After receiving the verdict of the brokers concerning my appeal to suspend me for another six months it is clear that there is no chance to get a fair and just decision from this panel.
In order to protect Jaime Calderon and the agents of Remax Ajijic from further retaliation and the threat that the whole agency could be suspended from GIL I announced on March 13th 2007 my resignation as sales agent of Remax Ajijic.  I will still be selling real estate, now as an independent realtor with my All-in-1 Real Estate Service.

In order to clear my name I scanned in all documents and made this web site to inform everybody about the rulings of the GIL Arbitration Committee in this case so you can form your own opinion.
All agents (and probably some brokers) need to see these facts - it seems there is a lot of misinformation out there! After all: One day something like this might happen to you, too. (I know it has happened to some of you already.) Besides: According to Article IX Section 1 b) and 2 a) of the GIL Bylaws rulings of the GIL Arbitration Committee set precedent for the future. This case will effect you, too!

To my clients: The properties signed with me are now listed with Jaime Calderon. In order to honor my promises and obligations to you these listings will stay on my web site (marked as listings of Jaime Calderon). To all clients (especially those who are away from their home) to whom I promised that I would be in your house when it would be shown I assure you that I will be there as promised!

For the general public it is important to see these documents because it shows how some agencies / brokers / agents and the GIL Arbitration Committee do their business and treat clients and fellow agents.

From: XXXX
Date: 10/22/06 10:28:42
To: Sandi Allin Briscoe
Subject: Re: to talk

Dear Sandi,
There is nothing more to say about this situation.  We tried for over a year to sell this property and for reasons unknown it just didn't sell. I am in the process of deciding what I want to do.  If  I decide to continue trying to sell , I am convinced for a variety of reasons  that a change is in order.

I have your sign whenever you want it.

XXXX
Fairly clear, isn't it?

It would be unpleasant at the very least and sheer disaster at the most for both of us to continue a working relationship that I no longer want to be a part of.
Please return my keys.  It is  time  we both move on.

XXXX
Really clear, isn't it?

I have been informed by Justus Hauser that GIL, at an informal meeting, has confirmed the listing of my property with you until the expiration date January 28,2007, unless I provide in writing my desire to end that listing. That request follows along with reasons for my decision.
 1. Over one year ago you assured me that your web site would be completed and linked properly. Your site has not yet been completed nor is it adequately linked. Armonica does not appear when simple searches are conducted. Therefore, full coverage of my property on the internet is inadequate and the coverage you promised does not exist. Further, there is a listing on your site of a home for sale (ZZZZ) under an agreement that expired in May, 2006. (GIL rules state that you can only have exclusive listings on your web site and sold/expired listings have to be removed within 30 days to avoid a 500 peso fine).
2. You recommended the sales price for my house. I believe that one of the reasons my house has not sold is because it was priced too high initially. We had to drop the price twice and I even offered a bonus to any selling agent but after over a year it has not sold yet.
3. After “The Guadalajara Reporter” printed an incorrect ad advertising an open house by not printing my correct address, I asked that you proof all ads. You did not do this as other incorrect ads appeared , thereby probably reducing the number of potential buyers attending the open house.
4. Before leaving for your 9 day vacation, you told me your phone would be covered and I would be notified about appointments for showings. This did not occur. As I was leaving my home, 2 realtors approached me and said they had been trying to call your number and set an appointment for showing for 3 days. I set the appointment and showed the house. In addition, I had tried calling you on more than one occasion and was unable to reach you myself. I want adequate accessibility and coverage by a listing agent.
5. As I have stated in several prior emails, I do not want to list my home with you any longer. When my house was removed from the MLS upon my request, your sign was returned to you and you had my house keys returned to me, I assumed that you understood and accepted that I was terminating our working relationship.
Please acknowledge the termination of this listing within the next two days. If I don't receive it, I will file a complaint with the GIL Arbitration Committee because of my dissatisfaction as previously stated (GIL rules explicitly allow the change to another agency in a case like this under Article VIII, Section 3, “g”) and because I still believe the “Extension of Listing Agreement” dated July 28,2006 is invalid as it does not follow GIL rules as stated in Article VIII, Section 3:
     A. “All listings are to be on GIL approved listing agreements”
     B. “Listings must have a beginning and ENDING DATE clearly established on
           the contract.”
In case you do not acknowledge the termination of this listing and if the arbitration committee refuses to rule that the contract is terminated, my house is off the market until the 29th of January 2007.

XXXX
Anything not clear?

Ajijic 27th of November 2006

Statement:
XXXX, a friend of mine had in the past listed her house with Sandi Allin / Aarmoncia Real Estate. She didn't want Sandi Allin to represent her anymore and had taken her home of the market End of September (according to GIL MLS listing it was taken off the market on October 2nd). Because Sandi Allin didn't want to return the key to the house and didn't take her sign of XXXX asked me to intervene. On October 25th 2006 I went to talk to Sandi Allin about it and Sandi Allin agreed to accept that XXXX didn't want her services anymore. She gave the key to me in order to return it to Susan (what I did) and took the sign of her company that I had brought her.

Sincerely,

Justus Hauser

ARTICLE VIII: REAL ESTATE GUIDELINES

SECTION 3. LISTINGS
All Listing are to be on GIL approved Listing Agreements.
(a) Listings can only be taken, as Exclusive. Any GIL member must advise sellers who refuse to list exclusively that there can be no advertising, of any kind. Non exclusives are not allowed. Only properties with a registered deed or titulo parcelario can be taken as a listing.
(b) GIL members can only advertise in all media’s including websites their own exclusive listings.
(c) When an agency receives a signed Exclusive listing, all member agencies must be notified within 3 working days. A complete inventory of the property along with copies of: 1.) Deed 2.) Public registry office registration. 3.) Tax receipt 4.) Photo of the property (land / lots excluded) must be obtained before the listing can be put in the MLS system. In the event a SELLER offers a bonus to the selling
agent, it is imperative that the terms of this bonus be made absolutely clear. The listing agreement must indicate the seller’s intent regarding whether the bonus is to be paid on any accepted offer or whether it’s for only a full price offer. When the listing is submitted for inclusion in the MLS, the bonus section of the submission form will be checked. This will alert any interested agent that there is a bonus, but the listing agency must be contacted for complete details.
(d) Properties will not be accepted into the MLS without a photo of the listed property.
(e) Listings must have a beginning and an ending date clearly established on the contract.
(f) Members cannot under any circumstance offer listing incentives, such as a “kickback” or donation (to charity or otherwise), to any potential seller. Any form of offering to “buy” a listing is prohibited.
(g) It is not permissible for any GIL member to directly solicit a listing from any seller who is listed with another GIL member. Solicitation may be done through normal advertising channels commensurate with established, ethical business practices. Should a seller, when listed with another GIL agency, discuss moving a listing; care must be taken in any resulting discussion. The seller should be advised to notify his present Broker of his dissatisfaction and the reasons there for. The seller is, of course, free to list with any agency of his choosing when his current listing contract expires.
(h) Failure by a Broker to comply with Article VIII, Sec 2, and Sec. 3(b) will result in a $500.00 pesos fine per occurrence.
(i) Sold listings must be removed from the MLS within 3 working days and removed from advertising and websites within 30 days. Failure to do so will result in a $500.00 M.N. fine for each occurrence. A listing is considered sold at the time a purchase contract has been signed by both buyer and seller and the initial payment has been received.
(j) When an agent leaves an office or their status changes to “inactive” their listings must be changed to an active members name within 3 days. Listing that are not changed within the 3 day period will be automatically removed from the MLS.
Question: Does that contract look like a GIL contract to you, and do you see "an ending date clearly established"?

Ajijic 29th of November 2006

Petition:
I hereby petition that the complaint of Sandi Allin Briscoe / Aarmonica Real Estate is dismissed immediately because minimum requirements to file a complaint with the GIL arbitration committee are not met:
In her complaint against me Sandi Allin presented a renewal form of her contract with XXXX that is NOT a GIL listing agreement according to GIL rules (see ARTICLE VIII, Section 3. Listings attached).
GIL rules state:
GRUPO INMOBILIARIO DEL LAGO, A.C.
BYLAWS
(Revised) July 1, 2006
ARTICLE IX: ARBITRATION COMMITTEE
SECTION 4. COMPLAINTS
Any complaint filed with the Arbitration Committee must be filed within 30 days of discovery in writing and either signed or endorsed by the Broker.
A written complaint should include the following:
1. A thorough explanation of both the complaint and the resolution which is being sought.
2. Copies of all documents involved, including Sales Agreements, Counter Offers, Extensions, Addendums, Listing Agreements, Deed’s, Registration documents, and any other Documentation requested by the Arbitration Committee. It is mandatory that all contracts accompanying a complaint be GIL approved.
3. All complaints shall be filed with the GIL President who shall forward to the Chairman of the Arbitration Committee. In the event that a complaint involves either the President or his Brokerage, that complaint shall be filed directly with the Chairman of the arbitration Committee. In the event the complaint involves the office of the President and the office of the Chairman of the Arbitration then that complaint shall be filed directly to the Vice President.

Sincerely,

Justus Hauser

Remax Ajijic:  766-2190
Cell:     045-33-3441-8223
Home:     763-5333

e-mail: justushauser@hotmail.com

I hereby appeal the ruling of the GIL Arbitration Committee:

The written ruling of the GIL Arbitration Committee dated December 13th 2006, effective by December 14th 2006 state that the Arbitration Committee find that I have broken GIL rules by requesting the listing from Mrs. XXXX.
The ruling does not contain any explanations, stating exact rules and regulations that I supposedly had broken. I would like to know (as mandatory in any legal procedures in Mexico as far as I know) on which legal base this ruling was done and on which legal grounds my own statements and petition were dismissed!

The grounds for an appeal of the ruling of the GIL Arbitration Committee are the following:

• Before the hearing I had petitioned that the whole case should be dismissed because GIL Bylaw Article IX, Section 4 states that “it is mandatory that all contracts accompanying a complaint be GIL approved”. The Aarmonica contract is NOT a GIL approved listing agreement. Therefore according to its own rules the GIL Arbitration Committee had to dismiss this case. Neither before the hearing, nor during the hearing nor in the written sentencing by the GIL arbitration committee this point was in any way answered to me or taken under consideration.
• According to GIL Bylaws Sandi Allin did not have a valid listing agreement when XXXX asked me to list her house:
o GIL Bylaws Article VIII, Section 3 states that a listing contract had to be on a GIL approved listing agreement and not a home made form.
o GIL Bylaws Article VIII, Section 3 e) states that any listing must have an ending date clearly established on the contract.
Both requirements were not met so according to the GIL Bylaws Sandi Allin did not have a valid listing and therefore I did not double list the property.
During my hearing these arguments were rejected with the explanation that Mexican laws have room for interpretation and can not be taken word for word. What kind of excuse to not honor GIL Bylaw Articles is that? Obviously the ruling of the GIL Arbitration Committee did not follow GIL Bylaws in this point. Mexican law allows lot of things (like “kick-backs”, negotiating commission, collaboration with non GIL agencies etc.) that are clearly against the GIL Bylaws. In this case the renewal form that Sandi Allin had used to renewal the listing might have been legal under Mexican law (and it was canceled by both parties on November 20th 2006) but it was in fact against GIL rules!
What kind of message does the GIL Arbitration Committee want to send to agents and the public? That it is ok to break GIL rules as long as Mexican law is taken under consideration?

• GIL Bylaws Article VIII, Section 4 state that it is the responsibility of the listing office to arrange the appointment with the seller. When Sandi Allin gave back the key to the house by order of the client and she did not have permission anymore to show it by appointment she couldn't comply with this GIL rule. Therefore she did not have a listing that fulfilled the rules of the GIL Bylaws. This point was not yet made with the GIL Arbitration Committee.
• Mrs. XXXX is stating that she had a verbal agreement with Sandi Allin that she could cancel her listing agreement prior to the expiration date. XXXX assumed that her contract with Sandi Allin was canceled and this was accepted by Sandi Allin because she had
o canceled the listing verbally and in writing
o the house was taken off the MLS by order of the client
o Sandi Allin received her for sale sign back
o the key to the property was returned to the client
This point was not yet made with the GIL Arbitration Committee. On November 27th 2006 I went to see Samuel Cruz in order to get information about the complaint against me and asked my client XXXX to accompany me. She did and I informed Samuel Cruz that Mrs. XXXX was sitting outside of his office to be heard. He said that this would not be necessary and actually told me that it was not ok to get her involved in this. I told him that she would be willing to answer questions if needed and that she would leave for a vacation the following day for Europe and that she would return beginning of January 2007. Mrs. Freud was never given the opportunity to make her statement in this matter.
• On December the 12th 2006 Jaime Calderon spoke with Samuel Cruz, head of the GIL Arbitration Committee about my case. Samuel Cruz told my broker that the penalty for me would be a monetary fine between 5,000 and 10,000 Pesos and one or two month suspension or that I would be expelled from GIL permanently. My hearing was on December the 13th 2006. This proves that against what the letter from GIL Arbitration Committee says this decision was NOT made, “after reviewing all proofs” and that the GIL Arbitration Committee was not impartial.

The GIL Arbitration Committee is actually breaking and ignoring GIL rules in order to make a ruling against me!
Latest since the GIL Arbitration Committee was accepted as part of the official local legal system rulings have to be founded and explained thoroughly on the base of Mexican law and especially GIL Bylaws and regulations and have to make sense to all GIL members and associated members, may be even to the public and to the press and for sure to an official court that could be heard in an appeal, I imagine.

I had to prepare this appeal in my vacation in Germany where I was until the 7th of January 2007. Samuel Cruz knew that I would leave for Germany on December 16th 2006 because my broker Jaime Calderon and I had told him on several occasions. On December 14th 2006 Jaime asked him the last time to please give me the ruling before I would leave so I could react to the ruling or prepare an appeal. Again: The written GIL ruling dated December 13th, declared effective by December 14th 2006.
 It seems that it was not in their interest to deliver the verdict early enough so it was delivered after I had left on December 18th and so that a payment of the penalty would have to be done during my trip overseas before my return to Mexico. May be so I could miss the deadline to pay the fine (which was not clearly pointed out with a date in the ruling) so that I could be suspended for even more time and I would have to pay another 5000 Pesos in order to stay in GIL? Is this the way to deal with a colleague? May be this way of dealing with others has to be written in the code of ethics because I didn't see it in there.

Justus Hauser

ARTICLE IX: ARBITRATION COMMITTEE

SECTION 2. DECISIONS
(b) Decisions of the Arbitration Committee may be appealed to a special committee and such appeal will be deemed valid if there is additional information not submitted in the original complaint to constitute sufficient grounds for appeal. This committee will consist of the original people involved in the arbitration with the addition of two other members of the GIL arbitration pool. There will be an additional 10% penalty to the party filing the appeal if the appeal is not overruled.
Richard Tingen = #1, Mark Eager = #2 and Dixie Nicholson = #3 !!!??

Dear Jaime Niembro:

After the appeal hearing on January 12th 2007 I had the hope that the decision of the GIL Arbitration Committee would be overturned because in the ruling GIL Bylaw rules were bluntly ignored.
To my surprise the new ruling dated January 16th 2007 confirmed the first ruling.

Equal to the first ruling, this decision has no explanation whatsoever what exact rules and regulations I supposedly had broken and does not give any reason or legal grounds why my own statements and petitions were dismissed.
What interpretations are left? That the decisions were made on personal dislike against me, preference for Sandi Allin, a decision made in favor of a broker or against an agent, maybe even a decision against a member of Remax Ajijic, maybe because I am German or somebody was paid off? But this would be a violation of Article X of the Code of Ethics & Standard of Practice.

The second ruling states that the new committee was “composed by two new members: Richard Tingen and Mark Eager”. Fact is that from the old committee only two members were left (Samuel Cruz and Manuel Hernandez) – the others (Arturo Garcia, Adolfo Duran and Ricardo Navarrete) were not present, and in addition to the mentioned two new members a third one, Dixie Nicholson, was on the committee. She judged me, why was she not mentioned?

I know that you recommend that I do not involve a Mexican civil court in order to have the decision of the GIL Arbitration Committee overturned. Ok, but the Mexican legal system allows having a third independent court (tercera instancia) review the decisions of the first two courts based on how legal procedures were followed and how court decisions were founded on laws and rules.

I am appealing to a third GIL Arbitration Committee to review the decisions of the first and second GIL Arbitration Committee because in my opinion the previous committees have not ruled according to the GIL Bylaws:
:
• Minimum requirements to file a complaint were not met (Article IX, Section 4) but the case was not dismissed despite the fact that I petitioned that it would be based on GIL Bylaws.
• A double listing can only be done if the first listing does exist according to GIL Bylaws. In this case this was not taken under consideration. The first listing did not exist according to GIL Bylaws (Article VIII, Section 3 and Article VIII, Section 3 e and Article VIII, Section 4).
• The client had canceled the listing and Sandi Allin had accepted this (proven by the action of both parties) and the house was off the market.
• The first GIL Arbitration Committee was not impartial because a penalty for me was already established before my hearing on the 13th of December 2006.
• The first ruling was dated December 13th, declared effective by December 14th 2006 but given to my office only on December 18th 2006 when I was already since December 16th 2006 on a 3 weeks vacation in Germany. The day of my departure was on several occasions announced on and before December 14th 2006 to Samuel Cruz and it was requested that the ruling would be given to me before my departure in order to be able to react to it. It can be argued that by not giving me the ruling of the first Arbitration Committee in a timely manor Samuel Cruz, Chairman of the GIL Arbitration Committee broke Article I of the Code of Ethics & Standard of Practice, because he did not protect and promote my interests as colleague in front of the GIL Arbitration Committee and could have had consequences up to the permanent suspension from GIL because I could have missed the deadline to pay the fine.
• The appeal Arbitration Committee did not contain the original members of the first Arbitration Committee who handled the case but did have three new members, one of these (Dixie Nicholson) was not mentioned in the new ruling, violating Article IX, Section 2 b). The new ruling was only signed by the chairman of the Arbitration Committee, not by any of the other members of the Arbitration Committee.

By ruling against me and not dismissing the case Samuel Cruz and the GIL Arbitration Committee members who voted against me have broken Article XV of the Code of Ethics & Standard of Practice: “REALTORS shall not knowingly or recklessly make false or misleading statements about competitors, their businesses, or their business practices”.  The ruling of my suspension was published to all GIL members and without taking all GIL Bylaws into account this was knowingly or recklessly making false or misleading statements about me, and my business practices to all GIL members!

By not giving any explanations, stating exact rules and regulations that I supposedly had broken and on which legal grounds my own statements and petitions were ignored the GIL Arbitration Committees are in violation of Article IX, Section 2 a) of the GIL Bylaws!

If this ruling stands it will, according to Article IX Section 1 b) and 2 a), set precedent and because of it Article IX, Section 4, Article VIII, Section 3 and 3 e) and Article VIII, Section 4 will be completely or in parts be deleted from the GIL Bylaws!
 

Justus Hauser
Nice try, though!

Monday February 29th 2007 In agreement with the case of Sandi Allin VS Justus Hauser the decision was made by the new Arbitration Committee that he does not have to pay the 10% of the penalty as established in the Code of Ethics of the GIL Bylaws. The penalty stays as it was stipulated. signed: Samuel Cruz Martinez chairman Arbitration Committee (signed behalf the new committee members)

After a court decision and an appeal the Mexican legal system allows a third independent court (tercera instancia) to be called upon in order to review the decisions of the first two courts based on how legal procedures were followed and how court decisions were founded on laws and rules.
It seems that GIL Bylaw Article IV, Section 2 e) makes you the last GIL official that I can turn to for help:
GIL Bylaw Article IV, Section 2 duties and responsibilities of GIL officers:
e) Sergeant at Arms: To enforce GIL Bylaws and MLS regulations. To issue fines or disciplinary action when violations have occurred. To notify in writing the President for his/ her authorization and then, the offending Broker / Agent.

The arbitration case filed by Sandi Allin against me and the way it was handled by the GIL Arbitration Committee was – in my opinion - from beginning to end filled with stunning mistakes, clear and repeated violations of GIL Bylaw rules and even deliberate offenses against GIL Bylaws and our Code of Ethics, possibly even Mexican law!

1. The renewal contract presented by Sandi Allin, dated 28th of July 2006 is clearly NOT a GIL contract. GIL Bylaw Article IX, Section 4 states that “it is mandatory that all contracts accompanying a complaint be GIL approved”. Samuel Cruz as chairman of the GIL Arbitration Committee was obliged to dismiss this case. Any other decision would be in violation of this fundamental rule that you are NOT allowed to change any GIL contract! This is also taught in the fast starter class and is frequently mentioned in GIL education classes – last time by Dixie Nicholson in the Ethics class in December 2006.  From the beginning of this case I petitioned that this case would be dismissed based on this GIL Bylaw Article. In the appeal hearing I even quoted this rule to Dixie her self but without any explanation this was ignored. None of the involved Arbitration Committees (at least not the majority) seemed to care if minimum requirements to file a complaint with the GIL Arbitration Committee were at least met.

2. A double listing can only be done if the first listing does exist according to GIL Bylaws. In this case this was not taken under consideration. Sandi Allin’s listing was not valid according to GIL Bylaws and therefore I did not double list:

o GIL Bylaws Article VIII, Section 3 states that a listing contract had to be on a GIL approved listing agreement and not a home made form.
o GIL Bylaws Article VIII, Section 3 e) states that any listing must have an ending date clearly established on the contract. The presented renewal contract has no clear ending date, just a time period.

3. Sandi Allin finally signed off on her irregular listing on November 20th 2006 (after artificially trying to push this date as far as she could) but filed after that date the complaint against me. How can the GIL Arbitration Committee allow a complaint for double listing a property when at that time this was not even the case?

4. My first hearing was on December 13th 2006.
Jaime Calderon talked with Samuel Cruz on December 12th 2006 and Samuel told him that the penalty for me will be 5,000 to 10,000 Pesos fine and a one or two month suspension, may be even that he would be kicked out of GIL. How can he know the penalty before the accused even had a chance to be heard?
I have here another proof that the verdict was already made before I had a chance to tell my side: I have a signed statement from Evelyn and Robert Burns, who went on December the 12th 2006 on a tour to see rental homes with Adolfo Duran, a member of the GIL Arbitration Committee who had to hear me on December the 13th 2006. He commented to these clients that the following day he would sentence an agent to a monetary fine and a 2 month suspension, may be even to a 6 month suspension. Sentencing an accused before he has a chance to even be heard is against all judicial rules and illegal in all societies (with the exception of dictatorships). If the GIL Arbitration Committee would be a real court of law these “judges” would go to jail now! This is definitely a violation of the Code of Ethics & Standard of Practice we all signed to uphold.

5. The wishes of the client in this case were completely ignored. It is clear that this client did not wanted to switch to another agency in order to not pay a commission but because she was over a long period of time not happy with the service she got from Sandi Allin. She had canceled the listing and trusted that a verbal agreement from Sandi Allin that she as a client could cancel prior to the official expiration date of her contract would be honored. She had taken her house of the market, the listing was removed from the MLS and she received her key back. This might not be so important for the GIL Arbitration Committee but in the eye of the client and the public this is very important. The statement of the client was totally ignored in this case.

6. The first ruling was dated December 13th, declared effective by December 14th 2006 but given to the office of Remax Ajijic only on December 18th 2006 when I was already since December 16th 2006 on a 3 week vacation in Germany. The day of my departure was on several occasions announced on and before December 14th 2006 to Samuel Cruz and it was requested that the ruling would be given to me before my departure in order to be able to react to it. On December 14th 2006 Jaime Calderon asked Samuel to give the ruling to me before I would leave, the day the ruling took officially effect. According to the date of the ruling and the date it would take affect Samuel Cruz had the time to give me the decision of the GIL Arbitration Committee in time. This is also supported by the statement made by Mr. and Mrs. Burns. I have to believe that Samuel did not give me the ruling because it was held back deliberately so that I would be out of the country and may be even miss the 14 day deadline to pay fine and could be expelled from Gil permanently. This also is a clear violation of the Code of Ethics & Standard of Practice and possibly even an attack on Jaime Calderon and his agency by get rid of one of his best producing agents!

7. Article IX, Section 2 b) of the GIL Bylaws clarify that in an appeal the new GIL Arbitration Committee will contain all members of the old Arbitration Committee in this case and two new members. From the old Arbitration Committee only Samuel Cruz and Manuel Hernandez were present. The two new members appointed by the GIL President were Mark Eager and Richard Tingen. But there was another new member on this new Arbitration Committee: Dixie Nicholson! This is against the rules. Jaime Niembro told me that supposedly the Chairman of the GIL Arbitration Committee can only vote in case of a tie. As far as I have heard, Manuel Hernandez voted against me, Richard Tingen and Mark Eager in favor of me. If that is true that would give a clear verdict in favor of me. With the illegal vote of Dixie Nicholson against me it was a tie and Samuels vote against me made a decision against me possible. This procedure was against the GIL Bylaws and only because of it the ruling could be done against me! Even if the vote was not done this way having a third new member on the GIL Arbitration Committee is against the rule.

8. According to Article IX, Section 1 “The duties of the Arbitration Committee shall include, but are not limited to the following:
(a) Decisions regarding violations of ethical standards by GIL members towards clients and towards the general public.
(b) Clarification of rules and standards.
How can this be done if the rulings of the Arbitration Committees just say, that I broke GIL rules but do not specify in any way which rules I supposedly had broken? There is no explanation whatsoever about what I did wrong. The GIL Arbitration Committee is deeply affecting lives: I had to pay 5,000 Pesos and I was not allowed to work for 2 months, not allowed to make a living for me and my family and the GIL Arbitration Committees don't even give me an explanation?

9.  You can not have two GIL Bylaws – one to convict me and one for everybody else. GIL Bylaws state under Article IX Section 2 a) that “all decisions made by the Arbitration Committee shall be documented, and the rulings shall be regarded as precedent and a basis for future decisions”. As a result of this ruling against me and the fact that a non GIL contract was allowed in a complaint in front of the GIL Arbitration Committee in the future agents and brokers not only are allowed to change GIL contracts but they are allowed to make their own contracts and a GIL contract is not longer mandatory to file a complaint with GIL. Doesn't that show how wrong this ruling was?
 

Justus Hauser
Until this date I have not heard from the Sergeant at Arms. But my broker was told that I should stop making waves or I could be kicked out because I was seen in the office during the time of my suspension and that would be a violation of the GIL Arbitration Ruling. (Where does it say that, either in the ruling or in the bylaws?) And if he wouldn't keep me under control the whole agency could be kicked out of GIL!

Wednesday, February 14th 2007 With this we want to inform you that the Arbitration Committee has received various proves that show that you continued working during the period of your sanction. In the meantime another process of arbitration is opened. Without anything else for the moment we bid farewell    Samuel Cruz Martinez chairman Arbitration Committee

Monday, February 26th 2007 Attention Justus Hauser CC: Jaime Calderon Esparza With this we like to inform you of the result of the special meeting of the brokers programed to take a decision in relations to the non observance of the sanctions previously applied to Justus Hauser.  After the analysis of the proves a vote was taken in respect to the sanction that would be applied and the decision is the following: Justus Hauser stays totally suspended as real estate agent for a period of 6 month from this date on. This sanction implies that under no circumstances he can realize activities related to real estate. His listings have to be removed, he can not advertise, not participate in caravans, commercial meetings etc. ... until the end of this sanction. Jaime Calderon has to pay a fine of 5,000 pesos (five thousand pesos 00/100 MN) signed: Samuel Cruz Martinez chairman Arbitration Committee

1. There is no limitation of advertisement in either the original verdict against me (I was "not be able to pick up keys, show or sell properties") nor in the GIL Bylaws. 2. Because I place an ad every month I get a better price - not allowing me to advertise would force me to pay more for my advertising and this would exceed the punishment given to me by the Arbitration Committee. 3. The clients have a right to be advertised, not allowing the advertisement would punish them, too. 4. In order to make clear that these properties were NOT my listings until my suspension would be over I added: "All properties are listed with Jaime Calderon until February 14th 2007."

Ajijic 26th of February 2007

Appeal:
The original ruling, dated December 13th 2006 states as followed:
That I had an inactive status for a period of 2 month, effective since December 14th 2006 and that during that time I would not be able to pick up keys, show or sell properties.
In addition I was fined 5000 Pesos.
- My fine was paid in full according to GIL rules.
- During the time of my sanctions I have neither picked up keys from any GIL office nor have I shown or sold any properties.

Today statements from agents were presented to me reporting that I was seen in the office of Remax Ajijic, the GIL office during a training lesson and in the law office of Lic. Jorge Luis Ramos Uriarte. In addition my ad from February 2007 was presented as evidence against me.
- Yes, I was in the office of Remax Ajijic in order to do my other businesses (Personal Assistance and Interpreter Service and web site design). My broker Jaime Calderon has allowed me to use the office and the high speed internet of Remax Ajijic for my business purposes. I was also invited by my colleagues on a private basis on February the 2nd 2007 to eat Tamales.
- I have abstained from doing open house or having floor time during the time of my sentencing. After the end of the suspension period I had my first open house (at the XXX house) on February 14th 2007 and my first floor time on February 15th 2007.
- On January 17th I did attend a training class at the GIL office. The secretary of Remax Ajijic, Nachita Hernandez, had prior to that asked Martha, secretary in the GIL office if I had to attend or if I was not allowed to visit the class because of the suspension. Martha told Nachita that in fact I did had to attend because it was an obligatory class and failure to attend the class would be a violation of the GIL rules.
- Yes, I was several times in the office of Lic. Jorge Luis Ramos Uriarte because the family of my wife has a case of probate with him and I consulted him as a lawyer.
- The ad I placed in the Ojo del Lago was my regular ad that I place every month to announce my services. I get a special price because I have an ad in this magazine every month. The ruling did not specify any restrictions about advertisement and in good faith in order to comply with my inactive status I added the sentence “All properties are listed with Jaime Calderon until February 14th 2007”. By doing so I thought I would comply with the ruling against me. Neither the ruling nor the GIL bylaws on the Internet give any indication that this was not permitted and it was not done with bad intentions.

I hereby wish to appeal the decision of the brokers to suspend me for another 6 month (after being already suspended for 2 month and fined 5000 Pesos) and to fine my broker.

Sincerely,

Justus Hauser
You have to admit: That was nice, don't you think? No accusations (like: you didn't give me any chance to defend myself, you didn't even tell me what I supposedly had done, what kind of evidence is that?, what kind of GIL rules did you use to convict me etc.), no aggression, nothing!

Friday, March 2nd 2007 Attention Justus Hauser CC: Jaime Calderon Esparza In relations to your presented appeal in respect of the decision taken by the Arbitration Committee we like to inform you that it will be taken under consideration and vote at the next meeting of the brokers that will be held March 9th 2007. During this reunion Justus Hauser has 5 (five) minutes to explain his appeal for which we recommend to prepare his argument to fit said amount of time. Sincerely: signed: Samuel Cruz Martinez chairman Arbitration Committee

Monday, March 20th 2007 Attention Justus Hauser CC: Jaime Calderon Esparza With this we like to inform you of the decision of the brokers taken Friday, March 9th 2007.  After the hearing and analyzing the appeal of Justus Hauser a vote was taken in respect of the sanction that would be applied and the decision is the following: Justus Hauser stays totally suspended as real estate agent for a period of 6 month from this date on. This sanction implies that under no circumstances he can realize activities related to real estate. His listings have to be removed, he can not advertise, not participate in caravans, commercial meetings etc. ... until the end of this sanction. Jaime Calderon has to pay a fine of 5,000 pesos (five thousand pesos 00/100 MN) signed: Samuel Cruz Martinez chairman Arbitration Committee

Dear Jaime:
After the verdict of the brokers concerning my appeal to suspend me for another six month it is clear that there is no chance to get a fair and just decision from this panel.

In order to protect Jaime Calderon and the agents of Remax Ajijic from further retaliation and the threat that the whole agency could be suspended from GIL I hereby announce my resignation as sales agent of Remax Ajijic.

Thank you for your help in the last several weeks. I know you tried your best.
It is sad that good men like you and Jaime Calderon, President and Vice President of GIL are not strong enough to keep decisions of the Arbitration Committee and the brokers ethical and unbiased. It seems that at the moment negative forces within GIL are too strong. May be when the good side is getting stronger I will be back.

Sincerely,

Justus Hauser