Complaint Review: One Stop Motors - Las Vegas Nevada

Tim, OK..I see your point..and sometimes my wording assumes what is commonly done instead of allowing for every possible situation. I see your point. The one point is clear though is that to be an independent contractor, one must be able to sustain some degree of financial loss, not a significant loss, but some degree of loss. An employee cannot usually suffer a financial loss as all expenses of an employee are generally covered by the employer. Loss of earnings as in labor for work performed is not considered an element of loss, as investment is specified. This was the majority of the determination in 2 of my cases. Anyway, like C.A. said, the whole idea was to get the IRS into the lives of this sleaze operation. That was my point in the original rebuttal. Thanks for the info and reply.

Do the SS-8 just so the IRS will begin to look at that sleazebag operation! Timmy will be sorry that he treated you like that. Can't wait until he gets his back tax bill. Be sure and keep us posted!

Don't forget that I consider you an RoR buddy, Steve, and that this is a friendly debate, not a heated argument. The truth on this one is that we are both right. IRS regulations and publications, as well as court cases, do call for the common law "control" based test. I used the Darden case because it is the one in which the Supreme Court held that when the term "employee" is used in ANY statute, without a guiding definition, the common law "control" definition applies. The labor case I used was employed to show how this definition works. But you wanted a tax specific case, so see the 9th Circuit case below. HOWEVER, you were speaking of IRS determinations, not the end results of litigated matters. You stated in a previous discussion between us that you tend to look to the result, whereas I look to the process. Here, you are looking to what the IRS will determine, whereas I am looking to what the law actually is. As with disability determinations by the SSA, the IRS's initial determinations are almost always in favor of the agency's own interest. The IRS has a vested interest in determining that an individual is an employee. As such, it will routinely look to single factors and hold that a worker is an "employee." And that's where you are absolutely right. It's just like how Social Security routinely determines that disability benefit applicants are not disabled, regardless of the evidence actually presented. You were thus correct in your original assertion, and concededly also correct in that I was "missing the point." But the reason that I was missing the point was that I was reading unecessary elements into the issue. Now here's where I validate my assertions. Just because the IRS will accept scant evidence that a common law employment relationship exists does not mean that, per the law as written, the worker is actually an employee, even under the IRS's own regulations. In an adversarial setting, it is not sufficient for the Service to merely show that the employer provided tools or that the putative employee did or did not have the opportunity for independent loss. Employees can have a stake in the enterprise and thus the opportunity for loss, independent contractors can have no investment and thus no opportunity for loss. Nor is it sufficient, in an adversarial setting, to show who provided the implements of the job, as some degree of employer provision will be reasonably present in certain independent contractor gigs, and some degree of employee provision will be reasonable found in some employee gigs. But, per the IRS, it probably doesn't take much. If you still don't believe me, take a look at the following authorities: 26 CFR 31.3121(D)-1(c): 1) Every individual is an employee if UNDER THE USUAL COMMON LAW RULES the relationship between him and the person for whom he performs services is the legal relationship of employer and employee. 2) Generally such relationship exists when the [employer] has the right to control and direct the individual who performs the services . . . United States v. W. M. Webb, Inc., 397 U.S. 179, 193-94 (1970): (speaking on the above regulation) "It is clear that this brief sketch of relevant factors cannot be intended to provide a workable test . . . the regulation provides a summary of the principles of the common law . . . The thrust of both statute and regulation is that the standards that are to govern in any field are those that the courts customarily apply to define this "legal relationship." Youngs v. Commissioner, 96-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) P50,579 (9th Cir. 1996): "Youngs is an employee for federal employment tax purposes 'if under the usual common law rules the relationship between him and . . . [National] is the legal relationship of employer and employee.' Treas. Reg. 31.3121(d)-1(c)(1) (1980). At common law, courts determine an individual's employment status by using a flexible test. Because "no shorthand formula or magic phrase . . . can be applied to [determine the status of a work relationship], . . . ALL OF THE INCIDENTS OF THE RELATIONSHIP MUST BE ASSESSED AND WEIGHED WITH NO ONE FACTOR BEING DECISIVE." (emphasis added). IRS Publication 15-A, Section 2: "In any employee-independent contractor determination, all information that provides evidence of the degree of control and the degree of independence must be considered." "Independent contractors are more likely to have unreimbursed expenses than are employees . . . However, employees may also incur unreimbursed expenses in connection with the services that they perform for their business . . . an independent contractor often has a significant investment in the facilities he or she uses in performing services for someone else. However, a significant investment is not necessary for independent contractor status."

You are quoting the law as it applies to labor. I am quoting IRS. There IS a difference, and the IRS code is absolute. I have tested it. I have the written determinations to prove it. End of conversation.

Steve, the modern employee vs. independent contractor distinction is guided, where the relevant statute fails to set forth a certain definition, by the test enunciated by the Supreme Court in Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Darden, 503 U.S. 318 (1992). See, e.g., Clackamas Gastroenterology Assocs., P.C. v. Wells, 538 U.S. 440 (2003). Here is the relevant language from Darden, describing the test: "A court, in determining whether a hired party is an employee or an independent contractor under the general common law of agency, must consider the hiring party's right to control the manner and means by which the product is accomplished; among the other factors relevant to this inquiry are (1) the skill required, (2) the source of the instrumentalities and tools, (3) the location of the work, (4) the duration of the relationship between the parties, (5) whether the hiring party has the right to assign additional projects to the hired party, (6) the extent of the hired party's discretion over when and how long to work, (7) the method of payment, (8) the hired party's role in hiring and paying assistants, (9) whether the work is part of the regular business of the hired party, (10) whether the hiring party is in business, (11) the provision of employee benefits, and (12) the tax treatment of the hired party . . ." More relevant to our discussion is the language following the above: " . . . since the common-law test contains no shorthand formula or magic phrase that can be applied to find the answer, all of the incidents of the relationship must be assessed and weighed with no one factor's being decisive." To boil that down, the chief inquiry is the degree of control exercised by the employer. Questions of whether tools are provided, etc, are merely steps towards arriving at a conclusion, but the Supreme COurt has enunciated time and time again that NO single factor should be determinative. So there is no "absolute" line and, to let you in on a little secret, there are NO absolutes in the law. Lawyers NEVER speak of absolutes because EVERYTHING is capable of being characterized multiple ways. This issue, in fact, was a huge part of what I did my law review Note on. I spent hundreds of hours researching the topic and drafted a 90 page article based on that research. I am intimately familiar with this test. I am also intimately familiar with how lower courts tend to routinely bungle its application. So it's not at all surprising to me that you encountered a court that completely missed the point of the Supreme Court's dictates, because many of them do. And if that court was actually an ALJ, then you are all the more likely to encounter the results you've seen. The law is not perfect, and sometimes judges come up with their own versions of otherwise settled law. That's why good lawyers do whatever they can to get certain cases in front of certain judges (it's called "forum shopping"). But, let's get real here anyways: we are arguing over a minor distinction, where we agree as to the main point. It doesn't matter how the employer chooses to define the relationship, the independent contractor vs. employee distinction is a question of law.

Timothy, I have actually followed through with the SS-8 process on 3 separate occasions and have gotten a determination from each that explains all criteria used and what criteria must be met. Each of the 3 times I was found to be an employee, and have that determination in my possesion for each. Also, the IRS and the USDOL and each state DOL have slightly different criteria to make the determination. All of my determinations were IRS determinations as per the SS-8 form. The investigation and determination are that of the IRS. I know exactly what I am talking about on this, as 3 times I had scumbags calling me an independent contractor, and each time I proved that I was an employee, and the "employer" was financially penalized heavily. If you provide any direction on the use of someones time, they are an employee. If you provide any materials or tools to anyone to do a job, they are an employee. If a person cannot endure financial loss, they cannot be an independent contractor. These things are absolute. The bottom line is that just because someone signs an independent contractor agreement, doesn't make it so. I have proven that 3 times and have the documentation to prove it, and have one of those 3 times been in court over it on a labor charge. Thanks again.

Steve, I hate to do this to you again, but your assessment of employees vs. independent contractors is a bit off. The ultimate determination in the employee vs. independent contractror distinction is the degree of control that the putative employer exerts over the worker. Opportunity for independent loss, like provision of materials, etc., are each but ONE factor in an eight factor test to determine independent contractor/employee status, but the test is qualitative rather than quantitative, meaning (partially) that no individual factor or group of factors is controlling. Opportunity for independent profit or loss can be present or absent in any given case without swaying the ultimate conclusion. An employee can have the opportunity for independent loss, an independent contractor can stand to lose nothing. Whether or not such opportunity exists is a part of the determination, but is not the determination in and of itself. The test also looks to whether the "tools of the trade" are supplied by the putative employer, whether the work takes place on the employer's premises, whether the job is permanent or temporary, whether the task completed is an integral function of the putative employer's business, whether benefits and/or payroll services are actually provided, and of course, the degree of actual supervision and direction exerted or reserved by the employer. But, like I said, this test is qualitative, not quantitative. A high degree of exercised supervision, or even the right to exercise such supervision, speaks highly towards an employer/employee relationship even where all other factors are missing. I think that what you're doing, Steve, is taking independent elements of the larger test and erroneously understanding them as ultimate distinctions. But I agree with your original assessment: these guys probably are employees, and no piece of paper calling them independent contractors will change that. The employee vs. independent contractor distinction is not affected by contractual labels. What an employer decides to call his workers isn't even a part of the test!

Steve, I hate to do this to you again, but your assessment of employees vs. independent contractors is a bit off. The ultimate determination in the employee vs. independent contractror distinction is the degree of control that the putative employer exerts over the worker. Opportunity for independent loss, like provision of materials, etc., are each but ONE factor in an eight factor test to determine independent contractor/employee status, but the test is qualitative rather than quantitative, meaning (partially) that no individual factor or group of factors is controlling. Opportunity for independent profit or loss can be present or absent in any given case without swaying the ultimate conclusion. An employee can have the opportunity for independent loss, an independent contractor can stand to lose nothing. Whether or not such opportunity exists is a part of the determination, but is not the determination in and of itself. The test also looks to whether the "tools of the trade" are supplied by the putative employer, whether the work takes place on the employer's premises, whether the job is permanent or temporary, whether the task completed is an integral function of the putative employer's business, whether benefits and/or payroll services are actually provided, and of course, the degree of actual supervision and direction exerted or reserved by the employer. But, like I said, this test is qualitative, not quantitative. A high degree of exercised supervision, or even the right to exercise such supervision, speaks highly towards an employer/employee relationship even where all other factors are missing. I think that what you're doing, Steve, is taking independent elements of the larger test and erroneously understanding them as ultimate distinctions. But I agree with your original assessment: these guys probably are employees, and no piece of paper calling them independent contractors will change that. The employee vs. independent contractor distinction is not affected by contractual labels. What an employer decides to call his workers isn't even a part of the test!

Steve, I hate to do this to you again, but your assessment of employees vs. independent contractors is a bit off. The ultimate determination in the employee vs. independent contractror distinction is the degree of control that the putative employer exerts over the worker. Opportunity for independent loss, like provision of materials, etc., are each but ONE factor in an eight factor test to determine independent contractor/employee status, but the test is qualitative rather than quantitative, meaning (partially) that no individual factor or group of factors is controlling. Opportunity for independent profit or loss can be present or absent in any given case without swaying the ultimate conclusion. An employee can have the opportunity for independent loss, an independent contractor can stand to lose nothing. Whether or not such opportunity exists is a part of the determination, but is not the determination in and of itself. The test also looks to whether the "tools of the trade" are supplied by the putative employer, whether the work takes place on the employer's premises, whether the job is permanent or temporary, whether the task completed is an integral function of the putative employer's business, whether benefits and/or payroll services are actually provided, and of course, the degree of actual supervision and direction exerted or reserved by the employer. But, like I said, this test is qualitative, not quantitative. A high degree of exercised supervision, or even the right to exercise such supervision, speaks highly towards an employer/employee relationship even where all other factors are missing. I think that what you're doing, Steve, is taking independent elements of the larger test and erroneously understanding them as ultimate distinctions. But I agree with your original assessment: these guys probably are employees, and no piece of paper calling them independent contractors will change that. The employee vs. independent contractor distinction is not affected by contractual labels. What an employer decides to call his workers isn't even a part of the test!

Steve, I hate to do this to you again, but your assessment of employees vs. independent contractors is a bit off. The ultimate determination in the employee vs. independent contractror distinction is the degree of control that the putative employer exerts over the worker. Opportunity for independent loss, like provision of materials, etc., are each but ONE factor in an eight factor test to determine independent contractor/employee status, but the test is qualitative rather than quantitative, meaning (partially) that no individual factor or group of factors is controlling. Opportunity for independent profit or loss can be present or absent in any given case without swaying the ultimate conclusion. An employee can have the opportunity for independent loss, an independent contractor can stand to lose nothing. Whether or not such opportunity exists is a part of the determination, but is not the determination in and of itself. The test also looks to whether the "tools of the trade" are supplied by the putative employer, whether the work takes place on the employer's premises, whether the job is permanent or temporary, whether the task completed is an integral function of the putative employer's business, whether benefits and/or payroll services are actually provided, and of course, the degree of actual supervision and direction exerted or reserved by the employer. But, like I said, this test is qualitative, not quantitative. A high degree of exercised supervision, or even the right to exercise such supervision, speaks highly towards an employer/employee relationship even where all other factors are missing. I think that what you're doing, Steve, is taking independent elements of the larger test and erroneously understanding them as ultimate distinctions. But I agree with your original assessment: these guys probably are employees, and no piece of paper calling them independent contractors will change that. The employee vs. independent contractor distinction is not affected by contractual labels. What an employer decides to call his workers isn't even a part of the test!

Coburg, This is the easiest way to burn them, and actually get money in your pocket too! All with no out of pocket expense and only 15 minutes of your time. Trust me, you were NOT an independent contractor. You were an employee, and should have had taxes withheld, SS matched and paid, and been covered by workman's comp and unemployment insurance. Filing the SS-8 will force an audit, and they will have to pay all back premiums and withholding for you and every other EMPLOYEE who was illegally declared an independent contractor. This is the absolute best way to hold them accountable and put them out of business at the same time. DO the SS-8 today!!!

Steve, Thanks for your reply and support. Your help is truly appreciated. I'm curious as to how you ended up on this thread about One Stop Motors? As you acknowledged, the things I have said here are true. We will get these people shut down and quite possibly more, but it will take time. Any other information you or anybody else has would be helpful. We have enough information now but anything you or others could add will only put iceing on the cake. One Stop Motors is ripping people off everyday. Sure, revenge is part of the equation here but I also hate places like OSM's that make money from taking money and providing no services.

Coburg, I know you are right in all you said, and you are welcome for my support. I suggest you fill out and mail that IRS form SS-8 right away. You won't believe the ball of sh*t that gets rolling! And, it initiates an audit by the IRS. Also, one more thing that Tim lied about. They DO call multiple times. I got 3 calls in the first day my ad ran on cars.com from One Stop Motors. This is after telling them on the first call I was not interested, as I saw through the scam immediately. I recieved 8 more calls in the next 6 days. They do not have any means or desire to block or remove anyones # as they are just going through other advertising publications at random, and it is always a different caller. Some of the callers got nasty when I did not return the call and they called me back repeatedly after knowing I was not interested. And, they are operating in violation of NV law. They actually need a dealer's license to do what they are doing in NV. I know this for a fact. If anyone provides any assistance in the financing and/or movement of any vehicle for sale in NV,they need to be bonded and have a dealer's license with a physical location to store and show vehicles. This is all in the NRS and NAC. They do not need a license to provide advertising ONLY. OSM is a total scam, as are all of the other businesses operated under different names by these scammers.

Tim, you got one thing right, it is true that I did not use my real name. Almost everything else you mentioned was less than truthful though...not all but most. There is nothing to be proud of using your own name here. It is a public name and has been mentioned in numerous places here. In addition, I have no problem printing the names of sleeze and dishonest for the world to see though. Where to start, well, first I did make dozens of phone calls per day, DOZENS and I did it everyday I was there. My first day on the phones could possibly be an exception...I honestly can't say. You are not telling the truth when you say. otherwise. As for the number of complaints, I wrote down the phone numbers of 7 individuals. I wrote those numbers all down in the last 3 days at One Stop Motors. I have the numbers right here and have already proven to be quite useful. The seven numbers I wrote down was far from all of the unhappy people I called though. I wrote down 7 numbers of people who were especially upset hearing the name OSM's. If anybody doubts it, I invite them to grab a copy of Traders Magazine and start calling individual advertisements at random and say you are One Stop Motors. It's easy to get more #'s of unsatisfied customers. (we tended to only call #'s that were advertising a vehicle for over $10,000, so those under $10,000 have more than likely never heard of OSM's.) Customers ARE called over and over again. I have facts to back it up. Just out of curiousity, if OSM's does in fact have a 'do not call' list how come we were given Trader magazines and told to start calling individuals? No numbers were marked as do not call. We were only told to call people with vehicles over $10,000. Again, you are not telling the truth. I did not forcefully "demand" my paycheck. After waiting a couple of weeks for it to arrive in the mail, I politely went into One Stop Motors to get my check. Everybody was quite nice and cordial but it did take awhile to find the check but it was found. You have yet again been less than truthful. It was only after leaving OSM's that I noticed it was $250 short. I went back to OSM's and was politely waiting to talk to someone, hopefully you, when I was told to leave. I explained I was only waiting to talk to someone to get the check cleared up. I was forcefully told to leave again and I did so. I was professional but OSM's was not. That is the truth. Another thing I can give you is that in fact I had signed a paper saying if I left OSM's in the first month, my bonus would not be paid. You are right. I was told differently though and I was told it over and over. This is one of those times I wish a tape recorder had been going. While I did sign it, I have absolutely no memory of signing it. That is the truth. You do have me that I did sign it but that is as far it goes. If you are confused, don't worry. You'll understand later. I was NEVER verbally abusive, as you said and I did not send a threatening letter. I give you permission to post the letter here. It was direct but not in any way was it threatening. Once again, your rebuttal has been less than truthful. Please leave my name and address off of the letter. If people genuinely need it I'm more than happy to give it. Most do leave OSM's after a short time but to be fair, you are also correct that there were some employees who had been around for awhile and were making good money. Most were not though. To keep things truthful, it is also true that I was only at OSM's for two weeks. Perhaps the two weeks I was there, turnover was much more than average. I can't say it wasn't. The large advertisements in employment magazines would point to another conclusion though. I strongly stay with my advise to never buy anything over the phone...NEVER. It's always very possible that the call is on the up and up. However, there is also the possibility that it is a company like OSM's calling. In effect, companies like OSM's have polluted honest businesses that sell over the phone. That is a true shame, but it is reality. OSM's is a ripoff and you, Tim, know it. I go home at night and I can sleep. Maybe you can sleep too but if you can, it is a very sad thing. I make my money legitimately. I would welcome a lie-dector test on our differences to see who is really telling the truth here. One more thing, you mentioned "authority." and eluded that it was nothing more than imagination! You believe what you want...I never said it would be fast but my 'authorities" will eventually get OSM's exposed and shut down. Meanwhile, continue to ripoff unsuspecting customers. Steve, thanks for the excellent response to Tim.

Tim, I hate to bust your bubble here, but I can tell you without a doubt every person in your establishment making solicitation phone calls, etc. is an employee. Just because you FORCE and EMPLOYEE to sign an independent contractors agreement, does not make them one. I urge all current and former EMPLOYEES of OSM to go up to the IRS office over by the indoor swap meet and pick up an SS-8 form, "Determination of Worker Status". Fill it out and turn it in or mail it in. Tim, To qualify as an independent contractor, a person must have the ability to lose money on the operation other than personal earnings. They must have actual money invested. That is the biggie. If you provide so much as a pencil to a person to perform work under your control or direction, they are an EMPLOYEE. If you tell a person when to report to work or when they can leave or when they can take a break, they are an EMPLOYEE. And, that person you call an independent contractor must have the ability to provide the same services to others as they are providing for you. This means they must have been established providing contract services of sales and marketing on thier own prior to providing services to you. If you use the word hire, fire, etc..that person is an employee. If you withhold any taxes, that person is an employee. If you provide orientation , or offer hiring bonuses, discuss work rules etc..that person is an employee. Everything you do the way you do it constitutes an employee/employer relationship. The IRS,SS administration, DOL, and agencies for workman's comp and unemployment insurance would love to get ahold of this info and a few complaints from disgruntled employees! At least if you are going to rip off your workers, don't let them leave disgruntled! You are, by law, an EMPLOYER. I can wait for that back tax bill. And when it happens, and it will, you will have to pay the entire portion of SS for each of your employees as well as back premiums for workmans comp and unemployment insurance. All former employees reading this need to get that SS-8 form done an mailed ASAP. You can get it online at the IRS site. Then, you ex-employees can get a RICO case opened on these clowns for conspiracy to defraud. Then they lose everything. Thats JUSTICE!

I would like to take this opportunity to respond to George. That's not his real name incidentally. George claims that for the short time that he worked at OSM that he had an extremely high number of complaints about our services. Nothing could be further from the truth. While George is certainly entitled to his opinion, it has no basis in fact. During the time that George worked at OSM he rarely made a dozen calls a day so how could he have had dozens of negative calls? The answer is he could not have and is simply using perhaps one call that he made that someone said that they didn't want our services to justify leaving an arrangement he was not successful at. OSM had George's final paycheck set to be mailed when he appeared at the office and demanded it. Our office personnel had to search through stacks of out-going mail in order to provide George with a check that Nevada State Law states he was not entitled to until his next regular payday, and according to the agreement he signed with OSM, would be mailed to reach him within that time frame. George then claimed that he did not receive the full amount he was entitled to. Again, nothing could be further from the truth. George joined OSM as an Independent Contractor, a fact that he conveniently leaves out of his rant, and signed all agreements necessary to complete that arrangement. One of those agreements is the OSM bonus clause which clearly states that if a contractor ends their agreement with OSM for ANY reason, they agree that all bonuses not yet paid will be lost. We have George's signed copy of his agreement in his file with OSM and would be happy to show it to him at any time. George's final pay was correctly calculated based on his agreements with OSM and he was paid accordingly. George claims that he pointed out the mistake to a staff member who was then researching it. There was no research to be done it was explained to him that he was paid correctly and not entitled to any further bonus as he chose to end his arrangement with OSM. It was at that point the George became the unprofessional one and very verbally abusive. He was asked to leave by the Sales Manager, whose name was not the name George used in his complaint. It was explained repeatedly that he was paid correctly and that if he did not leave the premises that further steps would have to be taken. After several more minutes of George's abusive behavior he finally left. OSM did indeed receive a very threatening letter from George continuing to protest the final amount of his pay. OSM responded with a letter explaining the situation yet again and included a copy of the bonus agreement that he signed. Now George claims that it was his signature, but that he has absolutely no knowledge of the signing though.none whatsoever. Was he asleep when he signed the documents setting up his Independent Contractor agreement? Of course not. He is simply attempting to deny responsibility for his very own actions and smear the name of OSM on a site that has no care for the truthfulness of what is posted here. Again he admits that it was his signature on the document. George then goes on to complain about the working conditions and that most people leave after a short time. While some people discover that selling services on the phone is not for them, there are others that make a fantastic living doing it and have been with OSM for years. He also claims that customers are called over and over. This is not the case. OSM actually maintains a Do Not Call list of our own and continually remove numbers from our lead sources that no longer want to be called. OSM provides each and every service that a customer purchases with us. This is without fail. George even admits that we have success stories. I'm sorry if he thinks that his experience was less than that, but perhaps he simply is not compatible with this type of sales and he may want to pursue other career opportunities. OSM takes it's responsibility to our clients very seriously. We maintain a full-time customer service team that works with both our existing clients and their potential buyers. Our follow-up is without fail the best in our industry. Again, George claims to have been exposed to a high number of customers that were very unhappy and rightfully felt ripped off. George is again stating something as fact here that he absolutely has no personal knowledge of. As stated before, he did not make contact with a high number of customers and he did not work in customer service, so his claims cannot have any basis in fact. He claims that the only training he received was to get the credit card number from the customer. Again, this would go back to his claim of not remembering during training where he signed the agreements for being an independent contractor with OSM. Evidentially he also doesn't remember the parts of training concerning the ways we provide our services and the customer service team that follows through with every client. George's memory seems to lack focus when he can't remember an entire day of training or even remembering signing documents that he readily admits to. George then claims that there is more to tell but that some mysterious authority advised him not to. Obviously there is nothing else to cover or he would have used this site, which itself has no regard for the truth of the things posted here, to lay more lies in the open. He then goes to try and give everyone a piece of advise (?) Don't buy anything over the phone. It is our contention that the vast majority of Americans would miss out on some very exciting products and services were they to heed this advise. There are several, very respectable companies that choose to conduct business on the phone and OSM is glad to be able to list itself among them. I welcome questions or concerns from anyone reading anything on this site and always publish my name and contact information with each response. Tim Giffey General Manager OSM 877-566-6686