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