Fraud Made Easy: Electronic Registration

There's been no response to my letter
of December 15th, 2007, including
from lawyer#1. See copy of letter
below in post titled, "A Possible
Solution".

Since I haven't heard not a peep
from anyone , perhaps my suggestions
doesn't fit with the Buyer's objective.

If you want the property but you
don't want to pay for it, you sure
in the hell are not going to agree
to pay by cashier's cheque, now are
you? Cashier's cheque guarantees
payment to the Seller (Unless provided
with a fraudulent cashier's cheque).
Certified cheques are standard in real
estate transactions, but can be cancelled.
If the other party has shown a
consistent pattern of dishonest
and deceptive behaviour, then you
have every reason to believe
that more likely than not,
dishonest and deceptive tactics will
be utiized to screw you out of your
money and your property. That's the
way I see it. I don't trust that the
Buyer will suddenly change it's ways
and pay me for my property.

To help prevent a transfer of ownership
of property before the closing date, the
Seller should be required to sign two
separate Acknowledgment and Direction
and signed at different times in the
process. The first Acknowledgement
and Direction would be signed at the
onset of the process providing the
Seller's lawyer with authority to
prepare the necessary documents for
closing. The second Acknowledgment
and Direction would be signed by the
Seller on the closing date providing
the Seller's lawyer with authorization
to provided the prepared Deed to the
Buyer.

As it is, the Seller signs only
one Acknowledgment and Direction,
leaving the corporate buyer with
plenty of room to influence and
manipulate. Oh I'm sure there will be
those that will say, "Well I didn't
have any problems. They paid me."
If the property was transferred before
the closing date, then you were paid
because the Buyer chose to pay you, not
because the Buyer believed it had to.
The Buyer had the option not to pay
too, since it already owned the property.
For what other reason would a Buyer want
ownership before the closing date but to
provide it with the option not to pay.

If the transfer occur on the
date you receive the funds (the closing
date), then the Buyer didn't have a
choice. No money, no Deed.

EDIT IN

It's Christmas Eve and I still had
some errands to run before the stores
closed. So after I finished my post
above, I quickly left my computer and
put my coat on to leave. I open my front
door, step out onto my front step and
notice flyers sticking out of my mailbox.
I pull them out of the box and I notice
that I have mail too. I hurriedly sort
through the mail and Voila, there it is,
a letter from the Buyer's lawyer. I thought
to myself, "Speak of the Devil!". I decide
I'll read it when I get back. If it's not
good news I don't want to think about while
I'm Christmas shopping. And besides I was
concerned about the stores closing early.

Obviously I'm home now and I've read the
letter. Well actually there's two letters.
One brief letter addressed to myself
acknowledging receipt of my last two
correspondences. And a copy of letter sent
by the Buyer's lawyer to lawyer#1 in response
to my December 15th letter to lawyer#1. I
provided copies to the Buyer's lawyers.

The Buyer is willing to make payments by
cashier's cheque. That's good. However,
there's a couple of items that I requested
in my December 15th, letter that apparently
can't be done due to " legal protocol".
Yah... whatever. I'm sure that "legal protocol"
also dictates that ownership cannot be
transferred before the closing date. I suppose
I'll have to trust lawyer#1 to follow
"legal protocol" in that respect, especially
if I am to receive the cashier's cheques for
the purchase price and expenses.

The Buyer still wants the expenses kept
under wraps for one year. I have a problem
with that. I don't trust the Buyer (Buyer's
representatives etc.) to not reveal the expenses
itself, then falsely accuse me of breaching the
confidentialty clause. The Buyer could use the
confidentialty clause to harass me via a lawsuit
for breach of contract. I don'twant nothing to
do with the confidentialty clause.

Keep in mind that had I not pointed out that
the purchase price is made public on the closing
date, the Buyer would have continued to require
that I keep the purchase price confidential
for one year, while the Buyer itself would
have revealed the purchase price.

The Buyer doesn't keep the purchase price
confidential because it registers the Deed
with the Ontario Land Registry on the closing
date making the purchase price public. So how
would the Buyer enforce confidentialty of the
purchase price on the Seller? Launch a lawsuit
against the Seller for breach of contract for
something it caused when it registered the Deed
- revelation of the purchase price. I don't see
the expenses being any different. Just like
the purchase price, I believe that the Buyer
will reveal the expenses. The confidentialty
clause only applies to the Seller.

I'll have 60 days from the closing date to
vacate the premises. I'll be required to pay
all expenses, heat, water, light and insurance.
No rent. The only issue I have with the
expenses is the house insurance. I have a
problem paying house insurance on house I no
longer own. It would seem to me that once
ownership has transferred to the Buyer, that
it's the Buyer's responsibilty as the owner
of the property to acquire house insurance.
I'd be a tenant at that point and the
Buyer as the owner would be a landlord.
Tenants don't pay house insurance.

I'm glad to have receive the letter. But
the more I think about it, the more
I wonder," Does a leopard change its spots?"


See Post below titled, "A Possible Solution"

A Possible Solution

Click letter to enlarge. We'll
see if this letter leads to a
settlement or more of the same
rubbish.

Title Search On Adjacent Property

I recently had a title search done on
the adjacent property (mine too. I'm
named as the owner of my property). East
Windsor Cogeneration Properties only
paid $144,100 for my former neighbour's
home. And the purchase price includes
a top up of 10%. Well actually it is
the appraisal plus 10%. I was offered
slightly less.

What has me perplexed is the purchased
price is slightly more than what the first
owners of the properties paid in 1991. In
fact without the 10% top up, the price is
less than what the first owners paid in 1991.
I belive they paid 137,500. I'll have to check
the number, but I do know it's more. 1991, is
16 years ago. What's wrong with this picture?

Note that the transfer of ownership occurred
on October 24, 2007. If you've read my post of
November 12th, 2007 titled, "Next Door
Neighbour Moved?" I wrote about the arrival of
a moving truck. Also if you've read my September
12th, 2007 post titled, "East Windsor Cogeneration
LP -Half a House?" I wrote about the meeting
I had with EWCC's Buckingham agent in which
he informed me he had already made a deal
with my former neighbour.

This is just suppostion of course, but I think
that my former neighbour reached a settlement on
Wednesday, September 12th, 2007, the same day
I met with the agent. September 12th to November
12th, is 60 days. If I'm correct, then the
transfer of ownership of the property occurred
the week before the closing date of November 12th.
Again, I'm just speculating. I could be wrong.
But then again, I could be right. I wonder
when the funds were received? Was it October
24th, 2007 the date EWCP became the new owner
of the property or was it a later date like November
12th, 2007, the date the moving truck arrived.

As you can see from the document the purchase
price, the name of the old owner, new owner,
the date of the transfer of ownership is public
information. Click on image to enlarge.

Also scroll down to my post titled, "Confidentialty
- Clause Still Here" click on image and read
the Confidentiality clause. Also read the Assignment
clause.

Also see November 7th, 2007 post tilted, "The
Agreement- Unequal Grounds"

I'm Not Selling My House

Yesterday when I spoke to the Buckingham
agent he told me that lawyer#1 was provided
that morning with the agreement and retainer.
I not too long ago faxed a letter to lawyer#1
informing him that I am not selling my house.
I copied the letter to the agent and the Buyer's
lawyers.

I don't trust that I will get the money.
The risk is too high.

I'm Fed Up; I've Had Enough!

They're all about illusions, and sleight of
hand b.s. They should've been magicians.
I'm done with it.

Click on image to enlarge.

Purchase Price Gone - Confidentiality Clause Still Here

Yesterday morning I faxed a brief
letter to the buckingham agent, copied
to the Buyer's lawyers, that basically
said that the confidentialty clause had
to go. The result? The agent informed
me that the purchase price did not have
to remain confidential as the Buyer
thought my explanation for its removeable
from the clause was reasonable. I told
him that he knew and they knew (referring
to the Buyer, lawyers) that the purchase
price would be public info during the one
year period that the agreement requires
the Seller to keep the purchase price
confidential. I told him that I thought
it was dishonest. He pretended that he
didn't know what I was talking about.

He also said that the expenses would
remain confidential. I asked why. And
he gave the same lame reason that
he gave for when the purchase
price was still part of the confidential
clause. He said "they" don't want the
other homeowners to know as they may
get upset if someone got more than them.

The agent told me last week that I
am the last of the homeowners in which
an agreeemnt is to made. That means
the Buyer has contracts with all the
other homeowners. Contracts, it they're
legal,are binging on all the parties. So
it seems to me that even if my expenses
became known to the other homeowners,
the Buyer already has legally binding and
enforceable contracts in which I'm am
certain will not be breached over expenses.
I don't see a legal risk unless the Buyer
has done something illegal.

Each homeowners needs are different. So it
would only be logical that expenses would
be different for all the various homeowners.
So I don't see any reason that my expenses
would have to remain confidential as per
paragraph 10(a). It still has to go. As in
GONE!

click on image to enlarge

Confidentiality Clause Not A Good Sign

I spoke with the Buckingham agent this
week. The agent claims that the Buyer
has agreed to remove paragraphs 10(b)
and (c) under the heading "Confidentiality"
of Schedule 'A' of the Agreement and the
other requested changes. I also received
a letter from the Buyer's lawyer in response
to my letter of November 17th, 2007. Sounds
like progress doesn't it? But is it really?

When the Closing date arrives, will I get
the money for my house? After chewing on
this for couple of days or so, I've come to
the conclusion that paragraph 10(a) does
nothing to change my concerns. I could still
end up on the Closing date with no money for
my house.

Here's the problem with paragraph 10(a).
The Transfer (Deed) and other documents have
to be registered with the Land Registry Office
on the Closing date. If the closing date is
30 days, then the information on the property
would become public on the 30th day, the
date that the Deed and other necessary
documents are filed. Thus the requirement
under paragraph 10(a) that the Seller keep
confidential the purchase price etc. for one
year (1) doesn't make any sense since the
information would become public on the
30th day (Closing date).

If the government knows the purchase
price because the documents have to be filed
at a government agency (for tax purposes), the
Land Registry Office, and any member of the
public can obtain information on the property,
why then would the Seller be required keep
confidential what would be public information
on the Closing date?

If the Closing date is 30 days, then
the confidentialty period would be 30
days, not one year after the Closing date.
It would seem to me that the one year
period after the Closing date that the Buyer
requires confidentialty would have nothing
to do with the purchase price etc, since it
would be public on the Closing date anyway.
My guess is that paragraph 10(a) is about
keeping something secret that the Buyer has
done or intends to do that will harm this
Seller. Da Money! Failing to make payment to
the Seller? Oh, and requiring that the Seller
keep the Buyer's fraud confidential for one
year? Who knows eh?

I thought we were moving along, but the more
I think about it, the more it seems more
like an illusion. A little blip of activity
for appearances sake. But when all is said and
done, my concerns remain. The confidentiality
clause does not give this Seller confidence in
the intentions of the Buyer.


Paragraph 10 (a) under the heading "Confidentiality"
reads as follows:

(a) The Seller agrees to keep confidential
the terms and conditions of this Agreement
of Purchase and Sale and Schedule "A" hereto
and without limiting the generality of the
foregoing, the Seller agrees to keep confidential
the Purchase Price and the amount of Expenses
set out in paragraoh 7 herein for a period
of one (1) year after the Closing Date.


Let's do a hypothetical: Let's say that
ownership of my property has already been
fraudulently transferred to the Buyer or
other entity (recall paragraph 9 under
the heading "Assignment"). Let's say, it
was done electronically, one year ago.
Let's say come the closing date, no money from
the Buyer as the crime has already been
committed. I wait for the one year to expire
as per paragraph 10 (a). By that time at least
two years has gone by. And that brings to
mind the two year Statute of Limitation for
filing a lawsuit with the Court.

I think the Buyer will have to let go of
paragraph 10(a).

I forgot to mention that the agent also
said that I'm the last homeowner left in
which to make an agreement. I noticed
that along Cadillac Street, the some of
the homes are boarded up already. The last
house on the street, has been turned into
an office. I spoke with a women couple
weeks ago who told me that she'll be moving
in December as well as her next door
neighbour. I wouldn't be surprised, that
by the end of December I will be the only
resident left. That would be real convenient
wouldn' it?


See post titled, The Agreement - Seller on
Unequal Grounds; See October archives for post
titled, Agreement - The Offending Clause

My Response to Letter

I faxed off my response to EWCP's lawyer's
letter. Click on document to enlarge.

The reason I asked for the changes you
will note in the letter, is to ensure
that the Buyer does not 1. take ownership
of my home before the Closing date 2.
that I receive the funds on the Closing
date. On Closing the Buyer gets ownership
of the house and I, the Seller get the funds.
Not the Buyer gets ownership of the house
before the Closing date and I don't get the
funds on the Closing date. Thirdly, if the
Buyer were to take ownership of the house
before the Closing date and I did not receive
the funds on Closing, I do not want the
Confidentiality clause to be used to conceal
a crime and to deprive the Seller of a
remedy.

Like I said in an earlier post, the Buyer
is only buying a house. What does it need
a confidentiality clause in an agreement to
purchase a house?

We'll see how the Buyer responds.


If you haven't already, read post, tilted,
"The Agreement - Seller on Unequal Grounds"

Also see the October Archives for the post
title, " Agreement - The Offending Clause"

Agreement Nothin' But Trouble

You know, I have been more than wiling
to sell my home to the Buyer right from
get go. I wasn't one of those homeowners
that refused to sell her home. I
think the Buyer was disappointed about
that because refusing to sell would have
played right into the Buyer's game plan.
Instead I was opposite. The Buyer
in response only purchased my former
neighbours' house (the house is a semi-
detached), half a house, when it could
have purchased both homes together. Why
would the Buyer prefer to purchase the
homes separately? Answer: Different
objectives based on where the homeowner
worked and their relationship with their
employer. There's an obvious oppportunitic
element to what has transpired thus far.

The Buyer and I do not have any prior
history and thus the Buyer really
doesn't have an issue with me or I with
the Buyer. However, my employer Ford Motor
Company is a partner in the cogeneration
project and that I believe is where the
problem is. Had it not been for my
employer's influence, both homes would
have been sold together. I would be outta
here just like my neighbours next door.

This Agreement is nothin' but trouble.
When you have to choose between the lesser
of two evils, if one of the evils is known
to you, you don't choose it. Though it may
choose you, don't choose it.

East Windsor Cogeneration LP - Half a House?
http://homesellersbeware.blogspot.com/2007/09/east-windsor-cogeneration-lp-half-house.html or find in September Archives

Legal Fees - Got the letter

Not to long ago I received a
faxed letter from EWCP's lawyer.
In a nutshell, the letter indicated
that the lawyer will recommend
deleting the words, "if so ordered."
from paragraph 10 (b). However,
any wording changes would be on
condition that I agree to the
dollar amount indicated in the
Agreement.


The letter also indicates that EWCP
is prepared to pay my, "solicitor's
reasonable legal fees for his or her
advise to you on your signing of the
Agreement."

If your objective is to buy a house, what
is the necessity of including paragraph 10
begin with? The fact that the Buyer can't
or won't explain the rational behind
pargaraph 10 is a red flag. Paragraph 10
is not a standard paragraph in any purchase
agreement in a routine real estate
transaction for a house. Check your
purchase agreement for your house. You
will not see a paragraph like paragraph 10
in your agreement. To me paragraph 10 gives
one the impression that the corporate Buyer
has something to hide, and that my friends,
is a RED FLAG!!!!!

Why is it a red flag? Because the Buyer
is trying to keep confidential what is
public information. If you want to know
information about a property, just go
to your local land registry office. That's
where the Seller's lawyer has file the
Deed for the property. Does the Buyer have
an agreement with the thousands of real
estate agents and the public at-large,
that can obtain the very information it
wants the Seller to keep confidential?
Did I mention before that the Buyer seems
to have control issues?

Speaking of lawyers, Lawyer#1 and I
did not have a "priviledged relationship"
and therefore, he had no duties or obligations
to me. I'm not his client and never was.
The fact that EWCP's lawyer sent the
Agreement to lawyer#1, has me thinking that
maybe I should give it more thought about
retaining lawyer#1's services for advice, in
light of paragraph 10. At this point I am
uncertain what I will do. We'll see.

I've had time to think a little more and
I wonder if the crime has already been
committed. Hence, the reason for paragraph 10?


To read paragraph 10, scroll down to post
titled, The Agreement - Seller on Unequal
Grounds

Also read post titled, East Windsor Cogeneration
LP - Half a House?
http://homesellersbeware.blogspot.com/2007/09/east-windsor-cogeneration-lp-half-house.html

Legal Fees - Still No Letter

I checked my mail. No letter. I
wonder if I ever will. I'll have
to give them until the end of
the week. If I don't get a letter
confirming that EWCP will pay my
legal fees, then perhaps I may need
to go down to the Land Registry office
to make sure that I am still the owner
of my property.

I keep thinking that my front door
is going to be busted down by Nazi
Nazi types, throwing me out of my
home that they stole from me or
stealing my house and then demanding
that I pay rent to them.

Did you ever see the movie, "The Halocaust"?
I haven't seen it in years. I'm talking maybe
20 years. And out of the blue today that movie
popped into my mind.

If you haven't done so as yet, please read
my post titled, East Windsor Congeneration
LP - Half a House?.
http://homesellersbeware.blogspot.com/2007/09/east-windsor-cogeneration-lp-half-house.html

No Confirmation Yet On Legal Fees

Well, no letter has arrived as
yet confirming that East Windsor
Cogeneration Properties Inc (or
its parent, sister etc.) ) will
pay lawyer #1's legal fees. But I
receive an information card from
EWCC (East Windsor Congeneration
Centre) providing its building
schedule. The schedule is as
follows:

October 2007
Start of Preconstruction
activities

November 2007 - Piling
work
December 2007 - Excavation and Foundation
work


2008 Ongoing Construction
March 2008 - Onsite Building
Construction & Equipment Installation

2009
Spring 2009 Start of Commissioning
September 2009 - Start of Operations


If you have not done so as yet,
please read my post titled,
Legal Fees

Next Door Neighbour Moved?

It looks like my next door neighbor
has moved. My house is the corner lot.
Click on picture to enlarge.

See Blog Archives-October. Read
third post title, "EWCC's Buckingham Agent"

EDIT IN
Well, what I suspected was close to
being correct. Not to long ago a moving
truck pulled up at the side of my house.
The name of the company is AM-PM Moving
and Delivery

I'm looking out my window and I note
that the moving guys are cutting
across my front property to get
to my neighbour's house. I thought,
"No Way!" I quickly go to my front
door and swing it open and say to the
moving guy as he is about to slide
by front door, "Uh Uh, don't cut across
my property, you have to go by the back.
I don't want to be responsible if you
hurt yourself on my property." He said,
I understand." I said, "Okay." I
close my door. A minute later I hear
a knock at my door. I know it's my
neighbour and I ignore him.

I have these little steps that swing
out to the side street sidewalk.
I picture one or both making a misstep,
tripping and falling on my property
and injurying themselves. I don't need
the additional headache or drama that
comes with that scenario.

I had enough drama and headache when my
hot water tank broke back in April of
this year. The tank broke, flooded my
downstairs and also leaked into my neighbours
home. He wasn't too bad, but she was not
understanding at all. The restoration
company that came to do the cleanup was
a nightmare. It took a lot of effort on my
part to get rid of them. This company just
wanted to inconvenience me for as long as
possible to milk as much money from the
insurance company as it could get away
with. Coincidently, the crews' supervisor
was a former contract supervisor at the Ford
Annex plant for two years. How do I know
this? He told me, after I told him I worked
at Ford.

What made me suspect that my neighbours
had moved? Well my neighbours always have
at least one vehicle in the driveaway,
usually it's his van. This past weekend
I notice that both vichles were gone at
the same time and then would reappear
together and leave simultaneously, as if
they they moving things out of the house.

They are a married couple. He works
at the Windsor Casino and his wife
works for the Windsor post office. He
either takes the shuttle bus to the Casino
or his wife drops him off to work in the
moring on the way to her work. They do things
together that requires only one vehicle or
only one of them goes out and the other stays
home. Thus there is always a vehicle in the
driveway.

The property next door has had two owners.
When I first bought my house there was an
older couple living common-law next door.
The gentleman past away about a year after
(more or less)after I move in. I don't know
what the arrangement was with the property
prior to his death, but she owned the house.

Some time later, she met another gentleman,
a farmer, and she sold the house and moved
to the country with her new partner. My new
neighbour who was single at the time, about
three years ago hooked up with (dated) and
then married my neighbour who rented the
house directly behind us on Cadillac Street.
Do you remember the show, "The Jeffersons."?
The theme song has just come to mind.
"Movin' on up to the eastside.." LOL

After he married my next door neighbour,
his son, with his wife took over his
former rental house on Cadillac street.
His son moved out of the house with his
wife and new baby at the end of June.
Wouldn't it be a beeeach if the other
side reversed myself and the son. Meaning
in their mind they put the son in my
house on Riverside Drive and myself
in the son's former rental on Cadillac
Street. Can you imagine the implications
of that, if they based their decisions
and actions on that kind of reversal.
The thought makes me shudder.
Anyway, there appears to be someone in
the house now. I don't know if they are
tenants or not. Could be family for all
I know.

If you haven't already done so, don't forget
to read my post titled, "EWCC's Buckingham
Agent", in the October Blog Archives,
third post. Archives are found at the
top righ-hand side of the page.

Legal Fees

The Buckingham agent called with
some good news yesterday. He informed
me that the Buyer was willing to pay
the legal fees of lawyer #1 to negotiate
on my behalf. I was pleased and relieved.
He said I would receive a comfirmation
letter in the mail shortly. I thanked the
agent for his effort.

The day before when we spoke, the agent
suggested I get a lawyer. I told him that
lawyer#1 had already told me that the
next time I see him he wanted $500.00 as
a retainer. I told the agent that I would
not pay a lawyer if they are just screwing
me around. I told him I can't afford it. I
said, "we could never close." He said, he
would suggest to his client that they pay
the legal fees because they would rather
deal with a lawyer. I told him I was fine
with that.

The buyer seems to have some control
issues and I'm certain with it paying
lawyer#1's legal fees that won't change
much. However, I hope its need to
control does not spill over into the
Agreement as it had in its latest offer.
With all the conditions gone, the
Agreement should be simplier not
complicated by hidden agendas.

Hopefully with one of their own
(lawyer#1) representing me (and
hopefully my interest too), we may
see a settlement soon. As long as
everyone is acting in good faith
I don't see a problem, but if not,
well...

The Agreement - Seller on Unequal Grounds

If I were offered a million dollars
I still wouldn't accept this Agreement.
What's a million dollars if you're not
going to get it or there's a good
chance you won't get it.

I'm not a millionaire. I can't afford to
be screwed out of ownership of my house
and the money for my house. If that were
to happen, I'd probably end up having
to remain in what was my house and pay rent
to a likely "entity" my employer, Ford or
some other entity.


I talked to the Buckingham agent today.
He tried to reassure me that I won't get
screwed,but even he could not explain
why the restriction was included in the
Agreement. The restriction is; after signing
the Agreement, I can only reveal the
contents of the Agreement in a court by court
order. In other words, if I were to institute
proceedings against the Buyer in Court, let's
say for breach of contract, I could not
submit the Agreement as evidence because I
would be revealing the contents of the
Agreement without an order. The restriction,
however, does not apply to the Buyer. If the
Buyer institutes proceedings against me, the
Seller, for breach of contract,the Buyer can
submit the Agreement as evidence, revealing
the contents of the Agreement without an order.

How does one prove their case without evidence?
That's the point isn't it? It seems to me that
if the Seller, can't prove her case against the
the Buyer for breach of contract, the Buyer
can breach the Agreement without fear of
legal consequences, right? So to put the
Buyer and Seller on equal grounds the
restriction would have to be remove. What do
you think? See below.



Agreement of Purchase and Sale


Confidentiality

(a) The Seller agrees to keep confidential
the terms and conditions of the Agreement
of Purchase and Sale and Schedule "A" hereto
and without limiting the generality of the
foregoing, the Seller agrees to keep confidential
the Purchase Price and the amount of Expenses
set out in Paragraph 7 herein for a period of
one (1) year after the Closing Date.


(b) The only exception to paragraph 10 (a) is
that the Seller may reveal the contents of
the aforesaid Agreement and Schedule to its
legal and financial advisors or to a Court or
Tribunal of competent jurisdiction if so
ordered; however should it release such information
to legal or financial advisors they must first
agree in writing to be bound by the terms of
this paragraph.

(c) In the event that the Seller or its advisors
breach the terms of this paragraph, the Seller
shall forthwith repay he amounts of the deposit
to the Buyer as liquidated damages for such breach.


Note the differences between how the Seller
and Buyer are treated in the paragraphs and
compare


Purchase Price

(ii) The terms of the holding of the funds
in trust are:

a) If this Agreement is terminated or is not
completed due to a default by the Seller
hereunder, the Deposit shall be returned to
the Buyer without deduction together with any
interest earned thereon and the Buyer shall be
entitled to any rights or remedies it may have
at law.

b) If this Agreement is terminated by the Buyer
or is not completed due to a default of the Buyer
hereunder, the Deposit, or such part thereof as
has been paid prior to the date of termination
shall be released to the Seller.


Note that unlike the Buyer there's no mention
of the Seller being "entitled to any rights
or remedies it may have at law." I suppose
with no evidence, the Seller would be unable
to obtain any remedies, anyway. You need proof
and the Seller can't even prove that there was
a contract between the Buyer and Seller. So
with no proof, how can you ask the court to
enforce the agreement? And what's up with
the Tribunal? Does the Tribunal have anything
to do with the Law Society?

Also the Buyer forwarded the Agreement to
lawyer #1. In my letter to the Buckingham
agent, copied to EWCP lawyers, I told him not
to forward any material to lawyer #1 as I had
not retained him to represent me. EWCP's lawyer
sent the Agreement to lawyer#1 revealing the
contents of the Agreement.

I told the Buckingham agent that the whole
thing seemed more about control than about
buying my house. He didn't say anything.

So here's the all important question. What
does the Buyer intend to do, that it
requires that the Seller not reveal the
contents of the Agreement in Court? Because
it seems to me that the Buyer is anticipating
legal action against it for something it
intends to do to this Seller.


Are you a control freak? - take the quiz
http://www.howtomanagepeople.com/you/

Control Freak
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_freak


Fundamentals of Contract Law
http://ezinearticles.com/?Fundamentals-of-Contract-Law&id=82686

The Offer

I picked up the offer from lawyer #1
yesterday. I sent a letter to the
Buckingham agent, copied to EWCP's
lawyers, declining the offer. What
good is a contract (Purchase Agreement)
that hinders the Seller's ability (that's me)
to enforce the agreement in Court should
the Buyer breach the terms and conditions
of the Agreement, while providing no
restrictions on the Buyer's ability to
enforce the terms and conditions
of the Agreement in Court, should I breach.

If I signed the Agreement, I would be
giving the other side permission to
breach the Agreement without having to
worry about legal consequencs. Oh,I'd
have access to the Court, but I would
have a hell of time trying to prove
a breach of the Agreement by the Buyer
with the present restriction. With the
present restriction they could say
they never had an agreement with me,
that's if I adhere to the restriction.

More on this later.

Guess Who Called?

On Friday November 2nd, 2007, guess
who called me? Lawyer #1. Well, actually
it was his secretary who called. She
called and left a message on my answering
machine that lawyer #1 had received an
offer and asked that I call back to make
an appointment to see him.

I haven't seen or heard from lawyer #1
since I had him review EWCC's first offer
back in April. That's three offers ago.
The last two offers lawyer #1's name has
been listed. So I'm curious as to why after
all this time, lawyer #1 is now being
utilized by the other side. Hmmm.

The third offer was made by East
Windsor Cogeneration Properties Inc.,
as oppose to East Windsor Cogeneration
Centre, who made the initial two offers.
My understanding from the Buckingham agent
is that the properties will be held in
trust by EWCP. I suppose that explains the
"offending clause." I hope I do not see that
clause again in this new offer. Because I
will not agree to have the lawyer prepare
the deed allowing the transfer of the title,
of my property to EWCP before a closing date.

Let's face it, if parties trusted each other
they wouldn't feel the need to put things
in writing. So there shouldn't be any
expectation that I should just simply trust
the other side.

I faxed a counter-offer to EWCP
lawyers, (which are the same EWCC
lawyers) and also faxed a copy to
their Buckingham agent. I included
with my counter-offer a cover letter
in which I explained that I did not
sign the agreement to allow for
negotiations. To me it made more sense
to negotiate, reach an agreement, have
it reviewed by a lawyer and then sign.
That was October 22, 2007. The response
it appears is to make another offer
through lawyer #1. So I wonder, if EWCP
is not willing to negotiate with me
direcly, are they willing to negotiate
with lawyer #1 or are they going to dictate
to him too?

In my post titled, EWCC Ready to Rock,
I wrote that EWCC's Buckingham agent
told me that EWCC had obtained a two
year lease with Our Lady of the Rosary
Church, next door to me, for office space.
Well, according to a Windsor Star article
published on Monday October 29th, 2007,
titled, Parish grieves closing, final mass
emotional, the party that has secured space
at the church is not EWCC but my employer,
Ford Motor Company of Canada.

Excerpt from the article reads as follows:

"Ford Motor Company has committed to rent
the church's basement and rectory over
the next 2 years for use as office space
while the company dismantles the nearby
foundry.



Agreement - The Offending Clause
http://homesellersbeware.blogspot.com/2007/10/agreement-offending-clause.html

EWCC Ready to Rock!
http://homesellersbeware.blogspot.com/2007/10/ewcc-ready-to-rock.html





















Hmmm.
Well, I'm sure if I got it wrong, lawyer #1
will tell me and I'll tell you.

Agreement - The Offending Clause

I just had a deja vu moment.
Mandatory direct deposit! During
the 2002 contract negotiations,
CAW agreed to the mandatory direct
deposit of employee wages for all
Ford employees. This agreement lead
to my filing a Duty of Fair
Representation complaint against
CAW with the Ontario Labour Relations
Board. Ford was withholding my pay
until I signed the authorization form
for direct deposit. I refused. To make
a long story short, some how Ford
managed to obtain my bank account
information and today my pay is directly
deposited into my bank account.


If Ford could get my bank account information
without my authorization for direct deposit,
then I do believe that the Deed to my home
could be transferred to another owner without
my authorization.

The offending clause reads in part as follows:

"The Seller acknowledges and agrees that the
Buyer shall have the right at any time up to
Closing to direct that on completion title to
the Property shall be taken in the name of
another entity..."

In my first letter to the Buckingham agent,
copied to EWCC lawyers, I asked if the
word "completion" in the clause means
completion of the transaction. He responded
that "yes" it means completion of the
transaction and directed me to the definition
of closing indicated in the Agreement. I had
already done that before writing the letter.

In my second letter, I asked for further
clarification. There's been no response and
I do not expect one will be forthcoming.
I wrote in part as follows:

"Could you determine from EWCC's lawyers,
whether the Buyer shall have the right at
any time up to the Closing date to direct
on completion, that ownership (Deed) be
transferred to another entity?"


Some time ago, I received a registered
letter from EWCC. And I remember being
taken aback when I went to sign my
signature on the caller I.D. type
screen thingmajig, (No more signing a
sheet attached to a clip board) and saw my
signature looking back at me under the screen.
I thought, "Holy shit! How did they get my
signature?."

At the recent meeting I had with the
Buckingham agent,he told me that "We don't
have to buy your property" I wonder now if
it's because "we" were told they could take
it without my authorization, just like my
banking information for direct deposit.

I'm removing the clause. Though, it
won't make much difference if there
is an intention to transfer ownership
illegally and screw me out funds for
my property. If they already own the
property before the Closing date,
you really don't think they will
pay for property they already own,
do you?

Who do you think the "another entity" is?

The Power of Reversal - The Objective
http://homesellersbeware.blogspot.com/2007/09/power-of-reversal-objective.html

The Closing Date, the Transfer of Ownership & Reversal

I faxed a letter to the Buckingham
agent and copied to EWCC's lawyers
asking for clarification on a clause
in the Agreement that appeared
contradictory and convoluted. The
Buckingham agent called the first
thing in the morning (and faxed) in
response to my letter.

After speaking briefly with the agent,
I read the clause again. You know when
you know something is out of sorts but
you can't quite put your finger on it?
I read the clause several more times and
then it hit me what it was that was
bothering me about the clause. I faxed
another letter to the agent and copied to
EWCC lawyers, requesting further clarification
of the clause. Hopefully I'll get a
response soon.


I read the book titled, Lawyers Gone Bad:
Money,Sex and Madness in Canada's Legal
Profession by Philip Slayton, after reading
Maclean's cover story titled, Lawyers Are
Rats, in its August 6th, 2007 issue. After
sending the second letter, the book and
article came to mind, "I hope that out of
90,000 lawyers in Canada, that I am not
unlucky enough to be dealing with rats!"


A couple interesting excerpts from the
Maclean article, Lawyers are Rats: A top
legal scholar and ex-Bay Street partner
exposes the corruption of his profession

" lawyers are taught to manipulate the
rules in favour of their clients. If
you're a manipulator of rules, then you
can't respect the rules as such or believe
that they incorporate important values."


"Arrogance is part of it. If you're taught
how to manipulate rules, you lose respect
for them, and that leads to a a kind of
arrogance; I'm bigger than the rules, I'm
not the average man on the street who needs
to be law-abiding because I know how to get
around the rules. And there may be just a
touch of the more common form of arrogance,
too, which is "I'm smarter than they
are, they'll never catch me."


Macleans interview with Philip Slayton

http://www.macleans.ca/article.jsp?content=20070727_161043_8468

Buy the book, Lawyers Gone Bad by Philip Slayton
at Amaazon.com or Chapters.indigo.ca

EWCC's Buckingham Agent

Well I had the meeting with the agent
today. Much of what I had an issue
with has been removed due to the
conditions being removed, though
there is still one clause that I am
not certain about and a word that
has me nervous as to whether I actually
receive funds on Closing. I'm going to
have to get an expert (Lawyer)take a
look at it.

The dollar amount is the same. No
surprise there. I told the agent,
that I know my next door neigbour
got more. He said, " You don't
know that." I said, "I do know that."
He said, "They didn't tell you. If
they did they breached the agreement."
I insisted that I knew that they got
more.

You want to how I know my next
door got a better deal? Because the
Buckingham agent said, "You got more
than everyone else."The words, "everyone
else" got my attention because there
is only myself and my next door neigbour.
And there is no way I got a better offer
than the home owner next to my next door
neighbour. He was referring to "everyone
else" on the side street, Cadillac Street,
not Riverside Drive East. Thus, my
conclusion that my next door neighbor got
a better deal. Their appraisal and
negotiations were based on their
legal address, Riverside Drive East.


Click on picture to enlarge, so you can
see "everybody else."

Riverside Drive East Nice Area to Live

When I purchased my home in 1999, I
thought like many, that sooner or
later Ford's Casting plant, known
as the foundry, would close and my
riverfront property would benefit
from the closure. With the foundry
closed, finally a park would materialize
across the street and maybe the marina
I was told and advertised as a selling
feature would materialize too.

Well the foundry closed in July of
this year and the park and marina
etc. will likely come to be. But just
when I thought I was going to enjoy
the fruits of my investment, the
cogeneration plant drops out of the
sky ruins the dream and truncates
my investment. Now what? I guess
I'll have to see whether I'm offered
side street money for my loss.


Take a look at Remax Preferred Realty
Market Trends Report 2006. Windsor
begins at the bottom of page 6. Note
that the report lists Riverside Drive
as a prestige area.

Click on picture to enlarge.

http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:_wp57XywBEEJ:www.remax-oa.com/MarketReports_PDF/Jun06-UpperEndTrends/Jun06_UpperEnd_RPT.pdf+remax+preferred+realty+riverside+drive+prestige&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1

EWCC Ready to Rock! ll

If you haven't had the opportunity to
read my post, ''The Power of Reversal -
The Objective", and " East Windsor
Cogeneration LP - Half a House?", please
do. It will assist you in understanding
my present musing.

My semi is a corner lot. My address is
Riverside Drive East, which means my
property is on Riverside Drive East.
How successful do you think negotiations
will be if my property in the 'mind' of the
other party is reversed so that my property
is considererd on the side street as oppose
to its legal address of Riverside Drive East?

I'm not saying that will happen, but could.
If it does, it will be a hinderance to obtaining
a settlement. Why? Because we wouldn't
be on the same page or rather same street.
While I would negotiate based on the legal
address, (the legal location of my property)
the reverse doesn't exist.

Now that I think of it, reversing in your mind
the location of my home from its legal location,
Riverside Drive East, to the side street would
leave you with half a house. What do you think?


Click on picture to enlarge. Don't
forget to check out yesterday's post
of the same title.

http://homesellersbeware.blogspot.com/2007/09/power-of-reversal-objective.html

http://homesellersbeware.blogspot.com/2007/09/east-windsor-cogeneration-lp-half-house.html

EWCC Ready to Rock!

On Wednesday, October 10, 2007,
I got a call from EWCC's Buckingham
Realty agent. He informed me that all
conditions have been removed (waived)
and EWCC is still prepared to negotiate,
although he said I didn't have to. I told
him that I was willing to negotiate.

He also indicated that the construction
start date is Monday, October 22, 2007
and piling will begin in November. He
said I would receive a registered letter
shortly indicating as much. I received
the letter today. He said he would give
me a call in a couple days to set up time
for us to meet.

The agent called today, He told me that
some of the properties are closing within
10 days. Once possession is taken the homes
will be demolished. He said the company hired
to do the demolition is Aecon Construction
(Aecon Group Inc.).

I asked him what is piling ? He said that
piling is where steel beams are rammed
into the ground. It's done to ensure that
the foundation can carry the load of the
building. A little research on the net
confirmed his explanation. It's what the
construction industry refers to as
'deep foundation'. See link below for
more information on 'piling.'

I asked the agent if EWCC has bought
the church (Our Lady of the Rosary)
next door to me. He said they haven't.
He said that EWCC will be using some
of the church space for office space.
Apparently EWCC has a two year
lease with the church for that purpose.

He said he needs to run the agreement
by the lawyers to get a "consensus".
He noted the items of contention and
would see if they could be removed,
so we get on with the "meat and potatoes"
of the agreement. He said he would contact
me tomorrow (meaning today), or early
next week depending on the lawyers
(referring to EWCC's lawyers).

October 22nd is just around the corner.
I guess we'll have to wait and see what
happens.

Click on picture to enlarge.

Deep Foundation - Piling
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_foundation

The Power of Reversal - The Objective

When its been relatively quiet
and suddenly out of no where
management is whacking you with
write ups, I don't think its unreasonable
to become suspicious about management's
motive. Particularly, if your home is one
of the three Riverside Drive East properties
that sits directly across from Ford Motor
Company's riverfront property and Ford
happens to be one of the partners involved
in the cogeneration project and you happen
to be its employee.

On the last day before going on the 2006
Christmas holiday shutdown, I was
written up for alleged failure to perform.
On the first day of returning to work on
January 3rd, 2007, I was written up again.
This time for alleged insubordination.
Both these write ups combined resulted in
a six day suspension on paper. I believe I
served three days.

Within a week of returning to work from
the suspension. I was sitting at home on
suspension again, worried to death that
I was on the verge of being fired from my
job.

In all three write ups, my Team Coordinator
(T.C.) was in the picture. Two out of the
three write ups the union equity rep. was
involved. But neither times for for my
benefit. All three allegations of misconduct
were not proved by my accusers. They
didn't have to. The burden of proof was
reversed. I had to prove the allegations
weren't true after the suspensions were
all ready administered.

I've learned that when a process is
suppose to go in a certain direction
and is reversed you are in major trouble
It means that whatever it is
your are seeking to obtain, the objective
of 'reversal' is to ensure that you do not
get it.

Deliberate reversal of a process
is like getting on an escalator and
discovering it's running backwards.
Your objective is to reach the top
steps so you can get off at the top
landing. Unless the steps are switched
to operate in ascension, you'll never
reach your goal of getting off on the
next level. Thus, you will always be
at the bottom steps at ground level
because the steps are descending
not ascending. Therefore, the point of
deliberately reversing a process or
burden of proof or even someone's
fortunes, status, etc, etc, is to keep
the individual or group (s) indiviudals
at the bottom.

When a supervisor intends to write
you up for whatever it is they are
alleging you did or didn't do, they
always tell you, "I'm writing you
up." Then they'll provide a reason.
The last incident there was no
warning. I didn't see it coming.

I was on my job on the assembly line,
when my supervisor approached me
and requested that I attend a disciplinary
interview. Since, I had already been
to HR (Human Resources) in regards
to the two earlier write ups and just
recently returned from a suspension
and had not been subjected to any
additional write ups since my return
to work, I initially didn't understand
the request.

On questioning, my supervisor told
me the interview was for misconduct.
I asked, "Misconduct for what?"
He then mentioned my union brother,
Team Coordinator's name. I instantly
knew that it had to do with the
disagreement I had with the T.C. the
day before. I had forgotten all about it.
Evidently he didn't

I told the supervisor that I would
not attend. There was no misconduct.
Just an disagreement between co-workers.
I asked him to call the union. I was mad
at the T.C. I couldn't believe he went
to management. I needed more conflict
with management like a poke in my eye.
I was not happy.

Shortly after the supervisor left a
second supervisor arrived and made
the same request. I gave her the same
response , "No. I want to talk to the
union." She left. The union rep. arrives.
The rep. instead of challenging the
supervisor's basis for requiring that I
attend the disciplinary interview, he
tries to convince me to go to the
interview.

As I'm telling the rep, "No I'm not
going." I notice from the corner of my
eye, the first supervisor approaching
behind me. He hears my response to
the rep. "No. I'm not going." As I turn
towards him, he says, " All right, that's
it! You're off the clock! Management
lingo for, "Your suspended!" I couldn't
believe what was happening. I asked, "
For what?" He said, "Refusing a direct
order." I asked, " What are you talking
about? I wasn't talking to you I was
talking with my rep.!" He said, " No.
You're off the clock!" He then abruptly
turned and walked away.I thought, "
I'm getting royally screwed here."

I was angry. I was wearing
headphones to protect my ears
from the plant noise and I pulled it
off my head and slammed the headphones
to the ground in frustration. One of the
muffs broke off on impact with the
floor. I got nailed for that. Destruction
of company property. It's the only
thing that I did do.

None of what had occurred made
any sense. I have a disagreement with
a union brother, a T.C., and as a result
I'm required to attend a disciplinary
interview. No write up, just go. I tell
the rep.that I'm not going to the interview,
and I'm promptly suspended by the
supervisor upon him overhearing me.
The supervisor treated both the T.C. and
the rep. as if they were members of
management. It was odd.

The union rep. and I left my work area
and headed to the union office. Once at the
union office the rep. provided me with
a copy of the supervisor's disciplinary
report. A sub rep. was also present.
After reading the report I finally
learned what the alleged misconduct
was. Harassment!

The harassment allegation was absolute
nonsense. How do you harass someone
you never associate with unless it pertains
to your job. T.C.s bodies are in the
bargaining unit, but some T.C.s (actually
too many) heart and mind are with
management.

We've had many members lose their jobs
due to job cuts. And there are T.C.s who
will assist management in cutting their
own union brothers and sisters jobs for
browny points. That's basically what the
essence of the disagreement was about
between myself and the T.C.

Conclusion in a Nutshell.

While on suspension awaiting my fate, it
occurs to me that the recent suspensions
has something to do with my house, Ford
and its cogeneration partners. In a
letter dated February 10, 2007,
addressed to HR and in plant union,
I wrote:

"attached find info from EWCC website.
Please note that Ford is a partner. No
wonder the rash of write ups. Management
is setting me up to be fired."

What happened to the T.C.'s allegation of
harassment? In letters to the Local union
president I question why the T.C.'s
harassment complaint did not trigger
Appendix 'O' Harassment/ Discrimination
Internal Complaint Resolution Procedure
("The Procedure") of the collective agreement.
The T.C. is a visible minority. He's east
Indian.

Given that the supervisor wanted me to
attend a disciplinary interview based
on the T.C's allegation of harassment,
according to the procedure, I should have
been notified of the complaint before
the commencement of an investigation.

But I wasn't notified of the complaint
because there had not been an investigation
prior to the supervisor asking me to attend
the disciplinary interview for misconduct.
Yet the supervisors and the union reps
required that I attend a disciplinary interview
for alleged harassment that neither the union
and management informed me or investigate.

An investigation did eventually take place,
but only because I pointed out in my letters
that no investigation of the T.Cs harassment
complaint had occured. The conclusion
of the union's after the fact investigation
was that there was no evidence of harassment
as per the Ontario Human Rights Code.

A union rep. asked me if I would be willing
to sign a grievance. I told the rep. I'd need
to see the union fact sheet first. The rep.
said that he didn't have to show me the
fact sheet because it was his facts.

I wan't just being set up to be fired,
I was also being set up to have no income.
You can't collective employment insurance
if you are terminated from your employment
due to your misconduct. I understand that
you can't collect social assistance if you own
a house and have any savings. So I would
have to lose everything first.

I was wondering how much will my home
be worth once EWCC breaks ground? Will
EWCC breaking ground wipe out the
equity I have built up in my home?

Check out my previous post for
recent Windsor Star news on the
cogeneration project.

EWCC IN THE NEWS

Cogeneration project set to begin
Dave Hall, Windsor Star Published:

Saturday, September 29, 2007

Construction is expected to begin
within weeks on a $212-million
cogeneration plant adjacent to
Ford Motor Company's old powerhouse
on the city's near east side.
The East Windsor Cogeneration
Centre, a joint project of Pristine
Power Inc. and Fort Chicago Energy
Partners, both of Calgary, is expected
to begin producing 84 megawatts of
power by summer 2009.
The new power plant is expected
to make the automaker's engine
plant more competitive and
environmentally friendly.
Email to a friendPrinter friendly
Font:
*
*
*
*
"It required a great deal of co-operation
to build a power plant in an urban setting
such as this and we got it from Ford, the
city and the neighbourhood," Jeff Myers,
president of Pristine Power, said during
groundbreaking ceremonies Friday.
Myers, who helped build the West
Windsor power plant in Brighton
Beach 15 years ago, said the new plant
is "a direct result of the Ontario government's
commitment to high-efficiency cogeneration."
The project resulted from a bid process
conducted by the Ontario Power Authority
which has seen plants capable of producing
400 megawatts of power built or approved
in recent months.
Provincial Energy minister Dwight Duncan
said another 600 megawatts will be awarded
during the next round of bidding.
"This plant is good for the environment
and will provide more efficient, less expensive
power for Ford which will help keep them more
competitive," said Duncan.
Power generated by the plant will be fed
into Hydro One's grid when Ontario's power
demand peaks. Built by Toronto-based
Aecon Group Inc., the 84-megawatt,
natural-gas fired cogeneration plant
will operate on Ford property behind
the existing plant and will be considerably
smaller and quieter.
The investment also includes a $300,000
donation to a city-administered sustainability
fund, with the money to be used for as-yet
undetermined environmental or energy-efficient
projects.
Mayor Eddie Francis said the city will begin
discussions with the project developers to work
out guidelines for use of the funding.
"It's a nice giveback to the community on top
of everything else this project will mean," Francis
said. The project will be the fifth privately owned
power plant in Windsor.
© The Windsor Star 2007


Ads by Google






' +
'' + google_ads[i].line1 + '

' +
'

' + google_ads[i].line2 +
'' + google_ads[i].line3 +
'


' + google_ads[i].visible_url + '

');
}
}
// -->


Power Plant Jobs


Construction, Startup, OperationsRev 1 Power Services


http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/iclk?sa=l&ai=BBf_mDpb-Ruq9Mom8kAOoj-ThB7icwS6Mse_VBMCNtwHw1xwQARgBILiKiAMoAzgAUNXU_qEBYP3QmoHoA6oBDGFydGljbGUtbmV3c7IBDnd3dy5jYW5hZGEuY29tyAEB2gFqaHR0cDovL3d3dy5jYW5hZGEuY29tL3dpbmRzb3JzdGFyL25ld3MvYnVzaW5lc3Mvc3RvcnkuaHRtbD9pZD1kMDliMDFjYy1lNjYwLTQ1NDktYWUzNS1kMDA4YmFhZTMzNjcmaz04MjY3OagDAegDhgboAxDoA5EF9QMCAAAA&num=1&adurl=http://www.rev1ps.com/jobs/JobOpenings.php&client=ca-canada_js

The Real Estate Lawyer -Reviewing the Offer

In my posts, 'My Worse Fears May Come True',
Part I & II, I wrote about having two different
real estate lawyers look at the two offers made
by EWCLP (East Windsor Cogeneration LP).
The second lawyer was more generous with
providing information than the first lawyer.
Luckily the second lawyer didn't look at the
purchase agreement until after he provided
some useful information.

I've provided some excerpts from the lawyer's
letter to me. Hopefully this info. will be useful
to you as well.


1. "The closing date is always some time after all
conditions are waived. The reason is that the
lawyer will not generally do a title search or
anything else until the offer is firm. They will
also need some time to prepare all the paperwork."

2. "Your lawyer will take care of paying off your mortage. "

3. "I agree that tenants insurance is a lot cheaper
than homeowners insurance."

4. "Closing funds will be paid to your lawyer .
He will then pay off your mortgage, take
his fees and give you the balance."

5. "The usual adjustments on a sale are
for property taxes and fuel oil if the house
is heated. If they take over your insurance,
there may also be an adjustment for that.
The idea of adjustments is to allocate expenses
that were paid in advance."

6. "...that payment be by certified cheque.
That is standard on all agreements."

Note: But if you think you're going to
lose sleep at night because the corporation
may put a stop payment on the certified
cheque,then cashier's cheque may be the
better option. My understanding is
that banks usually do not allow a
stop payment on certified cheques,
but you never know. Big corporations
have a lot of influence. Why chance it.
Better to lean on the side of caution,
right?


Links that you might find of interest:

Real Estate: Meeting with a lawyer
http://real-estate.lawyers.com/Real-Estate-Meeting-with-a-Lawyer.html

What to expect when you buy or sell a house
http://ezinearticles.com/?What-to-Expect-When-You-Buy-or-Sell-a-House&id=164506

Articles of interest for Ontario Homeowners
http://www.newhomesandcondos.com/html/articles.html

East Windsor Cogeneration LP - Half a House?

I was really ticked off the other day at the
EWCLP's agent from Buckingham Realty.
He forwarded a letter to me requesting to
set up meeting as EWCLP was still prepared
to negotiate a deal. I took that to mean that my
counter-offer was not accepted.

Prior to submitting my second counter-offer,
I got a letter from Jeff Meyers the President &
CEO of EWCLP directing me to provide my
offer to the Buckingham agent and the agent
would provide my offer to EWCLP. Funny
thing about that was, the agent had told me
earlier that apparently EWCLP's Counsels,
after receiving my first counter-offer, did not
want me faxing my material to them.
According to the agent, the Counsels' said
that my material could only be provided by
a lawyer to them. I thought, "Excuse me."

Anyways, I wasn't comfortable with the idea
of giving my offer to EWCLP's agent. Wonder
if the agent didn't submit my offer to his client.
He could tell me that he did, but in fact didn't.
Or submit my offer but later they claim they
didn't get it, then what? How do I prove that
they did receive it without my own record.
Besides, I didn't have a lot of faith in their agent.

I faxed my counter-offer to EWCLP's
Counsels. On August 31, 2007, the Buckingham
agent called me at home to tell me that "they"
in reference to EWCLP didn't receive my offer.
Right then I knew. He was playing games and
I told him exactly that. I told him that they did
get it. I faxed my offer to EWCLP's lawyers. He
asked, "When?". I told him I'd have to check my
records and call him back. I called him back
few minutes later and announced it was faxed
July 31st, 2007.

The agent , with his imperious attitude, then
told me I was suppose to give my offer to him,
like the letter directed me to do. He said, "That's
what they want!" His attitude pissed me right
off. I shouted, "I don't give a fuck what they
want! He insisted and I said, " Don't tell me
what to fucking do. I'll do what I think is in my
best interest." I was mad as hell. Who did this
man think he is? God himself? I told him,
"I didn't agree to co-operate with you,
now did I?'' Later the same day, I ended up
faxing a brief letter to Jeff Meyers explaining
why I did not do as directed in his letter.

Imagine had I done as directed in the letter,
given my offer to the agent, I bet I would
have heard too late, that EWCLP did not receive
my offer and it would be twisted to make it
look like I was the bad guy. How would I have
proven that EWCLP received my offer if my
offer was given to their agent? These people,
think co-operation means co-operate even if it's
not in your interest. In fact your expected to
knowingly co-operate in harming your own
interest? I don't think that's reasonable.

My meeting with the Buckingham agent was
on Wednesday, September 12, 2007. It lasted
maybe all of a of a minute. Why? He informed
me that he had already made a deal with my
neighbour. I was pissed. I wasn't angry because
he made an agreement with them first. I was
angry because of the way he went about it.
He played me! He turned the process into
a game.

Something that should have be straightforward
right from its inception was turned into a
childish joke. He was quite pleased with
himself. As if to say, " See, this is proof that
you're stupid and I'm smarter than you. Didn't
you see that, you idiot, it was the point of
this entire exercise. To show you how
superior I am to you. You didn't think my
client really wanted to buy your house,
now did you? "

The agent had lead me to believe that an
agreement would be negotiated and
reached with me first. Then the same
agreement would be presented to my
neighbour who would have to agree
accept the agreement. In other words
if my neighbour did not agree, then no
deal. As according to the agent, EWCLP
did not want to get stuck with half a
house. The agent after informing me that
an agreement had been reached already
with my neighbour, had the audacity to
tell me that their property was none of
my businees.

The entire thing was done backwards,
but I decided that it was easier to go with
flow and try to work around problems in
the agreement, than to continue arguing
with an agent, whose response to every
protest or suggestion was, "No." It became
evident to me that negotiation and dictation
had the same meaning to him. He's nothing
like the Remax agent who sold me my house.
The Remax agent was helpful and he
wasn't even my agent but the Seller's.

A real estate agent from Manor Realty
told me early on that he would be willing
to represent myself and my neighbour
in negotiations with EWCLP as it made
more sense to negotiate together. I agreed.
Unfortunately, my neighbour didn't. We
both were left wondering, why? It sure
would have made things easier. I took
a mental note of the fact that my neighbour's
son and family who lived directly behind
us, moved out of their rented house at the
end of June.

I happen to notice they were moving their
stuff out of the house one day, while
I happened to be watering my garden. The
son told me they had found an apartment
on far eastside of the city. Most of their
stuff was in storage as the apartment
could not accommodate all of their belongings.
He hoped they would be able to get another
house sometime next year. I can't recall
whether he indicated they intended to
rent or buy a house.

So far according to its agent, EWCLP has a
conditional agreement for half a house. Half
house because my home style is a semi-
detached sometimes referred to as a duplex.
I wonder who they're going to blame for that?

East Windsor Cogeneration LP

East Windsor Cogeneration LP (EWCLP), who
are they? Here's an excerpt from one of
their informational letter from January 2007.


" EWCC is a new cogeneration facility to
be located in Windsor on the existing Ford
powerhouse site. The purpose of this
cogeneration facility will be to provide Ford
with a source of steam to be used in their
current operations and to fulfill a long
term contract with the Ontario Power
Authority to supply the electrical grid
with up to 84 MW of electricity.''


excerpt from letter of October 2006


"Pristine Power Inc., as the lead developer
of the EWCC has extensive experience in
power project development and operations
in the province of Ontario. The owners of
Pristine have been directly involved in four (4)
cogeneration projects in Ontario including the
West Windsor Cogeneration plant..."

"Fort Chicago Energy Partners, LP is an
equity partner in the EWCC. It holds operating
interests in the Alliance Pipeline, the Alberta
Ethane Gathering System and Aux Sable, a
natural gas liquids extraction and delivery
facility. "


Check out EWCC website. Did I tell you yet,
that I am an 18 years and 10 months, employee
of Ford Motor Company of Canada?

And also, according to the law, I'm represented
by a trade union, National Automobile,
Aerospace, Transportation & General
Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada),
and my workplace is governed by a collective
agreement.

http://www.eastwindsorcogen.ca/

http://www.pristinepower.ca/

http://fortchicago.com/

When the Corporation Comes Knockin'

If a corporation was person he/she would be
an egotistical, self centred, manipulative, lying,
deceiving, dishonest, evil, prick or bitch.
Some believe a corporations has all of the
characteristics of a sociopath, more commonly
knowns as a psychopath . No, not Jeffery
Dahmer people eating psychopath ( a canibal),
not literally anyway, but a psychopath
all the same.

In any event, not a person you'd want want
to spend any of amount of time with. So
when the corporation comes a knockin' at
your door in the form of its representative (s),
don't be fooled by the warm, friendly demeanor
and pie-in-the-sky promises. Sooner or later
the mask will come off and the real deal will be
seen. You can't hide your true self indefinitely.
A prick can be nice, but he will always be
a prick and a bitch, will always be a bitch even
when she is smiling at you.

Don't be surprise if you are betrayed in
your dealings. In fact don't be surprised
to discover that the corporation wasn't the
only one to betray you. When you pulled
the knife out your back you discovered that
intermingled with corporation's fingerprint,
was maybe your, neighbour, friend, relative,
co-worker, etc. etc. The point being, some
people become morally and ethically
challenged as soon as money comes into the
picture, particularly big corporate money.

For some it's not about the money. For
whatever reason, they simply just don't
like you and thus do not wish you well. So
they have no problem engaging in activity
that they no will harm you. In fact that's
motive for getting involved to begin with.

Others suffer with inferiority complexes,
the root of superiority complex. Therefore,
these individuals have need to always show
that they are superior to you and others.
Unfortunately, their need to feel superior
to others only shows the depth of their
inferiority complex. Let's face it, if you
really believe the other person or persons
is inferior to you, why expend so much
energy, physically and mentally on them?

Watch on-line the documentary, The Corporation
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12998.htm


The Corporate Pyschopath
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/bbing/stories/s1158704.htm

My worse fears may come true. Part II

When I first read the purchase agreement, it
gave me the creeps. It wasn't that I thought
the agreement was illegal, because I didn't
know whether it was or not, there was just
some items that didn't seem to fit right to me
and didn't feel right. There are times when
you do not need anyone to tell you something
is wrong. You just know it is.

As mentioned in my earlier post, I had two
different lawyers review the purchase
agreement and their responses were telling.
Although the agreement is legal, it's not a
good agreement for me. They didn't tell me
that, but their behaviour did. Lawyers can
read a contract and get a sense of what's
really going on, what the likely intentions
of the other party is, and thus the likely
outcome. If it's not good for you, you'll get
very little assistance, if any, from the lawyer
once they've read the agreement.


The lawyer may not have addressed all your
concerns or dismissed or minimized those
raised by you. That's a good indication that
you have to take a closer look at the purchase
agreement and make certain there is nothing
in the agreement that can potentially harm
you. That's what I had to do.

Both Seller and Buyer have the right to add
conditions to the purchase agreement to protect
their interests. Now, a corporation may not see
it that way, but all parties to the agreement
have the same rights. So don't let the
corporation bully you, because it will try
to by extension of its representatives. The
corporation only wants you the Seller to act
in its interest not your own. This is a problem
that I presently encountering.

In later posts I will identify the name of the
corporation and provide more information on
my situation. Until then, take care.

My worse fears may come true. - Part I

There's nothing worse than the fear that no
matter what you do to protect your interest,
that the corporate buyer might succeed in
leaving you worse off than it found you.
Worse off meaning, no house and no money
or leave you with a house that's worth squat.

I know what you're thinking, you got a
contract (purchase agreement) how could
that happen? Didn't you have a lawyer look
at it before you signed on the dotted line
dummy? Yah, I had a lawyer look at the
agreement. In fact I had a lawyer review the
first offer and a different lawyer review the
second offer. But here's the thing that you
should know, that just because a lawyer
reviewed the agreement doesn't make it a
good deal for you.

A real estate lawyer reviews the offer to
ensure that it is a legal agreement. A good
lawyer looking out for your interest will not
only review the agreement to make certain it's
legal but ensure it's a good deal for you too. A
contract can be legal but a bad deal for you, just
as a good or bad deal, could be a contract that's
illegal.

Worse case senario: Imagine to your utter
horror, to discover that the cheque provided
to you on closing, buy the corporate buyer for
the sale of your home bounced. You review
your purchase agreement and you note that
it doesn't specify the type of cheque, such as
certified cheque, or cashier's cheque. It just
simply says cheque or negotiable cheque.
Which means the money hadn't been guranteed
by the bank. It also means that an unscrupulous
corportation just made off with you house for
free. Do I hear lawsuit?

The difference between a certified cheque, cashier's cheque, bank draft,
money order and traveller's cheque. Shttp://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/DrDon/20050823a1.aspee link.