Rescue Me

Jason Larry Somera and Mark Caravia-

dirtbags - too bad we can't hand you from the nearest tree like they did to horse thieves in the Old West.

You ripped off a blind person - you deserve to rot in jail you little pukes-

along with your attorney !

Williamson- if you think they did nothing wrong - then your no better than they are !

I have known Jason Somera for approx. 15 years. He is one of the best human beings I have ever met. He is a good Christian man who volunteers and donates to charities.

Did the article mention that he has his B.S. degree in Law Enforcement and finished his graduate degree in Terrorism Studies OR that he did a 1 year internship with the Portland Police Bureau and was recruited by them but turned them down to pursue graduate school OR that he coached football for the Police Activities League to underprivileged children OR that he is a Highly Decorated Veteran of Operation Restore Hope in Mogadishu Somalia?

I know Jason Somera and the real story of what happened. Jason and Mark were living in Los Angeles when they purchased the home; they used an Escrow company in Portland to make sure the deal was done “by the book”.

Jason and Mark offered Mrs. Allen $150,000 for the purchase of the property but she refused because she didn't want to have to move, so they came to an agreement where they would purchase the home for $40,000 and let her stay there rent free for the rest of her life. They never approached her to refinance the home or to lend her any money.

This Liz Cruthers lady is a “Crooked Cop”. She has been harassing Jason Somera for almost two years now. The only reason she is so fixated on him is because she knows that she has violated so many of his civil and constitutional rights and faces an enormous civil lawsuit that he is almost certain to win.

Jason Somera has purchased one home from someone in foreclosure and has never been or wanted to be a “foreclosure Rescue Person”.

This article is way off base and if you want the truth, do your own research. Don’t take the word of a “Crooked Cop”.

this article is a piece of shit. Somarea and Mark are two of the best guys i have ever met in my entire life. The first friend set it straight. Liz Caruthers doesn't even want to know the real story. She's just trying to move up the ladder with a fake story. Go get em loser

I think before anything more is said the facts should be revealed. Jason Somera was not even living here at the time the property was purchased. He was living in California at the time the sales agreement was mailed to her and someone must have assisted her in the signing of the documents as Jason received them fully signed. The house was going into forclosure and he was trying to help the lady so she could stay in her home as long as she wanted. She remained in the home over two years rent free until she broke her hip and had to go into a nursing home. He engaged in the help of an escrow co.in the portland area to handle the closure of the propery. He trusted in the represtentative of the esrow co to finalize this transation. Still never meeting the home owner. Jason has handled numerous home loans for many portland police officers. I'm sure if he was a dishonest person they would not have trusted him with there own personal loans. I have always known Jason to be a very kind and compassionate person. If it has not been for Jason when my son was killed in a car accident His wife and children might not have been able to stay in there home.

Did you even talk to this person before you wrote this article? This article was a half truth. Jason Somera he would never do anything to harm another person let alone an elderly lady. I have worked with Jason and he has always displayed high Integrity and compassion for others. Maybe you should think about printing a retraction before you and that lady cop get sued for trying to destroy a persons life.

How much of our tax payers money has she spent chasing Jason Somera? Liz Cruthers should be ashamed of herself for manipulating the media for her own political and professional gain. I am going to write a letter to the Mayor and the Chief of Police to let them know of the injustices being committed here. I am sure they have no idea of the severity of her false accusations.

I have known Jason Somera for 11 years now. I have a huge problem with the way that this article was writen to slander the name of this good man. We have shared many dinners meetings together. In all those times I never in y heart felt that this was a dishonest person.

I was was not in the best financial situation when I went to him and asked if he would help me with the financing of my home. He looked at all the ways possible to assist me. He Did!!!! Thanks to him I now have a place to call my own.

If any person out there believes any of the trash that was writen of him, Please print this and use it for toilet paper. Becuase that's what it is.

After reading this article I was saddened by the mistruths that are stated. Unfortunately I am sure this problem is widespread amongst elderly and vulnerable homeowners, but with Jason and Mark that was simply not the case. They acted in the best interest of Evelyn Allen, they let an elderly woman live payment free for the rest of her life. This generosity allowed her to live without worrying about how she was going to pay her mortgage and where she would live if the bank seized her home. She chose to move to get personal care. Jason is a kind and sincere man who has a long working history with The Portland Police Bureau. Anyone that knows him is outraged and shocked by this injustice. This case has long been over but is surfacing over and over in an attempt for Det. Liz Cruthers to justify her wasting our tax dollars. I for one would rather see our hard earned dollars going after actual criminals or perhaps improving Portland Public Schools. But for now we are funding her “Witch Hunt” for the big, bag, self made, hard working, white collar worker.

I do appreciate Erin Olson making her client whole to the tune of her 40% of the settlement. Once again, I believe this to be an excellent use of funds and media to further Ms. Cruthers’ and Ms. Olson’s careers and destroy others.

It's sad how the media can portray a man they have never met and find it necessary to ruin good people lives based on false accusations. Jason Somera is one of the best people I have ever met and he would be more than happy to give almost anyone the shirt off his back even if it were his last. Liz Caruthers shame on you for wasting valuable tax dollars trying to hang an honest and hard working man for your own hidden agenda. You should really re-evaluate your focus and go after people who are truly commiting crimes and quit trying to make an example of a good man for self satisfaction. If you are really interested in helping to correct Mortgage fraud, why don't you start from the top and work your way down instead of cherry picking the small guy. Shame on you and when things settle you'll end up where you belong. Willamette weekly shame on you too for jumpin on a story with no merit!

The transparent farce of Jason Somera's hourly endorsees above is truly breathtaking sockpuppetry. Well done, Jase!!

Gerry-

In response to your comment, I checked out the commenters' ip addresses. While Christi, Don and "a friend" are all using the same internet connection (if not necessarily the same computer or set of hands), the other comments are all from unique ip addresses. Thanks for your concern, though.

It is unfortunate that Detective Liz Cruthers feels the need to utilize the press to display her "opinion" regarding Jason Somera. The legal system and the real estate laws are complicated, so complicated that most of the general public does not fully understand the "details" of such a transaction and legal situation that is being described in the article. Rather the article displays an opinion from one side of a complicated situation, that let's be fair, none of us no all of the details about. However, what is certain, is that one side of the story was displayed in public in a damaging manner to Jason Somera. Correct me if I am wrong, I do not see Jason Somera publishing articles about Detective Liz Cruthers that would damage her character. I agree with the article, these so-called "foreclosure consultants" and their "business" should be addressed and innocent people should be protected. It would be nice to see some professionalism displayed in doing so. Before anyone that reads that article makes a judgment on Jason Somera, ask the following questions: (1) Do you know him? Do you know the actual details of the transaction described as well as the legal situation? Do you know Detective Liz Cruthers? It is not right to make a judgment on something you are not fully informed about and furthermore by hearing one side of a complicated situation. If this article was written with professionalism, damage to the credibility of another person would not be part of it. Address the issue, do not utilize the press to "posture" and create an image of Jason Somera to the entire public. Detective Liz Cruthers, ask yourself this question: Would it be fair for Jason Somera to publish an article about you describing his opinions about you...which I am sure are in as much high regard as you have for him. Believe it or not, Jason Somera has a life outside of this situation described in this article. Detective Liz Cruthers, so do you. Play Fair.

It is amazing that you choose to slander two local individuals when this practice has been going on in portland and across the nation for years. People forget that the home owner was going to get nothing if it went to foreclosure and these two investors offered a solution to her problem. I have personally worked with these two individuals on other real estate deals and they are straight forward honest business men. This story could have got it's point across without having to slander two hard working individuals.

This is absolutely ridiculous. I really don't know enough about how the whole process works but my assumption is that there must be some recourse available to the stated defendants. Don't news organizations have an obligation to at least attempt to get some response from both sides of a story, especially if they're going to print full names in an article? Being a native Portlander I've heard many similar stories of Detective Liz Cruthers wrongfully pursuing supposed "offenders" for her own personal ambitions. Perhaps she's really just not very smart and doesn't understand that she's misusing our taxpayer dollars. In the end though, the blame lies on Willamette Week for failing to maintain journalistic integrity and getting caught up in the hype of the "mortgage meltdown". Shame on the editors and the writer of this article. I hope libel suits greet you soon.

I am very disappointed in this article and the slander that it inflicted upon 2 individuals. I realize that the author was trying to write a compelling article, however, they failed to fully take into account the truth and utilize their investigative journalism skills to relay the entire story to the public. While I realize that this article does fall within our Freedom of Speech, judging from the number of comments in defense of Mr. Somera, obviously there is another side to the story which should also be made known to the public.

I am the reporter who wrote the story above.

I would like to thanks readers for their comments. It certainly appears that Mr. Somera and Mr. Caravia have had a positive impact on the lives of those who have posted here. But let's review the record on their interaction with Ms. Evelyn Allen, who her attorney described in court filings as "elderly, financially incapable, incapacitated, vulnerable and a person with disabilities."

Here, drawn from public records, is a chronology of Mr. Somera and Mr. Caravia's interaction with Ms. Allen:

1. In 2004, Ms. Allen faced foreclosure because of a $26,000 debt secured by her home. On May 5, 2004, the two men bought Ms. Allen's house from her for $40,000. According to the Multnomah County Tax Assessor, the house then had a market value of $155,650.

2. In October 2005, the men refinanced the house, borrowing $180,000 against it from Washington Mutual Bank.

3. On Dec. 18, 2006, the men sold the house for $195,000.

So before transaction costs and interest, the men earned a gross profit of $155,000. To their credit, it appears they did allow Ms. Allen to continue living in the house for 18 months or so before selling.

After Ms. Allen sued the men, she got her money back or was "made whole," according to her attorney, a characterization with which the two men's attorney agreed.

In summary, the two men bought a vulnerable and desperate old lady's house for far less than it was worth, earned more than three times their investment in gross profit and when sued, agreed to give back their profits.

Mr. Somera and Mr. Caravia may have many redeeming qualities but in the context of upcoming legislation aimed at reigning in those who would abuse homeowners facing foreclosure (as Ms. Allen was) the facts outlined above are relevant.

Nigel,

What are you talking about? She got "HER" money back?

What is wrong with you? She had sold the house. It was no longer hers. They settled because it was the most economic alternative. I too have been faced with a lawsuit, and it was more cost-effective to pay the litigious idiot $15,000 than to go to court and spend $30,000 in legal fees to "attempt" to be pronounced "innocent" by this joke of a legal system.

It's true, "innocent until proven guilty" as far as jail time or a formal conviction goes. But in the eye of public opinion, a charge and an article like yours is much worse than the actual conviction. If you are worth anything financially that YOU have worked for you'll understand this when (not "if") but when somoene sues you. We live in a world in which our reputation is paramount, convicted or not, articles like this and blind persecution by law enforcement is much worse than a "legal conviction" that carries a fine and a ding on your record.

Nigel, you conveniently leave out some facts. The guys rescued allen from forclosure and struck a deal so she could live in her house til she died. This is something like a reverse mortgage. Its a gamble on their part. She could go in 1 year or stick around for 30. The entire time, she pays zero rent. The fact she had to go into a nursing home and abandon the house is not the fault of the two gentlemen. When she left, the deal was closed and the house was sold. End of story.

Ever heard the saying..." the appearance of impropriety"?

A fact is that Somera and Caravia did not make a reverse mortgage to Mrs. Allen.

In light of Mrs. Allens advanced years and handicap they didn't involve anyone else (like a relative of Mrs. Allens) to act as her advocate in the very questionable transaction.

A fact is that they completed acts which captured all the equity Mrs Allen had built up as well as a tidy profit for themselves.

A fact is that when this little old blind lady was forced to go to a nursing home Somera and Caravia didn't go running to Mrs Allen and do anything fair and equitable.

A fact is that a court found them guilty of some impropriety and had to ORDER them to do the right thing.

The paper is full of stories about people who take advantage of other people. This is just another story of someone taking advantage of someone else.

I am thankful that we have law enforcement officers, State and Federal agencies and other people there to act as advocates for the elderly and disadvantaged.

FACTS, NOT FICTION

Irresponsible Journalism, is reflected in this article. I know from knowing Jason for several years that Jason Somera has done his best to run an upright and responsible business. He is ethical and caring and does an excellent job helping his clients. His sales have come from reputable avenues. A responsible approach to an article of this nature would have been to ask some questions of the named individulas directly. Do your homework! Jason is an outstanding person involved in church and community in a positive way. Jason runs an excellent Mortgage business. He is not the preddatory mortgage "Foreclosure rescue person" that he is made out to be by this Journalist, or Detective Liz Caruthers. It reads more like a vendetta against Jason and Mark than an unbiased, responsible, factual news article. Let the true facts speak. You will find that they resemble nothing of the information published in this article. This is nothing more than a smear campaign. It is slanderous and reeks of defamation of character. Jason tried to help this woman. She wasn't so blind that she couldn't sign her name to a legal document, now was she? She paid ZERO rent - ZERO. To ignore the facts that there were LEGAL contracts in place and LEGAL agreements between these parties is just WRONG. Detective Liz Caruthers has made several false "assumptions." Perhaps taxpayer money could be better spent on a Detective who understands the responsibilities of reporting actual facts. Half truths and lies only perpetuate the slander and defamation of character involved in this "news" story. And it certainly is a "story!" A real Fairytale.

Walks like a duck commenter:

You are assuming many things as you list them as facts.

"In light of Mrs. Allens advanced years and handicap they didn't involve anyone else (like a relative of Mrs. Allens) to act as her advocate in the very questionable transaction."

Do you know if Ms Allen had any relatives living with her at the time? Further investigation of the facts will show you that she did.

"A fact is that when this little old blind lady was forced to go to a nursing home Somera and Caravia didn't go running to Mrs Allen and do anything fair and equitable."

Do you know if there was any financial help given to Ms Allen inlcuding paying off credit cards and updating appliances that were not working in the house so that she could live in greater comfort and less financial strain? Further investigation into your facts will show that these things were done.

"A fact is that a court found them guilty of some impropriety and had to ORDER them to do the right thing."

This is not true, it says that the case was settled. There was no judgement and no one made anyone pay. That is what a settlement means.

In the comments above it mentions that a title company was involved and that this was handled through escrow. One of the primary jobs of these "independent" agencies is to make sure that people know what they are signing and explain the terms. In neither this article or your "fact filled" comments did anyone investigate this. It was conveniently overlooked in the article as well.

This is the problem with a biased article by those looking to jump on a bandwagon. They simply choose to ignore the facts and assume their own. Makes for a thrilling novel but reflective of poor jurnalistic procedure.

Thank you for your enlightening comments. This article truly belongs in the WW!

I have dealt with Jason and Mark on three different occasions and have had a positive experience each time. One purchase and twice doing a re-finance. In each of those dealings they were professional and thorough.

This article unfortunately reeks of someone with an axe to grind and it appears that they have found someone who will go to print with litte journalistic integrity. I agree with legislation that will protect those in financial crisis but this has all appearances of a soapbox for this detective to stand on and justify her actions.

Shame on the writer for such a poor effort to put out a well researched story and to the editor for allowing it.

Nigel- the other evening I was remarking to my wife how laughable it is that The Oregonian continues to try to give me their paper for free, presumably to prop up their circulation numbers and thus charge more for advertising. I went so far as to state that the Willamette Week was a superior paper because of its balanced approach to stories.

Boy, was I wrong.

Your yellow journalism shines through like the sun on a blistering August day in Wonderland. Quoting Miss Allen’s attorney that the “[d]efendants knew Allen was blind and took advantage of her blindness to fraudulently obtain her signature signing the title of her home over to them” is a good case in point. Nigel, attorneys will say anything to get their paycheck. Can you seriously offer their opinion as something of value or as fact? Further, what you posted in defense of your original opinion are not facts, but your version of what’s on file in the public records (thanks for the well-documented bibliography on these public records, by the way).

You interviewed the attorneys and a wayward police officer, but you did not solicit the opinions of Messieurs Somera and Caravia. Also, what about these outstanding questions- did Miss Allen have any family nearby? Why weren’t they helping out in her time of need? If Miss Allen was blind and incapacitated, who pressed charges? If Miss Allen was financially incapable, who paid for Ms. Olson’s legal fees? Offering one side of a story and not all sides is a sure sign of laziness. Especially from a “journalist” (though you seem to me more of a blogger, really).

For the other readers ready to believe your story at face value, I have some advice. I’ve been around three separate news stories in my not-so-young-life, and have been repeatedly shocked at how misrepresented the truth is. Emotion, smut, and opinion sell, and this story is another example. What Nigel presented is an egregious misrepresentation of the whole story, and classic below-average work. He has certainly opened himself up to civil action for libel, especially since his publication “… must be a statement which claims to be fact and is not clearly identified as an opinion.”* Was Opinion or Editorial listed anywhere on the page? I didn’t see it anywhere in the document.

I will, Nigel, give you and WW credit for allowing the truth to be heard through the blog. Maybe there really is wisdom of the masses.

I think it’s time for me to reassess my opinion of WW and take The Oregonian up on their offers.

*http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=1153

You all ought to take a cyber stroll over to "The Home Equity Theft Reporter" a site which features stories about people and institutions who steal other peoples equity.

My common sense tells me no one who fully understands what they are doing "gives" away their hard earned equity. Nor would they, at 73 and blind, bet they were going to be around long enough to take out their equity in rent.

I think you all drank the same kool-aid.

Mr. Dodgson—

Here is a link to portlandmaps.com, a GIS service provided by the City of Portland and based on records from the Multnomah County Assessor. On the link below, you will see the purchase and sales dates and prices I referred to in an earlier post. You will also see the assessed market value of the property:

www.portlandmaps.com/detail.cfm?act...

As for the other central fact, Mr. Somera and Mr. Caravia's attorney acknowledged that his clients repaid Ms. Allen. Are you disputing that?

Like other supporters of Mr. Somera and Mr. Caravia, you have plenty of complaints but have offered no facts to contradict the public record, which, again, is clear: the two men bought an elderly blind lady's house for far less than it was worth, sold it for a gross profit of $155,000 and then when sued, agreed to give the money back.

The questions that you raise

"Also, what about these outstanding questions- did Miss Allen have any family nearby? Why weren’t they helping out in her time of need? If Miss Allen was blind and incapacitated, who pressed charges? If Miss Allen was financially incapable, who paid for Ms. Olson’s legal fees?"

do nothing to alter the basic facts. But I'll address them anyway:

1. Whether Ms. Allen had family nearby or not, she sold the house for far less than it was worth.

2. If you read the story again, you'll see that there is no mention of anybody pressing charges.

3. I don't know who paid Ms. Olson's legal fees. But as you probably know, plaintiff's lawyers frequently represent clients who have little or no money on a contingency basis—particularly when they think the client has a strong case and is likely to recover a significant amount of money.

So what you are saying is Ms Allen's lawyer fleeced her out of much of her hard earned equity? How about a hard hitting expose on that?

You did a very poor job on this story Nigel and by trying to defend it you are just sinking lower.

This transaction may very well have closed in escrow but I'll bet my bottom dollar that whoever took the Seller's signature was not an escrow officer. If, as I suspect, the Notary was just that, a Notary only, then it's very likely that Mrs. received no other explanation of what she was undertaking besides the one from the scammers.

"So what you are saying is Ms Allen's lawyer fleeced her out of much of her hard earned equity? "

No, I'm not saying that Ms. Allen's lawyer fleeced her.

Ms. Allen hired a lawyer. The lawyer convinced Mr. Somera and Mr. Caravia to pay Ms. Allen $150,000, which represented the equity she had built up over a couple of decades.

I don't know how much of that $150,000 Ms. Allen paid to her lawyer and I'm not sure that it is relevant to the story.

What I think is relevant is that Mr. Somera and Mr. Caravia were compelled to pay the money back.

Since you appear to be in possession of a fuller understanding of the transaction than me, what explanation would you offer for their decision to pay the money back?

Mr. Jaquiss, it is very disappointing that you continue to show either incompetence or total biased in your original story and subsequent posts above. The fact that you used only comments from the attorneys and Detective Caruthers and used those comments to spin a story not based on all the facts is egregious. Your statements regarding matters of public record are only part of a larger group of facts that a responsible journalist would require before printing a story of this nature.

You state above that items such as whether family members were involved or who was responsible for the lawsuit "do nothing to alter the basic facts". Now I am sure there are many other facts that are relevant in this story that you conveniently "missed" but you specifically mentioned those two and I for one see both as extremely critical to your slant on the story. That family members or friends may have been involved in counseling Ms. Allen on the best course of action is relevant. Who was involved in the filing of the lawsuit is also a fact that should have been mentioned as it again goes to the claims that this woman, alone, was taken advantage of. You did specifically cite in your article that a civil suit was brought by Ms. Allen, thus your statement above regarding "no mention of anybody pressing charges" is false.

It is shameful that you can honestly believe that using a fact here and a fact there, gathered from public record, lawyers and a police officer with some questionable motives are enough to weave the story you have printed without including the multitude of other facts is appalling. The fact that you use a gross profit number with no mention of the other circumstances is juvenile journalism trick to again swing the story in the direction that you want.

While the issue of foreclosure rescue (especially in today's economy) concerns me, I am more concerned with the ability of the media to take a good cause and turn into a defamation and slander attempt at specific individuals. This story reeks of bias and unprofessional reporting.

Isn't it illegal to write an article using the exact names of individuals whom were never prosecuted? This case was closed because the evidence was inconclusive. I know both of these men and they are both honorable and have hearts of gold. I would personally look into filing a law suit if I were them.

No, it's definitely legal.

To clarify the point I made about a relative present, I was interested to know if an adult responsible relative was present and beside this elderly blind lady for the presentation by these two towers of virtue with hearts of gold and said....."Oh mom (or auntie or grannie)this is a great deal for you! You can get 40,000.00 dollars for your home worth 156k 170k (whatever value more) and perhaps you'll be well and able to care for yourself long enough to actually work out the rest of your equity in rent." ASK YOURSELF HONESTLY....if you were in the shoes of the daughter or niece or nephew of Mrs. Allen would you thing this was a good deal?

And what about the question of who witnessed Mrs. Allen's signing? Was it indeed an Escrow Officer, who fully explained the documents? Or was it someone else merely notarizing the documents with no explanation whatsoever? Please answer that question.

By the way, "the record" is called "The Public Record" ....public being the operative word.

"Do your homework first writes"

Isn't it illegal to write an article using the exact names of individuals whom were never prosecuted? This case was closed because the evidence was inconclusive. I know both of these men and they are both honorable and have hearts of gold. I would personally look into filing a law suit if I were them.

The answer, "Homework," is no, it is not illegal to "use the exact names of individuals whom were never prosecuted."

The names of Mr. Somera and Mr. Caravia appear on a civil lawsuit which is a public record and therefore available to all citizens—even reporters.

By the way, the result of the lawsuit was that Mr. Somera and Mr. Caravia returned to Ms. Allen the $150,000 of equity she had accumulated over the past couple of decades.

I will ask you a question I asked another anonymous poster: exactly how do you explain their being forced to return $150,000 to an elderly blind lady?

Mr. Jaquiss-

My thanks to you for staying in this conversation. While I have many issues with your coverage of the story, I do respect your continued engagement in driving to the truth.

Let me first address your query wondering if I am disputing that “Mr. Somera and Mr. Caravia's attorney acknowledged that his clients repaid Ms. Allen.” The big mistake Messrs. Somera and Caravia made was to accept their attorney’s advice. It is my understanding that since advising their client to pay back the money, the attorneys have regretted that decision.

Before going further, I want to take a moment to review the foreclosure process. * After Notice of Default, if the owner cannot bring the loan current, the owner will receive a notice of sale. The home is auctioned to the highest bidder, and the homeowner loses their home. If the home is not successfully auctioned, it becomes the property of the Mortgage Company, or Real Estate Owned. This usually occurs if the amount owed is greater than the market value of the house, so is not really pertinent to this discussion.

What is pertinent is that house was going to be sold. And Ms. Allen was dreading that prospect. She wanted to stay in her house more, it would seem, that she cared about the equity in the home. Not everyone is driven by dollars. Messrs. Somera and Caravia gave Ms. Allen what she wanted. They brought the loan current, and they allowed Ms. Allen to stay in the house for free. For free. Not for a rental fee close to the original mortgage payment. For free.

The facts of the case are that two gentlemen bought a house for $40,000 and sold it for $195,000. In the broader public, they would be thought of as financial geniuses. But, this article is not about the facts; it’s about the ethics. That’s why shielding yourself behind these facts when rebutted, yet going well outside the facts into hearsay (“who is described by her attorney as ‘completely blind’”) in your original story, draws such criticism.

Back to my original set of questions. I have to wonder what I would do if my mother were about to be kicked out of her house by the bank. If she asked for my help, what would I do? This is an angle of the case you ignore, and one reason you have people so vitriolic regarding your story. I would cover the debt; allow her to stay in the house. And, I would be a pillar in my community for doing so. That is exactly what our heroes did. And, that is why I call them heroes.

Your lazy attempt to answer my questions only serves to prove my original point that your story is one-sided, a misrepresentation of the whole story, and classic below average work. As “Lets [sic] disclose all the facts please” noted, you sunk lower. You evaded my first question, you dismiss my second question, and you exercise supposition and assumption for my third question. It’s laughable. Ignoring facts in a case does not alter other facts, but it does make you ignorant, and that leads to wrong conclusions.

One last question- there must be thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of homes in the Portland GIS database. How did you find this one home? What a priori knowledge did you have? Did the police officer, who is currently the defendant in a lawsuit, get you started on this? Go deeper, Mr. Jaquiss, and do your paper and those involved in this story some justice.

* www.realestateabc.com/homeguide/reo...

I think this all sounds more racial than anything else. This detective should be fired. Using our tax payers money for her own personnel gain. Shame on willamette week for writing such a story before doing there home work. I hope a law suite is filed against this detective.

I can't believe how false this article is. At the time the subject was going into default I believe there were 2 male family members living with Ms. Allen. You can't tell me if these men able to read that they were not aware of what she was signing. Some one had to help her sign the sales agreement. Mr. Somera and Mr Caravia were living in California at this time so I know they didn't twist anyones arm. Now lets look at what was payed for this property. $40,000 then 18 months of free rent equal to $16,200 and the a final payment of $150,000 that comes to a total of $206,200. For a house that was not even worth the tax assesed value. The home was going into forclosure and suffered from defered maintenace prior to the sale to Mr Somera and Mr Caravia. If the home had gone into forclosure would it not have been sold on the steps of Multnomah County court house like other homes that have been forclosed on. What would Ms Allen have received? Not a thing! There was not a judgement against these men. I know Mr Somera and Mr Caravis did what their lawyer recommended . I would like you to report just how much did Ms Allens lawyer receive for her representing her. And report that there was someone else living in the home. I saw them at different times of the day and night. I know she was not alone!!!! Why was there a propblem 2 years later was it because these men were asked to move out when Ms Allen elected to move into a care facility. This article was written due to the information a unrespected police officer gave to you. I have talked to a couple of police officers and they laughed and said she is a joke! Report the trueth. The trueth shall set you free.

I am saddened by the misrepresentation of information listed in this initial article. The truth is, the reporter didn't investigate the full truth. He was reckless in his reporting of this incident and really should be looking at the police officers conduct. I am sickened by the officers use of Jason to further her platform on mortgage fraud.

Jason is a wonderful man. He is a man of faith and strength. He is supportive of his family and encourages those around him to be the best they can be. Anyone who knows him, knows the truth about this situation. Nigel, you can attempt to defend your story, but until you seek the truth from all sides, it will be nothing but you attempting to be a reporter.

Nigel, do not let these people or their comments distract you from your investigation. Foreclosure Rescue Scams are very real. The perpetrators are seemingly the most honest and trustworthy people in the community. However, they are bitten by the GREED bug which makes them lie, cheat and steal. The rescuer, aka in this case, Jason Somera and his buddy appear to be genuine and caring. These traits are what make them so successful at their con games. I am speaking from experience. I was cheated by a Foreclosure Rescuer who is a lifelong resident in my community. He is just as well respected as Jason. Keep up the good work. We need you.

PS Just read another one of the posts - "hearts of gold" - what a laugh; that is not the kind of gold that these people honor.

Been rescued, its good to see that someone is on Nigels side too. All these people that want to know all the facts must be wrong or crazy or just delussional. Seriously we should just take everything Nigel says as being the truth, a reporter would never lie or falsify the truth for his story to be a big hit.

Anyway it is just good that there are people interested in knowing the whole truth.

Been Rescued, I am sorry that you were taken advantage of, but that makes you biased.

Been Rescued, were you taken advantage off? Did you do your research? Did you educate yourself on the process, on your options? Do you know know that their are BAD people in this world or do you trust them blindly?

Did you consult other experts or friends or attorney about your options? If NO, shame on you. You got what you asked for. YOU chose to be a prey... i hope you learned from it.

nigel should resign

I suggest many of you should view this video on foreclosure "rescue" scams.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=cS2HsaBA5No

Maybe it will help you understand this issue from a different point of view

A few items on this story, and similar ones.

One: Settlement of a lawsuit: Why did the defendents settle? Because in our legal system it is much cheaper to pay off someone and make the problem go away. It is a financial decision. If you stick to your ethics and your values, it will likeky cost you double in legal fees alone, even if you have done nothing illegal.

As a defendant you then put your faith in the hands of a jury, and in this country someone loosing a tooth pays them $50k. So, settlements are NOT an admission of guilt, they are a speedy and cost-effective resolution to a suit. Just wait until YOU are sued...

It is much more expensive to defend yourself even if you are innocent.

TWO: Using an attorney for your dealings with law enforcement. Consulting an attorney is a RIGHT that you should always call upon.

Anytime a law enforcement officer approaches you is because you are either a suspect or you have info they want, and they will use ANYTHING they can on you to get to that info whether you have done anything wrong. Wrongdoing is largely a matter of perception. Shut your mouth and call an attorney, ESPECIALLY if you are innocent. Law enforcement officials never give you the benefit of the doubt and question your right to an attorney as an admission of guilt.

THREE: "One man's gain is another man's loss." "Buy low, sell high."

These are tenets of capitalism and now the country is in uproar judging those who have the $, and know how to buy low, size the market opportunities are called labled "foreclosure vultures" may have done nothing illegal, but the perception of wrongdoing is what this issue is all about. They under-paid for a house owned by a disabled woman.

That may look bad, and whether there is any legal merit to it, it just looks bad, even if you do it all by the book.

And, finally, where does the responsibility and kowledge of the consumer fall within all this? If you don't know how much equity you have, or you can pay despite all the equity, someone will reap on your shortcoming. IT IS THE AMERICAN WAY.

The detective in question should resign. In her zeal to do some good, she is destroying many people's lives. Her mind was made-up before she even gathered any facts. There are people out there who cannot affort their homes, and it is inevitable that they will loose them, either to the lender, the county or an investor. Lets face reality here people. What good is your so-called home equity if you can't sell for that price, or borrow against it, or make further payments? Wake up!