Print

[bamalucky]

Gog, a $10k bond would go a long way to reimbursing Prosper when it makes its ID theft guarantee good.  If the cost goes to the borrower, it's very cheap insurance to Prosper.

notaries aren't gonna lie for a borrower..Period!!

[Fred93]

I don't mind them making a confusing argument, or kicking up dust in front of the plaintiff, to make his life more difficult.  I draw the line when they lie.  I don't care WHY they lied.  Ends don't justify the means.

I have a somewhat fanatical devotion to the notion of "honesty", also - but I will not tell a man with a knife which way his wife ran past, any more than I will tell a guy in a suit, whose job is to attempt to pick my pocket, how much money I have and where I keep my wallet.

The person they lied to was the judge in bankruptcy court.  Not at all the same as your "man with a knife" and you know this.

Consider for a moment the possiblity that Mr Gaerke is innocent.  Put yourself in his shoes.  Would you feel it was ok if some loan company lied to you and the court and therefore kept you and your attorneys from being able to ask the right questions to bring out the right issues in court to get out from under some unfair burden fraudulently thrust upon you?  I believe you would think it was not ok. 

If I made you judge, would you think it was ok for me to lie to you?

[Gogmagog]

Consider for a moment the possiblity that Mr Gaerke is innocent.  Put yourself in his shoes.  Would you feel it was ok if some loan company lied to you and the court and therefore kept you and your attorneys from being able to ask the right questions to bring out the right issues in court to get out from under some unfair burden fraudulently thrust upon you?  I believe you would think it was not ok. 

If I made you judge, would you think it was ok for me to lie to you?

Email/phone the lawyer, and tell him to do as I mentioned.  Tell him to subpoena Prosper's Lender list for the real names of the Lenders on this loan.  This entire problem will go away very quickly, one way or another.  Prosper has always has relied upon the fact that the law doesn't quite know what to do with it. Its time WE got some assurances. 

If Prosper realizes that Lenders will assist Borrowers against them, if Prosper isn't acting in the Lender's interests, then they will have to act.  At the very least they will have to be very clear about what is going on. 

[nonattender]

I don't mind them making a confusing argument, or kicking up dust in front of the plaintiff, to make his life more difficult.  I draw the line when they lie.  I don't care WHY they lied.  Ends don't justify the means.

I have a somewhat fanatical devotion to the notion of "honesty", also - but I will not tell a man with a knife which way his wife ran past, any more than I will tell a guy in a suit, whose job is to attempt to pick my pocket, how much money I have and where I keep my wallet.

Consider for a moment the possiblity that Mr Gaerke is innocent.  Put yourself in his shoes.

"Innocent" Mr. Gaerke is attempting to bankrupt out of an obligation which, at the same time, he claims is not really his obligation.
(I trust that the irony of this particular fact will not escape you - and I leave it to your imagination who might have suggested it.)

The matter is not whether he is "innocent" or his wife is "guilty".  The matter is that he has chosen to attempt to invalidate the loan,
and thereby rob the lender(s) (if we can not argue over that for a moment) of the right to seek remuneration from the "proper" party.
Further than that, it robs the lenders even of the right to any sort of process to determine who, in fact, that "proper" party might be.

If he is, as you put it, "innocent", then he is either "confused" or a "liar", or, more likely, his lawyers are simply engaged in "lawyering".

I do understand why he might want to avoid having to address the matter in a proper venue, which would either be through a criminal
complaint and civil action against his wife or in a divorce hearing, where a determination and distribution of marital assets would occur.

Once again, as it stands, he's attempting to DISCHARGE A LOAN THROUGH BANKRUPTCY, and thereby wipe it off of our books, though,
at the very same time, he is claiming that it is NOT HIS LOAN, which would seem to present "confusion" regarding HIS STANDING - no?

-t

[bamalucky]

“WebBank actually funds the loans,” Fox said. “Prosper Marketplace handles administration of the loans, makes sure that the payments are debited [from borrowers] and lenders have enough money in their accounts. Ultimately if someone ends up not paying the loan, the lender could lose their capital. We encourage them to diversify.”

http://blog.kennebunkpost.com/2008/08/21/people-to-people-lending--can-it-make-dreams-come-true-aug-22-2008.aspx

[Fred93]

Email/phone the lawyer, and tell him to do as I mentioned.  Tell him to subpoena Prosper's Lender list for the real names of the Lenders on this loan. 

If you want it done, do it yourself.  You have no right to task me.

You're just changing the subject, which was lying to the judge.

[nonattender]

Consider for a moment the possiblity that Mr Gaerke is innocent.  Put yourself in his shoes.  Would you feel it was ok if some loan company lied to you and the court and therefore kept you and your attorneys from being able to ask the right questions to bring out the right issues in court to get out from under some unfair burden fraudulently thrust upon you?  I believe you would think it was not ok. 

If I made you judge, would you think it was ok for me to lie to you?

Email/phone the lawyer, and tell him to do as I mentioned.

Might also mention to him that you can't claim it's not your loan, and then attempt to discharge it through bk - "confused" or otherwise.
I have no evidence of this, and it's just idle speculation, but I have seen this exact maneuver before with marital debts and bankruptcy.

Normally, in those instances, most of the creditors, when presented with that much "confusion", simply throw up their hands - and walk.

If Prosper realizes that Lenders will assist Borrowers against them, if Prosper isn't acting in the Lender's interests, then they will have to act.  At the very least they will have to be very clear about what is going on.

As you enjoy pointing out, sometimes lenders are just too blind/angry/dumb to see when Prosper *is* acting in their best interests...

-t

[bamalucky]

As you enjoy pointing out, sometimes lenders are just too blind/angry/dumb to see when Prosper *is* acting in their best interests

Have you no morals?  Lying in court to win is wrong & illegal to boot.

Do you see any correlation to the fact that Prosper is lying in court,that they might possibly lie to their customers too?

[nonattender]

As you enjoy pointing out, sometimes lenders are just too blind/angry/dumb to see when Prosper *is* acting in their best interests

Have you no morals?  Lying in court to win is wrong & illegal to boot.

Do you see any correlation to the fact that Prosper is lying in court,that they might possibly lie to their customers too?

And, sometimes, in a few rare instances, they are all three.

-t

[ira01]

Hey Gog, for about the fifth time you have ignored this -- care to comment finally?

Regarding the notary, it might help a bit.  However you do realize that the powers of a notary aren't the same in all states?  In some states, notaries can't verify documents, they can only be an impartial witness to oaths. Also, the standards of getting authorized as a notary are pathetic.  These aren't crack legal scholars, waiting to verify your identities and documents.  If you get a fake ID that can get you past a bouncer, you can fool a notary.

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/11/notary_fraud.html
Requiring a notary is false security. Notary fraud is commonplace.

It is also an expense for Prosper to handle yet ANOTHER piece of paperwork to process a simple loan. Notarization only matters if Prosper checks with the Notary for every one.  Otherwise, it is worthless as a pre-loan verification.  The only thing requiring a notarization gets you, is another person to sue if things go belly up. 

I don't think requiring notarization will contribute enough to the safety of the process to compensate for the extra burdens it places on honest Borrowers, and the additional cost to Prosper.  Cheap and effective is what you need, Notarization is neither.

I disagree.  You are missing an important point -- notaries (at least here in CA, and I presume elsewhere as well) record your thumbprint in their book when they notarize your document.  So when Mr. Gaerke claimed that he never took out the loan, Prosper could easily find out if that was the truth or not.  If the fingerprint in the book is his -- he's a liar.  If not, it's ID-theft.  To say nothing of the fact that many scammers that are willing to try to pull a fast one over the internet aren't going to try to flim-flam a notary -- they'll just move on to an easier target.

[ira01]

Consider for a moment the possiblity that Mr Gaerke is innocent.  Put yourself in his shoes.  Would you feel it was ok if some loan company lied to you and the court and therefore kept you and your attorneys from being able to ask the right questions to bring out the right issues in court to get out from under some unfair burden fraudulently thrust upon you?  I believe you would think it was not ok. 

If I made you judge, would you think it was ok for me to lie to you?

Email/phone the lawyer, and tell him to do as I mentioned.  Tell him to subpoena Prosper's Lender list for the real names of the Lenders on this loan.  This entire problem will go away very quickly, one way or another.  Prosper has always has relied upon the fact that the law doesn't quite know what to do with it. Its time WE got some assurances. 

He has a much easier option -- Tell Prosper that he will be filing a Rule 11 motion for sanctions for its attempt to defraud the Court, including the LRA, Note, FAQ, and SEC filing as exhibits).  Prosper will fold like a cheap suit (which is exactly what I think is what is happening now -- xraider recently posted that a court filing says the matter is close to settlement).

[ira01]

I don't mind them making a confusing argument, or kicking up dust in front of the plaintiff, to make his life more difficult.  I draw the line when they lie.  I don't care WHY they lied.  Ends don't justify the means.

I have a somewhat fanatical devotion to the notion of "honesty", also - but I will not tell a man with a knife which way his wife ran past, any more than I will tell a guy in a suit, whose job is to attempt to pick my pocket, how much money I have and where I keep my wallet.

Consider for a moment the possiblity that Mr Gaerke is innocent.  Put yourself in his shoes.

"Innocent" Mr. Gaerke is attempting to bankrupt out of an obligation which, at the same time, he claims is not really his obligation.
(I trust that the irony of this particular fact will not escape you - and I leave it to your imagination who might have suggested it.)

The matter is not whether he is "innocent" or his wife is "guilty".  The matter is that he has chosen to attempt to invalidate the loan, and thereby rob the lender(s) (if we can not argue over that for a moment) of the right to seek remuneration from the "proper" party.  Further than that, it robs the lenders even of the right to any sort of process to determine who, in fact, that "proper" party might be.

This is further evidence that you are an idiot.  Mr. Gaerke is seeking a declaratory judgment that he is not the borrower.  If he prevails, even if his BK is granted, that in no way prevents Prosper from seeking to hold the wife responsible for the loan.  A BK discharge does not "invalidate the loan," it makes it unenforceable against the BK debtor.  For instance, if Guarantee Gary guarantees a loan from Creditor Charlie to Borrower Bob, and Borrower Bob files BK and receives a discharge, he is no longer liable on the loan.  But Charlie can certainly look to Gary to recover the money.  Similarly, if the facts are as sworn to by Gaerke, wife if liable to Prosper for fraud.  Prosper can sue her to recover its damages. 

[Teddie33]

Hey Gog, for about the fifth time you have ignored this -- care to comment finally?

Regarding the notary, it might help a bit.  However you do realize that the powers of a notary aren't the same in all states?  In some states, notaries can't verify documents, they can only be an impartial witness to oaths. Also, the standards of getting authorized as a notary are pathetic.  These aren't crack legal scholars, waiting to verify your identities and documents.  If you get a fake ID that can get you past a bouncer, you can fool a notary.

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/11/notary_fraud.html
Requiring a notary is false security. Notary fraud is commonplace.

It is also an expense for Prosper to handle yet ANOTHER piece of paperwork to process a simple loan. Notarization only matters if Prosper checks with the Notary for every one.  Otherwise, it is worthless as a pre-loan verification.  The only thing requiring a notarization gets you, is another person to sue if things go belly up. 

I don't think requiring notarization will contribute enough to the safety of the process to compensate for the extra burdens it places on honest Borrowers, and the additional cost to Prosper.  Cheap and effective is what you need, Notarization is neither.

I disagree.  You are missing an important point -- notaries (at least here in CA, and I presume elsewhere as well) record your thumbprint in their book when they notarize your document.  So when Mr. Gaerke claimed that he never took out the loan, Prosper could easily find out if that was the truth or not.  If the fingerprint in the book is his -- he's a liar.  If not, it's ID-theft.  To say nothing of the fact that many scammers that are willing to try to pull a fast one over the internet aren't going to try to flim-flam a notary -- they'll just move on to an easier target.

I've never heard of any other state doing thumb prints besides in CA and to think using notaries will stop fraud is wishfull thinking. Most notaries have no concept of what a notary realy does. I think the Gaerke's would had still pulled this off with a well meaning bank notary.

[bamalucky]

I've never heard of any other state doing thumb prints besides in CA and to think using notaries will stop fraud is wishfull thinking. Most notaries have no concept of what a notary realy does. I think the Gaerke's would had still pulled this off with a well meaning bank notary.

I knew i could get a brilliant reply out of you eventually.Now if i could just get someone to decode it for me

[Xenon481]

I've never heard of any other state doing thumb prints besides in CA and to think using notaries will stop fraud is wishfull thinking. Most notaries have no concept of what a notary realy does. I think the Gaerke's would had still pulled this off with a well meaning bank notary.

I have had to do the thumbprint thing here in Texas before.