The following comments were originally posted under "View Complaints":

This is the full message which should have been posted at HOBB.org, Homeowners For Better Building:

<<The Sitterle defamation lawsuit, filed this week, says "tens of thousands" of people could have read those comments and that the company's reputation has been harmed.>>
And keeping the truth from being disclosed to "tens of thousands of people" [Which theoretically may be true, but in reality Col. Hirata's letter is basically buried in the vastness of Internet cyber space, pigeon holed into oblivion, and read by very few interested parties, few of which know or care anything about Sitterle Homes or Colonel Hirata.  "Tens of thousands" flatters both Sitterle Homes and Colonel Hirata.] who may be harmed by untoward business practices is perfectly acceptable in order to preserve a potentially undeserved false reputation? Is this the rationale? It's acceptable for corporations to cause harm to their customers but it is not acceptable for disgruntled customers to disclose the truth about a corporation which harms them? Go figure.

It is a sad commentary when an individual who has devoted a lifetime to serving his country, protecting the system which allows corporations who choose to game the system and wreak havoc on the American consumer, is sued by one of the beneficiaries of that system.
---------------------------------
Are the complaints from new house buyers who feel cheated by the behavior of their new house builder with regard to the honoring of their new house warranty unjustified? Should new house buyers bear the burden of the financial and emotional costs which attach to a product which has been shoddily produced? Who should be responsible and accountable for shoddy work and obvious defects in a product? Does part of free enterprise encompass the mantra, "Lets produce a product as profitably as possible, within the limits of the law, then exploit that law to its limits, so the responsibility and accountability for that product following the point of sale, becomes the sole responsibility of the unsuspecting consumer"? Where does accountability and responsibility for a product produced begin and end for the manufacturer of that product? Naturally, if one is the producer, one would want accountability and responsibility to end at the point of sale. If one is the purchaser of a new product, one would have expectations regarding quality, performance, and longevity of that product. If these expectations are not met, within the parameters of the limits of the expectations of a particular product, it is reasonable to assume the consumer should have a reasonable avenue of recourse for assigning accountability and responsibility, rather than to be left-on-the-hook and suffer the consequences of a business plan and system which provided him with a shoddy or defective product from the get-go. Should consumers be expected to bear the burden of a faulty business plan? If this is the case, then it should be fully disclosed and become part of the public domain. This is a part of free enterprise, full disclosure, transparency, and a level playing field which benefits all except those who wish to profit from a system which shifts finanacial costs of doing business onto those who legitimately have no responsibility to share in those costs once the purchase has been made. If this is how the game is played, then all participants should be familiar with the rules and not have some of the rules disclosed after the fact. And when the reality of the rules is so onerous and fraught with risk, no less harmful to the emotional and financial well being of new house buyers than the health effects of smoking tobacco are to smokers, then perhaps consumer warnings should be prominently displayed and disclosed in all aspects relating to new house sales and construction. Bravo Colonel Hirata for falling on your sword and telling the truth concerning your new house buying experience for the benefit of the American people for whom you so proudly serve. Thank you.
-------------------------------
SITTERLE HOMES CONCERNED ABOUT REPUTATION

Explain to me how Sitterle Home's reputation is going to be enhanced or vindicated when the story of their lawsuit against Colonel Hirata is picked-up by the news wires and main stream media. Colonel Hirata is no longer allowed to discuss his situation which is possibly what Sitterle Homes intended. Hopefully, the law of unintended consquences and the court of public opinion will rule in Colonel Hirata's favor for the benefit of his family and all American new house shoppers.
---------------------------------------
Sitterle Homes should be commended in this era of corporate scandals for showing the willingness to root-out truth and honesty. With corporate dishonesty riding high on the wave of Enron, Tyco, Adelphia, Qwest, et al, and the latest disclosure of widespread back-dating of the granting of stock options for executives, Sitterle Homes has chosen to take the high road, and to separate itself from the corporate rabble and seek truth and honesty. We can thank Sitterle Homes and Colonel Hirata for doing their part to reform corporate governance in the interest of preserving the best parts of free enterprise for our great country. God bless America.

As a US armed forces veteran and also somone who has experienced the process of buying a new house from a corporate/public (some would call, "production") new house builder, I would like to share some thoughts.  Persons who rise to the rank of colonel, or equivalent, within the United States Armed Forces are not crack-pot, knee-jerk, type people.  They are people of the highest quality and standards, regardless what measure one chooses for evaluation.  I do not know Colonel Hirata, but I am very comfortable in accepting and believing that he is a member of an elite group of people whose intellect, character, integrity, and leadership have been thoroughly scrutinized during their career and that they have proven themselves to be very worthy of the rank they have achieved.  I also believe that the public sharing of one's despicable experience with a corporate/public new house builder is a last ditch effort in what is seen as a hopeless cause, to hold some corporate/public new house builders accountable and responsible for the product they produced.  This effort may prevent other persons from experiencing the same despicable behavior.  New house shoppers are a trusting lot and often times this trust is abused.  Much legitimate information is available detailing the experiences of some new house buyers and the behavior of some corporate/public new house builders.  Organizations such as HADD, Homeowners Against Deficient Dwellings, and HOBB, Homeowners For Better Building do not exist because of a few activist type people who have nothing better to do.  They exist because of serious consumer related abuses, which in my view are intolerable, and the failure of regulating institutions to hold the perpetrators of the abuses accountable and responsible for the product they produce.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/metro/stories/MYSA101206.01E.SitterleSettles_1012.2892c0f.html

What a shame that the Hiratas did not see this through to completion. The builder must have known that the court case was likely not going in their favor.

So, rather than have the testimony and verdict available for public review, they settle. This could have established legal precedent that would help future homeowners.

Instead, the builder with deep pockets wins again. Not only do they intimidate the public by filing a lawsuit, they force the Hiratas to spend time and money defending their case. If the Hiratas had given up at any point before trial, then the builder would have won again.

In addition, the public bears the cost of another friviolos case tying up the court system.

The laws should be changed so that a court trial, once started, cannot be withdrawn by either side for a private settlement.