In this brief YouTube short, Tommy Dobczyk and an unnamed speaker discuss a fraud case that appears to involve collusion with a government employee. The speaker notes that a government agency is now implicated, raising the stakes of the alleged fraud. Tommy confirms he has communicated directly with the government employee. The conversation also touches on uncertainty about whether the fraudulent party simply copied documents to create their own version, but the speaker admits they lack definitive knowledge. The tone is conversational and concerned, highlighting the seriousness of government involvement in the alleged wrongdoing.
Today in the Deal Room.
Oh goodness.
Colluded with a government employee.
Yeah. So now you got, now you got a government agency involved in the fraud, which then makes it—
Or did they just copy? Did they just copy and make their own page? Unfortunately, I don't know. Tommy actually communicated with the government employee. Wow.
Yeah, the government employee admitted to signing it without pictures, without doing an actual inspection. So I've got the, I've got the government employee saying they did it. I've got the owner or the person that we loaned the money to saying that they have the houses. Here's the houses. They said they sent us pictures of them. And now they're saying that the houses don't exist. And we already knew about that. So like a reverse gaslight. And then they're like, oh yeah, by the way, we know that we owe you the whole amount, but we're still gonna make payments like nothing ever happened. Like we didn't miss the last 3 payments. We didn't miss payment 1, payment 2, payment 3. We're going to pretend we didn't miss those. And then we're not only going to pay— start paying you now on what we owed you 3 months ago, we're going to pretend like the accelerating clause didn't go into effect, like the 30-day cure notice went out, like the 60-day cure notice went by. Then we're at day 92. Now you're going to start paying? No, can't do that. Why can't we take payment on something now that it's been 90 days outside of default? Because if we do, we reset the terms of the conditions of the notes. Stating that you can default, you owe us $240,000. So if we accept these funds, we are basically saying, oh yeah, it's okay to take advantage of us. Yeah, you can go ahead and screw up and we are okay with it. And so we have to at every turn turn back to them and say, we're not okay with this, we're not accepting this, give us all our money now. Your contract is only as good as the provisions that you enforce. Correct. If I bend in any way to that contract, that's the new rules to the contract, right? Just like in, in any game that you play, when you change the rules, that's what happens. All right, let's see what we got.
