I admire the boldness in starting off with an entire village, but perhaps starting with one or a few first would be better?

Also, if a person can demonstrate sufficient education or job experience showing his professional knowledge of unregistered securities, he too can qualify to be considered an accredited investor.I added the bold and italic.I have found the Investopedia site pretty good in the past.

Bolding a phrase here or there doesn't change the fact that the wholesaler who does so within the law is buying and selling for himself or herself and is therefore not within the statute.Go ahead and ignore that as well as the concept of equitable title yet again in your next reply. 

I agree strongly with your statement in bold. 

It's kind of ridiculous and laughable, or incredibly bold if intentional, for the company to include such a contradictory statement immediately following the required Texas disclosure.To recap:Company is currently operating as an unlicensed lender across multiple statesThey require an owner-occupied home to secure an equity line of credit for a consumerThey do not consider the borrower's Ability to Repay, which might violate federal lawTheir hybrid 'Construction HELOC' (my term) fails to meet several TX requirements:Requiring a Deed of Trust violates terms of TX consumer construction loansBorrower doesn't control money drawn from the LOC, which violates TX requirement: "The owner requests advances, repays money, and reborrows money."

The most important part is in bold. 

Be bold!

I’ve also added some questions in bold.

Can I break up the parcel into two pieces- one with the SFH and acerage, and one with the two duplexes, thereby qualifying for some flavor of conventional/ residential mortgage? 

Some times it is ok to be BOLD on the colors you use as long as the house welcomes the make up.