true. Members can make their views known to the BOD. They can also run for a place >

"Public opinion" is not more important than proof of criminal acts -- unless of course, your goal is to use slander and innuendo to foment discontent as a means toward overthrowing the organization.

I never said you did, although you do seem to be bringing that up now.

It's not an assertion, it's a fact. I was there when the membership voted to give them that power.

Give it enough time and there will be, whether true or not. Any organization that's been around long enough will accumulate its share of malcontents, crackpots and people who claim "corruption" everytime someone crosses them.

so if you perform coitus with your neighbors wife, you are not guilty of adultery unless someone proves that you did?

you are clearly not in touch with reality, Ray.

- iz

RayDunak> Iz wrote:

I already cited the definition of slander in a previous post, a condition is that what is said must be false (not merely unproven)

the fact that the TMT chairman has supplied authoritative testimony that he did not certify the motors, when they were presented as having been certified by him, is substantive proof of both lie and fraud.

==> fact, n.

1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences 2. a. Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed b. A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case.

==> authoritative, adj.

1. Having or arising from authority; official 2. Of acknowledged accuracy or excellence; highly reliable: an authoritative account of the revolution.

==> testimony, n.

1. Evidence in support of a fact or assertion; proof.

==> substantive, adj.

1. Substantial; considerable. 2. Independent in existence or function; not subordinate. 3. Not imaginary; actual; real.

==> proof, n.

1. The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.

==> lie, n.

1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood. 2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.

==> fraud, n.

1. A deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain. 2. A piece of trickery; a trick.

now tell me that the TMT chairmans own testimony regarding what he himself did or did not do is not 'authoritative'

Ray, you are not engaging the issue rationally

==> rational, adj.

1. Having or exercising the ability to reason. 2. Of sound mind; sane. 3. Consistent with or based on reason; logical: rational behavior.

- iz

Do levels expire at NAR when membership does, or can a NAR member lapse for a year and return with their old number and cert level?

thank you for responding, George

- iz

GCGassaway wrote:

You're starting with the assumption that the act occurred. I'm talking about an _accusation_ vs proven fact.

How real would it be if I told people you'd committed a crime? Would my word be the same as a conviction, or would you insist on innocence until proven guilty?

If I had "evidence" that was doctored, edited or only told part of the story, would that be as good as a conviction? And to use your adultery example, if I believed that "adultery" could be defined to include such things as having lunch with a female friend, would it be "real" for me to go around saying you had committed adultery?

That's the problem with you and Cato, you set yourself up as lawmaker, judge, and jury, declaring people guilty of crimes _as you define them_, with evidence that only meets _your_ standards, with testimony only from one side, and punishment (aka "resolution" decided by you alone. Then you wonder why people aren't carrying our your execution orders.

There's that word again -- "authoritative". What makes his word so unquestionable? The fact that he was once a TMT chairman doesn't mean that his word is beyond reproach, or even that he has all the facts, or that his view of the circumstances involved is accurate and complete.

Perhaps I've misunderstood, but I don't think he said they presented them as having been certified "by him", but only as having been certified. Furthermore, his word alone is not proof of anything -- it's hearsay.

Of course, proof really doesn't matter much in a kangaroo court like rmr. You know you can just keep throwing accusations until something sticks. After all, if you keep saying it long enough, a lot of folks will start to believe that it's already been proven.

Ray, you have finally convinced me that you are a complete idiot

- iz