Menu

Home › Forums › Housing › Buy before you foreclose

Viewing 15 posts - 46 through 60 (of 141 total)
1 2 3 4 5 … 8 9 10
  • Author
    Posts
  • April 3, 2008 at 8:22 PM #180919
    jpinpb
    Participant

    stansd – I don’t know if it was your post, but some people told her off and she kept the post and replied w/her lame defense. Then an anonymous person (maybe herself) applauded her. WAJ.

    http://kathyneilsen.blogspot.com/2008/02/buying-new-home-then-letting-old-go.html

    April 3, 2008 at 9:05 PM #180595
    stansd
    Participant

    I will say that for her, she posted what I wrote:

    “Anonymous said…
    Hi Kathy,

    I find your post to be at best distasteful, and at worst, encouragement for fraud.

    The entire premise behind your recommendation is that people should take out a new loan before information becomes available that would make the lender reject that loan.

    There are rules against these kinds of shenanigans in nearly every other sphere. A corporation cannot issue a bond and fail to disclose a material loss it knows it is about to experience. A divorce settlement would not be binding if one of the parties was holding back a huge windfall he/she was about to receive.

    If you were lending the money, would you view the fact that the borrower was about to default as material? How would you feel if the headline on the union Tribune read, “Kathy Neilsen obtains loan by hiding material facts from lender”. Would you think it appropriate for someone to get their real estate license 1 day before being convicted on felony money laundering charges?

    You are not stupid, but you should be ashamed. You are at best encouraging irresponsibility, and at worst outright fraud.

    You may want to consider whether this kind of marketing will inflame your more honest and upright clients and potential clients. I hope it does.”

    April 3, 2008 at 9:05 PM #180904
    stansd
    Participant

    I will say that for her, she posted what I wrote:

    “Anonymous said…
    Hi Kathy,

    I find your post to be at best distasteful, and at worst, encouragement for fraud.

    The entire premise behind your recommendation is that people should take out a new loan before information becomes available that would make the lender reject that loan.

    There are rules against these kinds of shenanigans in nearly every other sphere. A corporation cannot issue a bond and fail to disclose a material loss it knows it is about to experience. A divorce settlement would not be binding if one of the parties was holding back a huge windfall he/she was about to receive.

    If you were lending the money, would you view the fact that the borrower was about to default as material? How would you feel if the headline on the union Tribune read, “Kathy Neilsen obtains loan by hiding material facts from lender”. Would you think it appropriate for someone to get their real estate license 1 day before being convicted on felony money laundering charges?

    You are not stupid, but you should be ashamed. You are at best encouraging irresponsibility, and at worst outright fraud.

    You may want to consider whether this kind of marketing will inflame your more honest and upright clients and potential clients. I hope it does.”

    April 3, 2008 at 9:05 PM #180906
    stansd
    Participant

    I will say that for her, she posted what I wrote:

    “Anonymous said…
    Hi Kathy,

    I find your post to be at best distasteful, and at worst, encouragement for fraud.

    The entire premise behind your recommendation is that people should take out a new loan before information becomes available that would make the lender reject that loan.

    There are rules against these kinds of shenanigans in nearly every other sphere. A corporation cannot issue a bond and fail to disclose a material loss it knows it is about to experience. A divorce settlement would not be binding if one of the parties was holding back a huge windfall he/she was about to receive.

    If you were lending the money, would you view the fact that the borrower was about to default as material? How would you feel if the headline on the union Tribune read, “Kathy Neilsen obtains loan by hiding material facts from lender”. Would you think it appropriate for someone to get their real estate license 1 day before being convicted on felony money laundering charges?

    You are not stupid, but you should be ashamed. You are at best encouraging irresponsibility, and at worst outright fraud.

    You may want to consider whether this kind of marketing will inflame your more honest and upright clients and potential clients. I hope it does.”

    April 3, 2008 at 9:05 PM #180938
    stansd
    Participant

    I will say that for her, she posted what I wrote:

    “Anonymous said…
    Hi Kathy,

    I find your post to be at best distasteful, and at worst, encouragement for fraud.

    The entire premise behind your recommendation is that people should take out a new loan before information becomes available that would make the lender reject that loan.

    There are rules against these kinds of shenanigans in nearly every other sphere. A corporation cannot issue a bond and fail to disclose a material loss it knows it is about to experience. A divorce settlement would not be binding if one of the parties was holding back a huge windfall he/she was about to receive.

    If you were lending the money, would you view the fact that the borrower was about to default as material? How would you feel if the headline on the union Tribune read, “Kathy Neilsen obtains loan by hiding material facts from lender”. Would you think it appropriate for someone to get their real estate license 1 day before being convicted on felony money laundering charges?

    You are not stupid, but you should be ashamed. You are at best encouraging irresponsibility, and at worst outright fraud.

    You may want to consider whether this kind of marketing will inflame your more honest and upright clients and potential clients. I hope it does.”

    April 3, 2008 at 9:05 PM #180941
    stansd
    Participant

    I will say that for her, she posted what I wrote:

    “Anonymous said…
    Hi Kathy,

    I find your post to be at best distasteful, and at worst, encouragement for fraud.

    The entire premise behind your recommendation is that people should take out a new loan before information becomes available that would make the lender reject that loan.

    There are rules against these kinds of shenanigans in nearly every other sphere. A corporation cannot issue a bond and fail to disclose a material loss it knows it is about to experience. A divorce settlement would not be binding if one of the parties was holding back a huge windfall he/she was about to receive.

    If you were lending the money, would you view the fact that the borrower was about to default as material? How would you feel if the headline on the union Tribune read, “Kathy Neilsen obtains loan by hiding material facts from lender”. Would you think it appropriate for someone to get their real estate license 1 day before being convicted on felony money laundering charges?

    You are not stupid, but you should be ashamed. You are at best encouraging irresponsibility, and at worst outright fraud.

    You may want to consider whether this kind of marketing will inflame your more honest and upright clients and potential clients. I hope it does.”

    April 3, 2008 at 9:23 PM #180600
    jpinpb
    Participant

    The anonymous person who posted applauding her was 3 minutes after her defense post. Come on. Has to be her. Please. I guess give her credit to putting your post up.

    April 3, 2008 at 9:23 PM #180908
    jpinpb
    Participant

    The anonymous person who posted applauding her was 3 minutes after her defense post. Come on. Has to be her. Please. I guess give her credit to putting your post up.

    April 3, 2008 at 9:23 PM #180910
    jpinpb
    Participant

    The anonymous person who posted applauding her was 3 minutes after her defense post. Come on. Has to be her. Please. I guess give her credit to putting your post up.

    April 3, 2008 at 9:23 PM #180942
    jpinpb
    Participant

    The anonymous person who posted applauding her was 3 minutes after her defense post. Come on. Has to be her. Please. I guess give her credit to putting your post up.

    April 3, 2008 at 9:23 PM #180945
    jpinpb
    Participant

    The anonymous person who posted applauding her was 3 minutes after her defense post. Come on. Has to be her. Please. I guess give her credit to putting your post up.

    April 3, 2008 at 9:28 PM #180605
    tc
    Participant

    I added a comment after 8:30pm. Let see if it gets posted. No foul language or name calling in it.

    April 3, 2008 at 9:28 PM #180912
    tc
    Participant

    I added a comment after 8:30pm. Let see if it gets posted. No foul language or name calling in it.

    April 3, 2008 at 9:28 PM #180914
    tc
    Participant

    I added a comment after 8:30pm. Let see if it gets posted. No foul language or name calling in it.

    April 3, 2008 at 9:28 PM #180946
    tc
    Participant

    I added a comment after 8:30pm. Let see if it gets posted. No foul language or name calling in it.

  • Author
    Posts
Viewing 15 posts - 46 through 60 (of 141 total)
1 2 3 4 5 … 8 9 10
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.