Damian Falcone & CO Damian Falcone Credit Management Damian Falcon & CO ripped alot of people off las vegas Nevada

Damian Flavio would be so disapointed and Damian missing turtles really... Come on now youll do anything for attention and a little free advertisement. Damian things must be stressful, your appeal will be thrown out you are a thief, crook and liar and just a creepy guy. Also your licenses were taken away why are you still sending out mailers and taking on new clients.

I read about the appeal so you know the Petition for Judicial Review will not overturn the Final Order. Because of this the facts are below and your are in trouble Damian youve lost you napolean complex sociopath. Flavio would be Proud of us for brining you to justice. We both no how much Flavio couldnt stand you.

would enter with clients: first, a program in which clients paid for preparation of certain legal “products” advertised to help them in their disputes with the lenders that owned their mortgages; and second, a “pro bono legal agreement” for the provision of free legal 23 Mortgage Assistance Relief Services, 75 Fed. Reg. 75,091 (Dec. 1, 2010). 24 Id. at 75102. 25 CFPB v. Gordon, 819 F.3d 1179, 1184 (9th Cir. 2016). 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

services including negotiating with lenders for loan modifications.26 Clients were required to pay for the products to receive the “free” legal services.27 Gordon contended that his actions were not in violation of Regulation O because he only charged fees for the legal products, while providing the loan modification services for free.28 The Ninth Circuit rejected Defendant Gordon’s defense wholesale. “This obvious attempt to evade the requirements of Regulation O fails.”29 It is undisputed that Gordon’s “pro bono” services were in reality in exchange for consideration, because consumers were eligible for the “pro bono” modification services only if they signed up for and paid the fees for the legal products. Gordon suggests that this court is bound by the language in his contract, stating [that] his services were “pro bono,” but nothing in the regulations suggest that this court must close its eyes to the facts and rely only on the contract itself to determine whether the services were actually “in exchange for consideration.”30 Respondents’ similarly obvious attempt to evade the requirements of NRS 645F.405 also fails. Clients were effectively required to purchase the software membership to obtain covered services from Respondents. Respondents’ Service Agreement contained stock language incorporating the purchase of the software membership to each client. And, in direct contrast to the Service Agreement’s language concerning other terms, such as financial and credit evaluation services, 31 the language concerning the software membership did not indicate that the purchase was optional. Further detracting from the credibility of the software membership as an actual product separate from the covered service is the fact that Respondents told each testifying witness the software membership served a different purpose, none matching the purpose stated on Respondents’ Service Agreement. Finally, Respondents’ practical use of the software, to document the legal violations committed by the bank or servicer 26 Id. at 1185. 27 Id. 28 Id. at 1194. 29 Id. 30 Id. at 1194-95. 31

FALCONE000232. 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 for purposes of leverage during modification negotiations, falls squarely into the description of “forensic accounting” prohibited by Regulation O’s ban on advance fees.32 Respondents violated NRS 645F.405 by charging and collecting advance fees from clients under the guise of software memberships before the clients executed written agreements with the lender or servicer incorporating an offer of mortgage assistance. Pursuant to NAC 645F.835(2), Respondents shall issue restitution to each of the 87 clients for whom financial ledgers were included in evidence. NRS 645F.410, authorizes the imposition of an administrative fine of up to $25,000 for this violation. Respondents shall be subject to an administrative fine in the amount of $15,000 for this violation because, though it was in circumvention of the spirit and purpose of the prohibition on advance fees, Respondents evidenced multiple consultations with multiple attorneys who approved of the practice, which suggests Respondents practiced some due diligence in endeavoring to abide by the law. c. Violation of an Order of the Commissioner DML charges Respondents with violating NAC 645F.835(3)(c), which authorizes discipline against licensees for violating any order of the Commissioner. 3. For each violation committed by a person who engages in an activity for which licensure as a covered service provider, foreclosure consultant or loan modification consultant is required under this chapter and chapter 645F of NRS, without regard to whether the person is licensed under this chapter and chapter 645F of NRS, the Commissioner may impose upon the person an administrative fine of not more than $10,000, and if the person holds a license as a covered service provider, foreclosure consultant or loan modification consultant, the Commissioner may suspend, revoke or place conditions upon the person’s license, or may do both, if the person, whether or not acting as such: [ . . .] (c) Does not conduct business in accordance with law or has violated any provision of this chapter or chapter 645F of NRS or any order of the Commissioner; (bold emphasis added). DML contends that Respondents violated the 2012 Consent 32 75 Fed. Reg. at 75,100 n.110, 75,096. 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Order by charging and collecting advance fees for software memberships. As discussed supra, Respondents charged and collected advance fees in violation of NRS 645F.405. This conduct was also in violation of the 2012 Consent Order, which expressly prohibited Respondents from charging or collecting advance fees. Respondents violated NAC 645F.835(3)(c) by charging and collecting advance fees in violation of an order of the Commissioner. NAC 645F.835(3) authorizes the imposition of an administrative fine of up to $10,000 for this violation. Respondents shall be subject to a $5,000 fine for this violation because although they did alter the Service Agreement following the 2012 Consent Order in an attempt to come into compliance, they received notice that they were still out of compliance as early as December 2013 and at the latest by August 2014, and they did not make any changes. d. Deceptive Trade Practices DML charges Respondents with violating NAC 645F.600(2), which requires licensees’ advertisements to comply with the general provisions of NRS Chapter 598, the Chapter governing deceptive trade practices. DML contends that Respondents violated NRS 598.0915(5), (9), and (15) by failing to give certain clients access to the software for which they paid. NRS 598.0915 defines certain activities as deceptive trade practices, and the particular subsections at issue are set forth in full below: A person engages in a “deceptive trade practice” if, in the course of his or her business or occupation, he or she: [ . . . ] 5. Knowingly makes a false representation as to the characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits, alterations or quantities of goods or services for sale or lease or a false representation as to the sponsorship, approval, status, affiliation or connection of a person therewith. [ . . . ] 9. Advertises goods or services with intent not to sell or lease them as advertised. [ . . . ] 15. Knowingly makes any other false representation in a transaction.

Damian, Damian everything you say is a complete and total lie.. You would have more of a chance of explaining yourself had you not already violated NRS 645F.101 and been fined for the same law breaking bullshit in 2012  Here is the link (see highlighted below), in 2012 you had to also pay 9 Clients back for demanding paymets towards loan modifications to save your clients homes.

Damian you make the homeowner out to be the one that is at fault, your wrong there your clients there the victims.You never did a thing for even one of those clients but spend therr money on yourselve. The Nevada Division of Mortgage Lending fined you and found you in violation the proof is below fool. NDML allowed you to keep your license becuase after months of demanding payment you finally paid the people and your fines back. You got lucky and a second chance to rip homeowners off even more.

Heres is a link to that documentation from your 2012 violations, Damian Falcone of Falcon Credit Management LLC

mld.nv.gov/uploadedFiles/mldnvgov/content/Enforcement/2012/2012-11-28FalconCreditManagement-ConsentOrder-Redacted.pdf

Flavio Weeps for you!! You are still a Disappointment

If your smart stay away from this company, Damian will wooh you at first with his Maserati and what appears to be alot of success, everyhing on his wall is either made up or so redacted theres no way to prove he acutally accomplished a single one of those wins. Eventually after meeting with Lucifer I mean Damian Falcone a few times, your welcome is worn out and it goes from offering you a bottle of water, to offering to drop you as a client. When you question him to much. Damian is really the master of white collar. 

Damian you are famous for this in every rebuttle.

Damian you  constantly rewrite reality and exhibit other crazy-making behavior. Your version is so twisted that even whats right in front of you, whens its difinitive proof, you retwist into your own self delusional version of the event. Why? Becaue you are a sociopath.

Lets look at the Facts Damian Falcone recieved heavy fines and lost his professional licenses read the highlighted text Damian Your a socipath thats appearent, all 87 clients and the Division of Mortgage Lending is just pikcing on you cause your sucha  an honet little guy. Im sure the fines were imposed on you for your honesty. Im also going to post what happened in 2012. You did the same thing WOW what a pattern.

This is a contested case between Claimant, the Mortgage Lending Division (DML), and Respondents, Falcon Credit Management LLC d/b/a Damian Falcone & Company (“FCM”) and Damian Roland Falcone (“Falcone”) (collectively, “Respondents”). This matter was commenced on September 26, 2016, when DML issued a Notice of Intent to Issue and Enter Final Order Revoking Covered Provider License And Associated Covered Service Provider License, Requiring Payment of Restitution, Imposing Administrative Fine, And Assessing Administrative Costs, and Notice of Opportunity for Hearing. Respondents requested a hearing pursuant to NRS 645F.855. On March 8, 2017, MLD issued a Complaint. Also on March 8, 2017, DML referred the matter for hearing, and I was appointed. The hearing took place June 5-7, 2017. Witnesses Diana Martinez, Jessica Monsour, Geoff Powers, Raymond Del Rosario, Marie Del Graziano, and Damian Roland Falcone testified under oath, and each was subject to direct and crossexamination. The parties stipulated to the admission of all documentary exhibits: DML’s exhibits, MLD000001-000396, and Respondents’ exhibits, FALCONE000001-000617. Prior to the commencement of the hearing, Respondents voluntarily surrendered their 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 covered service provider and associated covered service provider licenses

DML asserts that Respondents violated NAC 645F.475 by failing to separate the financial records for its licensed activities from financial records for its other myriad activities and this prevented DML’s examiners from ascertaining Respondents’ financial condition. Specifically, DML contends, “[T]he Licensee fails to maintain complete and suitable financial records related to all deposits, payments[,] and transfers listed on the general ledgers for all accounts utilized by the Licensee. These accounts are not properly identified and prevent [DML] from distinguishing transactions applicable to the Licensee from transactions applicable to other businesses of the Licensee.” The QuickBooks records for the bank account ending in 1221 reveal that the account was not restricted solely to debits and credits for NRS 645F-licensed activities; rather, Respondents used the 1221 account for activities including web design, accounting fees, attorney’s fees, and credit card payments.19 The QuickBooks records for the bank account ending in 1221 did not clearly identify which deposits were associated with which clients. In certain instances, deposits recorded on the ledgers did not match the deposits recorded on the QuickBooks records. 20 The co-mingled nature of the bank account ending in 1221 made it impossible for DML investigators to ensure the accuracy of Respondents’ accounting and ascertain their true financial condition. Respondents failed to maintain complete and suitable records in violation of NAC 645F.475. NAC 645F.835(3)(c) authorizes the imposition of an administrative fine of up 

IT IS ORDERED that: Pursuant to NAC 645F.835(3)(c), Respondent FCM’s Covered Service Provider license and Falcone’s Associated Covered Service Provider license are revoked, effective immediately. Pursuant to NAC 645F.835(3)(c), Respondents shall pay an administrative fine of $5,000 for their violation of NAC 645F.475. Respondents shall pay this amount to DML in full within 90 days. Pursuant to NAC 645F.835(2), Respondents shall pay restitution in the amount of $276,635. This amount represents the economic losses suffered by the 87 clients at issue as a result of Respondents’ violations of NRS and NAC Chapter 645F.34 Respondents shall pay this amount in full within 120 days. DML shall be responsible for properly distributing the restitution monies to the 87 clients within a reasonable amount of time, not to exceed 12 months from the date of receipt of the monies.

Here a link to the original document. Highlight the link below and paste in your browser.

http://mld.nv.gov/uploadedFiles/mldnvgov/content/Enforcement/2017/2017-07-18-DamianFalconeandCompanyandDamianFalcone-FinalOrder-2016-004.pdf

Just a small sample of the displinary file and the fines imposed on Damian Falcone of Las Vegas. Damian seems to think he is above the law. Well Damian your not. you lose.. 

Your Dishonest crook and a Flavio new it... 

MPG,

4/14/14 You became my client with our signed agreement.

4/6/15 – You were offered a Trial Modification from your loan servicer.  At this time you had paid $6,000 not $14,000 as you state above.  You never delivered $14,000 to my office or $14,500 as you’ve stated in other complaints. You turned down the loan modification instructing me to draft an appeal, which I did – the first of 3.

6/2/15 – You stated by email “I want you to know that I truly appreciate your efficiency and i don't think that there is anyone else out there that is as capable to handle my situation as you.I also I actually do understand that it is a hassle to be bothered when you are so extremely busy, especially with a late pay.  I get it.  I've had my fair share of those, and do not want to be that.  On behalf of my children, Paul as well as myself: We thank you for your great work and appreciate what you continue to do.  Also I apologize for my overly relaxed, off color commentary that is inappropriate and my obsessive communication.”

12/24/15 – You stated by email “I know that if someone can make this happen, it is you and I want to Thank You again for keeping me as a client, because it is evident that we share the same outlook where if you take on a task, you do it the best whether it means $50,000  or $1000,000.  I have now gone to and paid, at least five other people and researched countless.  You have come out unparalleled, and I am excited to be another example on your wall.”

4/26/16 – I spoke to your lender, called and told you a Trial Modification was approved.   The terms were a monthly payment beneath present market value, a 2% interest rate and the opportunity for a forgiveness of nearly $200,000.00 following 3 monthly mortgage payments.  I requested you pay special attention to your mail as your lender told me they sent it to you. 

5/21/16 You delivered the offer of loan modification to my office. In the event you accepted this loan modification while I was employed by you I would be owed a fee for the agreement and possible % fee of the nearly $200,000.00 identified in the modification agreement.

5/25/16 You sent me a letter demanding a refund of $14,000 or you would send your complaint to 14 different organizations.  You have made other complaints that it was $14,500.

4/15/17 I was provided a 426 page administrative complaint and given 12 days to provide documentation in response to 6 alleged previous clients from the previous 5 years that had never notified me of any complaint(s). 

6/5/2017 Finally, sworn statements were required. 

You stated under oath:

• You filed a complaint with the Division of Mortgage Lending on or around 5/2/16 prior to your demand for refund from my office. You had no less than 9 communications following 5/2/16 with my office and no mention of dissatisfaction in any of them;

• In your complaints you used a service agreement that had been edited from our actual service agreement which removed the refund opportunity you had available to you;

• Your previous repeated claims of never having access to the software you purchased were not true;

• You never received a 5-figure payment and others from the federal government;

When we met you were 49 months delinquent on your mortgage. 

In the 2+ years I represented you:

• No payments were made towards your mortgage; 
• Foreclosure activity was prevented;
• You received multiple offers for loan modification;

As the administrative order has already been appealed I am looking forward to being in a court room with you and if you dispute anything contained in this reply I anxiously await your response.