Confessions of a Common Man

Values

Arek — Wed, 31 Mar 2010 20:00:44 +0000

Rotary International 4 –Way Test
Is it true?
Is it fair to all concerned?
Will it build and / or improve friendships?
Is it beneficial to all?

Holmes Tuttle

Arek — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 12:15:46 +0000

Holmes Tuttle
660 W. Auto Mall Drive
Tucson, AZ 85706

January 27, 2010

Re: Breach of warranty, invoice #121978
To Whom It May Concern:

I recently had a near fatal accident in Rio Rico. I pulled off the freeway and careened into a ditch when the power steering failed in my ’94 F-150. I purchased a power steering pump on September 19, 2009 from your Quality Care- Valencia, see attached invoice.

Last Saturday, I called Melissa and she told me to bring it back for warranty credit. When I did so on Monday, Melissa was not there but Carol in parts claimed that Ford would not warranty the part without the box. Given the failure of the part (the shaft broke) and the near miss of a serious accident, I was more than disappointed by your “policy position.” I informed Carol that I would never do business with Holmes Tuttle again.

I have owned nothing but Ford trucks since 1985. I currently own three Ford pick up trucks and a Sterling Dump Truck. I find it more than disappointing that Holmes Tuttle would treat a loyal Ford customer in this fashion, but having recently watched Flash of Genius perhaps I need to rethink my loyalty to a company that is so obviously flawed in its implementation of ethics in business.

Sincerely,

Arek Fressadi

Cc: Ford Motor Company
The American Road
Dearborn, MI 48121-1899

Cave Creek Corrections

Arek — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 04:30:37 +0000

What happens when a town uses a puppet to create a rubber stamp solution?
It goes into Superior Court where real judges rule de novo. Check it out George.

Austin Shea (Arizona) 7th Street and Van Buren, L.L.C. v. City of Phoenix, 142 P.3d 693

414ZONING AND PLANNING

414X Judicial Review or Relief

414X(C) Scope of Review

414X(C)2 Additional Proofs and Trial De Novo

414k642 k. Trial de novo in general.

Ariz.App.Div.1,2006

On review of board of adjustment’s decision to rehear appeal from zoning administrator’s decision, the parties’ disagreement regarding the definition of manifest error, for purposes of municipal ordinance providing that an appeal may be reheard only when there has been a manifest error affecting the board’s action, presented a question of law that Court of Appeals would review de novo.Copr. (C) West 2008 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works

Pingitore v. Town of Cave Creek, 981 P.2d 129

Ariz.App.Div.1,1998

If there is credible evidence to support town board of adjustment’s decision, it must be affirmed; however, when the issues are ones of statutory interpretation, the board’s interpretation of the law is subject to de novo review.Copr. (C) West 2008 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works

Pingitore v. Town of Cave Creek, 981 P.2d 129

Ariz.App.Div.1,1998

Board of Adjustment USMC

Arek — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 05:43:34 +0000

For the first time in 8 years, the Sonoran News wrote what appears to be an unbiased article on events surrounding my property in Cave Creek. Thanks Linda.
Although George Ross and I agree to disagree, and my special action to Superior Court will appeal the Board’s decision on the variance, nonetheless, we can conduct ourselves with decorum and respect. I ran my first marathon at El Toro Marine Base and many of my business associates in San Diego were officers in the Marines. Perhaps Mr. Ross will be inclined to a small wager as to the review and outcome of his decision?