It's not that the standard of proof is required court documents, it's that what the documents say (almost no details) and what people pointing to them say (speculation and assumptions) don't match up. If you're going to use those documents as proof of some rather serious accusations, I want to see more than just the title and the charge. Failure to provide services paid for doesn't automatically mean "SCAM." Until there are details, I'm withholding judgement.
What a load of BS.
The Defendants falsely represented, or directed others to falsely represent, that Defendant Bold Funding would locate and secure private funding, for a fee, for homeowners in foreclosure; when in fact, Defendant Bold Funding did not intend to provide such services and did not provide such services.
The Defendants falsely represented, or directed others to falsely represent, that Defendant Bold Funding had failed to secure private funding for homeowners on only one (1) or two (2) previous occasions; when in fact, Defendant Bold Funding had not secured private funding for most, if not all, of its customers.
The Defendants falsely represented, or directed others to falsely represent, that Defendant Bold Funding was a private real estate investors' group; when in fact, Defendant Bold Funding did not invest, directly or indirectly, in real
The Defendants falsely represented, or directed others to falsely represent, that Defendant Bold Funding had been a member of the Better Business Bureau for twelve (12) years; when in fact, Defendant Bold Funding joined the Better Business Bureau for the first time in 2004.
The Defendants falsely represented, or directed others to falsely represent, that Defendant Bold Funding had staff attorneys who assisted homeowners in foreclosure; when in fact, Defendant Bold Funding did not have any attomeys on staff who assisted homeowners in foreclosure.
The Defendants falsely represented, or directed others to falsely represent, that Defendant Bold Funding had helped homeowners save their homes for the past twelve (12) years; when in fact, Defendant Bold Funding did not save homes from foreclosure and Defendant Bold Funding had only existed since 2004.
The Defendants falsely represented, or directed others to falsely represent, that Defendant Bold Funding had seventy-four (74) regional offices; when in f,act, Defendant Bold Funding maintained and staffed only one (1) office.
Yes, that sounds like a legitimate business simply "gone awry". It's perfectly normal to lie about who you are, how long you've been in operation, how many staff you have, what qualifications they have, and how many offices you have. It's perfectly normal to not provide evidence of a *single* customer receiving help.
On the flip side, what single piece of evidence is there that the scam story *doesn't* match up, besides Bruce "Child sex doesn't happen in Pattaya" Wagner's continuous web of lies?
