Report fraud HERE
Anyone who
calculates and finds the inconsistencies, please report this matter .
The more
reports filed after careful scrutiny the better. Please help Edith Winn and family get Justice
served. Help stop mortgage fraud and predatory lending.
reports filed after careful scrutiny the better. Please help Edith Winn and family get Justice
served. Help stop mortgage fraud and predatory lending.
| powered by:
(iPSS) iNTERACTIVE PROBLEM SOLVING SYSTEM |
| Loan had a 1
year I/O feature 2 year Pre Pay penalty A balloon payment = to or > than the Loan amount. 11.750% Start Rate 21.750% CAP Rate Edith was misled to sign a deed of trust with assignment of rents- Tenants in Common naming Gregg's Artistic Homes as the trustee Pacific Shores misrepresented a tax lien to a Tenancy in Common. Denied by a 20 yr. Experienced Mortgage professional- Austin Jourden |
| Edith
Winn's Loan |
| Opportunity
properties |
| Initial loan
amount: $110,000.00 4/12/2005 w/ Skyline Funding 7/25/2005 w/ Dr. Neal Horn, M.D. w/ no cash out to Edith: $140,000.00 $30,000.00 in "fees" charged as a private lender 8/17/2005 Pacific Shores places a lien into title for the amount of $2,536.00 making Ms. Winn a tenant to her own home 5/3/2006 Quality Home Loans. No cash out refinancing $ 165,000.00 Re conveyed? 6/28/2006 Benvani, Inc. No cash out to borrower $ 192,000.00 |
| From the periods
7/2005 to 6/2006 possible breakdown of proceeds are as follows: Dr. Neal Horn was "shown" paid in closing $170,568.53 $130,000 goes back to Neil Horn, M.D. $21,000 goes to Dr. Neal Horn for his 15% rate of return. $10,234.08 goes to his "salesman" in Pacific Shores- 6% commission total of: $ 141,234.08 The house foreclosed and was already sold since 4/2006 for $140,000 but the Title report show that there were more transactions after.... |
| Securities had a
one year term At the end of the one year period the investor was offered the chance to "roll over" the investment for another one-year period. Principal would be repaid at the maturity date Carried an Interest rate of between 8 and 15 % Salesmen paid 6% commission The Investor will be secured by a deed of trust as tenants in common |
| How and Why do
they complement each other? Both have one year features The 2 year Prepayment penalty was designed for the able mortgagee to stay on for another term or spend more in fees getting out earlier. the investor "rolled over" the investment for another year period. The balloon feature of the Loan was designed to "represent" a security instrument for the note of the next investor 11.750% to 21.750% rate feature of the loan is used to secure the investors return of investment of %8 to 15% and 6% commission for the "salesmen". |
| Investment
Instruments in the form of promisory notes, real estate investment agreements and or investment contracts all of which are securities under the CSL. These securities were offered and sold through distinct investment programs- Tax Lien Certificates and Opportunity Properties. |
| The
striking complementation of Edith Winn's Loan to
the "opportunity properties" sold to the Ca. Investing public |
Unified Home Loans President is Milon Brock's Daughter |
| Edith made
payments to Unified in the form of money orders as instructed by Dr. Neal Horn M.D. |
| Pacific Shores Austin Jourdan Agnes Jourdan Mark Sprague Indicted for Securities Fraud Ponzi Scheme |
| Pacific Shores
Placed a Lien on Edith's Title for $2,536.77. Claiming unpaid taxes? Maybe under perjury it would be different. What do you think A J? |
EMVEST Milon Brock,CEO Father of Unified's Pres. Indicted For Securities Fraud Ponzi Scheme |
Ponzi Or Pyramid
by Gerald P. Nehra
Ponzi schemes are pyramidal in nature, but are they the same thing as a pyramid
scheme? No, they are not, and here is why.
Ponzi schemes are investment frauds that share some characteristics of pyramid
schemes but also have some different dynamics. A requirement of a Ponzi
scheme is the promotion of what starts out to be, or appears to be, a real
investment opportunity. It often involves the development of a valuable resource
such as oil, gas, minerals or real estate. And what is being promoted often actually
exists. The promoter does own a mine, or does own investment property. Where
the resource actually exists, the promoter has grossly overvalued its worth. Other
times, the asset or resource which is the basis for the investment opportunity is
totally a figment of the promoter's imagination. In either scenario, the promoter
convinces investors that the asset can be further developed with more capital,
and the promoter will share the profits with the investors.
Early on, substantial dividends are paid out to the investors. The representation is
that these dividends are "profits" coming from the successful development of the
investment assets. What is actually happening is that the promoter is merely
returning a portion of the investors money to them. These early and substantial
dividends produce two results. The early investors increase their share of the
operation, and additional investors are attracted to the scheme. The process of
paying dividends continues and more investors come forward until the fraud is
uncovered or the promoter absconds with the investment proceeds.
Not all Ponzi schemes start out as frauds. Sometimes a promoter in good faith
really believes the asset will prove profitable. Investment money comes in, but the
returns are disappointing. To avoid loss of investor confidence lies are circulated
and dividends paid. More money comes in and the possibility of millions of dollars
of losses occurs but for the truth being told early.
The traditional method of dealing with Ponzi schemes in the U.S. is under the
Securities Laws, including the Securities Acts of 1933, the Federal Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and state securities laws, (sometimes referred to as Blue
Sky Laws). They are not pyramids however, and the pyramid laws we routinely
associate with the regulation of multi-level marketing companies do not apply.
There are several distinctions between Ponzi schemes and pyramid selling
schemes.
The pyramid scheme involves a person making an investment for the right to
receive compensation for finding and introducing other participants into the
scheme. There is a clear understanding among the participants that the success
of the opportunity is dependent upon attracting additional participants.. This is
different from the expectations of the Ponzi scheme participant who believes the
investment is dependent upon the successful development of a productive asset
such as a mine or real estate complex. Pyramids must fail because, by their
nature, they depend upon endless exponential growth to succeed. Ponzi schemes
must fail because the underlying asset upon which the investment was based
either never existed, or was grossly overvalued. Pyramid schemes require active
participants who bring in more participants. Ponzi schemes can flourish even with
passive investors without any responsibility to promote the opportunity. Pyramid
scheme participants "go for the gold" by attracting others to the scheme. Ponzi
scheme participants "go for the gold" by increasing their investment and hopefully
their share of the profits from the successful development of the productive asset.
The author is indebted to John Brown, Senior Manager of Government Affairs at
Amway, for developing these distinctions and articulating them clearly and often.
Gerald P. Nehra is an MLM Specialist Private Practice Attorney. He is one of only a
few attorneys nationwide whose practice is devoted exclusively to direct selling
and multi-level marketing issues. His 25 years of legal experience includes 9
years at Amway Corporation where he was Director of the Legal Division. He can
be reached at 1710 Beach Street, Muskegon, MI 49441, 616-755-3800,
616-755-4700 FAX. Credentials and Billing Information are available through
Fax-on-Demand at 803-548-3299, ext. 3088, and E-Mail Auto Responder at
MLMAtty@memo.net. His E-Mail Address is MLMAtty@aol.com Permission is
hereby granted to duplicate this article, AS LONG AS the biographical information
above is included.
Permission is hereby granted to duplicate this article, AS LONG AS the
biographical information above is included.
by Gerald P. Nehra
Ponzi schemes are pyramidal in nature, but are they the same thing as a pyramid
scheme? No, they are not, and here is why.
Ponzi schemes are investment frauds that share some characteristics of pyramid
schemes but also have some different dynamics. A requirement of a Ponzi
scheme is the promotion of what starts out to be, or appears to be, a real
investment opportunity. It often involves the development of a valuable resource
such as oil, gas, minerals or real estate. And what is being promoted often actually
exists. The promoter does own a mine, or does own investment property. Where
the resource actually exists, the promoter has grossly overvalued its worth. Other
times, the asset or resource which is the basis for the investment opportunity is
totally a figment of the promoter's imagination. In either scenario, the promoter
convinces investors that the asset can be further developed with more capital,
and the promoter will share the profits with the investors.
Early on, substantial dividends are paid out to the investors. The representation is
that these dividends are "profits" coming from the successful development of the
investment assets. What is actually happening is that the promoter is merely
returning a portion of the investors money to them. These early and substantial
dividends produce two results. The early investors increase their share of the
operation, and additional investors are attracted to the scheme. The process of
paying dividends continues and more investors come forward until the fraud is
uncovered or the promoter absconds with the investment proceeds.
Not all Ponzi schemes start out as frauds. Sometimes a promoter in good faith
really believes the asset will prove profitable. Investment money comes in, but the
returns are disappointing. To avoid loss of investor confidence lies are circulated
and dividends paid. More money comes in and the possibility of millions of dollars
of losses occurs but for the truth being told early.
The traditional method of dealing with Ponzi schemes in the U.S. is under the
Securities Laws, including the Securities Acts of 1933, the Federal Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and state securities laws, (sometimes referred to as Blue
Sky Laws). They are not pyramids however, and the pyramid laws we routinely
associate with the regulation of multi-level marketing companies do not apply.
There are several distinctions between Ponzi schemes and pyramid selling
schemes.
The pyramid scheme involves a person making an investment for the right to
receive compensation for finding and introducing other participants into the
scheme. There is a clear understanding among the participants that the success
of the opportunity is dependent upon attracting additional participants.. This is
different from the expectations of the Ponzi scheme participant who believes the
investment is dependent upon the successful development of a productive asset
such as a mine or real estate complex. Pyramids must fail because, by their
nature, they depend upon endless exponential growth to succeed. Ponzi schemes
must fail because the underlying asset upon which the investment was based
either never existed, or was grossly overvalued. Pyramid schemes require active
participants who bring in more participants. Ponzi schemes can flourish even with
passive investors without any responsibility to promote the opportunity. Pyramid
scheme participants "go for the gold" by attracting others to the scheme. Ponzi
scheme participants "go for the gold" by increasing their investment and hopefully
their share of the profits from the successful development of the productive asset.
The author is indebted to John Brown, Senior Manager of Government Affairs at
Amway, for developing these distinctions and articulating them clearly and often.
Gerald P. Nehra is an MLM Specialist Private Practice Attorney. He is one of only a
few attorneys nationwide whose practice is devoted exclusively to direct selling
and multi-level marketing issues. His 25 years of legal experience includes 9
years at Amway Corporation where he was Director of the Legal Division. He can
be reached at 1710 Beach Street, Muskegon, MI 49441, 616-755-3800,
616-755-4700 FAX. Credentials and Billing Information are available through
Fax-on-Demand at 803-548-3299, ext. 3088, and E-Mail Auto Responder at
MLMAtty@memo.net. His E-Mail Address is MLMAtty@aol.com Permission is
hereby granted to duplicate this article, AS LONG AS the biographical information
above is included.
Permission is hereby granted to duplicate this article, AS LONG AS the
biographical information above is included.
Deciphering
Hieroglyphics
| Dennis Murphy court appointed receiver Emvest.info Financial Statements Winn appears in the Fourth Verified Report of Receiver page 58. |
| Lastly, the
final transaction was approved by the underwritters of Benvani, Inc.
and subsequently Gregg's Artistic Homes with total disregard to the borrowers wellbeing and future security. |
