What follows is Reitman's response, along with some of my commentary. Live links were not in the original text...
I, Keith Reitman, do not care to write into THE JOHNNY NORTHSIDE Blog because of the often hateful nature of it, and the self-promotional half truths that John Hoof frequently offers as truth. So I am posting this elsewhere in a public forum.
Each time you, John Hoff, or anyone infers, suggests, says, or alleges that I was involved in Mortgage Fraud, it is a lie; and you are blaming a victim. You have done so repeatedly. Reasonable people know that it is morally wrong to blame a victim.
(JNS says: Keith, were you required to give back the money from the grossly inflated value of that house at 1564 Hillside Ave. N. which you sold to the "Imposter Foster" using a fake identity? Is that what makes you a "victim?" Or, in fact, did you get to keep all the money from that deal? Please, inform me how you were a victim and if you convince me, I will say you were indeed a victim instead of a CULPABLE PARTY WHO BENEFITTED FROM THE DEAL)
I, Keith Reitman, write this letter to respond to the latest thread that was introduced in The Johnny Northside Blog by John Hoff that mentions me, and disparages me falsely, again.
Each time you, John Hoff, repeat a Mortgage Fraud canard about me, you repeat my victimization. You are willing and eager to publicize rumors, lies, and gratuitous gossip for your selfish self-promotion, and out of your mean spirit. You do this with much frequency and you should stop it.
(JNS says: Which part is which? Which part is a lie? Were you not the seller of 1564 Hillside Ave. N.? Was that not a fraudulent deal? Were some aspects of the fraud not OBVIOUS AND APPARENT from the stuff you signed, specifically a $5,000 payment for "windows" when no windows were replaced at the property? That would be the $5,000 payment mentioned in, oh gee, the criminal complaint for Larry Maxwell, click here. But I'll give you this much, Keith: the "windows" reason is stated in an invoice, not directly on the HUD Statement. However...
IF THE $5,000 WAS NOT FOR WINDOWS THEN WHAT WAS IT FOR AND WHY DID YOU SIGN OFF ON IT? WHAT WERE THE OTHER PAYMENTS FOR IN THE HUD statment? $24,100 to Gill Construction? $56,291.78 to "Peter Lang for the benefit of James Lang?" Keith Reitman, you signed off on $85,391.78 worth of dubious payments! Are you SERIOUSLY going to tell me a savvy wheeler dealer in property such as yourself didn't QUESTION that stuff? Wasn't offered EXPLANATIONS about that stuff?)
(Keith Reitman's words continue...)
First and for some context: I was a victim of mortgage fraud regarding 1564 Hillside Avenue North in Minneapolis.
(JNS says: Coughing sound--BULLS***T!--coughing sound)
It is true I was the long term owner of 1564 Hillside, and sold it. The buyer turned out to have stolen someone's identity and falsely used that identity and name to buy my property. I had no idea this would happen.
(JNS says: Answer directly and plainly what you knew about the dubious payments, Keith, which was surely more than NOTHING. It is IMPOSSIBLE to believe a savvy person such as yourself didn't know more than you've stated here)
When you, John Hoff, falsely repeat that I was "involved" in mortgage fraud, it is like saying that the victim of a "hit and run" was "involved" in the hit and run, and should be vilified and prosecuted for the hit and run.
(JNS says: No, it's really more like saying a slumlord got a big fat payout for a house that wasn't worth that much, and signed off on a dubious payments and then--surprise surprise--the whole thing turned out to be fraudulent. That's what it's like. It has nothing to do with a your metaphorical comparison to a hit-and-run, baseball, apples and oranges, or anything but the THING at issue)
You need to improve your fairness and ethics and fact checking and quit taking mean spirited cheap shots at the people who disagree with you and your political patrons.
(JNS says: What "political patrons," Keith? Would that be what you call an "innuendo?")
That is why you appear to me as but a would pretend to be sincere blogger with no desire for fact checking. You are a sometimes entertaining clown, and probably an excellent truck driver (your actual profession) not a true reporter.
(JNS says: I'm an excellent driver)
Further, as to your thoughts of yourself as a sterling character with excellent judgement. I was shocked when you highlighted, with a photo on your blog, your violating of Minneapolis City Ordinance regarding bottle rockets that you allowed and encouraged your minor child, and his minor buddies to play with last Fourth of July. You grossly endangered them, and then pimped them with your photo, in my opinion. Do you believe if you transparently kiss-up to the police as much as you do on your blog; you are above the laws you expect others to obey. You should be charged with multiple child endangerment, shouldn't you?
(JNS says: Yawn)
As to the most recent reckless and mean spirited comment by The Johnny Northside Blog about me, below. It is another log in his fire of lies, rumors, and innuendo he would like to associate my name with on the internet for his miserable and sick satisfaction. John Hoff should be shucking Shamwows not cheating Blog readers with half truths.
(JNS says: Shucking Shamwows? I had to look that up. I guess it's some kind of knock-off chamois cloth sold on late night paid commercial advertising. I'm not sure what it has to do with anything in the discussion about 1564 Hillside Ave. N. and Keith Reitman's involvement. Keith is a fairly expressive writer, but sometimes he makes points that are just...obscure and not easy to understand. I think he meant "hawking Shamwows," which would make a lot more sense in context)
(But, to summarize: $85,000 worth of dubious payments skimmed off the sale of 1564 Hillside Ave. N. can't be explained away by, oh gee, "I relied on a licensed real estate firm." Reitman--who gets himself on all kinds of committees, and the JACC board--should offer a realistic explanation to the public for his involvement in the fraud at 1564 Hillside Ave. N.)