advice needed - Posted by Victor

Riddle me this… - Posted by JT-IN

Posted by JT-IN on January 04, 2011 at 03:25:03:

Since we are talking hypothetical cases here… (No actual past case analysis), if you re-create the hypothetical case or cases that the co-ben filed for Bk. Identifying the appx value of the property and the % of equity, and $ amount of unencumbered equity that each co-ben had in the EHT; liquidated values that would be used consistently in Bk liquidation cases. Also, of the co-bens filing, did they file Ch 7 or 13, and were they discharged of their debts…?

It is entirely possible that the cases that you reference simply did not have enough liquidated equity versus the headache or shoe leather on the part of the Trustee, that they represented in liquidated form. T’s often times take the path of least resistence especially when we are talking a few grand versus king sized bucks.

Re: advice needed - Posted by WAREIA

Posted by WAREIA on January 07, 2011 at 20:54:26:

No, just stupid.

Re: advice needed - Posted by WAREIA

Posted by WAREIA on January 07, 2011 at 21:10:17:

Really, would you like to put something specific “in writing”. The NARS EHTrust, Bill Gatten and his associated Trustee, Equity Holding Corporation have successfully withstood any and all challenges, period.

Only the idiots who thought they could use and alter NARS documents and name Equity Holding Corp as Trustee without their knowledge or acceptance have had “problems”.

Not one person using the full NARS Trademarked and Patent Pending Process of Documentation has ever gotten in trouble, period.

I’ve personally been called in to visit with State Real Estate Commissioners and Investigators because some jealous Realtor filed complaints saying I was practicing Real Estate and Law without a license. Each time and without fail I’ve walked out of their offices with a smile and a handshake.

Just a few weeks ago I had a seller call the division of RE to “check me out”. When asked if I was proposing to use a NARS EHTrust the investigator said, “no problem here” and advised them to also get their own legal advise too, which is exactly what I tell them when I make my offers.

As a formally licensed Mortgage Professional in Good Standing and since I also run the largest and most successful REIA in the Inter-mountain west, I often invite our regulators to come speak at both our local REIA Meetings and our Local NARS Group Meetings. So, if they want to “catch up to me”, they know where to find me for sure.

You’re so full of it.

Re: advice needed - Posted by Tim O’Brien

Posted by Tim O’Brien on January 07, 2011 at 11:59:54:

As someone who has also used the EHT Trust for more than a decade, Dan you are way wrong. Gatten’s land trust has been in use since the 1980’s. You apparently have an agenda because your scare tactics are hilarious. The OHIO case was simply a guy who tried to con someone using Gatten’s format but not his trust or documentation. I personally know dozens of his members who have been using this system for a long time and WAREIA knows exactly what he is talking about. You quote “creditable attorneys” but who is more credible than someone who has done over 300 transactions over more than a decade? Give it a rest, you are way off base.

Re: Tick - Tock - Posted by Tim O’Brien

Posted by Tim O’Brien on January 06, 2011 at 08:49:29:

Actually his comments are accurate and cheap shots like yours only make
you look bad, not him. As someone who has used the same system as
WAREIA for more than a decade I can attest to the accuracy of his
statements. I question the agenda of those who criticize such as
Timekeeper, with no substance to their arguments.

Re: The Over-Under Bet?.. - Posted by David P. Butler

Posted by David P. Butler on January 07, 2011 at 19:46:52:

Hello Kristine,

I think I know where you are coming from here, and your post may likely be a bit of “tongue-in-cheek”… but given the importance of the mention of the
ongoing Produce-The-Note developments (including the the latest news coming out of Massachusetts earlier today, which was provided to me by Phil-TX
while I was in the middle of editing my new post "Produce The Note - The Good, Bad, and Ugly… " above at:
http://www.creonline.com/wwwboard/messages/96705.html

I felt it necessary to make sure others who may not follow the gist in the context here, will be sure to have more clarity on the issue at hand. I hope you won’t mind. :slight_smile:

The mention of it here is just to note that earlier today, in the matter of U.S. Bank v. Ibanez, 10694, Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts (Boston),
the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court upheld an appeal to a lower court’s judge?s decision saying two foreclosures were invalid because the banks
didn?t prove they owned the mortgages, which he said were transferred into two mortgage-backed trusts without the recipients? being named.

The decision - which some analysts are already describing as ?a landmark ruling? - upholds the principle that, at least in Massachusetts, a mortgage ?must
name the assignee to be valid.? Wells Fargo & Co. was the loser in this foreclosure case in Massachusetts?s highest court (which will guide lower courts in
that state, and may influence others in the clash between bank practices and state real-estate law).

Please find important additional discussion in the new original post I referenced above, at “Produce The Note - The Good, Bad, and Ugly…”

David P. Butler
Nascent Equity &
Hotspur Investment Group

Re: Real equity protected by an EHT - Posted by Tim O’Brien

Posted by Tim O’Brien on January 07, 2011 at 12:01:52:

So glad you asked. The Produce the Note strategy is spreading like wildfire. Here’s the most recent result:

This is from New Jersey: http://www.frauddigest.com/fraud.php?ident=4690

Mortgage Fraud

Ally Financial/GMAC
Bank of America
Citibank
JP Morgan Chase
OneWest Bank
Wells Fargo Bank

Action Date: December 20, 2010
Location: Mercer County, NJ

New Jersey State Supreme Court Chief Justice Stuart Rabner entered an order To Show Cause In The Matter of Residential Mortgage Foreclosure Pleadings and Document Irregularities in Civil Action No. F-059553-10, Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, General Equity Part, Mercer County on December 20, 2010. Six mortgage servicing companies and their bank-owners were ordered to show cause why the Court should not suspend their rights to foreclose.

Re: advice needed - Posted by Dan

Posted by Dan on January 07, 2011 at 21:24:39:

So, let me get this straight, in spite of the link I referenced above, from somebody that actually has a law degree, that says, “In reality, land trusts provide almost no asset protection; they are more in the way of a placebo to make you think that you have some asset protection on your real estate.”, you still maintain the eht trust DOES have asset protection, is that correct?

If so, please provide proof so the legal community can have a new precedent to follow, otherwise, quit spouting off your nonsense sales pitch and go back to your guru so you can graze in your stupor with the other sheep.

Re: advice needed - Posted by Dan

Posted by Dan on January 07, 2011 at 13:42:04:

The link I referenced above says “In reality, land trusts provide almost no asset protection; they are more in the way of a placebo to make you think that you have some asset protection on your real estate.”

Are you claiming that the EHTrust does in fact provide asset protection? Do you have proof of this? Or, are you going to continue with your never ending chant that your guru, even though he has no legal degree, has done over 300 transactions therefore knows exactly what he is talking about?

Re: Egg-Timer? - Posted by SandMan

Posted by SandMan on January 06, 2011 at 12:39:21:

Hey Yosemite Pal 'O Dupree Sam O’Brien… you old trustcluster. Long time no see. But you and WAREIA do seem to travel in pairs unfortunately. You continue to be incorrect in your assertions. As usual, the statements WAREIA makes, are not accurate. And also as usual, the cheap shots, as always, come from the cheap seats - on your side of the floor. You and WAREIA both make broad sweeping generalizations based on the barest kernel of truth. At the same time, you mask your lack of capability to produce meaningful factual discussion by making unsubstantiated grandiose claims of personal transaction accomplishments. When anyone asks either of you to provide some kind of substantiation, or at least some reasonable discussion to support your claimss, you fire back with more gibberish, or personal attacks. JT regularly points this out, and in eloquent fashion. But that doesn’t stop your ongoing carnival sideshow as the amazing “Two-Clown Wonder Trust Elixir” snakeoil salesmen? Only four possible conclusions are possible from your “contributions” - you don’t know what you are talking about; you aren’t being truthful about your never-ending “bigger fish” claims; you are using reverse psychology to entirely discredit whatever practical benefits may come from the use of land trusts, for some odd reason; or all of the above. What is the purpose of your nonsensical visits? Therein lies the intriguing question.

Re: Tick - Tock - Posted by JT-IN

Posted by JT-IN on January 06, 2011 at 10:38:00:

His claim was: “defended each challenge to them successfully, not only from Judgment Creditors, Bankruptcy Courts and even the IRS”

I asked for some details to corroborate the claim. He declined because he didn’t want to give out specific case number. I respect that but I simply asked for a recreation of details, expecially as it relates to the case where the co-ben filed for Bk. To which there has been No reply thus far.

No substance to their argument… who is arguing? All I asked for was some details to the claims above. My guess is, (especially relative to the Bk claims) that there would be other pertinent issues why the Bk Trustee did not attack the EHT, not because the EHT is impenitrable. So I wanted a recreation of the case, as to equity of each co-ben and specifics so that one could see and better understand why the Bk court did not go after the co-ben int of the debtor in Bk?

Maybe you can supply some of the info requested in this thread. No one is saying that the claims are errant, but they do cause inquiring and educated minds (on the subject) to question such claims. Entirely reasonable for one to ask such question, wouldn’t you agree…?

So why do some question these claims…? It seems that whenever the EHT methodology is questioned that the details to prove the claims made, aren’t quite able to be divulged, and the resolve is to say that anyone who questions the method is some how not smart enough to grasp the concepts involved. So lets move beyond the throwing of that hand grenade, and either you, the other respondent or others, please provide some details to bear out the claims made. Simple as that, and then maybe we can all learn something here.

produce the note PRODUCES RESULTS - Posted by Tim O’Brien

Posted by Tim O’Brien on January 07, 2011 at 12:36:13:

Another victory for Produce the Note.
Banks lose key foreclosure ruling in top Massachusetts court | Reuters?
feedType=RSS&feedName=businessNews

In a ruling that may affect foreclosures nationwide, Massachusetts’
highest court voided the seizure of two homes by Wells Fargo & Co and
US Bancorp after the banks failed to show they held the mortgages at
the time they foreclosed.

Re: advice needed - Posted by Tim O’Brien

Posted by Tim O’Brien on January 09, 2011 at 07:58:39:

You are so desperate to be right. WAREIA has provided solid proof and you refer to some clown with a law degree. 25 years of land trusts, thousands of them, with NO SUCCESSFUL CHALLENGES. That, my friend, is ASSET PROTECTION.

Re: advice needed - Posted by Tim O’Brien

Posted by Tim O’Brien on January 07, 2011 at 14:50:26:

The “guru” to whom you refer is Bill Gatten. He has done thousands of
EHT and other trust transactions for more than 20 years. WAREIA is not
“my guru”, but simply a friend whose knowledge you should draw upon,
not criticize. I know from personal experience that there is significant
asset protection but there is no way I would ever provide this
information to you. You wouldn’t know what to do with it.

Re: advice needed - Posted by Dan

Posted by Dan on January 07, 2011 at 15:34:13:

I’m trying to draw on his knowledge but he doesn’t say how his land trust provides asset protection when all other land trust’s don’t.

If all you can do is make unsubstantiated statements why bother being here, you know readers aren’t going to buy your nonsense. You’d be better off spending time at your guru’s website with the other sheep.

Re: advice needed - Posted by AmotoXracer

Posted by AmotoXracer on January 07, 2011 at 17:26:04:

Dan
Let it all go…All the regulars here know that the “gatten” EHT trust clowns frequently manipulate posts into a sales pitch for the “Gatten EHT land trust”. Obviously, if their claims were valid, they would be able to support them, but they arnt, so they don’t.

Re: advice needed - Posted by WAREIA

Posted by WAREIA on January 07, 2011 at 21:20:20:

Sorry, the EHTrust is not something you, me or anyone can sell. It is what we do, not what we sell.

BTW, the PAC/EHTrust was first developed as a Joint Ownership Program for Realtors in California, one of the strictest states on real estate related transactions. Oh yeah, the use of the PAC/EHTrust was also approved at that time for continuing education (CA Cert #3309).

So what you’re saying is that the “State” of California with all of it’s resources and lawyers has no clue, right? WRONG!

Wait until you find out what the Banks as per a Federal Directive are going to be doing with the NARS EHTrust.

Resist it all you want, but doing so doesn’t make it not so.

Re: advice needed - Posted by Dan

Posted by Dan on January 07, 2011 at 22:27:45:

Dear Mr. Sheep,

You continue to slant the truth. I don?t blame you personally, all you know is what your guru teaches his flock of sheep.

Just because a course is approved by the California Department of Real Estate doesn?t mean they approve the material or have even reviewed it in any meaningful way. The first sentence on the DRE website in the ?Approved Real Estate Continuing Education Courses? section says ?The California Department of Real Estate’s approval of the listed courses is permissive only and does NOT constitute a recommendation or endorsement.?: Approved Real Estate Continuing Education Courses - DRE

In case that isn?t clear enough for you, it means the state of California has NOT used all its resources and lawyers to review your guru?s high priced gimmicky product.

I have taken some of these CE courses. I can tell you from personal experience these courses are NOT reviewed very carefully, and neither are the instructors.

I?ve provided a link that shows your product does NOT provide asset protection. I?ve provided a link that shows your product is NOT safe to use in the state of Ohio. I?ve provided a link that shows your product has NOT been approved for use in California using all it?s resources and lawyers.

Yet, you have provided NOTHING to support your wild claims. All you can say is baaaa, baaaa, baaa, I have done over three hundred transactions and haven?t gotten caught therefore it must have asset protection; baaa, baaa, baaa my guru says the eht trust has asset protection but I?m not going to tell you why or how because you wouldn?t know what to do with it; baaa, baaa, baaa, the guy in Ohio tried to do the trust correctly but because of lack of support and an overly complicated product got a big fine and narrowly avoided jail, but it?s all his fault, he was really a bad guy trying to frame my guru; baaa, baaa, baaa; and it goes on and on and on.

Go eat some more grass Mr sheep.