The following reply to a derogatory comment made about Dave on various online platforms by a former customer (with the initials P.M.) also appears on the Response to Social Media Attacks page of this website under MYTH #4.

---

COMMENT: Dave can't be trusted to "build a dollhouse"
Posted by P.M. and/or his wife on various online platforms

RESPONSE:   Dave has never been accused of substandard workmanship on any project he has PERSONALLY put his hands to doing during his more than 40-year construction career. Any work performed DIRECTLY by Dave does not support the negative characterization or implied lack of trust reflected in these statements. The comments made by P.M. and/or his wife instead relate to the work of a former subcontractor with whom Dave no longer has any association. The following five points outline the factual circumstances involving the rest of the story, which has been conveniently omitted from their narrative.

1) SUBCONTRACTOR RELIANCE: During the timeframe P.M. and his wife's home was under construction, Dave was managing multiple roofing projects concurrently. Consequently, after completing initial site work to the point of when footings could be constructed, he had to begin depending extensively on subcontractors to do the work. This reliance was necessary to maintain project continuity amidst overlapping commitments.

2) DAVE'S INJURY: In November 2024, Dave sustained a significant foot injury which rendered him unable to walk or physically visit the construction site for over six weeks. This unfortunate incident necessitated continued reliance on subcontractors for P.M. and his wife's home construction project. Additionally, it was hard to control the schedules as Dave cannot legally direct the day-to-day activities of subcontractors or micromanage their work. They are, indeed, their own boss and are supposed to know what they are doing. That is how this one subcontractor in particular marketed himself to Dave.

3) EXTERNAL INFLUENCE and COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN: Just prior to P.M and his wife's decision to restrict Dave's access to the project, he was on his way to the site when he spotted a Bethlehem woman walking around P.M.'s property (this woman was M.B. who also goes by the initials P.B and was mentioned on the Response to Social Media Attacks page of this website as the person following Dave around and harassing him). This woman more than likely went on to negatively influence P.M. and his wife's perception of Dave and his company (an action legally referred to as tortious interference). In any event, she had no business being on the project site. Soon following this incident, P.M.'s attitude shifted from respectful to confrontational. Notably, P.M. expressed skepticism regarding the ordering and delivery of windows that had indeed been purchased and delivered to the local Home Depot in Littleton. Despite Dave's efforts to provide proof, including verification from the store's management, P.M. and his wife persisted in their disbelief, leading to further accusations that were unfounded and damaging to Dave's professional reputation. An example of this is when P.M. accused Dave of throwing one of his company signs into a trash heap on their property. To this allegation Dave did not respond as the couple was berating him with rhetorical emails and texts assigning behaviors and intent that are not in keeping with Dave's character. When it gets to the point where you are belittled because it is impossible to prove a negative, communications inevitably break down. At any rate, it was clear at this point the couple had either spoken with the Bethlehem stalker personally or was influenced by the false narratives being spun online by her, her sister, J.M., L.P. and others on the Bethlehem Facebook gossip page.

4) FAILURE to ALLOW a RIGHT to CURE:   P.M. and his wife failed to provide Dave with the opportunity to remedy any alleged issues as per their contractual agreement with him and his company. The day the couple submitted an itemized list of purported problems—supposedly sourced from a structural engineer—they simultaneously issued a Cease-and-Desist order, eliminating Dave's access to the property thus any opportunity for him to inspect structural issues himself, and/or remedy the work of his subcontractors. This action directly contravenes the contract's stipulated "Right to Resolve Construction Defects" clauses (stated on page 15 of the contract and also known as "Right to Cure"). Prior discussions with P.M.'s wife confirmed Dave's willingness to address any substantive issues identified by the structural engineer. As a contractor with over 40 years of experience, Dave is fully equipped to handle reinforcement and restoration of foundational structures, should any legitimate concerns arise. In other words, restorative work of weak structures is well within Dave's wheelhouse -- and newer unfinished structures are not as difficult to remedy as old ones such as the widow's farmhouse referred to in the second TRUTH vs MYTH addressed on the Response to Social Media Attacks page of this website.

The following are the specific areas of the contract that were completely disregarded by this customer in their restrictive actions against Dave:

13.3. Right to Resolve Construction Defects
In accordance with New Hampshire law, RSA 359-G, the Contractor reserves the right to resolve alleged construction defects before the Buyer may commence litigation against the Contractor. The Buyer must serve on the Contractor a written notice of any construction conditions alleged to be defective at least sixty (60) days before filing a lawsuit or other action. The Contractor then has the opportunity to make an offer to repair and/or pay for the defects. (Recall that Dave was served a Cease and Desist letter without being provided the contract's stipulated period of time for him to inspect or resolve any issues.)

13.5. Failure to Comply
Failure by the Buyer to comply with the requirements of this clause and New Hampshire law, RSA 359-G, may affect the Buyer's ability to file a lawsuit or other action against the Contractor.

5) THREATS of ARREST: After the Cease-and-Desist letter came -- and Dave indeed obeyed the order -- the couple (or someone else) spotted a pickup truck in the vicinity of their project. P.M. and his wife immediately contacted Dave to let him know that if he visited their site, he would be arrested for criminal trespassing. The truck that was spotted was NOT Dave's, nor has he stepped foot on their property since he received their Cease-and-Desist order, but harassment of Dave continued nonetheless, including the couple's online comments about him and his company.

Any story sounds true until someone tells the other side and sets the record straight.