-
Snoopster
-
-
Visitor
-
09 Apr 2013 14:29 #129741
by Snoopster
That's what I'm saying. It's the bank's fault. They were contributory negligent in all of those transactions.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Less
More
-
Posts: 93768
-
Thank you received: 44
-
-
09 Apr 2013 14:43 #129742
by ketchim
So the 2 Guyanese including the Attorney should be Freed :
And lock up the Bank employee , Constante, for knowingly defrauding his Employer ?
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
-
Snoopster
-
-
Visitor
-
09 Apr 2013 14:52 #129744
by Snoopster
Bro they are all at fault including the Bank and its employee. But in corporate America the Banks are above the fcuking law. No one will prosecute a bank in the U.S. and A.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
-
The Captain
-
-
Visitor
-
Less
More
-
Posts: 62474
-
Thank you received: 36
-
-
Less
More
-
Posts: 93768
-
Thank you received: 44
-
-
10 Apr 2013 16:20 #129950
by ketchim
Cappo ,
Any Lawyer closing a real estate transaction by receiving Funds from the Bank :
on behalf of the Buyer .....is automatically representing the Bank as well.!!
In the old days the Bank had an independent Lawyer , but that added to the "closing "costs.
So any Lawyer who knowing receives the Money , is guilty :
IF they knew is was a questionable transaction !
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Less
More
-
Posts: 93768
-
Thank you received: 44
-
-
10 Apr 2013 16:24 #129951
by ketchim
For Example ...Snoopster representing me as a Buyer :
Snoopster receives 500 K.from the Bank
The Seller lawyer requests only 300K ...( real price of the house )
I tell Snoopster the extra 200K is to be given to me personally !
Snoopster responsibility is to ALERT the Bank that they are being "Oaklahoma" :-[
and maybe call the Cops on Me !
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Less
More
-
Posts: 93768
-
Thank you received: 44
-
-
Less
More
-
Posts: 62474
-
Thank you received: 36
-
-
-
Snoopster
-
-
Visitor
-
10 Apr 2013 16:48 #129955
by Snoopster
You as the client still reserve the right for the bank to get it's own lawyer. Once you explain to the client that it's a joint retainer and that you cannot keep anything confidential between the 2 parties, either party can then say "no I don't consent to a joint retainer" and the other will have to get another solicitor involved.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
-
Forum
-
Political Opinions, Commentaries on Current Issues
-
The Water Cooler!
-
Another one bites the dust...
Time to create page: 0.222 seconds