Private Sector Act dot Com

Moderator: Burnaby49

User avatar
jcolvin2
Grand Master Consul of Quatloosia
Posts: 583
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2003 4:19 am
Location: Seattle
Contact:

Re: Private Sector Act dot Com

Postby jcolvin2 » Fri Nov 14, 2014 2:24 am

eric wrote:Just tonight the other major new station here, CTV News dropped the bomb that RECA has issued a consumer warning against Derek Johnson (available on their web site) and they've applied to the courts for a "Cease and Desist Order" against him - details on their web site, CTV hasn't posted yet on their web site but ir should be up in a few hours - they would rather people watch the news on television. Yes, there are even more moves afoot against Derek and associates but they won't be public for a little while.


The RECA press release:
http://www.reca.ca/consumers/publications/news-releases/2014/14-11-13-Derek-Johnson.htm

User avatar
eric
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 580
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2014 3:44 pm

Re: Private Sector Act dot Com

Postby eric » Fri Nov 14, 2014 2:31 pm

jcolvin2 wrote:
eric wrote:Just tonight the other major new station here, CTV News dropped the bomb that RECA has issued a consumer warning against Derek Johnson (available on their web site) and they've applied to the courts for a "Cease and Desist Order" against him - details on their web site, CTV hasn't posted yet on their web site but ir should be up in a few hours - they would rather people watch the news on television. Yes, there are even more moves afoot against Derek and associates but they won't be public for a little while.


The RECA press release:
http://www.reca.ca/consumers/publications/news-releases/2014/14-11-13-Derek-Johnson.htm

Global News Calgary has picked up the story as well....
http://globalnews.ca/news/1670019/real- ... a-licence/
Hmmm... we've got Derek Johnson covered by the CBC, CTV, and Global. Sometimes the only way to shut down these characters is enough publicity that the market dries up for them.

hilda
Stowaway
Stowaway
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2014 11:04 pm

Re: Private Sector Act dot Com

Postby hilda » Wed Nov 26, 2014 6:48 am

If this guy is doing something shady, can't they have him charged or something? I looked up the real estate act and the licensing requirements, according to their definitions of broker and trade apply only to those who are doing these transactions for compensation. Maybe that is the loophole he is using? I have seen posts on Facebook regarding privatesectoract.com and was curious about this group, so I googled it and your site came up.
So, has he actually ripped people off? If he has, they should be able to charge him, shouldn't they?

hilda
Stowaway
Stowaway
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2014 11:04 pm

Re: Private Sector Act dot Com

Postby hilda » Wed Nov 26, 2014 7:11 am

OMG - so I have heard of a realtor or supposedly a realtor named Kevin Manji that is being "persecuted" by RECA. So can someone tell me how his masquerading as one helps their scam? I am trying to get some solid info on these guys.

User avatar
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 10752
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:17 pm

Re: Private Sector Act dot Com

Postby notorial dissent » Wed Nov 26, 2014 4:01 pm

Read the thread, it pretty thoroughly covers it. This is not a new con and there are others doing it as well.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

hilda
Stowaway
Stowaway
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2014 11:04 pm

Re: Private Sector Act dot Com

Postby hilda » Fri Nov 28, 2014 1:25 am

Am I missing some posts on this topic. I can't find out exactly what it is they are doing.

hilda
Stowaway
Stowaway
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2014 11:04 pm

Re: Private Sector Act dot Com

Postby hilda » Fri Nov 28, 2014 1:48 am

Eric can you clarify how you got scammed by this DJ or whatever he calls himself. You transferred the title and your wife got alarmed that his name seemed to be different from the one he used, but he didn't actually take any deposit or anything from you. I am confused. I am hearing from your post that you decided to back out after the call from Land Titles, but if this guy never got any money from the house, how were you scammed? I don't understand if he is doing this kind of thing, why don't they just use the evidence to arrest him? Surely somebody who gave him money could step forward and he would be charged. Why aren't the police doing anything??

User avatar
eric
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 580
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2014 3:44 pm

Re: Private Sector Act dot Com

Postby eric » Fri Nov 28, 2014 4:23 am

hilda wrote:Eric can you clarify how you got scammed by this DJ or whatever he calls himself. You transferred the title and your wife got alarmed that his name seemed to be different from the one he used, but he didn't actually take any deposit or anything from you. I am confused. I am hearing from your post that you decided to back out after the call from Land Titles, but if this guy never got any money from the house, how were you scammed? I don't understand if he is doing this kind of thing, why don't they just use the evidence to arrest him? Surely somebody who gave him money could step forward and he would be charged. Why aren't the police doing anything??

With regards to any future action against Johnson and associates, either criminal or civil, this is not the appropriate place to discuss it. In my own instance, I realized (with the aid of my wife) that it was a scam, and except for legal bills which I will explain below, Johnson himself never got any money out of me. I shall summarize the scam again, and the full scam is actually in two parts.

In the first stage Johnson approaches a homeowner facing foreclosure and offers to buy the house from him and also pay off the outstanding mortgage. In return the homeowner gets to stay in the house as a tenant, paying Johnson/associates a rent, and also the homeowner has first right of refusal to buy the house back after a period. Only thing illegal at this point is that Johnson et al are not licenced to perform this type of transaction (civil matter). As soon as the purchase agreement is signed, Johnson then transfers title, never pays the selling price, does not pay off the outstanding mortgage, and meanwhile is going to be receiving rent from the unsuspecting new tenant. Basicly the former homeowner is paying Johnson for the privilege of staying in a house that Johnson got for free.

In the second stage of the scam, which is the real money maker, a "realtor", in this case Manji, then sells the house to an investor who's looking for an easy buy, the house allready has good tenants, etc. A deposit is accepted, in one case (not my own) it was 40K$, and then once the new buyer realizes that Johnson really doesn't have clear title, and wants to walk away from the deal, the deposit is never returned.

In my own case, Johnson only got as far as the land title transfer before I started legal proceedings to return title to my own name, as in the same day. One seller's caveat filing and two lawsuits later, and I finally got the house back. That all being said, roughly 3 weeks ago I used family funds to satisfy the original mortgage and my legal bills so not only is the house mine, I no longer have a mortgage.

hilda
Stowaway
Stowaway
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2014 11:04 pm

Re: Private Sector Act dot Com

Postby hilda » Fri Nov 28, 2014 4:50 am

Okay, yes, I do understand what people are claiming is happening with this guy. But what puzzles me is no concrete example of him actually pocketing a deposit seems to be available. This site seems sincere, but I'm wondering why people are calling it a scam if there is no evidence he has actually taken anyone's money.
Please explain why this isn't an appropriate place to discuss action against people who have allegedly harmed others. Isn't this what sites like this are for? To expose frauds and get justice?
And I am seeing this guy (who knows what his real name is lol) defending himself according to posters here. But no one is coming up with concrete examples that refute his defense, not even the judge - he just ignored this guy in court. Even RECA said at an earlier point he was not under their jurisdiction, which is what this guy is saying even now, but then suddenly RECA comes after him and says he IS under their jurisdiction.
I read the act and the definition of broker is someone who trades either in real estate or mortgages, and GETS COMPENSATION, or commission. So if this guy is not collecting commision, he doesn't fall under the authority of either the Act or RECA.
Please tell me this isn't some smear campaign.
I am all for protecting people that are being harmed, this is why I signed up here, but no one will confirm anything that has been harmful to anyone, even though his methods seem very unconventional.
Sorry for playing devil's advocate, but if we want to be effective, we have to build a strong case against people who are harming others.

User avatar
eric
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 580
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2014 3:44 pm

Re: Private Sector Act dot Com

Postby eric » Fri Nov 28, 2014 5:15 am

hilda wrote:Okay, yes, I do understand what people are claiming is happening with this guy. But what puzzles me is no concrete example of him actually pocketing a deposit seems to be available. This site seems sincere, but I'm wondering why people are calling it a scam if there is no evidence he has actually taken anyone's money.
Please explain why this isn't an appropriate place to discuss action against people who have allegedly harmed others. Isn't this what sites like this are for? To expose frauds and get justice?
And I am seeing this guy (who knows what his real name is lol) defending himself according to posters here. But no one is coming up with concrete examples that refute his defense, not even the judge - he just ignored this guy in court. Even RECA said at an earlier point he was not under their jurisdiction, which is what this guy is saying even now, but then suddenly RECA comes after him and says he IS under their jurisdiction.
I read the act and the definition of broker is someone who trades either in real estate or mortgages, and GETS COMPENSATION, or commission. So if this guy is not collecting commision, he doesn't fall under the authority of either the Act or RECA.
Please tell me this isn't some smear campaign.
I am all for protecting people that are being harmed, this is why I signed up here, but no one will confirm anything that has been harmful to anyone, even though his methods seem very unconventional.
Sorry for playing devil's advocate, but if we want to be effective, we have to build a strong case against people who are harming others.

Poor Derek, he's being slandered by the CBC, fined by RECA, and ignored by the courts (can we say vexatious litigant). Since you seem to think he's the target of a smear campaign, I suggest that you could perhaps start some sort of crowd funding campaign to pay all the judgements that he's ignored, including my own <grins>

hilda
Stowaway
Stowaway
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2014 11:04 pm

Re: Private Sector Act dot Com

Postby hilda » Fri Nov 28, 2014 6:44 am

Look,I am just trying to get some real evidence on this guy. And as for you, it sounds like you just changed your mind even though you hadn't lost anything to that point (I wish you would show proof of these guys nasty schemes, but now I am starting to wonder what the hell is going on here). So if you back out of a deal you made and have to suffer legal costs as a result, I have to ask, who is to blame for that?
I don't think this place is anything but a bunch of stuff being flung around with no real substance. I think I should look at a site that is actually reputable.
And after researching WHO founded this and his connections, it is really looking like a big-government, big-bank advocacy type of thing that slings mud every which way to stomp down people trying to fight intrusion by government and bullying by banks.
The Meads vs Meads reference, which is so unbelievably NOT case precedent, to prove case law, that pretty much seals it. It was just an opinion piece by some judge who completely abused his office, wrote a hellishly long rambling essay, knowing full well it would be misrepresented as having aNYTHING whatsoever to do with the actual case.....
And why in the world would I have any part in paying what is beginning to look like extortion fees by an organization that is flinging out penalties unlawfully?
Yeah, now I see....
Shame on you all!
bye bye.
Last edited by hilda on Fri Nov 28, 2014 7:14 am, edited 1 time in total.

hilda
Stowaway
Stowaway
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2014 11:04 pm

Re: Private Sector Act dot Com

Postby hilda » Fri Nov 28, 2014 6:46 am

And actually, Eric, or whoever you really are, sounds like a sock puppet kind of thing to me, how wonderfully convenient for you to have someone that claims they are a victim.

User avatar
wserra
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Posts: 6338
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 7:39 pm

Re: Private Sector Act dot Com

Postby wserra » Fri Nov 28, 2014 1:37 pm

hilda wrote:Look,I am just trying to get some real evidence on this guy.


Oh. Well, that's easy.

1. Fined $15K for various frauds. The details are in the opinion.
2. Fined $25K for more various frauds. The details are in the opinion.

And then there's the time when the Alberta Queen's Bench characterized Johnson's stuff as "absurd", "no legal basis", "ridiculous", and "nonsense". The Court wrote that Johnson was "unscrupulous" and a "snake oil salesman".

What do you want - the Hand of God emerging from the clouds to write on your living room wall "Johnson is a thief"?

I don't think this place is anything but a bunch of stuff being flung around with no real substance.


That depends on your definitions. If "no real substance" means that unscrupulous snake oil salesmen get called out for posting ridiculous nonsense with no legal basis, I guess you're right.

The Meads vs Meads reference, which is so unbelievably NOT case precedent, to prove case law, that pretty much seals it.


I'm sure that all of the courts that have cited it as authoritative will be interested in the opinion of an anonymous poster named "hilda".
"A wise man proportions belief to the evidence."
- David Hume

hilda
Stowaway
Stowaway
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2014 11:04 pm

Re: Private Sector Act dot Com

Postby hilda » Fri Nov 28, 2014 5:23 pm

Seriously, these allegations by RECA constitute criminal activity, which should have resulted in immediate charges against this guy. The fact that they state it is their opinion, yet did nothing to report it to the proper authorities is very telling.
As far as Mead vs Mead, I don't care how many courts stated it was "authoritative", that doesn't mean that the OPINION of a mouthy judge SHOULD be used as case law.
I'm really starting to think that this is a concerted effort by corrupt judges, who back the banks unlawful aciions against many people (this has been documented in the US and is being done in Canada) to discredit those who honestly are trying to just get due process.
I still smell dirty rotten fish.

User avatar
Dr. Caligari
J.D., Miskatonic University School of Crickets
Posts: 1515
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 11:02 pm
Location: Southern California

Re: Private Sector Act dot Com

Postby Dr. Caligari » Fri Nov 28, 2014 5:31 pm

As far as Mead vs Mead, I don't care how many courts stated it was "authoritative", that doesn't mean that the OPINION of a mouthy judge SHOULD be used as case law.


What, in your opinion, counts as "case law"?
Dr. Caligari
(Du musst Caligari werden!)

User avatar
wserra
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Posts: 6338
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 7:39 pm

Re: Private Sector Act dot Com

Postby wserra » Fri Nov 28, 2014 5:53 pm

hilda wrote:Seriously, these allegations by RECA constitute criminal activity, which should have resulted in immediate charges against this guy. The fact that they state it is their opinion, yet did nothing to report it to the proper authorities is very telling.


What makes you think they didn't? Moreover, what makes you think that something publicly reported by a quasi-judicial body needs to be "reported to the proper authorities" for them to know about it? As to why no one has (yet) been charged criminally - if that concerns you, why don't you ask "the proper authorities"?

As far as Mead vs Mead, I don't care how many courts stated it was "authoritative", that doesn't mean that the OPINION of a mouthy judge SHOULD be used as case law.


Well, of course not. Only an OPINION hilda agrees with SHOULD constitute authority.

I'm really starting to think that this is a concerted effort by corrupt judges, who back the banks unlawful aciions against many people (this has been documented in the US and is being done in Canada) to discredit those who honestly are trying to just get due process.


Please tell me when in the U.S. anyone has documented a judge corruptly backing banks. Citation, please. It is judges who have increasingly denied foreclosure - frequently in very critical terms - to banks that cannot prove standing.

I still smell dirty rotten fish.


You're probably downwind from Derek Johnson.
"A wise man proportions belief to the evidence."
- David Hume

User avatar
eric
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 580
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2014 3:44 pm

Re: Private Sector Act dot Com

Postby eric » Fri Nov 28, 2014 11:34 pm

wserra wrote:
hilda wrote:Look,I am just trying to get some real evidence on this guy.



The Meads vs Meads reference, which is so unbelievably NOT case precedent, to prove case law, that pretty much seals it.


I'm sure that all of the courts that have cited it as authoritative will be interested in the opinion of an anonymous poster named "hilda".


With regards to the anonymity part, as you might have noticed I am not <grins>. If you follow the links for news reports you can figure out who I am - hint - I'm the guy with the big moustache on the CBC video. Similarly, if you're really interested, for a modest fee payable to the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench you can obtain the judgements where I was involved with actions against Johnson. I'm leaving that part of the problem as an exercise for the student.

As for any further actions to be undertaken against people like him, I will neither confirm nor deny that anything else is in the works - that's above my pay grade. Since his group are prone to using multiple identities and numbered companies I certainly have to use some discretion and perhaps tact.

User avatar
grixit
Recycler of Paytriot Fantasies
Posts: 3526
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2003 7:02 am
Contact:

Re: Private Sector Act dot Com

Postby grixit » Sat Nov 29, 2014 12:39 am

hilda wrote:And actually, Eric, or whoever you really are, sounds like a sock puppet kind of thing to me



You seem a little lost in the dryer yourself.
I voted for Hillary, and i didn't even get a stupid tshirt!

10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
. . . . . . Dr Pepper
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 4

Fmotlgroupie
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 278
Joined: Wed Oct 09, 2013 8:09 pm

Re: Private Sector Act dot Com

Postby Fmotlgroupie » Sat Nov 29, 2014 12:56 am

eric wrote:
wserra wrote:
hilda wrote:Look,I am just trying to get some real evidence on this guy.



The Meads vs Meads reference, which is so unbelievably NOT case precedent, to prove case law, that pretty much seals it.


I'm sure that all of the courts that have cited it as authoritative will be interested in the opinion of an anonymous poster named "hilda".


With regards to the anonymity part, as you might have noticed I am not <grins>. If you follow the links for news reports you can figure out who I am - hint - I'm the guy with the big moustache on the CBC video. Similarly, if you're really interested, for a modest fee payable to the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench you can obtain the judgements where I was involved with actions against Johnson. I'm leaving that part of the problem as an exercise for the student.

As for any further actions to be undertaken against people like him, I will neither confirm nor deny that anything else is in the works - that's above my pay grade. Since his group are prone to using multiple identities and numbered companies I certainly have to use some discretion and perhaps tact.


Also, Derek (hilda) probably remembers your name from when he dealt with you in the first place

Fmotlgroupie
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 278
Joined: Wed Oct 09, 2013 8:09 pm

Re: Private Sector Act dot Com

Postby Fmotlgroupie » Sat Nov 29, 2014 1:09 am

As far as Mead vs Mead, I don't care how many courts stated it was "authoritative", that doesn't mean that the OPINION of a mouthy judge SHOULD be used as case law.


In fairness, Meads vs Meads (note the spelling) is only binding (in that even a judge that 100% disagreed with it would have no choice but to act in accordance with it) in Alberta's provincial courts (oh wait, what courts can Derek expect to have his prelim in? Right, the Provincial Court of Alberta!). That's what's meant when we say that Canadian criminal law is "common law" - that judges are bound by the built up precedent of previous decisions, rather than reinterpreting the civil code from scratch every time.

I just thought I'd quote even more from the Gutierez decision already mentioned:

In many of these foreclosures, the mortgage company would also obtain judgment against the numbered Alberta corporation. It is clear that Mr. Johnson is a scoundrel for holding out hope to desperate homeowners in order to enrich himself. 115 [Johnson's company] has in many cases been added as a defendant and several judgments has [sic] been obtained against 115. A search at the Personal Property Registry reveals that eight judgments have been assigned by the mortgage company to Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation in the total amount of $624,655. Another insurer, Genworth Financial Mortgage Insurance Company has six judgments assigned to it in the total amount of $729,920. Two other lenders have judgments against 115 totalling $157,083.


So there we go. Johnson is a scoundrel and a deadbeat for about $1.5million.


Return to “Canada”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest