100% never happened, you just made it up, you're lying through your teeth, pure, unmitigated fiction.
Spending the day, yesterday, reviewing the amended lawsuit and wondering if there’s anything your office won’t say to make its case.
I doubt it.
Whatever it takes to win? The end justifies the means? We can make it up as we go because we’ve got the power to do so?
Nothing from Nothing
I mention this because it’s so ham-handed I cannot imagine anyone not seeing through it.
Yes, I know it’s your gig and how you guys work, but still, come on, be serious.
Case in point . . .
As pointed out in an earlier post, The Smoking Gun, your office had zeroed in on my letter that says “you’ll receive nothing,” or something to that effect.
Looking for a reason to justify a no-complaint investigation, former AAG Cheryl Kringle maintained that very letter was, at least in part, the genesis for this investigation.
In turn, my post showed how your office mistakenly believed the letter to be routinely sent to “owners” when in fact it is sent to “lienholders.”
Lienholders, as I describe in that particular letter, do receive nothing.
Unfortunately, by then your office had already made a big deal about me telling people they’ll receive nothing at tax sales, claiming it deceptive because I know there’s a possibility of overage coming their way.
How to fix it?
Easy . . .
Defendant and his agents misrepresent to property owners during meetings and telephone conversations, they will receive nothing if the home or land goes to foreclosure, thus making the property owner’s situation appear financially worthless.— Amended Complaint, dated June 21, 2007
“During meetings and telephone conversations?”
Really, really bad form.
So, now it’s not about my letter at all?
Now that it’s been shown your office mistakenly made a claim about my letter based on ignorance and not on fact, you spin it to “meetings” and “telephone conversations” and poof, the bogus, “deceptive letter” claim never happened?
What, you guys just make this up as you go?
Our documentation, clearly, shows that on overage play transactions, owners acknowledge understanding the concept of overage, the possibility of receiving more at the sale than we offer today, and the acceptance of an amount certain rather than a future roll of the dice at auction.
And yet you maintain I tell them their situation appears “financially worthless?”
100% never happened, you just made it up, you’re lying through your teeth, pure, unmitigated fiction.
And you have no problem doing so. Amazing.
Tax Sale P&S Addendum
In reality, I tell sellers the exact opposite. I even put it in writing and they sign, acknowledging they understand.
Here, in part, is our Purchase and Sale Agreement Addendum for Tax Sale Property . . .
2) Seller has been told, fully realizes, and acknowledges that as a result of the impending foreclosure sale of the foregoing described property, there may be an overage. If such an overage materializes it would normally be paid to him/her. He/she further acknowledges that a condition of the agreement requires him/her to assign the right to that overage, so that the Buyer and not he/she will receive all of the overage, if any.
3) Seller, in lieu of the contingency of possibly receiving an overage in an undetermined amount, a contingency over which he/she would have no control, he/she has instead chosen to accept Five Hundred and 00/00 Dollars ($500.00) as a full and complete payment for the transfer of ownership in the property and relinquishment of the overage. This amount certain is accepted in lieu of the possibility that he/she would receive no overage, or would receive an overage in a lesser amount.
It is for everyone looking at this matter not having an agenda, that much I am certain. Equally certain is that “everyone” does not include your clearly agenda-driven office.
Hard to Believe
It repulses me to read the things you accuse me of, knowing they never happened and knowing you know they never happened. Things your office simply made up to bolster a lawsuit you know is based on nothing.
And speaking of nothing, is there nothing your office won’t do or say to win a bogus consumer protection case?
I doubt it, Rob, and I call BULLSHIT.