Monday, June 04, 2007
Spilt Milk
I felt it was time to clarify a statement that was published on a website that has been attributed to Dorean over these past few years. It has appeared in civil complaints around the country, in the print media, here on the blog and even stated by my ex-wife in a recent visit. “A moral and ethical way to eliminate your mortgage, 100% success.” Sorry folks that’s not a marketing statement made or approved by us. That statement was published by Rodney Austin of Homeward Bound on a few of his websites. It was our policy that all websites marketing the Dorean process be first approved for content prior to “going live.” Primarily because of these kind of idiotic statements. We believed that the strength of our process was the process itself and it did not need the embellishment of exaggerated jargon. Apparently Mr. Austin did not read this part of his agreement or perhaps he believed that it applied to someone else. Not much we can do about spilt milk. It was soon after corrected however a little late. His statement while made in error has served us well in our present case. We enjoy the focal point it has provided the prosecution in building their case. I truly wish you could see what we do so that your faith would be strengthened and your joy made complete. For it is a truthful saying that God enters into all things for those who are called according to His purpose. As for Mr. Austin, you can read about his legacy in a criminal lawsuit filed in South Carolina. Thank you for hanging in there with us and continue to pray until we conclude this for you.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Thanks for the claification.
Thanks for the clarification. Keep us posted on the truth. It's there and some of us know it.
http://web.archive.org/web
/20050209171427/
www.ccrsolution.com/about-us.html
We Have The Solution...
There is now a PROVEN legal and moral way of eliminating your mortgage while adding $50k* to your pocket. (*based on a $200,000 mortgage) .
We Have Over 600 "FREE & CLEAR" TITLES TO DATE.
-------------------------------
What's the difference between "100% success" and "PROVEN?"
The statement remained on this website until it was suspended by the restraining order.
????????????What's the difference between "100% success" and "PROVEN?"????????????????????
Scientifically speaking, in order for something to be "proven", it only need be done once.
?????????????THE RIDDLER?????????
Pauligirl said: "What's the difference between "100% success" and "PROVEN?"
The difference is that one case may be proven successful, but that doesn't mean all cases are or will be successful in the same way.
It was proven that legal title was discharged of record by the dorean trustee for all clients where the subrogation bond was kept by the lender. Does this make the process proven in that sense?
It was also proven that after time the lenders generally ignored that recorded discharge because the lenders believe that the authorization for that discharge may not be legally valid or binding, however, it can be argued that the discharge is valid or proven by legal court precedences or existing law, so is it proven or is it not proven? There is a memorandum of law of 80 pages of court cases to support this conclusion that the Dorean Group had a lawyer do for them. These cases of support have never been put in any court record to date I've seen. The criminal trial or no trial at all, will settle this matter once & for all. The process is not a scam until properly ajudicated to be such. The process does not become a scam by presumption of facts that don't exist.
By the way, there's plenty of facts that can be entered into the criminal trial record & brought up in the trial process, assuming there is a criminal trial that ever officially starts. Thanks to the silence of all the clients lenders we have many facts, to show that no criminal trial can be proven, even though Judge Alsup has ignored those facts, but more recently we have MORE FACTS NOW that the prosecution has agreed to also by their silence of not answering the latest presentment by Dorean TO ALL THE PROSECUTION LAWYERS & even the Attorney General of the U.S.
It appears that the prosecution doesn't want to disclose evidence they pretend to have either, so they are just as guilty as the banks and lenders presupposing facts that don't exist. It is now a fact that the proseuction has avoided telling the truth, the whole truth, so help them God & have ignored the 10 day rule to answer serious issues allotted to be answered by UCC law. They could have had an extra 15 days if they asked for it, but since they showed no honest effort to answer material questions, the admissions in the latest presentment are now facts of record that the prosecution now can't deny since the admissions are attested by a notary public who has also witnessed the default of the prosecution & shown their bad faith. This filing becomes an administrative judgment of damages not only against the prosecution team, but an admission of facts to show that bank fraud cannnot be proven.
Pauligirl what basis of proof do you want or what semantics are we arguing? What basis for proof is all encompassing as to the original meaning of "proven"?
Some clients were able to sell their homes and walk away with cash or able to refinance as if the 1st mortgage didn't exist. How that will eventually play out for some is still unknown.
Scott's lender left him alone for 2 years without forcing him to make monthly payments & without a foreclosure, until the lender for whatever reasons later decided to exercise rights they believed they hadn't given up. A waiver of rights for 24 months might be considered an estoppel too, especially after such a long period of time. It might even be argued that Scott's lender foreclosed on him after giving up any rights they were claiming by ignoring their alleged interest in his home for 2 years without doing anything about it or exercising any remedy timely. Maybe even Scott's house was a proven success if you truly follow the intent of the law.
I know two people that have not payed monthly payments on their mortgage for 2 years & they are living in their homes as if they are free & clear since no foreclosure has ever started & there is no indication that the lenders will do anything about it until the outcome of the criminal trial if they ever do anything at all. Are those 2 proven cases? Maybe they are proven cases only until they proven not to be.
How about all the people that have filed TILA complaints in Federal Court after being a Dorean client. They haven't lost their homes either even though they have successfully been able to stop making monthly payments without certain repercussions. Are those cases considered to be 100% success so far? After all they are still in their home & they are still not making payments & haven't been forced to move yet or even to pay.
If the lenders didn't have the courts to enforce the lenders presupposed rights, would the Dorean Process have been completely successful by now?
Success may mean different things to different people.
I certainly don't like the 100% success phrase because it's ambiguous as to it's meaning and may even be misleading if taken alone without other comments.
As for CCR's advertising, I do know Scott made them make changes to their website after they were made known to him on some things that were advertised on their website that Scott didn't approve of. This shows good faith on the part of the Dorean Group by rectifying any possible misleading advertising once it is made known to them pertaining to the intent of the Dorean process.
For example, "mortgage elimination" phraseology was never mentioned by Kurt & Scott to explain their process, because it was always a "mortgage challenge". No one has ever heard Kurt explain his process as being a "mortgage elimination" process. For a mortgage to be eliminated presupposes that the mortgage was once legally valid originally, which the clients mortgage never was valid from the beginning, according to the Dorean claim, so even the phraseology of "mortgage elimination" by itself may also be misleading without other comments in addition to that phrase.
The Principals never intended to lead clients to believe that lenders would not put up a fight to their process, nor was the process ever intended to be a slam dunk, in your face, cake walk against the lenders.
As long as there is going to be an anticipated fight & the admission that the lenders behaviour couldn't be predicted after receiving the presentment & legal title taken, you have a process that really isn't proven or 100% certain, but a process that can be challenged by the banks which is in essence what they have historically done by exercising remedies they may not even be entitled to.
Whether the banks are in their legal right to foreclose in all situations that they have done, still remains to be seen or proven too. What if all the bad behaviour of all the lenders is based upon behaviour that can't be legally backed or proven in 100% of all cases? Should we then put the lenders on criminal trial too?
The outcome of the criminal trial & whether there is financial compensation to injured clients ought to settle these matters once & for all. If the lenders & prosecution are 100% certain they are 100% in the right, it is not reasonable to expect there won't be criminal convictions, however, I seriously doubt if there are many clients if any, that didn't believe the lenders were in the wrong somewhere, so the client probably entered the process hoping & believing for a good outcome for them, hoping & believing that Dorean could expose the lending fraud in such a way to settle these issues once & for all. If Dorean obtains a financial settlement in their behalf, does this mean that the process finally becomes 100% proven?
In my particular situation, my lenders documents that they prepared, said that I RECEIVED A LOAN & THAT I ACKNOWLEDGED A LOAN GIVEN, three days before any monies were even disbursed, & 3 days BEFORE THE FACT, so in essence the lender made me make a fraudulent statement by my signature which they knew was false in the beginning to induce me to conclude the loan process.
That is proof positive that my agreement is without full disclosure and in the very least is misleading & deceptive & that there is no meeting of the minds, & that my promissory note funded the loan because it couldn't be the lenders monies because the lenders check hadn't even been sent yet at the time of my signing the deed of trust & other documents. Since there is a material "delivery" and time issue, the so called paperwork the lender calls a contract ( it is not even an agreeement), becomes voidable due to the lenders fraud & misrepresentation.
And if things are so clear & that there is a clear agreement between lender and borrower, why is it that no signature of the lender is found on any documents the borrower signs? The paperwork is nothing more than a unilateral choice to accrue debt. Could it be because there is no real agreement & no real meeting of the minds of all parties? Is this a reason to rescind all of the alleged remedies of the lender?
Also the fact that the wording of the deed of trust acknowledges in print that "I was owner of the home" 3 days even before funds were disbursed by the lender. How can the lender expect me to warrant clear title to the home & to the lender if I don't have clear title at the time of signing the deed of trust & if I didn't own the home prior to signing the deed of trust, why does the paperwork say differently that I owned the home? How did I come to own the home if my original promissory note DIDN'T pay for the house originally? If the funds for me to originally own the home didn't come from the lender first, where could they have come from?
You tell`em Mogel.
Oh and PG tell me this if your up for it or anyone that might have and OP about this.
Why is it when I want to get a loan from the EQ in my 401K plan acct. that the same doc's are use well, just about as in a loan for a REFI on my homes EQ and that thge interest that I pay for this loan is paid back to MYSELF an the then going rate might be 8-10% and all of the porceeds included are P&L go back into nmy acct. less a small fee for the loan setup?
Now should'nt that be the case in the loan on the EQ in my home? Hommies
The banks have taken something that started out simple and worked into a nice river of money for themselfs and at the cost of everyone that has to use their system of credit. and who can't?
they have over the years slowbut sure inched forward through oversteping the law and how it was ment to be used in such a way to gain the gain from all of the different parts that they serve even if they don't want to say so. In all aspects of their business they haol control and do as they please only letting the so called Lawmaker step in and place so kinda law that hurts them not for any bad doings and in fact watch out for how this hole thing goes down around the SUB_PRIME lendeing issiue and the bamks part in that. Wanta bet that the ones who get hurt by it will be the hime owners not the banks and brokers and such just wait and see .
The back and the business are crooked and they show this to be true in so many way the control the lawmaker and right now are infact socalled "working together"' with FICO to changerthe scoring system to stop the people who are piggybacking their credit reports for better credit rate on loans.
Hopw nice the mortgage indusry gets to dictate to the reporting companies how to do the reporting . But nothing new really they have for ever they are in every pie as in having their finger in it that is and ythe do this well hiding behind different names calling themselfs affil or some sub company they own under anther name.
For anyone to point the finger ate anyone in defence of the banks about misleading adds is without a doubt one big asshole because the banks are the forefront leaders of not telling the hole storyy or handing you crap about whats realy going on . tell me that I'm wrong about that why don't you and the would be just some more lies tio show the real you.
The bank's can kiss my asss they should have to play by the same rules we have to and follow them when it dos'nt go their way just the same.
Not get the Gov't to step in and give them card blank` to do what ever they want.
In the case of Sfcotts house the bank did'nt do anything intill the Gov't stepped in and then they new they could side step the law and do what they wanted that all there is to that story.
Again people it goes like this "When you gain control of the money in a country, you care not what laws are writen there in as you can rewrite them at when ever you need them to suit you."
And that is what has taken place in this country the Fed's have control and they make the rules not anything more clear can there be.
There may be the little win here and there but the bank's ... well they never lose in the long rub they get your money soem how. you can't pay for all the building and lobbing and greasing that they do if you wer'nt getting a return that was LARGE come on grow up and quit all this crap about defending the banks and what they do with some candy coated bullshit because if anything get's me up and running it someone sitting right in front of me saying the the crook next to them is'nt really a crook they just are misunderstood and mean no harm when they either know that their wrong or should and yet they want to let it to go on cheating even so.
the banks hide, cover up, use secret codes, try misleading you, use odd terms, use others to do their dirty work and point afinger at them when thing go wrong.
Theses are seen but yet let to contiue because the Gov't feels we need the system we have so the can keep spending the way they do and that are vote means nothing to them any more why would it the comntrol is in the hands of the banker not the people like it should be.
show me it's not and I be one happpy canmper but I don't see that being the case not when it comes to the bank's . they do all this stuff and hide so much the goings on in a loan transaction because it gains them more of your money that'a all theree is to it.
l8r
It should be a simple fee that is paid over time for the service that the banks have been so given the power to preform for us as in their right (and know others ) to convert paper into money that the gov't gives them so we would not have to pay 300% for loans and tell me how there so called reason for this is not justr one big lie as in ' we have to charge the rates we do because that is what the money would have made us had we invested it some other way'
Right and how did that go again the fact is they don't have the money to invest without us and our promise to pay to go and sell and get it from the feds or investers in the Fanni and freddie crap
THEY DON'T HAVE THE MONEY THEY SO CALL SAY THAT THEY WERE GOING TO HAVE TO INVEST AND MAKE WHAT THEY SAY IT WOULD HAVE IF NOT GIVE IN THE FORM OF A LOAN TO US.
tHE SONG GOES
'sOMETHING FROM NOTHING GETS YOU NOTHING YOU GOT TO HAVE SOMETHING IF YOU WANT TO BE WITH ME!' CAUSE NOTHING FROM NOTHING GET S YOU NOTHING OH YA YOU BETTER HAVE SOMETHING IF YOU EVER PLAN TO BE! THAT S HOW YOU'LL GETALONG WITH ME SO YOU BETTER HAVE SOMETHING THATS ALL THAT YOU NEED JUST TO BE SEE?
tHAT'S SOMETHING ISN'T IT?
TELL'S THE TRUTH JUST LIKE THAT!
iF YOU DON'T HAVE SHIT YOU DON'T GET SHIT.
aND IF YOU DON'T WANT TO PLAY THEIR GAME THE WAY THEY WANT YOU TO.. WELL YOU BETTER BE IN FOR ONE BIG ONESIDDE FIIGHT CAUSE THEY CAN MAKE IT THE WAY THEY WANT IT TO BE.... SOMEYHING IS WHAT IT WILL BE ...CAN;T YOU SEE YOU GOT TO HAVE SOMETHING IF YOU WANT TO BE IN THE PLAY WITH THEM.
FUNNY HOW THING GO YOU TURN THE TABLES AROUND AND HAVE THE SAME THINGS THE BANK'S DO WITH ANY OTHER BUSINESS AND THE FACT IS THE PEOPLE WOULD JUMP UP AND DOWN CALLING YOU A CROOK AND WRONG BUT YET THE BANKS CAN DO ALL THAT AND MORE LIE CHEAT CJHHANGE THE RULES MID GAME TO THEIR SIDE AND MUCH MORE YET THERE ARE STILL ONES WHO WANT TO SAY THEY ARE JUST FINE AND DOING NOTHING WRONG.
wKAE UP AND SEE THE TRUTH THE BANKS WILL DO AS THEY LIKE AS LONG AS WE LET THEM AND TRY AND STOP THEM YOU BETTER HAVE A BIG PLACE TO HIDE CAUSE HISTORY TELLS US THAT THEY DON'T LIKE THAT TO MUCH AND IF YOUR ANYONE TO WORRY ABOUT YOU'LL BE TAKEN CARE OF SOON ENOUGH AND THE'LL BE BACK TO BUSINESS NEVER THE LESS FOR IT.
IT'S BECOME UNFAIR THE WAY THE BANKS CAN DO THINGS HERE AND EVERYONE KNOWS THIS YOU'LL PLAY HELL FINDING SOMEONE THAT THINKS BANKS ARE RIGHT OR FAIR IN WHAT THEY DO EVEN PEOPLE THAT GAIN FROM IT THEY HAVE TAKEN SOME THINGS AND OVER TIME MADE THEM INTO WHAT THEY WANT SO THEY CAN GAIN UNFAIRLY OVER YOU AND THE REST THAT ARE FORCED TO DEAL WITH THEM BY THIS GOV'T AND THE WORLD WE HAVE TO TRADE IN.
yOU KNOW THE tRADE PART OF THAT IS THE ONE THING THAT WOULD PUT A BIG KICK IN THE SIDE IOF THINGS TO DO WITH BANKERS AND BOY JUST LOOK HOW THE GOOV'T GETS MOVING WHEN THEY SSEE ANYTHING LIKE THAT GOING ON THEY JUST CAN'T HAVE "FREE TRADE " NOW CAN THEY.
WELL THE BANKERS CAN'T HAVE IT THAT IS.!!!!1
Post a Comment