A visitor to the website made several incorrect statements, but because they did not list an email address or name I cannot respond to them. I will post the answers here. Their comments
Claim - the AG investigated RELG and found nothing wrong
Truth - Website Documents show the AG was forced to include RELG in their complaint. Question - Where are the results of their investigation, I did not know it was posted.
Claim - RELG proved that no money in its accounts came from OH
Truth - Website Documents show the deposits into RELG accounts
Claim - Outreach took customers on since January but did nothing
Truth - Did you read the Outreach Housing history? Attorneys from the beginning
Claim - Outreach Housing told homeowners not to pay their mortgage
Truth - Testimony shows RELG told homeowners to say this. This was not OH policy
Claim - Outreach Housing told homeowners they would re-negotiate their mortgage
Truth - Law Firms would sue homeowner lenders in federal court for as little as $750.00.
OH provided a valuable service to both homeowners and law firms. The AG desperately wants to make this go away, to cover up what they did and protect their own.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
New Documents Posted
Additional court documents have been updated on the website: http://sites.google.com/site/disenfranchisedhomeowners/home
New documents include:
RELG Deposits - Which were the deposits made into RELG accounts. These were "Trust Funds" which are deposits made specifically for individual homeowners' court filings. RELG took the money for 650 homeowners and actually filed only 3 cases.
Motion to Compel - The case of Outreach Housing against RELG showing how RELG embezzled homeowner money and did not represent them.
Franklin RICO suit is a 75 Million lawsuit against Kirsten Franklin in South Carolina for Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices.
New documents include:
RELG Deposits - Which were the deposits made into RELG accounts. These were "Trust Funds" which are deposits made specifically for individual homeowners' court filings. RELG took the money for 650 homeowners and actually filed only 3 cases.
Motion to Compel - The case of Outreach Housing against RELG showing how RELG embezzled homeowner money and did not represent them.
Franklin RICO suit is a 75 Million lawsuit against Kirsten Franklin in South Carolina for Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Lawsuits
So if you are up to speed on everything you know there are 3 cases.
First: in Miami with Judge Escharte where Outreach Housing is suing the law firms who
(1) took homeowner trust money and did not file,
(2) took homeowner records, sat for 4 month then returned them,
(3) incited homeowners to generate an investigation, creating a diversion to their crimes.
Second: in Broward with Judge Henning where the State is suing Outreach Housing for fraud. The State is so unprepared and lacks proof of any wrongdoing and may be facing sanctions.
Third: in Broward with Judge Weinstein where the State is suing Outreach Housing for 5 new charges that were later dropped so this case is also for fraud (justy like the case above). Hmm
First: in Miami with Judge Escharte where Outreach Housing is suing the law firms who
(1) took homeowner trust money and did not file,
(2) took homeowner records, sat for 4 month then returned them,
(3) incited homeowners to generate an investigation, creating a diversion to their crimes.
Second: in Broward with Judge Henning where the State is suing Outreach Housing for fraud. The State is so unprepared and lacks proof of any wrongdoing and may be facing sanctions.
Third: in Broward with Judge Weinstein where the State is suing Outreach Housing for 5 new charges that were later dropped so this case is also for fraud (justy like the case above). Hmm
Monday, March 2, 2009
There was a company that helped struggling homeowners by going after predatory lenders in federal court. The company was beginning to see significant results for hundreds of homeowners when the State took control of it.
They cited five charges that they later dropped (admits there were no laws broken) but still retain control of the company claiming they "feel" there was fraud. The receivership shut down all incoming revenues, vendor relationships, homeowner and lawyer access to the system. Now the receivership claims they must sell off all assets to pay for themselves (how convenient). I believe they really shut it down for political reasons
(the State settled with the banks for a mere 500K, which was really paid out by TARP1).
CBS covered this story without investigating, meaning they aired whatever the State supplied. I would love to show the truth about how bad the mainstream media did. The true story is that it's the homeowner who lost. They will continue to lose until a service like this is available to them. Is it legal for them to shut the company down, even after admitting there were no laws broken?
They cited five charges that they later dropped (admits there were no laws broken) but still retain control of the company claiming they "feel" there was fraud. The receivership shut down all incoming revenues, vendor relationships, homeowner and lawyer access to the system. Now the receivership claims they must sell off all assets to pay for themselves (how convenient). I believe they really shut it down for political reasons
(the State settled with the banks for a mere 500K, which was really paid out by TARP1).
CBS covered this story without investigating, meaning they aired whatever the State supplied. I would love to show the truth about how bad the mainstream media did. The true story is that it's the homeowner who lost. They will continue to lose until a service like this is available to them. Is it legal for them to shut the company down, even after admitting there were no laws broken?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
