Apologies - Posted by Bill Gatten

Posted by HR on September 03, 2001 at 11:57:59:


That comment was obviously not Bill Gatten at his best. Bill Gatten at his best is intelligent, funny, and very informed.

I just feel that the superlative marketing of the PT can be misleading by denying some of the potential threats. Imho, it’s also not the PT at it’s best.

Debate over. You won’t see me commenting on this again. Informed opinions are now in the archives for those who care to do due diligence on this stuff. I appreciate yours and others opinions on this stuff so I could come to my own informed opinion.


Apologies - Posted by Bill Gatten

Posted by Bill Gatten on September 01, 2001 at 14:42:15:


I’m truly sorry about the tenor of the lengthy thread below concerning the intent of the article re. a friend having gone to prison over issues ultimately involving the DOS Clause. It was posted here out of context, misconstrued and misunderstood by most who commented on it (the original article).

To clarify: here is the truth and my (our) honest take on the situation and the issue of the DOSC.

Violating a lender’s Due-on-Sale Clause WILL NOT, and cannot put you in jail! Ever! Being accused of taking unconscionable advantage of someone can. And when that accusation is levied, it would probably stick whether you had used a PACTrust, a Lease Option, A Wrap, CFD or anything else. Now, no matter what vehicle you used to get the control over the property, if the prosecutor wants some good help in getting you in the slammer, he will call the banks involved in your dealings and point out that such transfers were taken without their authorization and against their wishes and policies. Then, when the decision comes down, it will not even mention due-on-sale clause violations: it will mention deceit, fraud, misrepresentation and misdealing and unjust enrichment at the expense of the plaintiff or the state.

That article (posted by someone else completely out of context) is true. The case number and the friend’s name will remain anonymous…period…forever: neither is germane to the issue at all. Let’s say that, the nameless friend were to have shot somebody, and that’s why he went to jail…nothing to do with real estate all. Let’s say the whole thing was a lie by me, or as told to me by the friend. How does that change anything? Doesn’t the scenario teach you a lesson about what to avoid? Isn’t it worth knowing about? Did you learn anything from reading ?Tom Swyer,? Catcher in the Rye? or ?Pillars of the Earth?? Those weren?t true stories.

The original point (that got lost in all the furor and flurry) is that with the PACTrust, we do notify the banks of the placement of the property into the trust and the fact that all payments will be forthcoming from a named collection and bill paying agency. We tell the bank what it needs to know: the property is being placed into an authorized trust and leased out within the rules of the federal law.

The friend referred to in that jail episode called me this morning and said to me that after giving it some thought, he wasn’t sure (and I agree) that had the same thing occurred and the charges been the same he wouldn’t have still gone to jail. The issue is that had the lenders been informed of the transfer to the land trust (and constructively accepted by putting the info sheet in the file) and had his interest remained anonymous…the charges would probably not have never come about. What he said to me this morning was that the PACTrust might have shielded the issues that brought about the charges, but probably would not have avoided the penalty of being found guilty of the charges.

I’m truly sorry for the insults and the furor that ensued and sorry that some (even the esteemed J. Piper) saw fit to insinuate that I was trying to tell people that if they didn’t buy my products they would go to jail (a bit of a low blow from someone I respect, but that?s ok).

I don’t post here to sell products (it wouldn’t be a very lucrative undertaking I’m afraid. My monthly sales just about equal the cost of my banner ad)). I post here because I thoroughly enjoy doing so. I enjoy giving advice and having answers to otherwise unsolvable or difficult problems that come up in this business, and with which I’ve had experience and know how to handle in ways others may not have thought of. I enjoy being able to answer questions solve problems. And I enjoy the camaraderie and the friendships I’ve developed through this site over the years.

Unlike, Joe Kaiser, Bill Bronchik, Claude Diamond, Ron Legrand, Lonnie Scruggs, Ed Garcia, Terry Vaughan and the many other truly knowledgeable people who observe here…I’m just very naïve, and dumb enough to want to join the party versus just being an observer.

I try desperately to answer every question that pertains to what I believe in with the heading: “A PACTrust Solution,” so as to let everyone know that if they don’t believe in, or want to learn about what we do, they don?t have to bother opening the post.

What I AM ?selling? with these posts of mine and my exposure here, is the concept of there being another world out there that is parallel to “Standard Creative Real Estate Investing” that does the exactly the same things, but in a new and different (and safer, more lucrative) way.

When I’m accused of trying to ?sell something? by my posts here, the accuser are absolutely right. But understand that as much as I truly appreciate your attendance at our workshops, participation in our network and at the teleconfering classes…that’s not my goal or my purpose for spending my time here. When I finally get the time away from documentation, looking at properties, making offers, working on my book, etc. I truly love sitting back, relaxing, and talking to you about what I love: creative real estate investing. The ?product? I?;m trying to sell here is just the concept…not anything esle.

I feel like the guy who invented the first personal computer. ?Go way. I don’t need one…I have a typewriter and an adding machine and that?s the way I?ve did it for years. Them thangs is just too danged complicated, and what I’m doing now works jest fine.?

Honestly folks, you don’t have to buy my computer…just understand that it can do things for you that the old ways just cannot, and that it will do everything your typewriter and adding machine can do?plus a bunch more. That?s all. To learn about it doesn?t mean you ever have to use it?but if learning about it is free for the reading of a few hundreds post, then ?


Bill Gatten

Praise Brother Gatten - Posted by Brother Gabriel

Posted by Brother Gabriel on September 02, 2001 at 15:17:07:

The ungrateful and the unwashed have tried to portray Brother Gatten’s selfless crusade to promote the PacTrust as a mere self promotional ploy. Praise Brother Gatten. Surely Brother Gatten’s voluminous posts are proof enough of his piety, and his ability to deliver us to the promised land. Prasie Brother Gatten. Brother Gatten’s healing powers have long gone unappreciated by some of the heritics on this site. Praise Brother Gatten. The day of reckoning is near. Soon the non believers will feel the recourse of their impertinence. Prasie Brother Gatten. They will be consumed by the fire of their own ignorance. Prasie Brother Gatten.

Take a few days off, Bill… - Posted by amos

Posted by amos on September 02, 2001 at 09:18:05:

These posts indicate you could use a break and some fresh air. Why not spend a couple days in the mountains…? Lower your blood pressure, you’ll feel better. Life is too short…

Re: Apologies - Posted by JPiper

Posted by JPiper on September 01, 2001 at 18:16:09:


Here?s what you said in your original post:

?The investor alluded to here has told me and hundreds of others that this all would never have happened to him if he?d just never taken the titles to those properties: but instead have insisted that the sellers place them in inter vivos trusts and remained co-beneficiaries in them without sale or divestiture of legal and equitable title beyond their own living trust?

Here is what I said in my post:

?An ex con gives a testimonial that he would not have done prison time had he simply been using the PacTrust! How can you top that??

I don?t think that my comments ?insinuate? anything. In fact, I think they?re a darn good summary of what you said in fewer words. So where?s the problem exactly?

In fact, it now appears that your investor friend does not think the PacTrust would have done him any good, and evidently you now agree, thus reversing what you said above.

By the way, I don?t think your words were taken out of context by ?Roger?. It looks to me like he reprinted your words in their entirety. What context would you add to them that would have changed their meaning? I think your words stand on their own.

I would just add that it doesn?t appear to me that anyone here knows all the facts (unless you have read a transcript of this case), and therefore the idea that we could draw any conclusions from the situation really boggles the mind.


None needed… - Posted by HR

Posted by HR on September 01, 2001 at 18:00:50:


I, too, am struck by the thread. I think it made some great reading, though. Heck, look at the progress since last time…

Last time, the tone was less than objective (and the blame rests on me for that, at least for starting it off on a lame foot). This time, the only off color guy was the original ignoramus that started the thread (truth be told: his tone wasn’t even as bad as mine last time; mea culpa, mea culpa…). What I notice this go-around is folks have a lot more informed opinions about the subject. Isn’t that great? Isn’t that the point?

I agree with you: the issue really isn’t the DOS violation. It’s the recharacterization of our biz activity by others in power who will deem our failed biz practices as an intent to defraud helpless consumers from the git-go. That’s the issue. My belief these days is no one can prove to me definatively that this scenario woulden’t happen (especially since I know a guy who went to jail for it!), so I best figure out a way to conduct my biz in a way that it minimizes this risk.

You certainly have strong beliefs about how to minimize that risk, Bill! LOL. You don’t need to apologize for a biased love of the PacTrust. It’s your baby! Honestly, Bill, your fervent love and belief in this thing makes for a better critical analysis. Speaking only for myself, I have a lot of respect for your considerable intellect, and I knew you would throw every potential angle and argument at me in the book. That’s what every good analysis needs: thorough consideration, passionately argued. You supply that. We all know you are hopelessly biased. We don’t hold it against you (smile). It is, after all, a superior instrument. You just can’t hold it against us if we open up the hood from time to time and disagree with the manual and glossy brochure on how best to use it.

I also agree with you 1000%: the issue here is not whether some cat actually went to jail or not. A lot of folks are fixated on this, and, frankly, I don’t blame them, but it’s the wrong focus. The real issue is do you believe this IDEA is real and could happen? Do you believe that the level three risk scenario is plausible? What do you believe best protects against it?

In my opinion, if anyone deserves an apology, it’s our mutual friend. I’ve done it privately and I’ll do it again publically: if I knew this would drag out to this level, I never would have mentioned his experience. It has put him in an uncomfortable position of being the “anonymous jailed guy.” Who woulden’t want to avoid or forget that? Unfortunately, I don’t think that tag will ever die, and I regret my participation in keeping it alive.

As you and I both know, this guy was not some lame fool who happened to get caught and go to jail. He is a very, very smart, experienced investor who was a major player (and who still does more deals than most reading these posts). I’ve learned A LOT from him in a lot of areas. He has been around for awhile and has seen a lot. He has shared a lot and taught me things as a younger and less experienced investor, and I appreciate that greatly. It saddens me that I have contributed to his grief about all this bad publicity. If I could turn back time, I would keep my mouth shut.


Re: Apologies - Posted by JohnBoy

Posted by JohnBoy on September 01, 2001 at 15:51:01:

I don’t think you owe any apology for that thread. It wasn’t started by you and even though it was started by someone else and taken out the context for what it was originally intended for…I really enjoyed the thread on the topics brought up pertaining to it.

Besides, I’m glad to see you finally agree with what I was trying to say from the start! LOL

See there, we had a lot of good come out of that one! It allows one to really put thought into what it is that they are doing and raises valid points in making sure one does everything possible to protect themselves no matter what method they use to do a deal. :slight_smile:

Now, d***t!!! WHEN is Chicago going to be scheduled, for the millionth time???

Re: Praise Brother Gatten - Posted by Bill Gatten

Posted by Bill Gatten on September 02, 2001 at 19:45:42:

Nope. Frayed knot. 'Been thoroughly unseated, defrocked, unfrocked, frocked-up, got frocked and desecrated (not to mention deflocculated and unempeculated to the nth degree).

I hereby bequeath all future offerings and appropriate adoration to the new risen CREOL Messiah. I quit. Henceforth I?m just a mere mortal consultant.


Re: Apologies - Posted by Bill Gatten

Posted by Bill Gatten on September 02, 2001 at 03:48:57:


I don’t care to read the case…as I’ve said, the case is not the real issue. The issue is that it “reportedly” happened. I personally believe it happened exactly as as told to me. But even if I’ve been misled by dignified and humble person you’re referring to an “ex-con,” it is an example of something that is immanently real to us all, and something that people in this business should know about. In my travels, I’ve run into three individuals who were quite innocently drug into creative real estate dealings their mentors urged them to, and ended up doing prison time as a result. One was a CS graduate who bought 300-400 apartment units for nothing down just like he was taught, and ended up doing 6 months in prison for being a slumlord. He bought into a good cash-flow ($4K per month, and spent all of it in trying to fix the places up…but couldn’t get it done quickly enough before a seriously delinquent and disgruntled tenant turned him in out of spite (safety code violations).

I honestly am shocked by your last post. You have distorted this whole uncomfortable thing to suit your ego needs. That’s just not the person I thought I knew (and wished I could know better). What happened to the objective and helpful Jim Piper of a few years ago? Suddenly you?re infallible and can?t be challenged or debated?and appear to have acquired a license to insult. You seem to have elected yourself as the wizard and final answer in all areas (and I didn?t get to vote).

Jim, I mistook your earlier comments as sincere attempts to help people understand the whole business of creative real estate and how to make money in it. I was (and probably still am, when my PO?d as h*** factor dissipates) an ardent admirer of yours…but something appears to have happened to you since Atlanta.

Not that I care much (I’m a little tired now)…but what my post ‘actually said’ is exactly what was reported to me. A follow-up conversation with the person in question refined the original point…put your good glasses on and think for a second. The amendment to the original statement was NOT a reversal of it…it was a clarification of a point made in all candor and in passing. The man said that IF THOSE SAME CHARGES WERE BROUGHT AND HE WERE TO HAVE BEEN FOUND GUILTY it probably wouldn’t matter what he had used to obtain control of the properties by that time. His clarification to me was, however (the point you’re trying to miss, and the one I’m sure you’ll want to ?contradict? again to defend your insult), is that if he’d been using the PACTrust he may never have been charged in the first place.

Jim get your humble-when-called-for hat back on…I really liked you in that.

I love to debate…but I don’t respect indefensible inference by innuendo. You’re above that (or you used to be). I don’t intend to hurt anybody or try to sell products or seminars here (as some do)…I just have some great G** D***d ideas that I sincerely want to share FOR FREE with those who may be able to use them.

As far you your defense of the anonymous (and ubiquitous) ?Roger,? I?ve received half a dozen private e-mails and a couple telephone calls today, agreeing that his posting of a single commentary (a rebuttal) out of a much longer and originally unrelated thread from somewhere else, in order to call attention to himself, was a mean-spirited and meaningless attack against someone and something he knows absolutely squat about.

My experience is that these people (not unlike those who attacked you not so long ago, and whom I chastised and I stuck up for you, and was attacked also for doing so)? usually have never bought a stick of real estate in their lives and probably never will, and who simply get their kicks by pretending to have a voice in something they don?t have the guts to pursue.

Come on back down here below the clouds with your drinking buddies Jim, some of us really miss you. And at least one of us is feelin’ a tad low. If you truly need to kick me in the ribs again, its OK?but wait a couple days. OK?

Bill Gatten

Re: Apologies - Posted by dewCO

Posted by dewCO on September 01, 2001 at 21:09:51:

Well, now yo’ve lost me. Bill doesn’t mention an inter vivios trust above, he specifies a land trust. And in my humble opinion, I don’t think Bill says he doesn’t think the PT would have done no good. I think he states the opposite–he believes it will work, because the property is in a trust, no change of title has taken place and lender is notifies the property is in a trust. Sounds like it’s wrapped up as neat as can possibly be. (Notwithstanding the fact that if the Feds want you, they can get you for something!!)
Just my humble .02, (hope Bill will reponsd too).

Re: None needed… - Posted by JPiper

Posted by JPiper on September 01, 2001 at 18:25:16:


Looks to me like your friend has evidently told his story to various people…not exactly a guy who is in “hiding” over his past.

If I were able to advise you “back then”, I think I might have encouraged you to say nothing…but I might have encouraged him to come forward with his situation himself rather than through individual parties. I would think that while this would take some courage, it would also help him to heal what was undoubtedly an unpleasant time in his life.

Just my opinion.


Yea! When’s Chicago. . . . - Posted by Earnest

Posted by Earnest on September 01, 2001 at 18:11:30:

I’ve been waiting for BG to come here too.

5 minutes of Glaoting is UP… - Posted by JT - IN

Posted by JT - IN on September 01, 2001 at 16:24:27:


Your 5 minutes of gloating, after getting Monsenour Gatten to agree with you on something, is up. LOL

I agree that the thread was mostly productive, and way more productive than lots of others. It does seem that the PT is a very “emotional issue” for many. I am not entirely certain that I understand that, as I have not been around this board as long as some, that may have other reasons to feel so. Not sure about it?
Since I know very little about the PT, I must stay on the sidelines of these discussions, and continue to mold an opinion. I will, at sometime in the future, get up to speed on them, and then be able to render and opinion.

I do have an opinion about the Feds weighing into an area, for enforcement, such as they apparently did with the investor, as mentioned in 50 per month sub2’s. I think that whenever an investor “get’s their head that far out of the foxhole, they are destined to get their head removed”. Period. I don’t care what you are doing, or how you are doing it, but if you are operating on that volume level, in RE investment, there are folks at the Fed’l level waiting to make an example out of you. There is discussion among local investors that they are looking to make an example out of a large investor, over lead paint issues, and disclosure of such. This is cheap advertising for the Fed’s, as all they need to do, is bust one good sized investor, and it shapes up the rest of the group; (for a while). Just like a cop out running radar, you see someone pulled over getting a ticket, and you decide to slow down for the day. Same phychology.

So just remember, “keep your head in the foxhole”. No matter how many deals that I do, I always try to maintain the apparance of the little guy, because that is NOT who they are looking for.

Just the way that I view things…


Hands Off Gatten! - Posted by Nathan

Posted by Nathan on September 02, 2001 at 20:26:31:

Bill offers for someone like myself probably the safest way to enter the arena of creative real estate via the PacTrust. I do not have the money of Mr. Piper or his extensive background and fear finding myself in a protracted legal fight involving a lease option. He is a good man with tons of knowledge regarding creative real estate. I know that people do them everyday without problems but my margin for error is zero.

I have called Bill Gatten’s office several times and spoken with him and his assistant Jim and they have been gracious, informative and willing to help answer questions. He even offered to work with me so that the cost of becoming a member can be paid while at the same time helping me. That cannot be beat.

The discussion is way over my head about abstract points etc. my thing is to put together my first, second, third and so on PacTrust deals. Yes, it takes a little time to study and learn the procedure but it is well worth it. I am not the sharpest pencil in the box, I am the one with heavy determination and belief in myself to make it.

His program is a good one. It is not him trying to sell but to offer a different point of view. Learn from him and others, this board is nothing if it contain the same opinions on the same topics over and over again.

Re: Apologies - Posted by JPiper

Posted by JPiper on September 02, 2001 at 13:35:24:


This is intended to be my response to your two posts here and the personal email you sent me.

First let me just say that I am surprised at the rather emotional nature of your post and some of the personal remarks. But I don?t have any intent to debate my personal qualities with you. I?m not seeking your approval Bill, but rather I post my opinion as I see it. Sorry you found that opinion uncomfortable. But I intend to restrict my remarks to my opinions regarding the threads in question.

I would also like to acknowledge that evidently I misread your post to say that your investor friend had said that the PacTrust would not have kept him out of prison. I stand corrected. Yours and his opinion is that the PacTrust might have been helpful in keeping him from being ?charged? to begin with.

Now this leads me to the rest of my post Bill. I?m going to reiterate one of my original points, that without a full reading of the transcript of this case, none of us have all of the FACTS. Am I saying that your investor friend is lying? Not necessarily. What I?m saying is that we don?t know the facts, one way or the other. All that we know is your investor friends INTERPRETATION of the facts?..his opinion. Bill, they might be accurate?but then again, they might not.

Now let me put this on different terms. If I?m looking at the purchase of a property I will probably ask the owner if there is a loan. I will also ask what the payments are, if they are current, when the loan originated, etc. I listen to the answers Bill, I take notes. But guess what?.before I go too far I VERIFY what I have been told. Not because I think the owner is lying. I don?t assume that. But likewise, I don?t assume he?s telling the truth. In fact, I don?t ASSUME anything. I simply verify what I have been told so that I can draw the appropriate conclusions.

That?s my point here Bill. We?re hearing all sorts of opinions with their attendant conclusions?.without knowing very many details, let alone facts. That?s folly in my opinion. And certainly not a methodology that I would use in my business. You?ve drawn the conclusion that the PacTrust would have helped his situation. I?m reluctant to draw that conclusion because I don?t know the facts Bill.

Now let?s take this another way Bill. I think we all need to be accountable for our actions?including the two of us. In your case, YOU posted the message that Roger later posted. Roger simply posted your exact words. I don?t have a clue WHY you posted it?but I have read the thread it was in?you posted it to prove a point?and in my opinion the context is intact. This is not a defense of ?Roger?, don?t know who he is, and don?t particularly care. But it was his challenging of some of your statements that caused you to make the post he later posted here. I think you need to be accountable for that?and not try to play this off like some ?crazy? has distorted your words. He didn?t, they?re verbatim.

Now let me stop here and just say that I think the PacTrust is a slick vehicle for a variety of reasons. But brace yourself Bill, because now I?m going to tell you what I don?t like. I don?t like YOUR marketing of it. And these latest threads are examples of what I don?t like. At times it almost seems that you would claim that the PacTrust takes care of EVERYTHING. Headache anyone? Take the PacTrust pill and get rid of it. And Bill, these latest threads were more of the same. Look at the essence: A guy you know goes to prison because of his real estate dealing under charges of mail fraud (that?s my understanding at least), and YOU claim that had he done the PacTrust he wouldn?t have because they wouldn?t have charged him.

Now I beg your pardon Bill, but how do you know that? You haven?t read the case. All you know is what you were told?hardly an unbiased observer. So to me Bill (and admittedly this may be a personal quirk), you are making a claim for the PacTrust that is not warranted at this time.

Personally I don?t think it?s too high an expectation Bill that when you make a claim for your PacTrust that you at least make it based on facts rather than opinions. But in this case you didn?t. That doesn?t detract from the PacTrust as a vehicle, but in my eyes it detracts from your marketing of it.

To go a step further, I think you consistently use ?puffery? in your descriptions of the PacTrust. Again, I think the PacTrust is a slick vehicle. BUT, at the same time I don?t think that the claims that you make for it are so cut and dried. DOS?? You say it doesn?t trigger. I see WHY you say it?but I question your conclusion. And I particularly question whether your statements are pragmatic. In other words, whether a lender will make some of the distinctions you make, we don?t know?.and if they don?t you lose because you?re in the court room. Frankly, a deal doesn?t warrant that type of cost. Easy to get those tenants out you say? Well maybe?until one with some dough and desire decides to file suit regarding the technique of dispossessing him from his beneficial interest. He might still lose perhaps?but then again, you may be faced with substance over form issue?who knows. Either way, a lawsuit drags the deal out?no difference there versus any other technique.

Here?s the point Bill?at my age I KNOW NOTHING is a lead-pipe cinch. But to hear you tell it this PacTrust is?.and I don?t believe you. I don?t have the time, nor the inclination to check out of the facts that I would want to check regarding your claims about the PacTrust?.so I would have to take your word for it. And frankly (brace yourself again), I don?t know right now if your ?claims? are reliable because you become too emotional and too eager to claim ANY perceived advantage to the PacTrust. And Bill, in my personal eyes, that?s an issue that you need to deal with.

Finally, a comment regarding your investor friend. Perhaps my term ?ex-con? is ?insensitive? as you suggest. It?s one of those words that carries some baggage with it?kind of like ?step-mother?. I don?t know the person in question, (although it seems that many others do), and therefore I don?t have a clue what to call him. That seemed like a descriptive term. And my guess is that this ?fellow? is more than what you think?I would guess that he?s been forced to deal with this and many other issues revolving around the situation, and therefore probably doesn?t feel the same way you do. But I might be wrong about that?I don?t know the guy.

Here?s my deal Bill. I think you should definitely continue to ?educate? regarding the PacTrust here on CRE (not that I have a thing to say about it anyway). And I think that any time I feel the need to make a comment I should?positive or negative. And then you can call me to task if you choose, just as you?ve done.

By the way, my wife says I?m cuter since Atlanta?.but that?s probably not what you meant.


Re: Apologies - Posted by DanT

Posted by DanT on September 02, 2001 at 06:05:55:

Not wanting to get into the never ending debate on LO vs PT since I do neither. But I do believe that JPiper has a valid point that if you have not read the court case you really don’t know what happened. I worked in a prison for 12 years, few people convicted of a crime, any crime, give accurate depictions of their situation. Not only would they prefer to be the victim, but in these types of cases there are so many details no one could be expected to remember everything. Particularly when under the tremendous stress that they must surely be under. And, since he did time he would be considered by many to be an ex con, usually by those who have no personal feeling toward him. DanT

Re: Apologies - Posted by JPiper

Posted by JPiper on September 02, 2001 at 24:54:37:

I’d say you’re confused. You need to re-read my post.

The post quotes Bill’s words verbatim. I got them from the post by Roger in the thread titled “Due on Sale Jail…” Nothing to argue about here…it’s a quote.

Bill further posts above in this thread that he and his investor friend both feel that the PacTrust would not have protected the investor friend in his specific situation. Again, his words.


Re: None needed… - Posted by Bill Gatten

Posted by Bill Gatten on September 02, 2001 at 04:20:23:

Maybe that’s exactly why he talked to us!!! And your very attitude is why he doesn?t want to talk to the rest of the world about something people won?t understand and will misjudge him for, like you?re doing.

Jim you really can be insensitive, can?t you? Aren?t you aware (or do you care) that there are real people on the ends of your barbs? (I know, I know. You?ll copy and paste what HR or I said or what you said and show everyone that you?re only posting facts and that you didn’t say anything rude…but its too late. You’ve already called him a (potential) liar, an ex-convict and took it on yourself to presumed that he should come out of the closet an tell his story to the world (to get it off his conscience). He didn’t ask that any of this be brought up. That was MY fault and I’m ashamed of it. Imagine how his ublic statement would be regarded by some of the folks who?ve chosen to attack just the messenger, much less the person himself.

(JP and Terry … please don’t remove this post, or any of this thread it’s really important! And it?s honest.

In case you give a hoot Jim, I know this person to be a decent, honest, hardworking (and successful) guy who got screwed by circumstances and by the same government that will do the same thing to you, anytime they ever need to.

Jim you are one of (if not singularly) the most knowledgeable people I?ve met in this business?I do not doubt that for a second (I cringe when you deign to take me on). But you are a comfortable conservative in real estate buying, and some of us are liberals out of necessity (ah…ah…don?t even think it?I agree with 83.2 percent of what Rush Limbaugh says?different deal here). Try to understand that some of us need new and different and possibly even safer and better ways to do things faster. Why not try to be ?objective? instead of so ?knowledgeable? when it may be called for.

Bill Gatten

Re: 5 minutes of Glaoting is UP… - Posted by JohnBoy

Posted by JohnBoy on September 01, 2001 at 16:34:15:


Glad to see you’re in agreement too! LOL

Man, you sure are one fella with a lot of views on things! But I must say, I like the way you view them, too! :slight_smile:

You are right… - Posted by HR

Posted by HR on September 02, 2001 at 21:06:36:


I’m gonna use your post to clarify my opinion on something.

I agree with much that you said.

People have told me that the folks in Bill’s office are very helpful and available. I believe that. They are willing to help you do a deal. I believe that. They are very smart; that’s a fact. The PT may be a good tool for someone starting out; I believe that.

I also suspect that Bill thinks I’m talking out both sides of my mouth when I can say good things about the PT but tear into him in another post. That’s innaccurate. While I think the PT may be a good instrument for many in their respective states, I have problems with the PT marketing as Bill spins it here.

Fact: the PT is an inferior instrument for Louisiana. Bill and I can debate this if he likes, but the the same ends can be achieved with greater ease and less risk with the Louisiana installment land contract. That’s a fact.

Whether or not that’s true in your state is up to you do find out. I’m told that the PT works great in places like Texas, Florida, etc. I believe that. Have I done my due diligence on it? H#ll no. I don’t live there; I don’t do deals there. I take the word of experienced people I respect (Bud B, etc) who say it works great in their state and I’m open to that.

Frankly, Nathan: you ain’t doin enuf deals for this esoteric argument to affect you. You are right: this is a high level, intellectual argument that is happening here. The content of it shifts from a focus on the PT and it’s protection in a multiple default scenario, to a discussion of the PT, to a discussion of BG and his marketing, to references about homosexuality and other inappropriate references. While esoteric, it does relate to some guys who are doing these deals or want to and are concerned about some outside risks.

If the PT achieves a similar goal as other creative instruments in your state, and you believe it has less risks, than you would probably be wise to use it. I bet you will get excellent help and service from the Gatten crew.

That doesn’t mean the PT won’t have problems or risks. In his sales pitch, Bill likes to down play these, but you would also be wise to be aware, imho, of what these risks/concerns of your biz are so that you can best mitigate against them.

So start with the PT. It’s probably a good choice for your state, depending on your interests and your market. This debate is about something else entirely.