George Tran

[lorne]

Oh! I remember reading iamfacingforeclosure.com back in the day. Now that was one slow motion train wreck tragi-comedy. Yes he had a following of "haterz" poor guy. As I recall, Casey sold his site/blog to Aaron Krowne of http://ml-implode.com/about.html
Note to self - try not to publicly post every detail of your life in real time.

[wserra]

Notwithstanding the fact that his prized "default judgments" were vacated - not that they were worth anything outside Oregon anyway, no "full faith and credit" for interests in real property - George Tran's home page still posts them. Moreover, he still flogs his "coaching" to the marks by email, not bothering to mention that he can't make his own "methods" work.

As I am doing this process, one of the thing that I never realized was that not only am I getting my house free and clear, I will also be able to demand that the bank pay me for all the years I've made payments! That could add up to tens of thousands of dollars of free, non taxable money!
...
In my coaching program, I am showing my students how to do this process and all the paper work needed.

BTW, George, do you remember the guy who wrote the following in a comment to a page to which you link in your email:

I have captured my Straw Man, have a UCC I, perfected an ACC Notarial Judgment against the bank and I am located in NV a non-judicial foreclosure state so I had to file suit.

The county judge has dismissed all my efforts. The county recorder has threatened in writing to file charges should I re attempt to file any paperwork. I am about to file with the USDC to enforce my judgment or attempt a non-voluntary BK against the bank via the ACC.

I paid the bank 3 times: 1-Bonded Promissory Note [Oct 2009]; 2- GSA Forms[Nov 2009]; 3- IBOE[Dec 2009]. I sent the Treasury Dept an IBOE [3 mos ago] and the IRS a Money Order [2 mos ago]. So far no success.

Well, this guy and his wife actually filed in District Court in Nevada (docket 10-cv-1005) a couple of months ago, and their complaint (to the extent it is intelligible at all) seeks a default due to the bank's non-answer, just as you did. They also seek a TRO against the bank. The Court didn't bother to wait for the bank to answer:

Here, the plaintiffs are unlikely to succeed on the merits. Plaintiffs rely on Arizona law to
support many of their arguments. Arizona law does not apply in this case. Plaintiffs also make numerous arguments without providing legal authority in support of such arguments. Without proper legal authority, plaintiffs are unlikely to succeed on the merits.

Additionally, it appears that plaintiffs have stopped making payments on their mortgage loans
(it is unclear as to when plaintiffs stopped making the payments), and therefore, the balance of
equities does not tip in their favor.

Default and TRO denied, of course. The bank's motion to dismiss is pending. How do you think that will turn out?

Y'know, George, one of these days some guy from whom you've suckered money may lose his house thanks to you. One of these days some guy from whom you've suckered money may lose his freedom thanks to you.

Back when, I once represented a small time con man like you. Among other frauds, he was charged with taking money from people promising to arrange bail for incarcerated family members and then pocketing it. He was only too glad to go to federal prison for a few years. It's probably the only reason he's still alive.

It's human nature to make all sorts of rationalizations to avoid admitting that you've been conned. Still, some people, sooner or later, are sure to realize it.

Sleep well.

[The Observer]

Y'know, George, one of these days some guy from whom you've suckered money may lose his house thanks to you. One of these days some guy from whom you've suckered money may lose his freedom thanks to you.

Back when, I once represented a small time con man like you. Among other frauds, he was charged with taking money from people promising to arrange bail for incarcerated family members and then pocketing it. He was only too glad to go to federal prison for a few years. It's probably the only reason he's still alive.

It's human nature to make all sorts of rationalizations to avoid admitting that you've been conned. Still, some people, sooner or later, are sure to realize it.

Sleep well.

Precisely. One of these days some guy may show up to get satisfaction of some sort for all of the misery they went through because of Tran's scam. I keep thinking that Van Pelt and others like him run the same risk for pushing "remedy."

[wserra]

I keep thinking that Van Pelt and others like him run the same risk for pushing "remedy."

I wouldn't put Van Pelt in the same class as Tran, let alone in the class of folks like Hendrickson, Lottahooey, Kahn et al. Even if due to his inability to do so, David doesn't publicize himself and his stuff with websites, email lists and so forth. He just hangs out on bulletin boards. Who here actually believes that he has the "suitors" he writes about? I doubt that five people have paid him for anything.

And yes, I admit it, other than for the fact that he's nuts, I could have a beer with David. He's not stupid, and I think he actually believes most of what he writes (hence the "nuts" part). I just don't see him as a con man.

Of course, none of that may help him if some serious wacko actually has paid him for bullshit.

[The Observer]

Really wasn't putting Van Pelt in the same class as Tran, although he has claimed he has received monies for telling people about "remedy." All I was saying was that David, like Tran, runs the risk of angering somebody when they find out that "remedy" was anything but.

Which was what you said in your last sentence. See how much easier things are when you just agree with me?

[wserra]

After going through the various fits and starts which we've chronicled here - charging people for his wisdom the whole time - George has finally found the Rosetta Stone of eliminating your mortgage. He describes it in an email:

YOU HAVE SUPERIOR EVIDENCE against the bank!

Here's how:
- In your administrative process...you will have asked them to provide proof of claim. A photo copy made years ago is not valid proof of claim.

- In your administrative process, you will have asked them to show that they have suffered a loss in lending you money. ie. in a contract, there must be consideration. If they can not/will not show they have entered consideration into the contract...then we do not have a contract. The bank can not prove this point. So, there is no contract between us.

- You will have declared their claim against you null and void through a Notice of Lender's Default as well as an Affidavit. You should give them 7 days or so to contest this declaration. I guarantee you that you will not hear a peep from them.

So, when you have an Affidavit of their fraud...this is superior evidence. You've given them an opportunity to contest..yet they remain silent.

There's this principle called estoppel.

Of course, for anyone who knows anything about the law, that mumbo-jumbo isn't even close to an estoppel. Tran, like so many other con men of his ilk, takes an impressive-sounding word and tries to impress the marks.

But George needs our help:

Do you know anyone with a radio show, web radio or any media influence?

If so, would you please send them a copy of my book? I would love to be a guest speaker on their show so more people know about the fraud that's being done to us by the banks.

Please have them contact me at [...]

Also, please remember to write about me in your facebook or twitter. More people need to know (even if they are not in financial trouble, they may know people who are).

Oh, George, we're doing our part to tell people about you. You're welcome.

[grixit]

I thought "estoppel" was when a frustrated judge rams a large rubber drain plug into a serweenie's mouth.

[Gregg]

In your administrative process, you will have asked them to show that they have suffered a loss in lending you money. ie. in a contract, there must be consideration. If they can not/will not show they have entered consideration into the contract...then we do not have a contract. The bank can not prove this point. So, there is no contract between us

Well, if it wasn't for this cancelled check we wrote to the guy you bought the house from, you might have an argument. But that check kind of ruins everything.

[ArthurWankspittle]

Had to sign up here to post an update for you guys. I'm one of Casey Serin's "Haterz" and, through Casey, some of us have come to learn about the redemptionist movement, sovereign citizens and similar scams that idiots like Casey will readily fall for.
Back to cop killer apologist George Tran: Wachovia have appointed Lane Powell to act for them and they've sent George a pile of documents to have a read through. They have also requested that the case be moved to Federal Bankruptcy court(? I'm not sure about this bit) and get it all heard in one place. You folks will have a better idea why and what the consequences may be, but for now, make a note: 12th October Eugene Oregon Case 10-64979 Courtroom 6 10:00am The Honorable Frank R Alley III presiding. Listed as Chapter 13 Confirmation Hearing.

[Judge Roy Bean]

Had to sign up here to post an update for you guys. I'm one of Casey Serin's "Haterz" and, through Casey, some of us have come to learn about the redemptionist movement, sovereign citizens and similar scams that idiots like Casey will readily fall for.
Back to cop killer apologist George Tran: Wachovia have appointed Lane Powell to act for them and they've sent George a pile of documents to have a read through. They have also requested that the case be moved to Federal Bankruptcy court(? I'm not sure about this bit) and get it all heard in one place. You folks will have a better idea why and what the consequences may be, but for now, make a note: 12th October Eugene Oregon Case 10-64979 Courtroom 6 10:00am The Honorable Frank R Alley III presiding. Listed as Chapter 13 Confirmation Hearing.

Welcome to Quatloos!

Something George will soon be learning is that until his bankruptcy is dismissed or discharged, anything that has anything to do with his financial life is no longer up to him. The fact that creditors (i.e., Wachovia) are also now at the mercy of the bankruptcy court is simply a temporary condition.

IMHO, it will be quickly dismissed, the automatic stay(s) will be lifted and the foreclosure(s) will proceed. Whether the bankruptcy trustee decides to run him through the grist-mill of prosecution for a fraudulent filing is hard to guess.

[ArthurWankspittle]

Bit of a "doh!" moment by me but, of course, you can't have civil cases flying around with claims and costs and the possibility of compensation being awarded, while at the same time filing for bankruptcy, can you?
So, is one of the outcomes of the bankruptcy hearing likely to be that George will be told to stop filing court cases except through this court? Are we to expect a blog post on 10/12 or 10/13 with George complaining that his (non-existent) constitutional rights to interfere with the process of law have been violated?

[wserra]

The fact that creditors (i.e., Wachovia) are also now at the mercy of the bankruptcy court is simply a temporary condition.

Actually, having removed the state court cases to Bankruptcy Court, Wachovia is now moving to dismiss them. Things that may slip by in state courts tend not to in federal courts.

[ArthurWankspittle]

That's a hell of a read that document. ( Where can I get a drink from round here? ) George is in LA until Monday according to his blog/twitterings so I guess we can look forward to some more indignant / ignorant videos by Monday night.
Where is this motion being heard or is it a petition to the Federal Bankruptcy court? (sorry if I missed that bit somewhere)
Edited to add: It is the bankruptcy hearing on 10/12/10.

[Gregg]

Gee, maybe that wasn't such a good idea afterall, eh, George?

I do wonder if the front page of is blog will show this latest information (like almost all blogs do) or will it bury it inside somewhere, so as not to push off the headline now there, something about "How I reclaimed 4 of my houses free and clear legally ."

Finding out it doesn't work just ruins the plot I guess (and isn't good for sales either)

[bmielke]

That's a hell of a read that document. ( Where can I get a drink from round here? ) George is in LA until Monday according to his blog/twitterings so I guess we can look forward to some more indignant / ignorant videos by Monday night.
Where is this motion being heard or is it a petition to the Federal Bankruptcy court? (sorry if I missed that bit somewhere)
Edited to add: It is the bankruptcy hearing on 10/12/10.

The Hearing is a confirmation hearing what ever that means it is a chapter 13 Bankruptcy.

[Judge Roy Bean]

...
The Hearing is a confirmation hearing what ever that means it is a chapter 13 Bankruptcy.

It means the "plan" that has been submitted will be heard and ruled on as to its efficacy. IMHO, in this case, it will be a short hearing.

[bmielke]

...
The Hearing is a confirmation hearing what ever that means it is a chapter 13 Bankruptcy.

It means the "plan" that has been submitted will be heard and ruled on as to its efficacy. IMHO, in this case, it will be a short hearing.

Ah well it also looks liker there are three other proceedings going on in Bankruptcy Court so maybe the "Confirmation will be, "No".

[notorial dissent]

...
The Hearing is a confirmation hearing what ever that means it is a chapter 13 Bankruptcy.

It means the "plan" that has been submitted will be heard and ruled on as to its efficacy. IMHO, in this case, it will be a short hearing.

Followed by a lot of laughter and a resounding "Yo ouda here!!!!!!"
Truly unintended comedy at its finest.
Wonder what the next excuse will be?

[wserra]

Ah well it also looks liker there are three other proceedings going on in Bankruptcy Court so maybe the "Confirmation will be, "No".

Those are Wachovia's three removed cases. The "AP" in the docket for each stands for "adversary proceeding", meaning that it is not part of the debtor's bankruptcy filings, but is another pending matter which a creditor (here Wachovia) believes the BC should decide. (I believe this is right, but Prof and JRB know a lot more about bankruptcy than I do.)

At this point, Tran might even attempt a voluntary dismissal, but I don't believe the BC has to permit it.

[Gregg]

How about

How I lost 4 houses free and clear, legally, ended up bankrupt and serving a sentence for fraud!

I admit it does sound a lot less appealing, even if it is the truth...