Posted by William Bronchick on October 16, 2001 at 21:09:08:
Fine, I will.
Bronchick & The PACTrust - Posted by Jason
Posted by Jason on October 16, 2001 at 16:26:19:
Bronchick,
I heard through the grape vine that you have never even read through or studied any of the PacTrust material that is currently available (Gatten?s course & book) and you have also never gone to one of Bill Gatten?s seminars. Is this true?
Myself and hundreds of other people who own Gatten?s course and use his system really need to know the answer to this question.
A Parody of the Bronchick-Gatten Debate - Posted by J. Clifton
Posted by J. Clifton on October 16, 2001 at 20:22:53:
Bronchick: Stop beating your wife, and claiming the PT provides extra protection.
Gatten: But I don’t beat my wife, and I believe the PT does provide extra protection.
B: Your confidence in your view is not good enough. Cite evidence to prove this.
G: The many deals done, and audits the PT has successfully been through proves this.
B: Experience is not good enough. Cite the law proving you don’t beat your wife! etc.
G: But I don’t beat my wife, and I believe the proof mentioned is good enough.
B: Your confidence in your proof is not good enough. Cite the law proving your proof is good enough.
G: But I KNOW I have proven my proof is good enough!
B: Your confidence in proving your proof is not good enough. Cite the law proving that you have proven your proof is good enough.
G: I must concede, I do not know enough law to prove that I have proven my proof is good enough.
B: Well, until you can, then stop beating your wife, etc.
G: I refuse to accept your premise. My scheme simply provides better protection for various situations, above and beyond that provided by MOAs, CYAs, PMs and escrowing documents. It’s simply better compared to other schemes out there.
B: Your claims about your scheme have not been tested in the law, so you should not be so definitive.
G: Then, your criticisms about my scheme have not been tested in the law, so you should not be so definitive.
B: I have cited much law to dispute some of the claims about your scheme.
G: I have cited much experience to dispute some of your claims about the law.
B: The law trumps experience.
B: So, if the law may POSSIBLY find tax or partition problems with the PT, but no one has ACTUALLY suffered a tax or partition problem after umpteen zillion PTs, the law rules?
B: Yes, so stop claiming there are no risks!
G: So, if the law says I beat my wife, while experience shows I don’t, the law rules?
B: Yes, so stop beating your wife, and claiming the PT provides extra protection!
G: But I don’t beat my wife, and the PT does provide extra protection.
B: You have cited no proof of this! Nor have you disclosed the risks in your scheme.
G: You’re assuming there are risks in my scheme, which is precisely what is under dispute.
B: I am saying you have failed to cite the law, to prove there are no risks, and therefore you have not disclosed the risks in your scheme.
G: Are you conceding, then, that your schemes also provide no protection for the situations I mention?
B: I am saying that I have properly disclosed those risks, while you, after all these years, have not so disclosed.
G: Again, you’re assuming I HAVE risks to disclose, after all these years.
B: Yes you do have risks to disclose, because the law has not ruled on your experience, so you have a weak position.
G: How can I have a weak position, if the other competing schemes have a weaker position, since they don’t even TRY to provide the extra protections my scheme does? Doesn’t that make my scheme strong, compared to the others?
B: The risks that are disclosed in my scheme make it better than the risks that are not disclosed in your scheme. It is vital to disclose all risks in any scheme.
G: Then why did it take you all these years to notice the non-disclosure, and disclose that I hadn’t disclosed such risks?
B: Because you kept denying there was anything to disclose. It is your responsibility to disclose the risks in your own scheme.
G: Then why have you not disclosed, after all these years, that your schemes provide no protections for the cases my scheme does?
B: Your schemes only work if the IRS doesn’t catch it!
G: Your schemes only work if the banks don’t catch it!
B: Your schemes only work if you 'fess up they don’t work!
G: Your schemes only work if no one involved 'fesses up!
On and on and on, into the sunset…
Re: Bronchick & The PACTrust - Posted by Bronchick
Posted by Bronchick on October 16, 2001 at 17:21:13:
I am going by what Gatten himself has personally told me, has written on this site (quite a bit) and has stated on his site. I know everything except the verbiage he uses in his agreements.
Based solely on what he states on his site and on this site, he has got a major problem with the positions he takes on the tax issues - MAJOR. If he has a different way of doing things in the paperwork than he states here and on his site, then it is dishonest.
If you send me his stuff, I will read it in detail and comment on the legal and tax issues. However, I don’t think I’ll find anything different than the volumes of misinformation he has given here!
I like it. - Posted by Bud Branstetter
Posted by Bud Branstetter on October 16, 2001 at 23:45:56:
It sounds like the conversations that have been going on. I hate to admit that I don’t thoroughly read the posts. I do extensively use the PACtrust. Somewhat because I am too busy doing deals. Mine will have to defend me when I crash.
The response that I got on a post from Mr. Bronchick about trusts and the new contract for deed law in Texas was not in line with what my attorney’s view was. So I guess I’ll take what he says with a grain of salt.
A MUST READ - Parody of the B & G Debate - Posted by Jason
Posted by Jason on October 16, 2001 at 23:35:11:
.
Professional reciprocity - Posted by Robert M. Campbell
Posted by Robert M. Campbell on October 16, 2001 at 20:16:37:
Mr.Bronchick:
In reading Mr. Gatten’s responses to you, he said he has purchased many of your outstanding real estate courses and materials.
If this is true, and without taking sides, why don’t you buy Mr. Gatten’s PACTrust program instead of asking that someone send it to you free?
Robert M. Campbell
Re: Bronchick & The PACTrust - Posted by Garrison
Posted by Garrison on October 16, 2001 at 18:13:19:
Bill:
I ordered the book & I’m an exp. investor. I have been holding the same line as you. It’s a convaluted, over-done way to do business (Pactrust). The tax issues are over-looked by most users of this system.
Where’s the book now? I sent it to another investor with instructions not to return it. Sorry Gatten 
I have to say that I understand Gatten’s protection of the system. It’s his cash cow but for other investors I cannot recommend it.
Garrison
Lump it - Posted by Bronchick
Posted by Bronchick on October 17, 2001 at 10:39:26:
At least I have the integrity to notify you and other TX people when the law has changed, affecting what is in my courses. Gatten is now on notice that his claims about the tax law are incorrect. Rather than be a man about it, admit it and change the claims he makes, he argues and confuses everyone even more.
Bud, you are a smart man - I think you ought to take a good look at what is going on here and decide for yourself. At the very least, take the documents to your attorney and CPA.