Brad:
First: I just went back through this thread and I do not see anything I said that is even tangent to the subject of having said that I knew some inside details of Steve’s case. I know nothing other than what is in these threads so will you please point out what you are referring to.
Brad wrote: “The info I got is supposed to be in the public domain. But, because I do not KNOW that, I have elected to let Steve tell us.” Reply: What kind of double speak is that? Either the information you have is in the public domain or it is not. If you don’t know if it is or is not in the public domain, for the sake of argument, if it is not, then how did you get your hands on it? If it is then show it to us. Basically what you are saying is: “Steve, I know you are guilty based on possibly illegally obtained evidence but I don’t know where the evidence is, so fess up and give me the information to prove you are guilty.” Some how, I don’t think that is what the founding fathers had in mind when they wrote the Constitution.
Second. Brad wrote: “You, and others have been very quick to jump aboard Steven's train. I preferred to wait until we has the facts- which we still do not have.” Reply: I am not jumping on anybody’s train. As I have repeatedly stated, I am responding to the facts of the case that are available to me through this and related threads on this board which includes your demeanor and apparent spin in the questions asked and the angles you have taken in technical discussions. Again, in my view, based on this evidence as a peer reviewer, I don’t like what I see. If the OREB wants to get in on this, let them have at it. Lets hear their case. If the evidenced is in the public doman, what is their problem? If it is not in the public domain, then somebody has a real problem. This case has been pending for over 8 years, you say you have inside information that Steve is being less than candid but are not sure if your evidence was legally or illegal obtained, then say you don’t want to condemn the OREB until the facts come out. Hell, at the rate OREB is pursuing this case, we will all be dead by then.
Third: As to your motive? The only method I have of gauging your motive is by interpreting the apparent spin of your statements. What I am reading is jive, juke, spin, angle, and the only motive I can perceive is to divert the spotlight away from the OREB for some unknown reason. Couple this with your statement that you have inside information but are not sure if it was legally or illegal obtained and we have the ingredients for a spy novel.
Forth: Brad wrote: “But FAIR is a double edged sword that cuts both ways. If you truly want to be fair, then you have to be that way with all parties, and not just with Steven.” Reply: You are right, we want to be FAIR with all parties. So lets hear the OREB side of the argument and your secret evidence and then we can really be FAIR. We at F.A.I.R. will not standby and let any individual or group be the object of an inquisition. We are about due process, the rule of law, and fairness.
Summary: If anybody wants to know why we are forming the new organization called F.A.I.R., this is the reason: The reason is to protect the rights of the individuals against repressive state appraisal boards that have no appreciation of individual rights, due process, or professional ethics. If anybody wants to join, contact Steve Vertin, MAI, or visit our board under user groups. We want the kind of peer review you are reading on this threat to protect your rights and prevent you from being the object of an inquisition like Steve Vertin, Tom Hilderbrant, and David Johnson had to endure.
