CALSPRo leaders knew about this January 22, 2013 already

CALSPRo leaders knew about this January 22, 2013 already

Postby ProcessPosseAdmin » Mon Jan 13, 2014 2:58 pm

Why did they hold off in disclosing it? Because they didn't want to. They were forced to. This is why CALSPRo is indeed NAPPS, and NAPPS is CALSPRo. The chart below shows in the bureau of competition column from signing to forward bureau 31 days , Bureau action 76 days , commission action 56 days or 31+76+56= 163 days-August 15, 2013 = March 5, 2013 one day AFTER I filed my federal lawsuit. Could just be a simple coincidence such a close time frame.

Based on the timing of FTC consent orders CALSPRo had this complaint already around January 2013. For those who think CALSPRo is more transparent then NAPPS think again. Especially considering that CALSPRo president chimed in support of Gary Crowe allegations that no federal agency has contacted them. That is likely true yet Mike Kern of CALSPRo clearly discussed this with Crowe. Crowe's email letter dated August 13, 2013 was based on his knowledge that CALSPRo was about to disclose the federal investigation.

Now the question is what is next for these leaders who treat the members like foddering children withholding information.

00000001.jpg
00000001.jpg (13.35 KiB) Viewed 1147 times


If you would like to read Crowe's letter it is here.
One by one I will do my part to provide for the transparency that some say was the purpose of NAPPSWATCHER.

timeframeFTC.jpg
timeframeFTC.jpg (33.06 KiB) Viewed 1164 times
ProcessPosseAdmin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 136
Joined: Thu Sep 26, 2013 3:38 pm

Re: CALSPRo leaders knew about this January 22, 2013 already

Postby Brett Peters » Mon Jan 13, 2014 5:52 pm

Randy,

How dare you compare the operations of CALSPro to that of NAPPS!

While I enjoy some of your postings, you are way off re: the FTC complaint and CALSPro. Within one day of receiving the initial call from the FTC, the Executive Committee was apprised. Within a couple of days, and after receiving more specific information from the FTC, the entire Board was apprised. Once the Board had the formal complaint and had conducted it's first round of dealing with the FTC (which included emails and phone conferences with the Executive Committee, our Legislative Advocate, and several members of the FTC), the entire membership was made aware.

CALSPro didn't notify the membership "because we had to". We did it because that's how we conduct business. In the open. All of our records are open to inspection at anytime (except Executive Committee meeting minutes - which deal with personal matters). What you are reading where it states that we "must publish" the information is part of the settlement agreement that CALSPro negotiated with the FTC. It's very common language from the FTC in a compliance order. We could not act on the order until the Commission signed it into effect. You speak too soon with too little information.

You should know better. It was California members who were primarily responsible for forming NAPPS. California members of NAPPS have tried to make a difference including raising the issues of establishing an annual budget, proper accounting, stipend usage, required annual audits, etc. It's the ingrained leadership of NAPPS who don't like change and the uninformed voters at conference who stand in the way. You make an emotional plea to uniformed voters and the facts become meaningless.

You are quickly losing any credibility you may have had. Let's see how open you are. Can you show that you post all replies to your commentary? Can you prove that Gary Crowe's response letter is false and misleading? I somehow don't think so.

Sincerely,

Brett Peters
Brett Peters
 

Re: CALSPRo leaders knew about this January 22, 2013 already

Postby ProcessPosseAdmin » Mon Jan 13, 2014 7:11 pm

Let me correct and remove 31 and 76 and half of 56 days ( 23 of the final step for commission contact to CALSPRo ) = (31+76+23)-163=-33 days or about July 13, 2013.

My point is Gary Crowe's letter came out August 13, 2013 and by then CALSPro already felt the consequences of federal action guiding the non profit association. Why would CALSPRo president endorse Gary Crowe response knowing that events are unfolding which prove reasonable people can conclude something with the association model is amiss?

What is false and misleading about Crowe's letters can be checked on the link in the original post. Here is one example issue of the New York donation of 100K. Gary Crowe's CPA TKW rudely addressed its letter to "Steve" and supported NAPPS leaders position that it is not lobbying. Yet the contracts all state it is lobbying and those can be found here. CALSPRo had two or three of its board members on the NAPPS board at this time. NEW YORK LOBBYING what was up with these cobranded NAPPS board members and CALSPRo board members that they allowed it to occur?

I also understand the CALSPRO has a professional management team and CALSPRo may not need the guidance a son of a founding member would need. BUT NAPPS needed guidance. I can understand how CALSPRo board members have it quite easy and forget NAPPS doesn't have the same uninterested party running its operations . But that is where character comes in do we do our job or just accept what is told.

Now why did NAPPS leaders in Boston rescind a 1985 standing order for an annual audit. That is here and was a tell tale sign of improprieties. Why didn't CALSPRo act? At what point do we say that we are not my brothers keeper? Is obligation only to what benefits yourself?

You asked "Can you prove that Gary Crowe's response letter is false and misleading? I somehow don't think so." It depends on what direction you would like to go on this. Are we still focused on NAPPS leadership, non profit operations or prefer we engage in personal diversions? Notary fraud, tax fraud, class actions, anti trust, bid rigging, criminal conspiracy, indictments, and sewer service all related to process serving companies or principals listed in NAPPS directories or do we want to go into non process serving issues?

As far as CALSPRo involvement in NAPPS as well as process serving in general I think the time has come for people who talk the talk to walk the walk. A lot of the issues in NAPPS were brought out by CALSPRo members. By starting the discussion and running I find it hard to believe those types can be credible. I'd rather try imperfectly then run away, which many have since done. I know why and glad to have been a part to further the debate beyond the 5 year cycle of NAPPS conflicts. Punch and jab punch and jab no one ever landing a knockout. I was only a member for 3 years but I read more about NAPPS then most founders forgot. The fights the throwing of microphones, the affairs, the drinking, the franchises starting up again too, the proving of heritage really now many of these events are highly unprofessional. Point is my web site isn't the problem it is the character of those who sit and watch like see no hear no and speak no monkeys.

Keep a keen eye on Georgia and Maryland and NAPPS I will do my imperfect part to cut away deep gashes in a representative body albeit regardless of those who sit on the sidelines waiting for the stands to collapse and get thrown onto the field.
ProcessPosseAdmin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 136
Joined: Thu Sep 26, 2013 3:38 pm


Return to California Association of Legal Support Professionals (CALSPRO)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron