Isn't it much more likely, Rob, based on our track record of delivering on promises, that your office simply got it all wrong?
You’re not going to allow me to do deals with people in foreclosure?
My partner and I did some 300 deals with people in foreclosure and in all that time (seven years) your office received ZERO complaints about us from any of those 300 sellers.
So, even though no one ever complained, you want me to agree that I will not deal with these people?
You cannot be serious.
Here’s the ridiculous demand . . .
Not to engage in any transactions directly with any person whose property is subject to a pending foreclosure in order to transfer interests in real property or to transfer any interests in proceeds from real property. — Cheryl Kringle, former AAG
5/9/2007 Settlement Proposal
In other words, even though no seller has ever complained to your office about me, you feel it’s unfair for them to do deals with me.
Is that about right?
That’s just plain nuts, Rob.
Reality is this . . . scams leave clues.
One of those clues, I suggest, is consumer complaints. The fact there are none (and here’s a hint for Cheryl) suggests there was none.
Or, perhaps, I am such an extraordinary scamster that sellers never even realized the scam happened?
Good luck with that.
The reason there were never any complaints is we never did anything remotely unfair.
Everyone who’s done business with me, if truthful, will say I did exactly what I promised I’d do.
If I said I’d pay them, I paid them (and to the penny).
If I said I’d stop their foreclosure, I stopped their foreclosure.
And if I said they’d be able to stay, they stayed.
Fiscal Dynamics, Inc., made a lot of promises in those seven years, doing hundreds of successful transactions with people in foreclosure. None of them complained, yet your office demands I never again do business directly with the people who need my help the most.
Let’s be real. Isn’t it much more likely, Rob, based on our track record of delivering on promises, that your office simply got it all wrong?
Or that Cheryl Kringle was pretty much clueless in her agenda driven investigation?
Seriously, considering the facts of this case, could anyone without such an agenda conclude otherwise?
You know what else leave clues?
Incompetence. Agenda. Zeal. Ignorance. Politics. Ambition. Greed. Naiveté.
Demanding I be barred from dealing directly with people in foreclosure is clear indication your office is so far off track you can’t tell which end is up.
I have an unblemished track record that establishes a long history of delivering solutions, exactly as promised, to the people of this state facing foreclosure.
And I will put that track record up against anyone’s, Rob, including former AAG Cheryl Kringle’s.