#1 Employee
AUTHOR: Andrew - Parkton (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Monday, September 01, 2008
POSTED: Monday, September 01, 2008
Jennifer,
First of all, I am not in trouble and my licenses are in tact.
Secondly, I will not state any of your personally identifying information to ensure that your privacy is not violated.
You had a very specific problem that involved some challenges you faced with your credit, your housing payment history and your income documentation. The home you were in was foreclosed upon and your landlord you were obligated to pay rent to had hadn't received payments from you for in excess of four months also hindering her capacity to make good on the mortgage payments.
The mortgage was the only area I was in a position to counsel you on and I assisted you to even secure financing inspite of all of your nuances and elaborate challenges. I will not delve into specifics because I will not violate your privacy but the bottom line is that Jason apparently worked with you before you came to Family First as an individual and attempted to assist you afterwards after you withdrew as an applicant. You had a contract to buy the home that was foreclosed on after the fact from Jason of whom became owner and defaulted on the contract thereby forfeiting your earnest money deposit. He took the home off the market in order to sell you the home and you declined to move forward with the purchase and could not secure financing after you withdrew your loan from FFMC.
I provided you 100% state and federally compliant disclosures within the appropriate timeline required and you were provided ample opportunity to remedy your problem.
You filed a complaint to our regulator the NC Commissioner of Banks and I responded accordingly in a timely manner at which time they advised you that I acted within my legal means and that should you have any further problems or concerns to file a suit.
I have helped thousands of families locally obtain home ownership and am proud of the results garnered.
Andrew
#2 Consumer Suggestion
AUTHOR: Jennifer - Fayetteville (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Tuesday, September 02, 2008
POSTED: Tuesday, September 02, 2008
andrew we knew it was going to be you that would respond like the old times. we didnt have a problem. you wanted to give us HIGH rates to make more money. we were approved for 90% at the company. you intentionally declined the loan because you didnt want to deal with someone that did her homework. your worm in the industry. its nice to see you arent active in nccob and that no one gave you a job by reading the past reports. others should come forward and tell their story. the nccob says you were in trouble before. i read you ddint pay the employees after they left thats not something new, my friend didnt get paid either. things never change do they? you seem to know alot mt the sale of the house i was living in can it be you got half of my earnest money? they chnge laws for people like you.
#3 Individual Responds
AUTHOR: Andrew - Parkton (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Wednesday, September 03, 2008
POSTED: Wednesday, September 03, 2008
Jennifer,
You were provided opportunity to obtain 100% financing in a state and federally compliant manner. I personally sat with you for over 3 hours to help you navigate through the process with tremendous patience while responding to your flippant assumptions. You opted not to retain financing and withdrew and the statement of credit denial issued cited you as withdrawing as applicant. The terms that were provided were in line with the risk associated with your situation and we already talked about your risk earlier didn't we? I have helped thousands of families clean up credit (including you - remember) with insight and practical knowledge provided to them.
My licensing is intact and will continue to be with the NCCOB. Your friend was paid 100% of her entitled payroll. Your earnest money was lost entirely to the seller of the home because you failed to purchase the home. I later learned that the seller worked with you to extend the contract and even offered to continue to rent the home to you at prevailing market rates but you declined that as well. The seller also gave you ample opportunity to seek financing elsewhere and they all failed to secure 100% financing for you but our firm did not. Unfortunately, you fail to cite that.
Listen, I have always been an advocate and supporter of our community families and this will continue.
Andrew
#4 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: Star47 - Fayetteville (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Wednesday, September 03, 2008
POSTED: Wednesday, September 03, 2008
From what I understand there is an investigation ongoing
#5 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: Star47 - Fayetteville (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Wednesday, September 03, 2008
POSTED: Wednesday, September 03, 2008
From what I hear there is an ongoing investigation
#6 Individual Responds
AUTHOR: Andrew - Parkton (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Thursday, September 04, 2008
POSTED: Thursday, September 04, 2008
My licensure status is in good standing with NO pending investigations of my status and no enforcement actions pending against me. Yes, I am sure.
WHO is my source? First of all, who is your source might I ask Star47 or CJ Good, etc. (or whatever your current alias is...) ???
My source is: Attorney David Worth as of today (September 4th) at 115pm and he is the Staff Attorney of the North Carolina Commissioner of Banks of whom regulates the Mortgage industry for North Carolina.
Please conduct some due diligence before popping off with inaccurate information and slanderous information.
Thank you for your concern,
Andrew Alvitre
Certified Residential Mortgage Specialist
#7 Individual Responds
AUTHOR: Andrew - Parkton (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Thursday, September 04, 2008
POSTED: Thursday, September 04, 2008
My licensure status is in good standing with NO pending investigations of my status and no enforcement actions pending against me. Yes, I am sure.
WHO is my source? First of all, who is your source might I ask Star47 or CJ Good, etc. (or whatever your current alias is...) ???
My source is: Attorney David Worth as of today (September 4th) at 115pm and he is the Staff Attorney of the North Carolina Commissioner of Banks of whom regulates the Mortgage industry for North Carolina.
Please conduct some due diligence before popping off with inaccurate information and slanderous information.
Thank you for your concern,
Andrew Alvitre
Certified Residential Mortgage Specialist
#8 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: Star47 - Fayetteville (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Sunday, September 07, 2008
POSTED: Sunday, September 07, 2008
I will be checking out your statement that you have no pending investigations against you. Sorry I can't take what you say at face value knowing the things I know about your history of not telling things exactly straight such as addresses, etc.
As to Lynda , well she is a problem you created for yourself
#9 Individual Responds
AUTHOR: Andrew - Parkton (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Friday, September 12, 2008
POSTED: Friday, September 12, 2008
Star47 (CJ Good or whatever alias you are going by this time - I assume that CJ Good is not even a real name but a name/handle of a fictitious PI hound dog that well.... needs to get her sniffer checked out),
Do you mean to tell me that you have spent all this time and effort and can not even establish whether or not I have a pending investigation against me by our NC Commissioner of Banks regulator? I last confirmed "no enforcement actions exist and no pending investigation exists" via the NCCOB's staff Atty.: David Worth on 9/4. I encourage you to check it and then reimburse your employer for overpaying you for your "work product" or in this case: lack thereof. It is grossly evident that you have neglected to provide evidence or viable information of substance commensurate with your pay and the net result has been a win-lose result. Your win, their loss. I'll put you in the same category as Lynda in that respect and the plaintiffs have lost more money to another woman of whom has separated them from their money by exploiting them. What a shame...
You can't take me at face value? Why not? First of all, I have never misspoken concerning my address to anyone. Regardless, you are not due an explanation from me anyways concerning personal information, etc. I only dialogue on this forum to "damage control" my image from time to time.
Lynda is her own person that created her own problems. Listen, if you can't put forth anything of substance you need to simply bow out, nix the personal attacks and let your so called evidence speak for itself. However, if the evidence was speaking for itself I'd hear silence so soft we would hear a pin drop... The fact is that no "smoking gun" exists and that is your problem concerning me. I am certain that you and/or your plaintiff's would like nothing more than to find fault in me, I get that vibe... However, as you and they know and as the main defendant knows of whom has already admitted default on the agreements, I and my former employer ought to be dismissed from the complaint.
#10 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: Star47 - Fayetteville (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Sunday, September 14, 2008
POSTED: Sunday, September 14, 2008
Thanks for thinking I am a PI, not my profession at all.
As to the investigation, sometimes it's better to keep your cards close. Have you asked yourself how a complaint got made against you in the first place? Do you know what correspondence and what kind of communciations a person may have with the NCCOB?
When you worked at your last mortgage company, the day after they got the complaint why were you no longer working there?
As for the lawsuit, that will be settled through the legal process.
Have you ever heard that in NC people can record and only one party has to be aware?
As for Mr. Hill and his privacy he is quite willing to share all that he has with his dealings with you.
And Mr. Alvitre, taking one at face value when you know things they have said and done are untrue well speaks for itself.
There is no personal attack here, hopefully you have a good life and are happy.
People just have to be aware that people out there can talk a good game but are not doing the right thing behind their backs.
#11 Individual Responds
AUTHOR: Andrew - Parkton (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Monday, September 15, 2008
POSTED: Monday, September 15, 2008
I don't know who you are nor what alias you are using because you do not authenticate yourself. The bottomline is that you know an investigation does NOT exist with my regulator and your cards were called on that matter.
I stand by anything I have done and said as straight up. You may perpetrate and allege differently, but cannot provide your bonafide proof because it simply doesn't exist.
This is my last communication on this thread concerning this matter. I simply will not enlist the time to respond to blanket accusations and unfounded claims against me.
Here are your options of what you can do to enlist my response:
1) Serve me.
2) Authenticate yourself to me with bonafide identification and then get real specific in terms of what you are alleging.
If you cannot, nor will not do either of the 2 items above you simply are an antagonizer and antagonizers are ignored moving forward.
Goodbye,
Andrew
#12 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: Star47 - Fayetteville (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Monday, September 15, 2008
POSTED: Monday, September 15, 2008
Sorry to have run you off Mr. Alvitre, truth hurts sometimes.
Really I could tell you all I know about investigations but it would take all day and also as I said it's best not to reveal everything one knows.
There is a protocol in the state of NC for loan officers and I'm sure you are aware of things that loan officers can not have on their record such as foreclosures, bad debt etc. There are several listings here from people who say you have bad debts, you have yourself admitted them. And of course foreclosures are public record .
#13 Individual Responds
AUTHOR: Andrew - Parkton (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Saturday, December 20, 2008
POSTED: Saturday, December 20, 2008
You have not run me off, you just fail to bring forth anything of substance worthy of me addressing and so I have ignored the foolishness.
Okay, foreclosures are public record... Big deal. The fact is that I do not have any institutional mortgages that I have taken out that have ever been foreclosed upon. Are you suggesting that fact is inaccurate? Well, it is 100% accurate.
What's your point? Are you suggesting that you are taking it upon yourself to be a regulator of my license as a loan officer in the great state of North Carolina?
The fact is whomever you are, your claims are unfounded. So I have bad debt probably to the tune of 15k from a company that I managed? And your point is...? What? You are suggesting that (bad debt) will be the catalyst behind my losing licensure? Wrong. Even a bankruptcy by a LO does not indicate licensure loss and no, since I opened that subject up... I have never filed bankruptcy nor do I intend to. I have always personally been a huge consumer advocate and so my license lost would be a loss to the community.
Bring something forth with some substance or don't post at all. I will ignore character assasination attempts that are nothing more than childish ranting to attack my character, good name and work ethic which should not be in question.
#14 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: JustME - Fayetteville (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Tuesday, December 30, 2008
POSTED: Wednesday, December 31, 2008
your work ethic should be in question Mr. Alvitre. Where there is smoke there is fire. You were associated with Ms. Steele for a long time and there is no way that you could have been in the small office and in the same home with that woman and not known what was going on.
You don't come across as dense Mr. Alvitre.
#15 Individual Responds
AUTHOR: Andrew - Parkton (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Friday, January 02, 2009
POSTED: Friday, January 02, 2009
You still do not validate who you are. Regardless, I will bite.
The mortgage firm I managed solely and I was not involved with Lynda's tax business (I'm pretty ignorant to IRS code and tax law) and I was not involved in Lynda's JP & (this is public information per NC Secretary of State) Associates firm. Lynda ran her real estate investment firm and her tax business from her office location. The mortgage firm leased a space of the office (FFMC corporate Atty. has this proof) and I managed my team of people as well as oversaw Lynda's mortgage production and I had experienced processors (Lynda was a loan officer) that would quality control all originated residential mortgage loans as part of our protocol.
I knew of some of the investors investing (from my stance of outside looking in) but wasn't privvy to the details between her and them. I was not present nor was I aware of the terms she negotiated and was oblivious to her arrangements. I found out later that she went into default and then that it was wide spread default and she has already acknowledged this in response to the plaintiff complaint. I have original documentation from former Army Captain/former employee of Family First Mortgage also an investor and employee of Lynda's company and he is a plaintiff and separately stipulates my non-involvement with Lynda and her entity "in writing." When Lynda defaulted I became aware of her circumstances because the investors contacted me advising me of such. What could I tell them other than to defer them to Lynda for a work out arrangement for her to make them whole?
No actual institutional mortgages were involved in the plaintiffs complaint and no paper trail or money trail point to myself because I was not involved in that which is why (and I'm tipping my hand plaintiffs but don't mind) I will move to obtain a dismissal with prejudice.
On the other hand, was I involved in facilitating a future homeowner needing financing of residential property in NC and many other states? Yes. Coordinating counseling of others on financing and credit and carefully orchestrating the process to ensure a smooth process to get everyone across the finish line and working in concert with attorneys/appraisers/inspectors/buying-selling agents/pest companies/contractors/builders/loan officers of the firm I managed/loan processors/loan processors with our lender/underwriters/closers/post closing/vendors, etc., etc., etc. while being a father to 3, attending school full time, etc.? Yes. Hosting credit counseling educational workshops regularly? Yes. Working with financial planners and others to plan in concert with them and advise clientele as an inner circle of advisors in a fiduciary capacity? Yes. Presiding over a local BNI chapter? Yes. Active membership in the Better Business Bureau? Yes. Shaking hands and kissing babies in the real estate community to advocate the mortgage firm I managed? Yes. Recruiting and interviewing new employee candidates? Yes. Counseling realtors on business plans as well as strategies and tactics to generate buyers and sellers as well as systematize operations more efficiently? Yes. Assisting with licensure of individuals (per our regulator) and various states our location operated in as well as professional development and training of employees? Yes. Dealing with post closing matters involving quality control or 1st payment defaults? Yes. Analyzing programs and products of multiple investors and remaining on the cutting edge by learning the finer intricacies of loan products strengths and benefits? Yes. Participating in a task force in Chicago with the National Association of Mortgage Brokers as (at the time) 1 of only 17 designated Certified Residential Mortgage Specialists in NC to create higher industry standards for the masses? Yes. Ensuring operations of our IT/Server/database/Loan Origination Software - security/Alarm System/Filing System/Customer Relationship Management Software System/Remote Access to Server while remote to plug in/working hand in hand with IT team/Biz HUB -LAN/Phone System all functional? Yes. I can go on and on and on.
All Lynda's customers to include investors were simply deferred to her. She stayed in her lane and I mine as it pertained to the various entities and/or processes.
So what's your point?
#16 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: JustME - Fayetteville (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Friday, January 02, 2009
POSTED: Friday, January 02, 2009
You can put all the words in the world out there . And I think you should consider a profession where you can use that gift you have.
But it's all words and truth always wins!
#17 Individual Responds
AUTHOR: Andrew - Parkton (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Friday, January 02, 2009
POSTED: Friday, January 02, 2009
This is a venue for people to address and cite specific wrongs or injustices that have occurred and not to speculate or to gossip or create drama where it did not exist. I encourage you to get facts, cite bonafide information that is worthy of posting rather than insulting your own intelligence by posting information that has absolutely no bearing on a specific situation or circumstance.
Can you handle that? Great...
Andrew
#18 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: JustME - Fayetteville (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Saturday, January 03, 2009
POSTED: Saturday, January 03, 2009
you and Lynda lived together worked together and you did know of all the investors . That is the last thing I will say on the subject for now.
#19 Individual Responds
AUTHOR: Andrew - Parkton (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Sunday, January 04, 2009
POSTED: Sunday, January 04, 2009
You do not validate yourself and therefore are operating underhandedly by not being transparent.
AND No, you misspeak, I did not know all of the investors nor was I a party to the transaction terms.
If you have something of substance you need to bring it forth. Justme, you are just wasting my and others time and need to come off it. What concerns do you have that are of a professional nature?
If you have naysaying, drama and gossip to spread than I advise you to refrain from further spreading the garbage and simply bow out from this venue.
Andrew
#20 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: JustME - Fayetteville (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Monday, January 05, 2009
POSTED: Monday, January 05, 2009
my facts are not incorrect Mr. Alvitre.
You do know all the investors. The trial will be soon enough maybe seeing them will jog your memory?
#21 Individual Responds
AUTHOR: Andrew - Parkton (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Tuesday, January 06, 2009
POSTED: Tuesday, January 06, 2009
I do not know "all of them"... The fact is that I was not the originator nor even the facilitator of any of Lynda's (or her company) transactions nor was I privvy to any of the details of the original transactions and only became aware of the details after the defaults had taken place.
BTW, so that I do not feel remiss "after the fact" let me reiterate that you are a m-o-r-a-l c-o-w-a-r-d as you do not validate who you are and continue to conceal your identity. What gives? Why don't you muscle up some nerve to identify yourself? If you can not raise your concerns and back them with factual information rather than speculating or alleging misinformation than you simply need to bow out.
Your fishing expedition is fruitless. Bow out and go to a gossip column as that is the level of the quality associated with your feedback; it simply lacks substance.
#22 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: JustME - Fayetteville (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Wednesday, January 07, 2009
POSTED: Wednesday, January 07, 2009
to swear under oath you don't know ALL the investors? So you advocate lying? You lived and worked with Ms. Steele who you presented yourself as her HUSBAND to all the investors and you certainly did know what she was doing. You drove around in a BMW that was not yours and you don't know anything about Ms. Steele's dealings? If you were so successful in business why on earth would you have to have someone else's car to drive and then not pay for it? So where are your morals Mr. Alvitre?
And as an FYI you called Jesse a m-o-r-a-l c-o-w-a-r-d not myself. Get your facts correct . LOL
#23 Individual Responds
AUTHOR: Andrew - Parkton (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Thursday, January 08, 2009
POSTED: Thursday, January 08, 2009
Let me be very clear here: Authenticate yourself and yes, you are right. I did reference two individuals as m-o-r-a-l c-o-w-a-r-d-s including you as the latest addition. Why should I do you the injustice of soft soaping you when you misspeak and demonstrate ignorance and foolishness?
My response now is advocating your "hopefully future dialogue" as intelligent, full of substance and thought provoking and enlightening which is something that your dialogue lacks. In fact, I feel as if I am losing brain cells just interacting with you. However, call me the pot calling the kettle black as foolish... I will bite. You hide behind your keyboard and antagonize when you lack supporting documentation because I know for a fact that it does not exist. Perhaps you are one of the investors or perhaps a hired lackey on the PI (btw investors get a refund) side to continue your fishing expedition in hopes that I will foolishly misspeak the facts. In either case, I stand by my statements with full transparency and identification and even the investors (when under oath) will cite what I stipulate unless they are being deceitful. Even if one or more of them are deceitful, they lack supporting documentation because it doesn't exist. Certainly investors that are shrewd and prudent with a sharp eye and razor sharp pencil would document their dealings as savvy business professionals. Well guess what my pop and no kick friend?... Nada, no, choke, nein, it (as in supporting documentation so we are clear) doesn't exist nor should it have ever existed.
Supporting documentation does however exist between the investors and Lynda and/or her entity and I remind you that she has already admitted her default. I have original supporting documentation from an employee that was a hired loan officer and friend (at the time and I still consider a good friend outside of this fiasco), an honorably discharged Captain from the US Army who essentially resigned from my firm (as sort of a right hand man) because of his side dealings with Lynda and her entity. That individual clearly cited (within his resignation explanation) separation between my role as manager and my involvement with Lynda and/or her firm's terms or arrangement with said employee/investor. Under oath, I am convinced that he will also serve in an honorable capacity to cite the facts and will thereby support my non-involvement.
I will swear (under oath) the facts and only the facts. I know who the majority of the investors are now, but was not privvy to "all" of the investor dealings (originally established by Lynda/her firm - either individually or collectively as any group solely or in part thereof) and learned of many of them only when Lynda defaulted. I was never privvy to the terms that the investors (in their own recognizance with Lynda/her firm) originated with Lynda and her company on the defaulted notes and/or investments with her/her firm, nor was that within the scope of my operational dealings as a Branch Manager of the mortgage firm that I managed that leased a separate space within the same building location. I had enough on my plate managing the mortgage firm than to concern myself with Lynda's tax and real estate investment business. Family First Mortgage Corporation was lessee of part of the building my Corporate office (with myself as functioning Branch Manager) of Family First Mortgage leased for years and I later learned that it was well before the agreements that were obtained by Lynda and the investors came into existence.
I did borrow one of Lynda's (that she had an arrangement established with an investor on) BMW's occasionally and was also listed as additional insured personally on the insurance policy as a precautionary measure by Lynda/her investor (so that I could occasionally borrow and drive the car legally while it was insured) but was not privy to the terms that she and her investor established until after the default by her and/or her entity she owned. This will be confirmed when the individual under oath validates this claim and chokes on providing a paper trail of supporting documentation concerning any of my involvement of the negotiated terms, etc. I had 2 vehicles of my own I drove and maintained. You show me the contractual agreement that I executed between myself and Mark, the investor now or later. You (he or anyone for that matter) demonstrate a paper trail.
I have learned that when it comes to business it is prudent to paper trail all contractual agreements and to ensure that the proper teeth exist in the contract to ensure success and keep people honest for fear of the resulting bite for non performance of the party obligations by the respective party. That is why contracts exist, to safeguard the parties to the transaction and that is why we have Attorneys... to help laypersons on either side of the fence decipher answers to represent/counsel/advocate the individuals/entity's positions.
If you have it in writing you have a prayer and if not; all you have is hot air. Even my email dialogue with the investors when I did intervene to attempt to assist some of the investors and Lynda reconcile a work out agreement will support my position all along and every statement and claim by myself made thus far.
What supporting documentation do you have? That's right... H-O-T A-I-R. Once again, gracefully or not, you need to bow out. Move to another venue that will allow your school girl antics and gossip claims, don't just smack talk without substance.
What say you now m-o-r-a-l C-(c capitalized to emphasize mental midgetness and cowardice)o-w-a-r-d?
#24 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: JustME - Fayetteville (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Friday, January 09, 2009
POSTED: Friday, January 09, 2009
doesn't necessarily have to be a paper trail. There are other way to document Mr. Alvitre
#25 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: Jesse - Hope Mills (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Friday, January 09, 2009
POSTED: Friday, January 09, 2009
Last I heard Mr alvitre from your assistant you didnt drive your car. You were always seen driving the other car, thanks for bringing up that point justME. what cars did he own? the office people didnt know you had another vehicle. We found some of your ex employees. Ms Steele was your sugar momma??? there was some turmoil recent between you and her family wasnt there?
#26 Individual Responds
AUTHOR: Andrew - Parkton (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Friday, January 09, 2009
POSTED: Friday, January 09, 2009
Your efforts to manipulate are fruitless and you still hide. Like I said before, pop and no kick... Be transparent, honorable and identify yourself. I am not going to continue to play games and play into your foolishness. You want to talk, identify yourself. JustMe and Jesse are probably the same person with aliases anyways...
What items of "non-substance" will you bring forth next? Dazzle me with your nuggets and pearls of wisdom will you?
#27 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: JustME - Fayetteville (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Saturday, January 10, 2009
POSTED: Saturday, January 10, 2009
is not manipulation Mr. Alvitre. Is it possible you just don't want to face it? You are involved and you know it. Ms. Steele didn't do it all on her own. And unless you know everything for each side then how can you possibly say you will be vindicated?
And as to trying to insult people with your name calling. Won't happen. I don't play in to insults as I have not insulted you as to your mental competence. Not here for that.
Obviously there are several people that think you are what is stated in all the posts and reports. Where there is smoke there is fire.
#28 Individual Responds
AUTHOR: Andrew - Parkton (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Monday, January 12, 2009
POSTED: Tuesday, January 13, 2009
No, I am not impressed in the least and you still bring a wet noodle to a sword fight...
Here is the problem with your logic, it is skewed. For all I know, you are a plaintiff or even Lynda for that matter. I really don't care other than the fact that you still are adamant about demonstrating your moral cowardice by not identifying yourself. Just because I choose not to respond to many of the outlandish and off base claims does not validate them as true and correct alright slick?
The fact is that any Tom, Dick or Sally (or Tom or someone posing as Tom who is also posing as Dick and Sally as well) can come here and smacktalk anyone without any authentication. I could create an alias and smacktalk the mayor of my local city of Fayetteville that I reside in with erroneous information in a cowardice capacity (similar to your actions for example) and he couldn't raise a finger against me because I would be hidden much like you are behind your keyboard.
I disagree with the suggestion that I am involved with the fiasco involving Lynda (and her LLC) and her notes and/or investments with the individuals involved.
Authenticate yourself or pipe up and go away will you? Or, continue your ranting and raving without authenticating yourself and further demonstrate your cowardice and foolishness. Your move slick.
#29 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: JustME - Fayetteville (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Tuesday, January 13, 2009
POSTED: Tuesday, January 13, 2009
You know the truth is out here and you respond to it by calling it smacktalk? Not at all. You are involved proof positive.
Look at all the reports Mr. Alvitre. There is a saying , if one person says something about another it might be true or not. But when ten people say the same thing then believe them. There are a lot of people saying the same thing Andrew
#30 Individual Responds
AUTHOR: Andrew - Parkton (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Tuesday, January 13, 2009
POSTED: Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Find another medium for your school girl antics. You still do not validate your authenticity and lack credibility.
#31 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: JustME - Fayetteville (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Wednesday, January 14, 2009
POSTED: Wednesday, January 14, 2009
I am quite credible. I am just smart enough to know you should never put everything you know out there.
Good luck at your trial!
#32 Individual Responds
AUTHOR: Andrew - Parkton (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Wednesday, January 14, 2009
POSTED: Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Whomever you are you individual that fails to identify yourself, it matters not whether you believe you are credible or not. The fact is that your actions or inaction (also an action/choice) in not authenticating yourself demonstrates your weak hand at play and your total lack of accountability indicative of someone that has lost credibility.
I have no need to do anything other than to call a spade a spade out of a sincere desire to be brutally honest and candid with you.
You talk a big game but are a little empty handed on the substance piece of the equation (i.e., delivery) and only manipulate and antagonize to mask your lack of substance. Your actions demonstrate your feeble attempt to speculate, fish around and probe and prod and the end result is your wasting everyone's time and gray matter that could otherwise be directed more productively... Your input would be better served in a gossip column.
Why would I assassinate someone already committing suicide? Go away and prove that your last post was in fact your last post. Or better yet, authenticate yourself with full transparency. Pull up your skirt, muscle up and bring it or go away and lurk in the background you poor soul. Tisk, tisk, tisk.
#33 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: Star47 - Linden (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Thursday, January 15, 2009
POSTED: Thursday, January 15, 2009
the problem is Mr.Alvitre you never answer any direct questions . JustMe is smart to just leave it be. And let the legal system handle it.
Here's a direct question
Why would Ms. Steele have two BMWs when she only needed one to drive? And why would you say you rarely drove one when there are plenty of witnesses to the fact that you drove it all the time? Both cars were at 2206 Hope Mills at the same time many days and none of your other cars where there.
#34 Individual Responds
AUTHOR: Andrew - Parkton (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Thursday, January 15, 2009
POSTED: Thursday, January 15, 2009
Here is a direct answer:
First, let me reiterate that you are a m-o-r-a-l c-o-w-a-r-d and you fail to authenticate who you are and constantly avoid any and all prompting of authentication when you deem your slick craftiness is warranted to serve your selfish purposes. Be transparent. I digress...
Secondly... The way I understood it star47, my moral coward allegator/private investigator or whomever you are this time , Steele had multiple BMW vehicles at the office from time to time and not for anything other than whatever purpose served her and her investor contact. I did drive one of the cars occasionally and never denied that. As I mentioned earlier, Steele had the 2 vehicles as a result of whatever her arrangement was with her investor and I wasn't the only driver. Regardless, your probing here is pointless. Go plant seeds of doubt and your foolishness elsewhere such as a gossip column where the ground is fertile for that junk. Otherwise, bring something of substance or not at all.
JustME like you can only antagonize from a distance and like that poster, you lack credibility as well. Authenticate yourself or go away.
And I agree btw, the legal system will vindicate me.
#35 Consumer Suggestion
AUTHOR: Tree63 - Greensboro (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Thursday, January 15, 2009
POSTED: Thursday, January 15, 2009
Mr. Alvitre you still don't answer a question without dodging. Pull up your skirt and answer a direct question or exit stage right.
#36 Individual Responds
AUTHOR: Andrew - Parkton (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Friday, January 16, 2009
POSTED: Friday, January 16, 2009
Perhaps then it will register for you and while you are at it, authenticate who you are or what aliases you are posting under.
You probably won't I suppose...
#37 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: Tree63 - Greensboro (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Friday, January 16, 2009
POSTED: Friday, January 16, 2009
...And for that matter, read all of your responses and see how others can come to the conclusion that you are skating away from giving a direct response by barely broaching the issue/issues. You are a compulsive liar. How can you say you had no idea what Ms. Steele was doing when you clearly were close enough to her that you had to have known? Can you see how it it confusing for the rest of us here to understand that lie? You keep asking all of us to come clean when it's you who should come clean about what dealings you were in on. Whether or not Ms. Steele is guilty is one thing, but you know that you were also VERY aware of her actions. Even the report on this site about Seng included your name. How is it that there are so many complaints against people on here, and your name just happens to be part of each complaint? Coincidence? I think not.
You're still using women to get by aren't you? Driving a car that was Ms. Steele's. Why? If you had your OWN vehilce(s), why would you need to drive one of hers? Then according to another report on the site you moved in, at one time, with your estranged wife at her parent's home. Seems you have a problem with not being able to care for yourself, successful business man you are and all.
The trial will show what is true, and the outcome will not be good for you. Enjoy your 'good' name a bit longer.
#38 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: Jesse - Hope Mills (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Friday, January 16, 2009
POSTED: Friday, January 16, 2009
are you a family tree oak tree or pine trees? we lack good trees in hope mills. dont you hate it when dogs pee on your trunk?
#39 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: JustME - Fayetteville (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Friday, January 16, 2009
POSTED: Friday, January 16, 2009
will you answer direct questions at your deposition?
#40 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: Tree63 - Greensboro (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Friday, January 16, 2009
POSTED: Friday, January 16, 2009
Why is it that you were driving one of Ms. Steele's (borrowed?) BMW's when you had your own vehicles? Don't you find that to be odd? Ms. Steele took care of you and the way you repay her is bowing out and letting her take the fall for BOTH of your involvment? What kind of man are you and how do you sleep at night? Your head must be hard as a rock, any pillow would be soft to a hard headed person. What made you turn your back against Ms. Steele all of a sudden when at the beginning of another report you were defending her?
JustME asked the right question...will you answer a direct question at your deposition? What will you say when the investors you claim you never knew are staring you right in the face?
#41 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: Jesse - Hope Mills (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Saturday, January 17, 2009
POSTED: Saturday, January 17, 2009
any of you all know where did this man really lived? most recent searches from register of deeds are mostly under Lynda S. Steele. Did she finance all their homes too? the office was her families dated back to 2000 couple of properties had him added on as husband without deed of trust. the largest mortgage she financed solely did he live there too?
Mr Alvitre isnt going to meet me, tree63. For one he suspects several people with false identity. its ironic this is my name. another hes a "male" best hiding behind the computer. i'll be the m-o-r-a-l c-o-w-a-r-d he suggested that i am. my relationships are with people who knew him professionally and personally. one is the plaintiff family who Ms steele use to care for her son on Fridays. I asked about where he lived because she and her family with former partner were allowed to take over a large portion of ms steele office space at no cost to them mr alvitre had no say in it. they saw the black BMWs that he drove continuously then parked it at night at ms steeles house where he lived. or do we suspect he rented a room from her at that house?? i do have major problems with men who dont take accountability. rather shes guility and is to be chatised by public theres a man who was the man in her life for how many years and have children together hiding behind the computer declaring his innocence??? good name??
#42 Individual Responds
AUTHOR: Andrew - Parkton (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Saturday, January 17, 2009
POSTED: Saturday, January 17, 2009
First of all, I restate: you posters are not transparent and manipulate from a distance while hiding your identity behind a keyboard while I have positively identified myself.
Secondly… If it is on the internet it must be true right? WRONG (assuming more than one “ignorant poster ” outside of Ms. S of whom I believe also reads this site) BRAINIACS! I have stated previously that I was not aware of Ms. Steele's dealings until afterwards and when they became problems. I steered away from her real estate and tax dealings with exception to one instance with one of the investors and a multifamily joint venture cash deal transaction.
I am not going to elaborate on my personal life involving my Ms. S, my children or living arrangements other than what I post here. One thing is for certain though, I have always muscled up to care for myself and my children as needed and have not relied upon anyone else in spite of whatever smack talk or misinformation is suggested by one or more m-o-r-a-l c-o-w-a-r-d/s that suggest otherwise. Penny ante and futile attempts to character assassinate me are what they are – just calling a spade a spade.
Regarding the cars, I have already stated all I will state and we don't need to revisit this matter or will simply end up going into dog chasing tail mode with you folks and your shenanigans. Please save your breath and time as we will simply agree to disagree. It is what it is. I also assure you that the softest pillow at night is a clear conscience and mine is soft for your clarification. I acknowledge your attempts to provoke me, but will take the higher ground and not before I thank you for the test (whether you unintentionally provided it unconscious or not) and preemptively state I have passed it.
As far as Ms. S is concerned, I have never misstated the facts and will not have a problem doing so at any and all depositions I have and will only warrant and represent the truth. Personally, Ms. S and I have had differences. However, that doesn't justify that I misstate the facts improperly and I will not dishonor myself and perjure myself by stating improper facts. IF, that upsets you than so be it, it is what it is.
Furthermore, you lack attention to detail; I stated I knew the majority of the investors but not all of them. What I said earlier is that I did not meet/know all of the plaintiffs. Reread it slower next time so that it actually registers and have someone interpret it for you if need be or paraphrase it as they "dummy it down" (no pun intended... tsk, tsk, tsk) for you. One thing is for certain and key, I was never privy to the terms of the investors' arrangement/s individually with Ms. S and/or her entity beforehand, nor was I a factor in that equation and that is indisputable.
Looks to me like you folks are grasping for straws while on your fishing expedition hear. I hear the writers for Jerry Springer are hiring JUSTME and Jesse, look them up. Copy and paste this URL into your browser and you will be on your way… I'd help you build your resume but then that would require complete and fully disclosed identification wouldn't it? http://www.jerryspringertv.com/
Will a poster with substance please stand up?
#43 Consumer Suggestion
AUTHOR: Tree63 - Greensboro (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Saturday, January 17, 2009
POSTED: Saturday, January 17, 2009
Jesse, I have no idea where the man has lived before. Evidently has was living with his wife and her family. A credible source has told me he is now living in an apartment. I checked it out to see if it was true online, and found a site called Zaba Search. Duncastle Drive I think it is?
It was interesting to find that he has a contract for the same land that he had on a previous contract with Ms. Steele. This time around he has Pamela on it. ??? I was curious why her signature was not recorded on the contract with the register of deeds. So...I took it upon myself to do my own due diligence and extracted information from the new Mrs. A. She had no idea that he had this contract. That girl has no idea what sort of junk this man has been up to. I also found that he was trying to swindle her family to invest and has a social security number of someone close to them. Who would offer their information to this man so freely?
I hope for Ms. Steele's sake she has a good attorney that will stick it to him. He knows that he doesn't have a leg to stand on and that's why he keeps repeating himself. You will not get a response out of him that will differ from his previous ones. The BMW, how can he say he didn't know the owner of that car if he was driving it around? Did he or does he make a habit of using vehicles without care?
#44 Individual Responds
AUTHOR: Andrew - Parkton (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Saturday, January 17, 2009
POSTED: Saturday, January 17, 2009
Tree or whatever your alias is today,
Mrs. A is well aware of the contract on the property you reference so I am certain that you did not extract your misinformation from her. You apparently have no desire other than to spread garbage and character assassinate. As I said earlier, look up that writing position with the Springer folks...
SSN# from family? Get real, slick. I have never violated anyone's privacy; nor will I start; nor have I ever propositioned my wife's family to invest with me in any capacity. Nice try slick. Keep trying...
As far as Ms. Steele's attorney is concerned, what can he do or say? The fact is that his client "the real defendant" has already admitted to her defaulting on the agreements. Sounds pretty open and shut to me on a civil matter. I know... not enough dramatics for you so you will create it right? Right...
I never said I didn't know the owner of the BMW's. You know little, assume much and are quick to jump to conclusions to read with selective reading aren't you? We all know what the definition of ass-ume is don't we?
I digress...
Once again, you still fail to identify yourself.
Will a real poster with some salt that can positively identify themselves as a poster that also has some substance stand up?
Methinks not, but who knows... I may be pleasantly surprised. However, I suspect more "indirect" cannon fodder (an informal term for military personnel who are regarded or treated as expendable in the face of enemy fire) is enroute by one or more of the plaintiff lackeys and/or an alias of Ms. Steele. In either case, pop and no kick...
#45 Consumer Suggestion
AUTHOR: NLN_T - Greensboro (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Saturday, January 17, 2009
POSTED: Saturday, January 17, 2009
And for that matter, why is his wife being brought up when this complaint is about Mr. Alvitre's professional problems? How do you know so much about Mr. Alvitre Tree63?
#46 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: JustME - Fayetteville (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Sunday, January 18, 2009
POSTED: Sunday, January 18, 2009
is not just default, if it were there would not have to be a trial. Just summary judgement.
There is also the matter of a few types of fraud. That is why a jury trial is necessary.
#47 Individual Responds
AUTHOR: Andrew - Parkton (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Sunday, January 18, 2009
POSTED: Sunday, January 18, 2009
Interesting how you fail to address my rebuttal points...
1) You need to identify yourself.
2) You need to attach any documentation you have suggesting anything other than an arbitration hearing.
You misspeak once again and that is about the only thing I am seeing you are consistent with here.
#48 Consumer Suggestion
AUTHOR: Tree63 - Greensboro (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Sunday, January 18, 2009
POSTED: Sunday, January 18, 2009
JustME seems to back you into a corner with every comment they leave you. Are you scared that they know something you don't? It's alright, if I were you I'd be a little afraid too.
#49 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: JustME - Fayetteville (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Sunday, January 18, 2009
POSTED: Sunday, January 18, 2009
Here is a lesson for you.
Arbitration is mediation. It's just trying to get all parties to agree to avoid court. Don't believe all parties will agree
How about Remax Mr. Alvitre?
#50 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: Jesse - Hope Mills (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Tuesday, January 20, 2009
POSTED: Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Ive checked out the site you referenced Mr Alvitre they certainly dont want to have us as writers for ripoff but rather writers that can come up with trashy stories such as ones you live in everyday moment. you dont mind about the love triangle Ive shared with them do you? werent you involved in a love triangle with Ms Steele and her husband but then he threatened you which caused you to file a restraining order? the other report talked about you living with them after they got married?? trials of fraud, borrowed BWMs calling investors from court houses are not story lines of jerry springer, you know your a better writer for jerry.....maybe you and Mrs A could make a few bucks by sending them your story
#51 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: JustME - Fayetteville (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Tuesday, January 20, 2009
POSTED: Tuesday, January 20, 2009
A very good friend of mine actually knows Jerry Springer quite well!
Though really there is no reason for Mr. Alvitre to snipe at anyone on here. He has been asked many questions that have not gotten a straight answer yet. And really there is no reason to ask about or talk about his personal life , it has nothing to do with his business practices
#52 Consumer Suggestion
AUTHOR: Tree63 - Greensboro (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Tuesday, January 20, 2009
POSTED: Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Jesse, Mrs. A won't be making any money with Mr. Alivtre. I have talked with her myself and she was supporting him...seems to be a trend with Mr. Alvitre. I can tell you this, she rushed into marrying him without knowing anything about his business dealings. Oh and he left her, she didn't leave him. She's tried to file a restraining order on him and there's even a police report filed for him parking out front of her parent's home stalking her. So besides this man having professional issues, he isn't all there personally either. He is in denial, look at how he answers the questions posed to him. Mrs. A is on Lynda's side I can tell you that.
He took advantage of my wife and myself not having much knowledge on real estate. I'd like to know where our money went and when we will be getting it back. ???
#53 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: Jesse - Hope Mills (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Wednesday, January 21, 2009
POSTED: Wednesday, January 21, 2009
how were you in contact with Mrs A? Mr A is going to have his rebuttal on this. Ive talked with many acquaintances of his from real estate dealings, to include one of the plaintiffs relative. Professionally he cant give straight answers she replied he speaks in circles. we should keep their personal lives out of the discussion unless he makes mention in most cases he does. all his replies are for his wife since she reads this with her family his good name is being tarnished. although ms steele is guilty of her charges hes not willing to admit he had any involvement.
has he answered Remax? a reliable source tell us he and 2 other partners jointly applied for the business franchise. she commented "Lynda Steele didnt want to be on the application shes over her head with business ordeals." She would help out with the business not have ownership. Mr Alvitre knows who could have said this. the female partner didnt want to go into this without Ms Steele, nevertheless Mr Alvitre and the other 2 were the only applicants. Application got denied because Remax found Mr Alvitre to have lied on his application. One partner questioned ms steele, she admitted to the lawsuit hence not wanting to go forward, yet mr alvitre wanted to write corporate remax about them being wrong about him. the franchisor didnt like him from day one.
tree were you involved with ms steele and mr alvitre or just him? i thought i saw ms steele and her husband at dinner last week wanted to approach them not sure if they would talk to me. if your reading this site will you take my calls? you are probably reading since mr alvitre says your tree63 justme and your me too. can i speak to you? im not the plaintiff. few of them say your a good person with good intentions yet got caught up in many bad situations
#54 Consumer Comment
AUTHOR: JustME - Fayetteville (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Wednesday, January 21, 2009
POSTED: Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Ms. Steele was the one who started the application for ReMax and had Mr. Alvitre on it to. So guess that's where they tried to use the investors money that was taken. Since to get a franchise is almost a million. And neither Ms. Steele or Mr. Alvitre seem to know what happened to all the 100s of thousands of dollars that was taken .
Though in reality they do
Ms. Steele is no innocent victim here.
#55 Individual Responds
AUTHOR: Andrew - Parkton (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Saturday, January 24, 2009
POSTED: Saturday, January 24, 2009
Wow, you folks sure know how to spin a story... We are back on the "pop and no kick band wagon" it appears again.
Hey, let's just conclude that we agree to disagree to your suggested nonsense. You still do not validate who you are and your postings are a waste of my time.
