Comments on: Jackson Jambalaya on Madison County mortgage fraud case

By: NMC

NMC — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 15:18:46 +0000

Researcher, the chancery clerk would just file the deeds of trust, one after the other. I would not expect them to notice except possibly (but not likely) at the “that’s odd” level– there’s nothing about the filing system that would draw their attention to it, or require they notice.

By: Researcher

Researcher — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 15:14:47 +0000

Wouldn’t they need some help from a county official or deputy clerk to not notice all these deeds being recorded on the same properties?

By: Kingfish

Kingfish — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 06:01:35 +0000

Just think ponzi scheme with lenders instead of investors.

By the way, supposedly no one can find these guys. This went on for five years. This could’ve been planned all along.

IF it is fraud of course.

By: NMC

NMC — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 04:04:38 +0000

meanderline, it’s a Ponzi scheme, and has the classic characteristic– any rational person will say: What were they thinking?

My understanding of these frauds is they have to be understood as having a crossing-the-Rubicon moment– there’s a moment where the fraudsters start committing fraud, and there’s no turning back. At the time, it may seem a small moment that could be reversed, but while the fraudsters are thinking “we’ll just pay this back,” they start living off the wonderful cashflow, paying back just enough to keep the balls in the air for a short time, and…

the end is near.

By: meanderline

meanderline — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 03:34:28 +0000

I’m trying to understand this fraud. The perpetrators had to know they’d be found out, and found out relatively soon. Is it some kind of Ponzi scheme? Were they planning to cut and run, or did they think the property would appreciate so exponentially they would be able to pay everyone off?….?

By: Scrivener

Scrivener — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 00:31:41 +0000

Tullosphobes. Hilarious.

By: Anderson

Anderson — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 21:58:03 +0000

Yes, as SoMs implies, DeLaughter was the trial judge. I wonder if those automatically go into the “heightened scrutiny” file at the court.

By: Ben

Ben — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 20:52:33 +0000

Somslawyer: You can’t assume that he wasn’t. Our bar needs a major rat-stabbing.

By: somslawyer

somslawyer — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 20:39:05 +0000

I wonder if Ed Peters was anywhere near the Tullos case the first time around?

By: Anderson

Anderson — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 19:16:56 +0000

Six (6) ops today in whether a Mr. Doss should be executed; the upshot is a new sentencing trial. A wee bit of Graves-Lamar testiness -- they're rolling back in part her previous op in the matter, on rehearing. Big win for Rob McDuff. (News not so good for Gene Tullos. Worth looking at for Tullophobes and for those keeping track on just how a 12(b)(6) motion becomes a Rule 56 motion when you staple stuff to it.)