I particularly enjoyed the very last sentence:"Blaming the loss on the investor appears as an ingenuous attempt to deflect accountability for prior excesses in loose lending practices."

I had asked that instead of reimbursement for damages we could maybe work out some "alternative sentencing" for the kid.

Let me give an example:Look at this sentence:"I did not say he stole the money."

The first sentence of section (a) seems to be the context of what they're trying to stop: fraud on the homeowner which could stop them from getting any "surplus funds" from the trustee sale.

the spam was advertising for a book which tells you. im not paying $600 for a book that has a strategy that most likely can be explained in one sentence, lol.

Nobody is being forced to do anything they don’t want to.Can you deny based upon their 5 evictions, or the 4 kids they want in one room of the two bedroom unit, or the three drug possessions, or the fact they’re awaiting sentencing on two violent felonies, and have a partridge in a pear tree?

Michael... love the last sentence.

What do you make of the first sentence in the first paragraph in the quote?

They know nothing of the area outside that radius(I am exaggerating this last sentence but just trying to make a point).You know how I found my one branch bank when I got started?

An investor with almost an 18,000 point influence - in two short lines- took only 4 sentences to target that number a bit more precisely: $100,000 too high.To even consider such a huge amount of exposure without being solid on the fundamentals is beyond my understanding.