Facing foreclosure? Con man Paul Noe II has a deal for you

Sadly, my old acquaintance Paul Noe II did not return my call requesting comment. The job of proving Noe's altruism and all-around good-guy credentials was left to Roth.

In his written responses, Roth said the contract is in English — rather than the Spanish spoken by Lopez or other potential clients — because it describes a joint venture agreement offered by property owners such as Lopez to a company owned by Noe, a native English speaker. He said it is available to "prospective joint venture partners" in Spanish.

With regard to the type of missing title lawsuit Roth and Noe's proposed contract with Lopez suggests they might file on Lopez' behalf, Roth claims he has filed "something like 700 cases of this type" but that "the time required for litigation precludes there from being results at this time."

As for the potential conflict of interest stemming from his wife's part-ownership of Noe's company, he said his wife doesn't control it, and that her estate "is her separate property."

I asked Roth why "partners" such as Lopez are asked to add United First to their homeowners' insurance policies. Insurance companies generally don't include anyone as a beneficiary of such a policy unless they actually own the property. So Noe's requirement seemed to be an attempt to seize control of the house so that he could profit in case it was ever worth anything. Roth wrote that Noe's company must be named on the policy because "the upside in the joint venture depends upon there being a structure to sell or refinance it."

Despite Roth's effort to paint a benign picture of the venture, "upside" in this case is best described as "heads I win, tails you lose." Roth, Noe, and their platoon of so-called independent contractors are seeking out vulnerable people who need help and every last cent they can hang on to. Instead, they're asked to pour thousands of dollars into a lopsided "joint venture" with a convicted felon.

It's telling that Roth asked me to postpone publication of this column so he could prepare a seven-page defense of this "commendable" scheme. Yet he offered no evidence that he and Noe have done any good for anybody but themselves.

"It's an outrageous contract," real estate lawyer Simmons said. "I can't even imagine any attorney in the state would be party of such a contract."

Despite all the red flags, when I spoke with Lopez recently he told me he was still mulling whether to continue giving money to Noe's operation, after having already paid a $2,000 fee. "I don't know whether it's fraud or not," he said.

Mr. Lopez, here's a hint: Quack quack.

To read attorney Mitchell Roth's detailed written responses, click here.