Dorean's Kurt Johnson Arrested - Page 3

PANICPASS · #21 07-24-2005, 03:09 PM

I'm sure that it isn't costing the banks anything. They pass the expenses, not covered by the foreclosures, onto their customers. So... how are they ever going to feel the pinch? They won't.

Yeah, I'm sure you're sure. What you really want to do is argue. Without FACTS, all you CAN do is argue. What you are really doing is baiting me to argue. Arguing is a dishonor. I can smell the stink a mile away.

lionel · #22 07-24-2005, 07:23 PM

Ice,
I agree with you. I have been a student of Mortgage Elimination for about 4 years. I am familiar with most of them from Barnett & Assoc., TDG, Redwood Trust, and many, many, many, more. I speak from experience when I say, "Unless there is PROOF POSITIVE that the mortgage has been satisfied, don't believe the hype!" I have seen documents showing discharge of mortgages filed in county courthouses all over the country, but when you contact the mortgage co. or the FORECLOSING ATTORNEY, they will tell you that the debt is still valid and there is a legal action on the property. I think Mortgage Elimination is based on sound legal theory, but the truth is that the bank are not prepared to give up what they guard so zealously. Until M.E. can be done with success most or all of the time, Please stay away from it! If you are currently involved in a M.E. situation , for God's sake, "PLEASE DON'T STOP MAKING YOUR MORTGAGE PAYMENT!!!" I own a company that provides non-bankruptcy alternatives to foreclosure, and I work cases from all parts of the country that were victims of TDG, and all of the others. It's sad when they get to me because even though most times I am successful in keeping them in their homes, they wind up with a myriad of other problems. One day, if enough people are willing to step forward and demand that our government revamp the way our munny is created, we can bring about real change. God bless all those who know the truth and don't mind letting others know.

Bill Smith · #23 07-24-2005, 08:03 PM

Quote:

I think Mortgage Elimination is based on sound legal theory

Except of course for the FACT that courts consistently reject the ME theories, and lately have been imposing sanctions on both borrowers and their attorneys for raising "frivolous" (legalese for "totally stupid") arguments.

But you are absolutely right that you should keep paying the mortgage until the COURT tells you that the mortgage has been discharged. If you want to contest the mortgage, that's easy: File a lawsuit for declaratory judgment against the bank and argue whatever you are going to argue (just caution that if your argument has been raised and rejected before, you are just asking for a sanction roughly equal to the bank's attorney's fees and expenses under Rule 11).

Judge Roy Bean · #24 07-24-2005, 09:03 PM

PANICPASS - if I may, just a point of refinement. The attorneys involved in the foreclosure and collection industry are making a fortune because too many people are simply swamped by the debts they encumber themselves with. Then they become targets.

Only a few of the mortgage servicers are willing to play across the legal line and actually get away with illegally-concocted foreclosures, but that still hits thousands of people every year, particularly those where the servicer can steal the equity in a rapidly-growing property value area.

And the economic food chain in the foreclosure industry is long and rewarding, so the system will continue to grind victims who can be lured into it and eventually through it.

When they find themselves under water, the victims reach out for anything - all too often to the Internet and the sites that offer salvation through all kinds of arcane and often, expensive, supposed secrets and insights.

While they are thrashing and bleeding in the water, the credtor's bar and the predatory servicers take advantage of the hopelessly one-sided (but still legally-enforceable) agreements the "consumer" signed and our financial system (such as it is) relies on to keep the system going for the vast majority of people. Hey - try running a retail business without taking cards. A bit hard to meet payroll, eh, while your competitor down the street is happy to play the game?

At the risk of offending one of the moderators here, one of my signatures carried the phrase "Fight with theory; win with fact."

Economic theory is an intersting topic and a diversion. But the court system isn't going to roll-over and accept unproven "Internet doctrine" that comes from sources outside the established and recognized legal community. That's like walking into a hardware store and demanding a board stretcher.

Hint: Swallow your pride, buy another board, measure twice and cut once.

Bill Smith · #25 07-24-2005, 10:45 PM

Additionally, to the extent that the banks would incur any expense not recompensed by the liquidation of the property, they could alway just raise rates another 1/64th of a point to cover it.

Banks are very much like casinos: They bring in tens-of-thousands of people each day. Casinos don't give a crap if some poor smuck wins, because they know they've got nine losers for each smuck winner. If the smuck winner has a good day, the casino couldn't care less because he's just one smuck out of tens-of-thousands who will come in the door every day. So, as far as "beating" the casino, it is impossible because the casino can absorb the losses of the smuck winner much, much, much, much easier than the smuck can when next times he's the loser.

Banks are like this, except they only lose maybe 1 time in 10,000 because of some freak circumstance. So, if you think that you are "beating the bank" just because you flounder around and possibly cause slightly more foreclosure expense than the bank normally would have paid, then you simply didn't understand from the outset what the game was all about.

Do you understand now?

#26 07-24-2005, 10:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lionel

Ice,
I own a company that provides non-bankruptcy alternatives to foreclosure, and I work cases from all parts of the country that were victims of TDG, and all of the others. It's sad when they get to me because even though most times I am successful in keeping them in their homes, they wind up with a myriad of other problems. .

WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY KEEPING THEM IN THEIR HOMES? ARE WE TALKING FOREBEARANCE AGREEMENTS? RE-FI LOANS?

CAN YOU ACTUALLY STOP THE JUDGE FROM ISSUING THE WRIT OF POSSESSION? CAN YOU STOP THE SHERIFF/CONSTABLE FROM GOING TO PEOPLE'S HOUSES TO EVICT THEM?

PLEASE ELABORATE ON THE MYRIAD OF OTHER PROBLEMS.

lionel · #27 07-25-2005, 08:45 PM

WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY KEEPING THEM IN THEIR HOMES? ARE WE TALKING FOREBEARANCE AGREEMENTS? RE-FI LOANS?

There are a number of solutions to stop a foreclosure, but each case is different and there are many ways to handle them. But I will tell you this, if someone seeks my services to help them ditch a lawful obligation, I won't do it because IT DOES NOT WORK and it destroys my credibility. You MUST be able to pay at least your regular mortgage payment, or you cannot afford the home anyway.

CAN YOU ACTUALLY STOP THE JUDGE FROM ISSUING THE WRIT OF POSSESSION? CAN YOU STOP THE SHERIFF/CONSTABLE FROM GOING TO PEOPLE'S HOUSES TO EVICT THEM?

There have been many times we have stopped a judge from issuing a summary final judgment and subsequently the sale. However, in most cases, if the property goes to sale, there is little you can do short of paying the amount owed. Whatever you do, must be done prior to the sale.

PLEASE ELABORATE ON THE MYRIAD OF OTHER PROBLEMS.

Namely, title issues. A perfect example of what I mean, I have a client right now who has his property quitclaimed into a trust and D. Scott Heineman and Kurt F. Johnson are the trustees. Their trustees are in jail and they can't clear the title without their Trustees signature. The property is scheduled for foreclosure sale next week and the mortgage company wants the property deeded out of the trust before they will modify the loan.

Hope that answers some of your questions. I only posted my reply in an effort to pass on a little knowledge, but I sometimes notice that when someone posts here, some people will pick apart their post in an effort to create confusion. I share my opinions in peace and they are not intended to offend anyone. God bless.

#28 07-25-2005, 09:41 PM

They can deed it out of the trust even if they are in jail. They did it for me on the land I was able to save. Doesn't say much for the house.......

Quote:

Originally Posted by lionel

WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY KEEPING THEM IN THEIR HOMES? ARE WE TALKING FOREBEARANCE AGREEMENTS? RE-FI LOANS?

There are a number of solutions to stop a foreclosure, but each case is different and there are many ways to handle them. But I will tell you this, if someone seeks my services to help them ditch a lawful obligation, I won't do it because IT DOES NOT WORK and it destroys my credibility. You MUST be able to pay at least your regular mortgage payment, or you cannot afford the home anyway.

CAN YOU ACTUALLY STOP THE JUDGE FROM ISSUING THE WRIT OF POSSESSION? CAN YOU STOP THE SHERIFF/CONSTABLE FROM GOING TO PEOPLE'S HOUSES TO EVICT THEM?

There have been many times we have stopped a judge from issuing a summary final judgment and subsequently the sale. However, in most cases, if the property goes to sale, there is little you can do short of paying the amount owed. Whatever you do, must be done prior to the sale.

PLEASE ELABORATE ON THE MYRIAD OF OTHER PROBLEMS.

Namely, title issues. A perfect example of what I mean, I have a client right now who has his property quitclaimed into a trust and D. Scott Heineman and Kurt F. Johnson are the trustees. Their trustees are in jail and they can't clear the title without their Trustees signature. The property is scheduled for foreclosure sale next week and the mortgage company wants the property deeded out of the trust before they will modify the loan.

Hope that answers some of your questions. I only posted my reply in an effort to pass on a little knowledge, but I sometimes notice that when someone posts here, some people will pick apart their post in an effort to create confusion. I share my opinions in peace and they are not intended to offend anyone. God bless.

PANICPASS · #29 07-25-2005, 10:18 PM

someone seeks my services to help them ditch a lawful obligation, I won't do it because IT DOES NOT WORK and it destroys my credibility.

True, nobody should ditch a lawful obligation. But what about an unlawful one? That "IT DOES NOT WORK", is besides the point. Fighting the an unlawful obligtation is dirty work, and it only destroys your credibilty in the eyes of people who don't understand it. For those who do understand it, fighting an unlawful obligation is admirable. If you are fighting an unlawful obligation for the money only, you probably shouldn't attempt the fight, because you won't do those things that are necessary to stay in the fight.

Bill Smith · #30 07-26-2005, 08:00 AM

It's only an unlawful obligation if the courts agree that it is so, and they haven't agreed in the case of ME -- neither has any reputable economist, legal scholar, etc., etc., etc., etc.

You can self-decide that it is an unlawful obligation all you want, but until somebody who matters agrees with you it is worth all similar self-decisions.