.JPG)
Contributed Photo, 1564 Hillside Ave. N., blog post by John HoffFollowing a recent blog post in which I brought up--yet again--Keith Reitman's involvement with the fraudulent deal at 1564 Hillside Ave. N., good ol' Keith Reitman got on the Jordan Neighborhood "JACC listserv" and complained--loud and long--about being mentioned in association with the fraud at 1564 Hillside Ave. N. To read the blog post which gets Reitman so worked up, go here to the original blog post.
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.
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: Despite more than $85,000 in dubious payments which you signed off upon, you had NO IDEA something shady was up, huh, Reitman? What, it was not your job to look into that as long as you were getting your big, fat payment for a house in TERRIBLE condition?)
As a property selling customer, I relied on a state licensed real estate firm and a state licensed closing firm, just as most other property sellers do. I never knew nor ever met the buyer of 1564 Hillside. He was brought to the deal by a real estate agent and was approved for his mortgage. I believe that those who were involved in the fraud are on trial or have been convicted; I am not and shall never be, as I was a victim. I do believe that anyone involved in mortgage fraud should suffer the consequences.
(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.)
(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.)
5 comments:
Can someone do me a favor? Pretend like I'm six years old and explain something to me in the simplest of terms.
How exactly did this sale of 1564 Hillside transpire? Was it:
1) listed for sale on the MLS?
2) Was it offered-out for sale by a listing agent behind the scenes?
3) Did the fictiocious "buyer" drive by the property one day and decide "that's an ideal property with which to perpetrate mortgage fraud"?
4) Did Keith have a realtor representing him (as he somewhat alludes to in his "poor me" letter)?
You see, at the end of the day, if the property wasn't listed (for the public) on the MLs, and if he wasn't represented by a licensed realtor that was actively trying to "sell" the property for him, then he really needs to explain how exactly it came to pass that he became connected with the people that committed the fraud.
Anyone? Keith?
Me thinks tho dost protest too much......
And to me, that's the most important question of all. And maybe Keith would be so kind and answer it, so that we cann ALL put this to rest once and for all. How exactly did the buyer and seller end-up coming together?
In detail please Keith, so your fine character can once again be restored. Was the prperty listed on the MLS? Did you have a realtor working for you? How exactly did the fraudsters find you and your rental house you were willing to sell at a reasonable price?
It seems to me that if the property wasn't listed, somebody probably got money for helping to put the deal together. And, you know, that money might be on the HUD even if it isn't labeled as such.
Anybody? Anybody? Keith? Keith? Want to remove the one tiny flaw from your otherwise snow-white, pure and sparkling good name?
Any Realtors or mortgage geeks out there can correct me if I'm wrong, but in response to Anon 5:24:
The transaction probably happened as a result of something between #1 and #2. Larry Maxwell was the agent, and if I'm not mistaken he acted under dual representation (which is how you'd want to do it if you were scamming someone's identity AND skimming money off the top to your shell construction company).
Most of Maxwell's transactions were of the fraudulent, dual representation variety, but some were legit. And in order to post even the legitimate ones on the MLS, everything a Realtor does must be listed.
So what we probably had was Maxwell putting the deal together behind the scenes, and THEN listing it on the MLS for a few days. No other offers were really entertained during that time, since everything had already been set up.
I can swallow the argument that Reitman had no idea about the identity theft aspect of this deal. However, any experienced landlord/property owner makes his or her livelihood in large part from the savvy acquisition and resale of their properties. So when I see how much money was skimmed off from the closing, a significant portion of which went to nonexistent construction, I have a much harder time accepting the innocent victim argument.
Care to respond to that, Mr. Reitman?
(in an odd twist of fate, the word verification comes up this time around as "proof")
I like the six year old explanation request:
Any person getting an offer for nearly 100% over the value of their property would know it was shady just like someone buying a Lexus for 50.00 should know it's stolen. Everything about that deal was suspect. The property was not listed on MLS, no search can pull it up.
T. Snoddy worked with Maxwell so that at least a few of his deals had an additional name on them "for looks", as well as the fact she worked for Maxwell and profited from these criminal deals.
No buyer drove by the property as there was never a sign for sale, nor a MLS listing, but instead someone (perhaps pretending to sell windows??) helped put the buyer and seller together(if indeed Reitman and Maxwell weren't already connected) and Maxwell handled every detail from there.
Keith worked with Snoddy and Maxwell and received an offer for more than double the value of his property. An innocent person would be very weary and probably explore validity of said offer.
Reitman would have gotten an appraisal that was clearly fraudulent, accepted to be hooked up with a construction company that would be paid approximately 24,000.00 for work that was never actually completed and this money was not protected by any verbiage that any novice seller would put in place.
IF someone said to you....
Ok, your house is worth 100,000 but I'll get you 200,000 and here's how we'll do it.
I have someone who will inflate your appraisal.
I have a mortgage company who will process the loan without flagging it.
I will have a fake buyer who will have the credit to make the purchase but will never really live in the house so there's no need to invest anything updating the house.
In return, you will pay me 14% instead of 6%.
You will pay a construction company 24,000. and site it for work to be done in the future.
You will agree to pay 5,000 to another one of our team and we'll list as payment for windows since it's illegal to pay a referral fee to anyone who isn't licensed.
I have a title company and notary who will push the deal through even with all the obvious red flags.
We'll pretend there are all kinds of bills to be paid off and actually we will pocket that money.
(Actually the construction company who knows they will not provide any work will cash the check, keep a small portion for their help and send 90% back to me.)
I have taken care of setting up the paperwork you will get more than your property is worth and I'll get paid for selling property that is in no shape to be sold to any legitimate buyer and we can make it all happen in 30 days.
Reitman made money when realistically he probably would have had to invest some real cash to get that place up to any condition that would be purchased by a genuine buyer. He got rid of a horrid piece of property that he paid 6,000. for and got his portion of 189,000!
There's the 55,000 that is paid to some mysterious benefit ... never ever seen anything like that in legal and acceptable closing documents or HUD 1.
Then of course the 5,000. and the commission of over 20,000 and the fees paid to the appraiser, the notary, the other cohorts and basically between them they walk out of the closing with almost 100,000 in cash for property that should have been condemned, would have needed cash to bring it to code and may have never sold for anywhere near a third of that price. List today, offer tomorrow, close by the end of the month.
Everybody wins. Pay the fictitious buyer (who in this case worked pretty cheaply for a bit of crack.) They pay another partner in crime, to create fake documents such as drivers license and social security card.
No breathing person with two brain cells could ever be involved in that deal and not be complicit.
Reitman, Moore, Snoddy and Maxwell are all connected.
Hope that helps.
Post a Comment