Bagels at a Bar Mitzvah

moretrouble

LoanSafe Member
Nov 14, 2009
1,504
271
83
Today is the fourth-year anniversary of my case and I am still here. I am dealing with the third attorney from the mill. I am not sure it's because of Covid or what but there is no foreclosure case scheduled for the next 30 days in my county. I 've been scouting the court calendar to find similar cases to mine to inform the homeowners and/or defense attorneys of the scheme by sending them my appellate briefs and petition to the SC. My way of making an impact, hopefully I can save a few homes or make lives miserable for the crooks.
In tallying up the scores, in four years, I've spent $100 on attorney fee (that was early in the game when I knew nothing), $3400 court fees, maybe $600 of copying, and approx. 1200 hours of researching and court related matters. In return, I got relief in mortgage + tax payments approx. $110,000 for 4 years, that put my hourly rate at $89/hour a fair rate for an engineer (much lower than a foreclosure mill atty's rate rate of $325/hr). So unlike the banks assert it's not free. You pay one way or another.
 

Javagold

LoanSafe Member
Mar 2, 2012
189
18
18
Today is the fourth-year anniversary of my case and I am still here. I am dealing with the third attorney from the mill. I am not sure it's because of Covid or what but there is no foreclosure case scheduled for the next 30 days in my county. I 've been scouting the court calendar to find similar cases to mine to inform the homeowners and/or defense attorneys of the scheme by sending them my appellate briefs and petition to the SC. My way of making an impact, hopefully I can save a few homes or make lives miserable for the crooks.
In tallying up the scores, in four years, I've spent $100 on attorney fee (that was early in the game when I knew nothing), $3400 court fees, maybe $600 of copying, and approx. 1200 hours of researching and court related matters. In return, I got relief in mortgage + tax payments approx. $110,000 for 4 years, that put my hourly rate at $89/hour a fair rate for an engineer (much lower than a foreclosure mill atty's rate rate of $325/hr). So unlike the banks assert it's not free. You pay one way or another.
So it looks like you will need to stay in that house another 12 years, so that you too can have an hourly rate of over [email protected]
Keep up the good fight !!!!
 

moretrouble

LoanSafe Member
Nov 14, 2009
1,504
271
83
So it looks like you will need to stay in that house another 12 years, so that you too can have an hourly rate of over [email protected]
Keep up the good fight !!!!
Thanks, Java
I plan to stay here at most 4 years, probably 2. I do not want to rot in this house. It is a big world out there to explore. May have to rent to pay for attorney's fee in that case I'll be breaking even. Probably, my successor will give up. Anyway, that's down the road, nothing to lose though. Just want to find out whether the SC judges have the courage to take up my case, or they're in awe of the banks.
 

kraftykrab

LoanSafe Member
Jan 27, 2014
1,238
164
63
Sent this to AG Office. If the SC denies my review, I am going the media.
One thing I would encourage you to focus on is that the point of you not paying is irrelevant because only the proper party is entitled to receive payments. In my case I explained it like this--if I open up a Visa card, Discover has no right to collect payments from me for that Visa card. Same here. They try to use it against us all the time, "the defendant has not made a single payment in YEARS".....but the correct response to that needs to be, "Of course I did not pay them....why would I pay a company that's not lawfully entitled to receive payment on any account I am responsible for?"

My concern in your situation is that if you focus too much on their fake note, and not enough on "only the correct party has the right to collect, and they are not the correct party", the court might decide that the fabricated note is not enough. That's the wrongdoing side. The "standing" side is that they cannot prove that they have legal standing to bring a claim against you, or to demand payment from you....or ultimately, to take your house. Why is this important? Simple--the courts have for a long time now been rather unwilling to affirm that the banks have done wrong, because if a court says the bank did wrong, then the court now has some obligation to penalize that bank. But if the issue in the case is lack of standing, then the court is free to dismiss the bank's case without the need to penalize the bank for anything else. I believe both points are important, but at the end of the day, the most important point is the one that gets the court to agree that that plaintiff has zero business taking your home.

In my case, I went after retainer agreements. I challenged the attorney to produce the documentation that would prove they have an attorney client relationship with the named plaintiff---because their client has told me in writing that they have no knowledge of foreclosure and cannot even tell me if a given loan is in default or not. The attorney is stonewalling, refusing to provide what I requested, claiming that retainer agreements are covered under attorney client privilege. They are not. I also asked for retainer agreement between the law firm and the so-called servicer, and got the same response. My goal is twofold--one, to show that this law firm doesn't even represent the parties it has named while under oath as being their clients, and two, to uncover who the real party is that's pulling the strings. Still waiting on courts to open back up so I can get my hearing on motion to compel. But this happened in Florida to US Bank, and at the end of the case, the judge was about to award damages to the homeowners, saying that US Bank would have to fork over more than $100K to them. That moment was when the foreclosing attorney had to come clean and tell the court that US Bank was not ever involved in the case. The judge got so angry that he ordered that attorney's firm to pay the money to the homeowners instead because of his dishonesty. Standing still matters---and the key, I believe, is to put them in such a position where they are forced to either admit their lie, or dump the case. Standing is such an important issue in a case because without it, even court orders within that case are void--as determined by courts of appeal and state and federal supreme courts. They do not want to attach a client's name so solidly to these cases that their "client" would have to pay damages if a court so awards, which is why they play the shell game with fake, illegal and/or insufficient paperwork. In my case, for example, the one and only piece of paper they have produced to support their claim of standing is a doctored up assignment of mortgage that states the mortgage is assigned along with the associated note(s). This is completely illegal. Under the UCC, notes cannot be assigned like a mortgage, but must be transferred instead for value. They cannot show that the note was transferred in exchange for payment because to do so would cause a big problem---they know, and they know I'm also aware, that the party they named did not purchase anything for value that has my name on it. So this is why they stonewall....and delay....and lie some more...to protect the original lie they told.

Sorry to make this so long, lol....one more point. The ABA not too long back clarified the point of attorneys knowing something's not completely honest in their cases, and that attorneys must be held accountable. In this new light, imagine the increased risk an attorney takes to their career if they are made aware of things wrong and simply blow off the concern because of excuses like, "well, that is what our client provided to us". That does not fly anymore, at least it isn't supposed to. In fact, just a few months ago, the ABA issued a new opinion, I think some of you will find this rather interesting. It clarifies that attorneys can no longer rely on "willful blindness"--if there is anything to suggest that their client may be attempting to commit a fraud or a criminal act through their representation, that lawyer has a duty to investigate further, or they too can be held accountable. The so-called "ostrich theory" where the lawyer knows something's not right but keeps their head in the proverbial sand is not permitted anymore. Here's a link: https://www.moneylaunderingnews.com/2020/05/aba-issues-formal-opinion-on-lawyers-as-gatekeepers-for-client-criminality/

In my case, the lawyer is fully aware of the laws involved, and knows full well that their original client misled the court intentionally, withholding the facts that the note was indeed lost years prior and proceeding in a manner that is actually not permitted by our civil procedure and other laws. Then, the lawyer is fully aware of the issue that their named clients have no standing--and they are going as far as to refuse to provide documents requested in discovery by lying about privilege to keep this fact covered up. Then there's the jacked up, fabricated and wholly impossible payment history, which I specifically questioned the lawyer about on a Rule 10.1 conference call concerning their refusal to provide proper discovery, and their response was "well, that's what our client gave me". Lawyers are used to hiding behind these kinds of excuses....they are not permitted to do so anymore under the ABA's official opinion. And the longer they try to drag this out, the more they will have to lie to keep the game going. Sooner or later, there will be a judge hearing this case that will understand the importance of standing, and how attorneys lying to try to win a case should never be permitted.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OneHugeMess

moretrouble

LoanSafe Member
Nov 14, 2009
1,504
271
83
One thing I would encourage you to focus on is that the point of you not paying is irrelevant because only the proper party is entitled to receive payments. In my case I explained it like this--if I open up a Visa card, Discover has no right to collect payments from me for that Visa card. Same here. They try to use it against us all the time, "the defendant has not made a single payment in YEARS".....but the correct response to that needs to be, "Of course I did not pay them....why would I pay a company that's not lawfully entitled to receive payment on any account I am responsible for?"

My concern in your situation is that if you focus too much on their fake note, and not enough on "only the correct party has the right to collect, and they are not the correct party", the court might decide that the fabricated note is not enough. That's the wrongdoing side. The "standing" side is that they cannot prove that they have legal standing to bring a claim against you, or to demand payment from you....or ultimately, to take your house. Why is this important? Simple--the courts have for a long time now been rather unwilling to affirm that the banks have done wrong, because if a court says the bank did wrong, then the court now has some obligation to penalize that bank. But if the issue in the case is lack of standing, then the court is free to dismiss the bank's case without the need to penalize the bank for anything else. I believe both points are important, but at the end of the day, the most important point is the one that gets the court to agree that that plaintiff has zero business taking your home.

In my case, I went after retainer agreements. I challenged the attorney to produce the documentation that would prove they have an attorney client relationship with the named plaintiff---because their client has told me in writing that they have no knowledge of foreclosure and cannot even tell me if a given loan is in default or not. The attorney is stonewalling, refusing to provide what I requested, claiming that retainer agreements are covered under attorney client privilege. They are not. I also asked for retainer agreement between the law firm and the so-called servicer, and got the same response. My goal is twofold--one, to show that this law firm doesn't even represent the parties it has named while under oath as being their clients, and two, to uncover who the real party is that's pulling the strings. Still waiting on courts to open back up so I can get my hearing on motion to compel. But this happened in Florida to US Bank, and at the end of the case, the judge was about to award damages to the homeowners, saying that US Bank would have to fork over more than $100K to them. That moment was when the foreclosing attorney had to come clean and tell the court that US Bank was not ever involved in the case. The judge got so angry that he ordered that attorney's firm to pay the money to the homeowners instead because of his dishonesty. Standing still matters---and the key, I believe, is to put them in such a position where they are forced to either admit their lie, or dump the case. Standing is such an important issue in a case because without it, even court orders within that case are void--as determined by courts of appeal and state and federal supreme courts. They do not want to attach a client's name so solidly to these cases that their "client" would have to pay damages if a court so awards, which is why they play the shell game with fake, illegal and/or insufficient paperwork. In my case, for example, the one and only piece of paper they have produced to support their claim of standing is a doctored up assignment of mortgage that states the mortgage is assigned along with the associated note(s). This is completely illegal. Under the UCC, notes cannot be assigned like a mortgage, but must be transferred instead for value. They cannot show that the note was transferred in exchange for payment because to do so would cause a big problem---they know, and they know I'm also aware, that the party they named did not purchase anything for value that has my name on it. So this is why they stonewall....and delay....and lie some more...to protect the original lie they told.

Sorry to make this so long, lol....one more point. The ABA not too long back clarified the point of attorneys knowing something's not completely honest in their cases, and that attorneys must be held accountable. In this new light, imagine the increased risk an attorney takes to their career if they are made aware of things wrong and simply blow off the concern because of excuses like, "well, that is what our client provided to us". That does not fly anymore, at least it isn't supposed to. In fact, just a few months ago, the ABA issued a new opinion, I think some of you will find this rather interesting. It clarifies that attorneys can no longer rely on "willful blindness"--if there is anything to suggest that their client may be attempting to commit a fraud or a criminal act through their representation, that lawyer has a duty to investigate further, or they too can be held accountable. The so-called "ostrich theory" where the lawyer knows something's not right but keeps their head in the proverbial sand is not permitted anymore. Here's a link: https://www.moneylaunderingnews.com/2020/05/aba-issues-formal-opinion-on-lawyers-as-gatekeepers-for-client-criminality/

In my case, the lawyer is fully aware of the laws involved, and knows full well that their original client misled the court intentionally, withholding the facts that the note was indeed lost years prior and proceeding in a manner that is actually not permitted by our civil procedure and other laws. Then, the lawyer is fully aware of the issue that their named clients have no standing--and they are going as far as to refuse to provide documents requested in discovery by lying about privilege to keep this fact covered up. Then there's the jacked up, fabricated and wholly impossible payment history, which I specifically questioned the lawyer about on a Rule 10.1 conference call concerning their refusal to provide proper discovery, and their response was "well, that's what our client gave me". Lawyers are used to hiding behind these kinds of excuses....they are not permitted to do so anymore under the ABA's official opinion. And the longer they try to drag this out, the more they will have to lie to keep the game going. Sooner or later, there will be a judge hearing this case that will understand the importance of standing, and how attorneys lying to try to win a case should never be permitted.
Thanks for your advice, Krafty. I think i've covered standing in my case. The reason I focused on the fake note is it is the main basis on which the corrupted judge found Bank of New York Mellon had standing (does not matter what's on the note, as long as the note looks real, foreclosure is awarded). Not only they do not have standing they misrepresent the plaintiff and commit fraud. That is the main issue of my petition to the SC. The judges know what's going on. They just don't have the courage (and it's not to their benefit) to rule against the banks (the banks have all the fake notes the Fed prints). How can they look at themselves in the mirrors every morning knowing they help the banks to steal from the citizens, not my job to beg them to rule justly, it's their duties, a bunch of cowards, obviously no RGBs.
I have a lot of time till my next court action so I am drafting a complaint to be sent to DOJ, the SEC, and FTC. This letter will detail how the taxpayers, the investors (pensioners), and the debtors (us) have been defrauded by their sophisticated scheme. I consider my mission accomplished. I 've battled them for 11 years, I have no need for the house, the thought paying the corrupted judges' pensions make me puke. I will donate this house and let the new owner file a quiet title action. I am very happy with the progress thus far, my mission is not to save the house, my mission was to expose the fraud. To that objective, I 've gone very far and will go farther. Take care.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kraftykrab

isisis

LoanSafe Member
Jun 22, 2010
1,813
254
83
North bay
One thing I would encourage you to focus on is that the point of you not paying is irrelevant because only the proper party is entitled to receive payments. In my case I explained it like this--if I open up a Visa card, Discover has no right to collect payments from me for that Visa card. Same here. They try to use it against us all the time, "the defendant has not made a single payment in YEARS".....but the correct response to that needs to be, "Of course I did not pay them....why would I pay a company that's not lawfully entitled to receive payment on any account I am responsible for?"

My concern in your situation is that if you focus too much on their fake note, and not enough on "only the correct party has the right to collect, and they are not the correct party", the court might decide that the fabricated note is not enough. That's the wrongdoing side. The "standing" side is that they cannot prove that they have legal standing to bring a claim against you, or to demand payment from you....or ultimately, to take your house. Why is this important? Simple--the courts have for a long time now been rather unwilling to affirm that the banks have done wrong, because if a court says the bank did wrong, then the court now has some obligation to penalize that bank. But if the issue in the case is lack of standing, then the court is free to dismiss the bank's case without the need to penalize the bank for anything else. I believe both points are important, but at the end of the day, the most important point is the one that gets the court to agree that that plaintiff has zero business taking your home.

In my case, I went after retainer agreements. I challenged the attorney to produce the documentation that would prove they have an attorney client relationship with the named plaintiff---because their client has told me in writing that they have no knowledge of foreclosure and cannot even tell me if a given loan is in default or not. The attorney is stonewalling, refusing to provide what I requested, claiming that retainer agreements are covered under attorney client privilege. They are not. I also asked for retainer agreement between the law firm and the so-called servicer, and got the same response. My goal is twofold--one, to show that this law firm doesn't even represent the parties it has named while under oath as being their clients, and two, to uncover who the real party is that's pulling the strings. Still waiting on courts to open back up so I can get my hearing on motion to compel. But this happened in Florida to US Bank, and at the end of the case, the judge was about to award damages to the homeowners, saying that US Bank would have to fork over more than $100K to them. That moment was when the foreclosing attorney had to come clean and tell the court that US Bank was not ever involved in the case. The judge got so angry that he ordered that attorney's firm to pay the money to the homeowners instead because of his dishonesty. Standing still matters---and the key, I believe, is to put them in such a position where they are forced to either admit their lie, or dump the case. Standing is such an important issue in a case because without it, even court orders within that case are void--as determined by courts of appeal and state and federal supreme courts. They do not want to attach a client's name so solidly to these cases that their "client" would have to pay damages if a court so awards, which is why they play the shell game with fake, illegal and/or insufficient paperwork. In my case, for example, the one and only piece of paper they have produced to support their claim of standing is a doctored up assignment of mortgage that states the mortgage is assigned along with the associated note(s). This is completely illegal. Under the UCC, notes cannot be assigned like a mortgage, but must be transferred instead for value. They cannot show that the note was transferred in exchange for payment because to do so would cause a big problem---they know, and they know I'm also aware, that the party they named did not purchase anything for value that has my name on it. So this is why they stonewall....and delay....and lie some more...to protect the original lie they told.

Sorry to make this so long, lol....one more point. The ABA not too long back clarified the point of attorneys knowing something's not completely honest in their cases, and that attorneys must be held accountable. In this new light, imagine the increased risk an attorney takes to their career if they are made aware of things wrong and simply blow off the concern because of excuses like, "well, that is what our client provided to us". That does not fly anymore, at least it isn't supposed to. In fact, just a few months ago, the ABA issued a new opinion, I think some of you will find this rather interesting. It clarifies that attorneys can no longer rely on "willful blindness"--if there is anything to suggest that their client may be attempting to commit a fraud or a criminal act through their representation, that lawyer has a duty to investigate further, or they too can be held accountable. The so-called "ostrich theory" where the lawyer knows something's not right but keeps their head in the proverbial sand is not permitted anymore. Here's a link: https://www.moneylaunderingnews.com/2020/05/aba-issues-formal-opinion-on-lawyers-as-gatekeepers-for-client-criminality/

In my case, the lawyer is fully aware of the laws involved, and knows full well that their original client misled the court intentionally, withholding the facts that the note was indeed lost years prior and proceeding in a manner that is actually not permitted by our civil procedure and other laws. Then, the lawyer is fully aware of the issue that their named clients have no standing--and they are going as far as to refuse to provide documents requested in discovery by lying about privilege to keep this fact covered up. Then there's the jacked up, fabricated and wholly impossible payment history, which I specifically questioned the lawyer about on a Rule 10.1 conference call concerning their refusal to provide proper discovery, and their response was "well, that's what our client gave me". Lawyers are used to hiding behind these kinds of excuses....they are not permitted to do so anymore under the ABA's official opinion. And the longer they try to drag this out, the more they will have to lie to keep the game going. Sooner or later, there will be a judge hearing this case that will understand the importance of standing, and how attorneys lying to try to win a case should never be permitted.
I don't think the Court has an obligation to punish or even the ability except for sanctions or punitive if requested by the opposing side.
 

kraftykrab

LoanSafe Member
Jan 27, 2014
1,238
164
63
I don't think the Court has an obligation to punish or even the ability except for sanctions or punitive if requested by the opposing side.
Actually, a court judge can....but only against the opposing attorney. Attorneys are officers of the court, and as such, a trial court judge can order puniahments against a lawyer for misconduct.
 

OneHugeMess

LoanSafe Member
May 30, 2016
594
53
28
One thing I would encourage you to focus on is that the point of you not paying is irrelevant because only the proper party is entitled to receive payments. In my case I explained it like this--if I open up a Visa card, Discover has no right to collect payments from me for that Visa card. Same here. They try to use it against us all the time, "the defendant has not made a single payment in YEARS".....but the correct response to that needs to be, "Of course I did not pay them....why would I pay a company that's not lawfully entitled to receive payment on any account I am responsible for?"
I would also go further — and make a point that, there is nothing stopping some random company from coming around like ABC Servicing, and also demanding payment. I need real proof this loan actually belongs to CCC.
 

OneHugeMess

LoanSafe Member
May 30, 2016
594
53
28

I would be curious to hear all your thoughts on this. I personally have a hard time believing so many people are severely behind, by 5 years or more. With the advent of the Rocket Docket and other measures, so many of these loans have been foreclosed or liquidated by the trusts. It seems like the remaining people are small minorities who have kept their loans in litigation.

My second thought would be — I wonder how many of these loans, in his numbers, are 2nd Mortgages or HELOC’s — charged off, sold out, wiped out or just ignored. I know many who haven’t paid their 2nd’s in forever — and those loans are still worthless.

Just curious guys. The FHA numbers are very interesting however. There’s going to be a whole lot of carnage unless there’s a new HAMP/HOPE/HARP rollout.
 

Annie Mac

LoanSafe Member
Aug 19, 2011
598
84
28
Oregon
Your thinking sounds good to me. There are the occasional homes one sees on the market that originated in a foreclosure, but they are few and far between. Even more rare is the likes of us, odd ducks who have been in litigation or some form of whatever this resistance is as they tried experimental programs, labels, new tactics, etc. on us. We were the guinea pigs for them to learn foreclosure tactics which will now be primed and ready to hit all the folks who are unable to make their payments now in the aftermath of Covid, fires, closing of businesses and ways of life. We were the warmup for what is yet to come. I would not expect a rollout of anything.
 

moretrouble

LoanSafe Member
Nov 14, 2009
1,504
271
83
Called my home insurance to change the lienholder from BOfA to my originator. They said BOfA called their office and claimed they were the owner of my loan number XXXXX and wanted to be the lienholder while in the letter BOfA sent to me they claimed they were not the owner of the loan, just the servicer (not even that, they are just the debt collector). Another proof that the fraud is still going on.
 

moretrouble

LoanSafe Member
Nov 14, 2009
1,504
271
83
On my declaration page :
Lienholder: Bank of America, N. A. ISAOA
/ATIMA . Wiki: A related insurance contract term is "its successors and/or assigns as their interests may appear" (ISAOA/ATIMA or ISAOA ATIMA).
 

moretrouble

LoanSafe Member
Nov 14, 2009
1,504
271
83
I love the Oregon AG. Apparently, as it was the case with my complaint ten years ago, they forwarded my complaint letter (post #8924) to BOfA ( I have an acknowledgement from BOfA). Last time, the complaint to the AG forced BOFA to respond to my QWR and subsequently made a mistake of faxing a copy of my original note to the AG office the faxed copy which when compared to what submitted at trial proves forgery was committed.

Now that an institution that Oregonians can have faith in. :) :) :)
 

moretrouble

LoanSafe Member
Nov 14, 2009
1,504
271
83
I encourage all foreclosed-on, or being foreclosed-on homeowners, to send a complaint to the AG offices. If there are enough complaints we may have a National Mortgage Settlement II.
 

isisis

LoanSafe Member
Jun 22, 2010
1,813
254
83
North bay
It really sucks when you're in the ring with a opponent 40 trillion times more powerful than you are and then you get hit with one of those inevitable losses that are simply part of the human condition. A couple weeks ago I was facing yet another mock execution with a sale date a few days away when a family member went missing. Never mind that the family member in question was of the four footed variety, it still knocks the senses out of you. It also made me lose my patience with the casual torment of waiting until minutes before the sale to take me off the calendar. So I filed a particularly scathing complaint with the CFPB asking them to investigate servicers who strategically induce default pointing out that foreclosing under these circumstances is a breach of the loan contract and repeatedly scheduling sales without the legal right to foreclose is abusive conduct "the natural consequences of which is to harass in connection with collection of a debt." and thus a violation of federal consumer law.

In response the sale was cancelled rather than merely postponed. The attorney for servicer du jour while patting himself on the back for his generosity in this suggested I refinance neatly overlooking the fact that their actions have rendered that possibility prohibitive.

Back to the chessboard from the perspective of contract law. In 2010 while themselves in violation of the loan contract for overcharging my servicer induced non payment, prevented and refused performance and initiated foreclosure. This constituted a material breach of contract. Under statute my performance was excused, the running of interest was stopped and I remained entitled to all the benefits of performance, see Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1504, 1511-12. Under common law my performance was suspended awaiting a cure. Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 237.

I am sending a QWR offering them the final opportunity to cure by removing overcharging, foreclosure charges and arrears and allowing me to resume making payments. They won't go for it but making the offer is essential to definitively establish their refusal to cure.

Here's where I stand. While the actions that materially breached the loan contract arguably were outside the SOL a time barred cause of action
does not cure a breach. The materiality of the breach meets the somewhat vague standards of Restatement § 241. Their refusal to cure meets the requirements for determining the time after which cure is no longer possible set forth in § 242. This section allows the cancellation of contractual obligations in order to find "substitute arrangements".

I find substitute arrangements to be an intriguing point. Refinancing would be a substitute arrangement that is rendered impossible while current obligations exist. In other words in order to secure substitute arrangements the contract must be cancelled.

I'm thinking quiet title. Even though my credit is shot I could find tentative financing based on equity for the amount of the debt which is approximately half of the amount claimed due. That could satisfy the troublesome quiet title requirement of tender. That is if the judge chose to rule according to the law. Yeah, I know but it does happen sometimes right, if only by sheer accident?

This concept just sprang to life today and my brain's a bit smoke addled here in the wildfire capital of the universe but I kind of like it. Ideas, thoughts?