Re: "Heldharmless"
Posted: Sat Jan 22, 2011 6:02 pm
The first link (to ... index) didn't work. This is HH homepage:
http://www.heldharmless.com/
http://www.heldharmless.com/
Quatloos! The views herein are not those of Quatloosia Publishing LLC -- Legal Issues Fax to 877-698-0678 and admin issues to sooltauq [at] gmail.com
https://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/
Nope. Heldharmless.com is probably not their legal name, and you'd need to find that before you can say that Westlaw doesn't have them.JakeMoore wrote:9. I didn't review the cases presented, but I don't think its objectionable if the cases don't mention them. Insurance discussions are not a part of the case publicly. So the question becomes has their notice provision ever even been litigated. I assume them not being in Westlaw means they have at a minimum not been sued or had any attorney general action filed against them...not even any BBB warnings I presume.
I'll get to your specific questions. In terms of the general approach, however, consider that the folks with whom you're contemplating doing business promise something which is impossible to deliver. There is no such thing as a product which shields you from lawsuits. Can't be done. The closest you can come is insuring yourself against certain kinds of risks - but, as they admit, what they offer isn't insurance. Since they claim they can do the impossible, what does that make them?JakeMoore wrote:Am I thinking about this right?
No one here ever claimed there was. "Ken Thompson" claimed that if you got a solicitation from a Nigerian-type advance fee scammer, you should contact them to protect yourself. Since all you need to do to protect yourself is throw it in the garbage, there is no reason to contact them - unless it's to subject yourself to a sales pitch.1. Is there a verifiable link between heldharmless and the 419s that anyone has found? I could see known scammers using the services of a legit company without the company's knowledge of it.
Last line on this page.2. Where was the disclaimer? I think it's been edited to delete the language you object to.
Then you associate with a lot of scammers. The only reason I can think of to call a mailbox a "suite" is deception.3. I don't necessarily find a mail drop objectionable or the use of suite. In my experience that is a common practice.
You don't understand what a waiver of liability is.4. Disclaimers of liability per se are not a scam and their validity is obviously jurisdictional and topical. But they do limit lawsuits being filed.
There is no such thing as a "national registry" in which you can list yourself as bulletproof. That's gibberish.It no longer is an issue of whether there was notice, but the validity of the notice. I can't find the link to their national registry so I can't even evaluate that part.
Their legal name seems to be HELD HARMLESS Holdings Trust as listed previously on this site and as listed in their press releases http://newsblaze.com/story/200811131420 ... story.html. I have been unable to find any negative reports on them under that name or under their domain name except for this site with people who presumably have not done business with them. Has anyone else? Since they have been around for 3 years now that carries some weight in my book.Arthur Rubin wrote:Nope. Heldharmless.com is probably not their legal name, and you'd need to find that before you can say that Westlaw doesn't have them.JakeMoore wrote:9. I didn't review the cases presented, but I don't think its objectionable if the cases don't mention them. Insurance discussions are not a part of the case publicly. So the question becomes has their notice provision ever even been litigated. I assume them not being in Westlaw means they have at a minimum not been sued or had any attorney general action filed against them...not even any BBB warnings I presume.
Held Harmless International Holdings Trust
Return to Held Harmless International Holdings Trust
Error Message
This recipient is currently unable to receive money.
Held Harmless is not a law firm, nor an insurance company or insurance product and does not apply to negligence or gross negligence.
I agree and disagree. I agree that it's impossible to shield yourself against lawsuits because anyone can file a lawsuit for any reason or no reason. But I don't agree that insurance is the closest you can come. In fact, insurance encourages lawsuits. At it's best, if your insurance is high enough to cover your loss, insurance provides coverage after your deductible. There are plenty of asset protection vehicles and strategies that can shield you.wserra wrote:In terms of the general approach, however, consider that the folks with whom you're contemplating doing business promise something which is impossible to deliver. There is no such thing as a product which shields you from lawsuits. Can't be done. The closest you can come is insuring yourself against certain kinds of risks - but, as they admit, what they offer isn't insurance. Since they claim they can do the impossible, what does that make them?
Actually that was stopthemadness who made the claim...someone who could have easily been a misguided affiliate for heldharmless.com and didn't speak for them.wserra wrote:No one here ever claimed there was. "Ken Thompson" claimed that if you got a solicitation from a Nigerian-type advance fee scammer, you should contact them to protect yourself. Since all you need to do to protect yourself is throw it in the garbage, there is no reason to contact them - unless it's to subject yourself to a sales pitch.1. Is there a verifiable link between heldharmless and the 419s that anyone has found? I could see known scammers using the services of a legit company without the company's knowledge of it.
Or customary practice. Fact is 1000s of businesses do it every day.wserra wrote:Then you associate with a lot of scammers. The only reason I can think of to call a mailbox a "suite" is deception.3. I don't necessarily find a mail drop objectionable or the use of suite. In my experience that is a common practice.
I actually do understand waiver of liability. But this concept is not what I'm personally interested in. Nonetheless their point is that there are statutes in place that waive liability through public notice. This is in fact true. For instance publication of notice to creditors is valid in probate and corporate dissolutions. I don't know what specific statutes they are referring to and have not looked into it because it's not something that interests me. However, I am aware of a common asset protection strategy advised by plenty of lawyers that adding a notice such as they suggest could only bolster the validity of, not harm.wserra wrote:You don't understand what a waiver of liability is.4. Disclaimers of liability per se are not a scam and their validity is obviously jurisdictional and topical. But they do limit lawsuits being filed.
If you hire a company to take you hang gliding, they will quite likely ask you to sign a waiver agreeing not to sue them. Such a thing is common, and (to a greater or lesser degree, depending on jurisdiction) enforceable. But these guys are a third party. They claim that they can somehow shield you from liability based on a transaction in which they play no part. It can't be done, and they can cite no case where they have been able to do so. It's like them proclaiming that JakeMoore owes wserra a million dollars. They have no power to do that either.
Technically correct, but as I stated above there are commonly used strategies which could be benefited by a public record of those strategies.wserra wrote:There is no such thing as a "national registry" in which you can list yourself as bulletproof. That's gibberish.It no longer is an issue of whether there was notice, but the validity of the notice. I can't find the link to their national registry so I can't even evaluate that part.
I disagree. It's true that they don't post a bond, but that's not what they claim to do. They claim to give you an asset which act as cash collateral which you may be able to post as a bond alternative to meet self-insurance requirements.wserra wrote:I'm not going point-by-point through the rest of your questions. Most refute themselves. For example, you point out that most states allow posting a bond instead of buying certain types of insurance. Perfectly true. However, these guys don't post a bond, something which is obvious from their own description. They claim to make you immune. There is no such thing. More discussion is trying to hone a fine point on a crayon. It's bullshit. You don't believe it, give them your money and find out.
And should also include,", nor anything else.Held Harmless wrote:Held Harmless is not a law firm, nor an insurance company or insurance product and does not apply to negligence or gross negligence.
Oh, for instance??? Poverty?? No possessions?? Those are about the only ones I can think of right off the top of my head.JakeMoore wrote:There are plenty of asset protection vehicles and strategies that can shield you.
And again, these would be??JakeMoore wrote:...but as I stated above there are commonly used strategies which could be benefited by a public record of those strategies.
And this would be what??? The ever popular "bonded promissory note"?? Again there ain't no such animal. This doesn't even qualify as smoke and mirrors, it is just plain old every day horse hockey.JakeMoore wrote:They claim to give you an asset which act as cash collateral which you may be able to post as a bond alternative to meet self-insurance requirements.
Yes, there are. Unfortunately, these guys don't offer them. What they do claim to provide, in their own words:JakeMoore wrote:There are plenty of asset protection vehicles and strategies that can shield you.
Those aren't "asset protection strategies". Those are nonsense.HeldUseless wrote:✓ Provide a safe-haven from lawsuits or frivolous claims against your home or business
✓ Shield you from having to hire a lawyer to defend a claim or lawsuit
✓ Shield your home or business from lawsuits or judgments
✓ Shield your home, business, service, product and assets from loss by a lawsuit
Ya think? "stopthemadness" said "My name is Ken Thompson and I am one of the members of the legal counsel for HELD HARMLESS". Now, I have no idea what "one of the members of the legal counsel" means, but I'll readily accept the "misguided" part.Actually that was stopthemadness who made the claim...someone who could have easily been a misguided affiliate for heldharmless.com and didn't speak for them.wserra wrote:No one here ever claimed there was. "Ken Thompson" claimed that if you got a solicitation from a Nigerian-type advance fee scammer, you should contact them to protect yourself. Since all you need to do to protect yourself is throw it in the garbage, there is no reason to contact them - unless it's to subject yourself to a sales pitch.JakeMoore wrote:1. Is there a verifiable link between heldharmless and the 419s that anyone has found? I could see known scammers using the services of a legit company without the company's knowledge of it.
Please show me a reputable business that uses "suite" to mean "mailbox".Or customary practice. Fact is 1000s of businesses do it every day.wserra wrote:Then you associate with a lot of scammers. The only reason I can think of to call a mailbox a "suite" is deception.3. I don't necessarily find a mail drop objectionable or the use of suite. In my experience that is a common practice.
Please cite the statute that permits HeldUseless to file waivers in some "national registry" they set up and thereby notify the universe. I went through this with the above "legal counsel". He cited New Hampshire probate regs, and a Montana statute that applies only to municipalities. I would place a large bet that you do no better.I actually do understand waiver of liability. But this concept is not what I'm personally interested in. Nonetheless their point is that there are statutes in place that waive liability through public notice.
So please cite a reputable asset protection authority that uses its own "national registry" as one of its "strategies".Technically correct, but as I stated above there are commonly used strategies which could be benefited by a public record of those strategies.wserra wrote:There is no such thing as a "national registry" in which you can list yourself as bulletproof. That's gibberish.
What "asset" might that be? Their listing in a "national registry"? Your misguided payment to them? Please provide proof that any state in the Union would accept anything HeldUseless provides as an acceptable insurance alternative.I disagree. It's true that they don't post a bond, but that's not what they claim to do. They claim to give you an asset which act as cash collateral which you may be able to post as a bond alternative to meet self-insurance requirements.wserra wrote:I'm not going point-by-point through the rest of your questions. Most refute themselves. For example, you point out that most states allow posting a bond instead of buying certain types of insurance. Perfectly true. However, these guys don't post a bond, something which is obvious from their own description. They claim to make you immune. There is no such thing. More discussion is trying to hone a fine point on a crayon. It's bullshit. You don't believe it, give them your money and find out.
Oh, for instance??? Poverty?? No possessions?? Those are about the only ones I can think of right off the top of my head.notorial dissent wrote:There are plenty of asset protection vehicles and strategies that can shield you.
They don't mention anything about that and since that is not the product I'm interested in I haven't done any investigation on the method they use.notorial dissent wrote:And this would be what??? The ever popular "bonded promissory note"?? Again there ain't no such animal. This doesn't even qualify as smoke and mirrors, it is just plain old every day horse hockey.JakeMoore wrote:They claim to give you an asset which act as cash collateral which you may be able to post as a bond alternative to meet self-insurance requirements.
Health insurance on my family is over $1000 a month because we are self-insured. I would welcome $250.oldnikki wrote:So, (just to cover medical expenses) someone could be facing a charge of $250 / month ($3,000 per year). If there were additional claims for automotive or any other coverage, each of them would add an additional $600 per year.
It is highly likely that traditional insurance will be significantly less expensive and much more reliable than the "HoldThis" program.
Actually that just clarified it for me. There is a common strategy in protecting assets by placing a lien against them which would have to be repaid by anyone who would attempt to collect on them. Sometimes it fails when people try to do it themselves because they use insiders only. So I guess it depends on how they have it all wrapped up and what the language and terms are...if that is the strategy they are even using.wserra wrote:Yes, there are. Unfortunately, these guys don't offer them. What they do claim to provide, in their own words:JakeMoore wrote:There are plenty of asset protection vehicles and strategies that can shield you.Those aren't "asset protection strategies". Those are nonsense.HeldUseless wrote:✓ Provide a safe-haven from lawsuits or frivolous claims against your home or business
✓ Shield you from having to hire a lawyer to defend a claim or lawsuit
✓ Shield your home or business from lawsuits or judgments
✓ Shield your home, business, service, product and assets from loss by a lawsuit
My bad. I got lost in thread and lost track. Did he ever show back up anywhere to give more explanations?Ya think? "stopthemadness" said "My name is Ken Thompson and I am one of the members of the legal counsel for HELD HARMLESS". Now, I have no idea what "one of the members of the legal counsel" means, but I'll readily accept the "misguided" part.wserra wrote:Actually that was stopthemadness who made the claim...someone who could have easily been a misguided affiliate for heldharmless.com and didn't speak for them.
Please show me a reputable business that uses "suite" to mean "mailbox".[/quote]Or customary practice. Fact is 1000s of businesses do it every day.wserra wrote:Then you associate with a lot of scammers. The only reason I can think of to call a mailbox a "suite" is deception.3. I don't necessarily find a mail drop objectionable or the use of suite. In my experience that is a common practice.
Again, I don't know about it. It's not what I'm interested in them for...but THAT is not what they even claim to provide on their website.Ok...I actually came here for help. I don't work for them, but you guys are the only place on the internet that has anything bad to say about them...at least that I could find. I didn't say there was a registry. In fact I said that to my knowledge publication is topical and jurisdictional but that I don't know everything. Just because I don't know it doesn't mean it doesn't exist though. I don't know about their registry. I don't care about their registry. I came to see if anyone had any specific information about or experience with their loan products. In by book, if they fund their loans I could really care less about some registry or about some insurance.wserra wrote:Please cite the statute that permits HeldUseless to file waivers in some "national registry" they set up and thereby notify the universe. I went through this with the above "legal counsel". He cited New Hampshire probate regs, and a Montana statute that applies only to municipalities. I would place a large bet that you do no better.I actually do understand waiver of liability. But this concept is not what I'm personally interested in. Nonetheless their point is that there are statutes in place that waive liability through public notice.
What "asset" might that be? Their listing in a "national registry"? Your misguided payment to them? Please provide proof that any state in the Union would accept anything HeldUseless provides as an acceptable insurance alternative.I disagree. It's true that they don't post a bond, but that's not what they claim to do. They claim to give you an asset which act as cash collateral which you may be able to post as a bond alternative to meet self-insurance requirements.wserra wrote:I'm not going point-by-point through the rest of your questions. Most refute themselves. For example, you point out that most states allow posting a bond instead of buying certain types of insurance. Perfectly true. However, these guys don't post a bond, something which is obvious from their own description. They claim to make you immune. There is no such thing. More discussion is trying to hone a fine point on a crayon. It's bullshit. You don't believe it, give them your money and find out.
What "mortgage" products?JakeMoore wrote:I am actually looking for real help. Does anyone on this site have any knowledge of their mortgage products or any real world experience with them?