Not saying you are the one pushing this trend, and I apologize if that came across that way. Yes, the trend with some attorneys is to attack the messenger when the facts do not support your position. I do not believe you need to justify your reasoning for making the suggestion, but I ask that all of us take a step back before we make any suggestions that can affect a person livelihood. It is hard to know beyond a doubt that the person knew his conclusion was wrong and continued to peruse an agenda to do harm to his fellow man.

I do not look at a specific individual, but at the actions. What I was saying if the courts have chose not to stop him then who am I to disagree with the court. As to his reasons for not getting certified, I may disagree, but that is his decision.

Let’s look at you next comment. Your posting was, “You stated: "Your own statement gives credence to the complaints in that what does attacking ABC for violating an in-house policy have to do with the quality of the investigators investigation." If the person is not licensed as a PI and not certified by NAFI or IAAI, and does not follow even some of the most basic principals of NFPA 921, then that directly goes to the credibility of their investigations. I don't mean nit-pick point by point, but when you fail to interview witnesses, fail to obtain fire reports and photographs, do not secure important evidence in the case, then yes, you should be help liable for your $#$#$-ups.” I know many of public fire investigators that are not CFI’s or CFEI’s and they state openly they disagree with 921. Their department restricts the taking of photographs, and they are not allowed to interview witnesses. I know this sounds impossible, but they do exist. Does this mean this person cannot accurately investigate a fire? If one were to except this logic, then before there was 921, CFEI’s and CFI’s there were no valid investigations conducted.

I made an assumption in part, but was correct in the fact that it was a legal document. You said, “the person has received a Cease & Desist Order identifying him operating as a private investigator, not an expert, and to this day, he is still violating that order.” Now it is my understanding that it is you that either knows or believes he is still violating the law, but the fact is then governmental agency has not till this time found his violating the order.

All I am saying is that they are using in my eye a method of intimidation, and I would love to put that policy before a jury.