National Modification Preparation review: Loan Modification 24

You might want to check your state law with these modification programs, in California it is illegal for a modification company to have you pay money up front.
good luck

Mr. John Odusch,

As the Vice President of Operations for this company i would like to address your allegations which are completely false. If you would like to call me to discuss the issue at hand i will be more than happy to assist. As for the matter at hand i have no problem letting every person that reads these ridiculous forums know the 100% truth about your exact file. You did in fact misrepresent your income figures to this office by $2, 357.70 per month and i have the proof for all to see that you even admitted that you did. You even asked our office if you should buy a new car to offset the income amount. Anyone having the means to buy a new car clearly doesn't have a true financial hardship now do they. The contract you executed clearly stated the limitations to the Money Back Guarantee. I am blown away that we should work for free when you are the reason your file was denied. Not us. Not to mention that you hired us to "Prepare" your Loan Solution Submission Package on your behalf. You signed statements under penalty of perjury certifying that the information is true and correct. Clearly your math is a little fuzzy. Obviously if you are trying to prove that you have a financial hardship and then have an additional $2300.00 per month of income, the lender is not going to see that very favorable. We would never have offered you a money back guarantee or taken you on as a client in the first place had you disclosed to us your accurate income from the beginning. It is my opinion that people like you are trying to cheat the system when you really don't truly qualify for a Loan Modification and are hurting the chances for those that are truly in need of help. All you had to do is be accurate, truthful and honest. A simple error would be a few dollars but a $2, 300.00 + error on the high side is deliberate. If you would like me to copy and paste all of the truth behind your situation to this forum including your phone number and email address i will be more than happy to. Additionally to claim that mail is undeliverable is absurd. Why don't you hop on a plane and meet me at the office for a meeting. The weather is much nicer in AZ then in MN. Lastly, if you continue to slander this office we will seek legal action against you immediately. For those consumers out there that actually consider these arenas to be helpful in the decision making process should think twice about the reliability of the source. One dishonest and disgruntled consumer shouldn't sway anyone from what their own gut is telling them. Someone should invent the "Satisfied Customers Board" so that you can see the good that companies do as well. Check out what our customers have to say about us on www.NationwideBusinessBureau.org and then make your final decision.

Very Truly Yours

Jason Glasser

Word to the wise Jason Glasser

I agree if in fact John Odusch lied about his hard-ship and didn't qualify and tried to cheat the system or process that he has no business posting fabrications about a business on the open forum. However how you have replied in an open forum and threating him with disclosing his personnal information with idle threats shows only your anger is taking the place of good judgement. This would make me think you are a hot head or just pissed because John posted something negative or misleading on this board and if you are correct, you have every right to be pissed and upset. The problem with what you wrote is it can be taken that he should fly out to your office so you could beat his [censored], which in its self a threat. The problem with slander claim aspect is everyone has the right to voice their opinion without it being slander, some of what he stated matched what you have stated such as him breaching the contract it is a difference of how he views what happened. This is the opinion part were the slander part would not hold weight other than him stating that your business is a scam, which is again his opinion. To him if he feels you have wronged him he has every right to state that in any way he feels is correct and even missleading. From what John also stated that he has proof that he has not received responses from your business if this is correct or incorrect it doesn't matter.
The biggest fact in this and you would have to agree there has been hords of scams out there taking advantage of people who are in desparate need of help only to take their money and offer no help to include making thier situation even worse.
Advice for you: Jason it is understandable that you would be upset and angry because someone in your opinion is giving your company a bad name and if in fact you are one of the few business's who are actualy doing good this isn't fair to your business. When you fire a response back on an open forum with a threat of disclosing his private information with other comments only exposes a bad fact that you would be willing to embarass your clients who speak negatively about your operation would cause a person not to do business with you, this sucks because the truth should always be told. You have done more damage by responding in the way you have for future clients, I personally would not go to your business for this kind of service. It may feel good to fire back but the impact has farther reaching negitive impact on your business.
My personal opinion of John's post: Something is missing here? It didn't seam logical?
The only thing you could do is file a complaint with the DA in your area about John falsely stating facts about his income, which you would ofcourse have to prove. This would have very little bite considering what has happened in an open forum, it would have been better to just file a complaint with the DA without posting on this open forum.

Jason Glasser I pulled this from your companies web site and confused by not refunding his money

Our Guarantee To You
We pledge to utilize every ounce of our professional skills, expertise, and experience in order to provide you with outstanding customer service and meaningful results. Our goal is to truly make a difference in your life and the life of your family. If we can’t help you, we don’t want your money.

In the unlikely event that your case has been pre-qualified, you have authorized payment, we have received all of your documents as requested, and your lender denies your request for a Loan Solution, you will receive a 100% refund of all monies paid.

When we say 100%, we mean 100%. Unlike most other companies, we withhold nothing. No processing fee, no administration fee, no intake fee, no initiation fee, no auditing fee. If we are unsuccessful in assisting you in obtaining a Loan Solution, you get it all back—even though we have invested our time and resources into your file. That’s how confident we are.

Mr. Trvkell

Let me address a few things before they get taken out of context any further.

First off you really have no way of knowing what transpired and i am completely blown away that you wish to play the role of either a referee or expert. (i cant tell which one you are shooting for)

Anytime a dishonest client is going to start accusing this company with false allegations and especially label us a "Scam" in an open public forum i will absolutely defend our position. There is no doubt in my mind that this is a fight and I/WE are not one to back down. I don't know what type of person you are but if i just came out of the blue and punched you in the face what would you do? I can assure you I don't run away and hide. I would defend myself and punch back 2-3 times harder. He started this fight not us. I will end it I guarantee. Right is right.

Let me address your claim that I am a "Hot Head". If you defended your friends and family are you now then a "Hot Head"? This is exactly what I am doing. I am defending all of the employees that work for this great company as if they are my family. Mr. Odusch is trying to cause unrepairable harm to many people in this company and it is my job to stand up for them.

Let me address the Money Back Guarantee info that you pulled off of our website. You quoted it verbatim however you are missing the point. It states the following:

We pledge to utilize every ounce of our professional skills, expertise, and experience in order to provide you with outstanding customer service and meaningful results. Our goal is to truly make a difference in your life and the life of your family. If we can’t help you, we don’t want your money.

In the unlikely event that your case has been pre-qualified, you have authorized payment, we have received all of your documents as requested, and your lender denies your request for a Loan Solution, you will receive a 100% refund of all monies paid.

When we say 100%, we mean 100%. Unlike most other companies, we withhold nothing. No processing fee, no administration fee, no intake fee, no initiation fee, no auditing fee. If we are unsuccessful in assisting you in obtaining a Loan Solution, you get it all back—even though we have invested our time and resources into your file. That’s how confident we are.

Let me educate you on what this means if it isn't clear enough. Being that we thoroughly pre-qualify each applicant in advance we are confident in that if a Loan Solution isn't achieved we will refund 100% of all monies paid and not deduct anything for costs like other companies. The problem here is that we pre=qualified Mr. Odusch with false and misleading numbers provided by him therefore per the contract he entered into with this office, made him ineligible for a refund. Additionally upon notifying Mr. Odusch of our findings he decided to withdraw from proceeding and no longer complied with any of our requests. He immediately just wanted his money back because he got caught red handed. We have a few clauses in our contract to protect this office from this very thing so that we don't just waste tons of labor and resources for no reason.

Here is some exact verbiage off of Mr. Odusch's contract:

1) The Company will have no further duty to act upon discovery that Clients have provided erroneous or fraudulent information.

2)In the event Lender's Formal Denial Letter states information and/or documentation provided by Clients has been determined to be false, misleading or fraudulent or if relevant information was not disclosed as required by the Lender, no refund will be issued.

3)Additionally, Clients wishing to cancel prior to their Lending Institution rendering a decision will not be eligible for a refund of any monies paid.

To ultimately understand our position here you must know that Mr. Odusch canceled immediately after we notified him our our findings. He never completed his obligations per the terms and conditions of this contract therefore at a minimum the 3rd clause above pertains.

Lastly, I really have no further interest in wasting my time with defending our position to someone that is afraid to use his name in the forum. At least Mr. Odusch did and so did I. I would imagine you have much better things to do with your time but if not please write a book on your expertise in the field of Loan Modifications, Contract Law and how to confuse the general public further by using these forums. If it should actually make it on a "Best Sellers" list I and the rest of the world will value your opinion. Until them i would rather ask the opinion of my sons friends soccer coaches neighbor who used to know someone in the mortgage industry a few years ago who dated a hair stylist that did a Loan Modification.

Oh ! I forgot one other thing. To claim that insinuated to kick his [censored] as you called it is absurd and why these forums are the dumbest thing ever invented. I was simply trying to prove that our address is legitimate and he can actually come out and meet me. For that matter so can you if you wish. Please bring a signed copy of your book though.

Have a nice day everyone !

Jason
Yes you are correct I would have no knowledge or what actualy transpired between John and NMP to include the granular aspects and the precise information. My position with regards to being a referee or expert is from my many years in global management, it is my experiance that draws my opinions out when commenting or suggesting solutions for people. I have sat in your seat many times wanting to tell a person to go shove it when they were clearly wrong, however taking a position such as siding with a business or a customer is wrong. Objectively looking at John's issue I initially stated that he needs to check his state laws to ensure that what he was engaged in was legal.

Anytime a person is dishonest they are setting themselves up for failure and tend to reap the ramifications associated with dihonesty, such as being legaly charged, arrested etc. As far as defending myself if punched I would definitly beat the living crap out of someone who out of the blue punched me, that is defending yourself and you would not be doing anything wrong. However if a person punched you 5 days prior then you walk up and beat them up for doing so you would go to jail, this is not a punch in the face issue this is a difference of opinion. On the street eye for an eye works sometimes however not in the business world, a public display of discourse by a VP of Operations towards a customer is not a sane move by any stretch. Customers or potential customers will see this as bad management and would not feel that if they had a problem with NMP it would be objectivley managed blowing away your company pledge to give back their money.

The Hot Head issue: I did not say defending your company was a bad thing, I was pointing out that the way you went about defending your compnay was the issue. Using a public forum (blog) to fire back is never a good idea when mad. A hothead is defined by as aperson having a short temper, and being headstrong. Firing back the way you did shows that it was not very well thought out from how you responded. Defend your people and stand up for them however you have to think about how it would be viewed by the general public, your position in your company demands that kind of leadership. A lower level manager blowing up like this is understandable not a V.P. of Operations.

Money Back (refund): I knew that their had to be a contract clause, which is good and fair for any agreement and both parties. I goated you a little to get that information, if in fact what you had stated is true and Mr. Odusch did lie about his income and was trying to cheat the bank then he would disserve nothing back. Then he would be the scammer and received what he disserved, however I would say a call was in order from NMP and let him know that the conversation was being recorded and cover the reasons as you stated in your post, a certified letter sent to his residence would also worked explaining the details. Again an open forum is not the way to do this.

I have laugh Jason at the last part where you state that a person who doesnt use their full or real name on the board is affraid. LMAO dam that is funny. I just might write a book and it would be very interesting too however it would cover Business, Goverment, and the Military and how they are linked together. I do have a friend and his cousins brother who lives in mexico and doesn't speak english and is deaf could help me with the book, man your funny as hell.

The [censored] comment was to point out that when another person is reading what you have written they can take from it anything. IE: Two people could read the same sentence and can have different understandings.

So to me if John did as you stated then he is just mad, let him be mad and move on. If John is correct then your company has deeper problems.

Lets agree that nothing would have been started in an open forum unless Mr. Odusch started this mess in the first place. If these arena's solved anything truthfully there would be no reason for a court of law. By the way have you heard from John. He doesn't seem to be chiming in as i thought. I'm not sure what you mean by recordings. We don't record peoples calls. We just keep every email record on file from clients to staff and vice versa to insure total compliance. You and I both know that Mr. Odusch hired our company after doing his due diligence and obviously found us to be reputable. We have no complaints that i am aware of anywhere. That is very tough to say nowadays especially in this highly scrutinized industry. We take great pride in that. That is why i took a hard stance at this situation. Everyone should know that in my first reply to this complaint I told Mr. Odusch to simply call me anytime. He still hasn't called or emailed this office. He knows he messed up and wanted to get back at our company by FALSELY accusing of us of being a scam. If we were i wouldn't even be wasting my time with typing these responses. I would be on my 100' yacht in the Caribbean, (which i obviously don't have) drinking Mai Tai's (which I like). On a serious note anyone reading this blog or any other should do their own due diligence and not take any one thing into consideration. There should be many factors in the decision making process especially when it has to do with possibly saving your home. It is virtually impossible for a business of any size to please every customer however if 99% are pleased I think that is something to be proud of. We are a proud business.

You are correct John has not re-posted, maybe he realized what he did was wrong or can not stand up for himself.
Maybe he wanted to just get you angry and it worked and now he is laughing, if that is the case John would be an idiot.
Just having 90% of your customer happy would be a WIN, 99% is way above board and better than most.
Nothing wrong with being proud with yourself and the company that you keep, that is one thing I have learned as well both military and civilian alike.
If what you are providing is true a genuine as a business than you are doing good work for your fellow man, helping another person is always noble.
To the serious side yes everyone should not take at face value what is written on boards, only look at it from a standpoint of hum does this make sense.
I have three complaints that I have posted myself, can you give me your feedback if I sound like a whiner.

I dont think you are a whiner. You seem like someone who has a lot of spare time. I have never posted anything anywhere until this happened the other day. I find it to be quite time consuming and doesnt seem to really assist anyone or make a difference. It actually probably confuses people further especially when most of your comments are "if this" and if that" "If's" are what they are, "Iffy" (if thats a word)

On a side note it appears that your back ground is military. If that is correct i would like to thank you for your service to our country. that is truly something worth talking about that makes a difference.

Mr. Trvkell,

It has been a pleasure commenting back and forth with you.

Sincerely,

Jason Glasser

This is Sad and pathetic. I was going to use this company for help with my Mortgage mess but with a manager who fires back that way in a public forum is not somebody I want to do business with. They have complaints all over the web with the 3 (That I could find) different company names they have used. They don't advertise the BBB as they have 10 complaints there as well. The nation wide business bureau is a joke and you can have a great rating by just paying the fee, on top of that I bet most of the comments are from their office. I am not saying don't do business with them just be careful. I am going to keep looking for assistance elsewhere.

Mr. John 60,

Let me clarify a few things. First of all we are not on the BBB at all. You must be looking at another company. Secondly the BBB does not offer "advertising". Please get your facts straight. Thirdly even if they did they are under a lot of negative press themselves with their flawed letter grading system. Do me a favor and check out www.tigerdirect.com on the BBB and tell me and the rest of the world if the rating is accurate or reliable in your opinion. They are rated an "A" with 701 complaints and more government actions and fines than i can count. ATTN: all that read these wonderful forums please check out www.bbbroundup.com and make up your own decision about the BBB. Now that we are all aware of the BBB lets talk about the NBB (Natiowide Business Bureau). Mr. John 60 here has an opinion about that bureau stating "it is a joke" because he doesn't like my comments. I guess that means he is right and everyone should listen to him, right? no way. There are many alternatives to the BBB available to the public to display company information etc. Why are they a joke? Do I have that much influence on Mr. John 60? If it is not important to read what other people have to say about a business than this site should be condemned as well, right. I think Mr. John 60 needs to get his facts straight again. It's one thing to have an opinion but you should at least do your due diligence before commenting negatively about a company which he knows nothing about and most importantly is confusing us with someone else on the BBB.

Mr. John 60,

Go do some homework and let me know if you need any further assistance or clarification. I will be available for you anytime.

Very Truly Yours

Jason Glasser (yes, my real name unlike the coward above)

Jason,

I was simply commenting on what I found online- I didn't generate this information, just had the foresight to look it up. I think if you were professional and addressed these forums in a manner that wasn't so defensive we could really get an idea of your personality and the goals of your company. I understand as do other consumers you can't make everyone happy, that's just doing business in America these days but going off on a rant and calling someone a coward makes you look unprofessional and immature. I know the BBB is a joke, so are most other review sites out there including NBB. You can not condemn the BBB and praise the NBB as they are both of the same entity. As to not be a coward my full name is John Atkinson, I am located in Austin, TX. I hope that makes me less of a coward.

John L. Atkinson
Austin, Texas

John

Again as to what you found online is incorrect obviously and you need to admit the fact that you were mistaken about the so called complaints we have on the BBB since we aren't even on it. The problem here lies in the fact that information gathered from the internet is less than accurate to say the least and way too many people allow it to hold more weight than they should during their decision making process. A minute ago you were insinuating that we are not part of the BBB because we have complaints. Now you say they are a joke. We are all further confused.

Thanks for your input

my 3 children loaned me the 2, 200.00 to get help from n.m.p they took that money from my grandchildren s money for their soccer camp baseball camp & my granddaughters piano lessons.for the summer activities.not only do i feel they ripped me off but they ripped off 4 little innocent kids. jtp42@comcast.net

ni told my wife to put our faith & trust in those we are going to help us keep our home meaning n.m.p. we prayed & lit candles after our sunday masses.for them i sent heart felt e-mails to jsmith if there is a jsmith offering our prayers during the massive fires & the shooting of the state senator.i was told so many different ways they were going to help us but as of this time nothing has been said to us now we are in foreclosure and my family is very dissappointed in me in fact i may loose them all togetherso i guess to n.m.p. 2, 200.00 is more imporant then keeping a father & grandfather in good feeli

in good feelings with his family my last e-mail from jsmith said going out of town for a few days guess maybe jsmith got lost i guess it is useless to ask for some sought of refund.i know no one from n.m.p. is going to read or care about my feelingsbut if there is anyone with a shred of common decency would really love a answer sent to jtp42@comcast.net

This company did scam me, I can not get ahold of anyone at it to discuss, my refund. Because they could not modifiy my loan. IF infact they are legitament, then why can I not get ahold of anyone. Their phone number does not work and can get ahold of no one by email. So in my mind they have scamed me.

WHAT DID I EVER DO TO N.MP. TO TAKE MY MONEY & THE MONEY BORROWED FROM MY FAMILY I KNOW I WILL NEVER GET A ANSWER BUT I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHY THEY DID THIS TO US I FOUND MY WIFE SITTING ON THE FLOOR CRYING READING ALL THE E-MAILS FROM N.M.P.& ALL THE ONES I SENT I HAD TO CALL OUR DAUGHTER TO COME OVER TO HELP CALM HER DOWN DUE TO HER HIGH BLOOD PRESSURE & SKIN CANCER I GOT NERVOUS FOR HER I HOPE ALL OF U @ N.M.P. ARE PROUD OF WHAT YOU DO TO PEOPLE CAN YOU ANSWER ME WHY I PRAYED FOR ALL OF YOU SO THAT YOU CAN HELP US THE ONLY HELP YOU GAVE WAS HELPING TO STEAL FROM MY FAMILY THE DAY WILL COME WHEN ALL OF YOU WILL HAVE TO ANSWER TO A HIGHER POWER

my family was scam out of 2500 hundred.we thought that NMP was the anwser to our family problems.this company will do anything to get your money.after all of this my family is going to lose our home.make sure if your give your money to any company do your reasearch.that was the lesson i learned.i now suffer panic attacks i will never trust anyone with my money ever again.DO NOT TRUST THIS COMPANY WITH YOUR MONEY.THIS COMPANY NATIONAL MODIFICATION PREPARATION IS A SCAM!

NMP is a SCAM. I dealt with Jason Glasser as well once I made a big deal about the "breach of contract" I spent over two hours on the phone with him just before Christmas 2010, Complete Liar! Its obvious that everyone is in breach, hence the scam. He used bulling tactics with the intent to appear as a helpful advocate. I fought back until I won. Ultimately I filed a claim with my CC company and was given a full refund. I have all paperwork and emails as proof. I hope others are as fortunate as I was and able to get their money back. No record of them on the Internet now except these types of forums. Don't let me find your ### on the street Jason!

NMP sucks. I'm going get my back you ###.

ORDER SUMMARY – Case Number: C-11-0696
Name(s): National Modification Preparation
Jason D. Glasser
Order Number: C-11-0696-12-FO01
Effective Date: November 20, 2012
License Number: UL
Or NMLS Identifier [U/L] (Revoked, suspended, stayed, application denied or withdrawn)
If applicable, you must specifically note the ending dates of terms.
License Effect: n/a
Not Apply Until: n/a
Not Eligible Until:
n/a
Prohibition/Ban Until: November 20, 2017
Investigation Costs $432 Due Paid
Y N
Date
Fine $6, 000 Due Paid
Y N
Date
Assessment(s) $n/a Due Paid
Y N
Date
Restitution $5, 495 Due Paid
Y N
Date
Judgment $n/a Due Paid
Y N
Date
Satisfaction of Judgment Filed?
Y N
No. of
Victims:
Comments: Default FO. R’s are banned for five years and owe restitution, a fine, and a fee

OAH [protected]
STATE OF MINNESOTA
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
In the Matter of National Modification Preparation, Jason Glasser and Elias Ponce
FINDINGS OF FACT,
CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATION
UPON DEFAULT
This matter came before Administrative Law Judge Manuel J. Cervantes (ALJ) on April 4, 2012, at the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), pursuant to a Notice and Order for Hearing and Order to Show Cause, filed March 2, 2012.
Michael J. Tostengard, Assistant Attorney General, appeared on behalf of the Department of Commerce (Department). None of the Respondents appeared after due notice. On April 10, 2012, the ALJ received the Department’s written default motion. The record closed on April 24, 2012, upon the lapse of the period for Respondent’s response.
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
1. Did Respondents violate Minn. Stat. § 58.02 and 58.041 by engaging in unlicensed mortgage origination activities (soliciting, placing or negotiating a residential mortgage loan?)
2. Did Respondents violate Minn. Stat. § 58.13, subds. 1(a)(6) by charging a fee for a product or service when that product or service was not provided?
3. Did Respondents violate Minn. Stat. § 58.13, subd. 1(a)(9) by misrepresenting issuance of a refund when a modification was not achieved, by failing to disburse funds according to its contractual obligations, by failing to perform in conformance with its written agreement with J.O., and by misrepresenting to J.O. the facts surrounding his application?
4. Did Respondents violate Minn. Stat. 58.13, subd. 1(a)(19) by placing before the public false statements and misrepresentations?
1 All citations to Minnesota Statutes are to the 2010 Edition.
2
5. Did Respondents violate Minn. Stat. § 58.14, by failing to respond to
customers’ complaints?
6. Did Respondents violate Minn. Stat. § 58.16, by failing to provide
customers with written contracts at the time an advance fee was accepted?
7. Did Respondents violate Minn. Stat. § 58.16, subd. 4, by failing to deposit
advance customers’ fees in a trust account within three business days?
8. Did Respondents violate Minn. Stat. § 325N, by making representations to
homeowners that it would perform services on their behalf in order to obtain
forbearance from existing mortgages and failing to meet the statutory disclosure
requirements?
9. Did Respondents violate Minn. Stat. § 325N.04 (1) by collecting
compensation before fully performing each and every service?
10. Did Respondents violate Minn. Stat. § 45.027, subd. 1a by failing to
respond to the Department’s requests for information?
Based on the evidence in the hearing record, the Administrative Law Judge
makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Respondents are not licensed by the Department in any capacity.
National Modification Preparation (NMP) was a limited liability company in the state of
Arizona. Respondent, Jason Glasser, Vice president of Operations for NMP, is not, and
has never been licensed as a mortgage originator in the State of Minnesota. Elias
Ponce, Vice President of Operations for NMP, is not licensed in any capacity by the
State of Minnesota.
2. The Department received a complaint from J.O. (a Shakopee, Minnesota
resident) in March of 2011. The Department conducted an investigation of
Respondents and learned that on October 8, 2010, NMP accepted an advance payment
of $2, 200.00 from J.O. in return for a loan modification agreement. NMP promised a
100% money-back guarantee if the company was unable to obtain a loan modification
for a pre-qualified customer.
3. The investigation also revealed that Barry Black (an NMP representative)
told J.O. it would cost $2, 200.00 to get a loan modification. Mr. Black further stated that
although he could not guarantee success based on J.O.’s initial screening, it would be
worth it to apply because NMP offered a full refund if the modification “did not go
through”. Black used the term “risk-free”. NMP asked J.O. about his monthly income
and finances. J.O. operates a seasonal business and is self-employed which made it
difficult to calculate a regular monthly income amount. NMP said J.O. would have no
3
problem obtaining a loan modification, and asked him to give his best estimate of his monthly income.
4. On October 8, 2010, J.O. paid the fee ($2, 200.00) by credit card and was sent an application packet. Complainant saw that a profit/loss statement was required and contacted NMP because he was concerned that he would not qualify if his income was based on his profit/loss statement, instead of his average monthly draw. J.O. sent NMP an e-mail which said he was worried that he would have trouble obtaining a refund because of the issue of how his income was determined. NMP responded to J.O. that they would review his information carefully, and they would contact him if there were any questions.
5. J.O. submitted an application along with the profit/loss statements for his businesses and a report of his average monthly draw.
6. Ten days later, the Vice President of Operations, Mr. Ponce, sent J.O. an e-mail in which he accused J.O. of providing false information. Ponce informed J.O. that no refund would be issued. Mr. Ponce demanded that J.O. acknowledge he had breached his contract with NMP by misrepresenting his income. J.O. denied Ponce’s accusations, and responded that NMP had taken his fee before advising him that his income would be determined based on a profit/loss statement.
7. Claimant stated that he is entitled to the refund because he had not submitted false information, but Respondents did not respond to J.O.’s requests for documentation and did not refund his money.
8. On March 29, 2011, J.O. posted a complaint about NMP on a complaint board on the internet. In a posted response, Glasser (Vice President of Operations of NMP) accused J.O. of trying to cheat the system and lying about his income.
9. On April 14 and April 16, 2011, the Department sent NMP requests for information along with a copy of J.O.’s Complaint. The Department requested a list of NMP’s Minnesota customers. NMP failed to respond. Glasser was involved in an exchange of posts on the complaint board regarding J.O.’s complaint, but he did not answer the Department’s letter.
10. Because NMP failed to respond, the Department cannot determine how many Minnesota customers could have been under contract with NMP at the time it went out of business.
11. In July of 2011, the Respondents were the subject of an administrative action in the State of New Hampshire for unlicensed conduct.
12. A Notice of and Order for Hearing, Order for Prehearing Conference and Statement of Charges was served and filed on March 12, 2012.
4
13. The Notice states, on page 6 under Additional Notice:
1. Respondents’ failure to appear at the prehearing conference, settlement conference, or the hearing, or failure to comply with any order of the Administrative Law Judge, may result in a finding that Respondents are in default, that the Department’s allegations contained in the Statement of Charges may be accepted as true, and that Respondents may be subject to discipline by the Commissioner, including revocation, suspension, censure, or the imposition of civil penalties.
14. The Respondents, who did not appear at the Prehearing Conference, made no request for a continuance or request any other relief, nor did they notify the Department, Office of Attorney General, or the Administrative Law Judge that they would be unable to appear.
15. Because Respondents failed to appear as scheduled, Respondents are in default. Under Minn. Rule 1400.6000, the allegations contained in the Notice of and Order for Hearing, Order for Prehearing Conference and Statement of Charges are taken as true and incorporated into these Findings of Fact.
Based on these Findings of Fact, the Administrative Law Judge makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS
1. The Department of Commerce and the Administrative Law Judge have jurisdiction in this matter pursuant to Minn. Stat. §§ 14.50 and 45.027.
2. The Department gave proper notice of the Prehearing Conference and has fulfilled all procedural requirements.
3. Respondents, having made no appearance at the Prehearing Conference, and absent a request for a continuance or other relief, are in default. Pursuant to Minn. Rule 1400.6000, the allegations contained in the Notice of and Order for Hearing, Order for Prehearing Conference, and Statement of Charges are hereby taken as true.
4. The Respondents have violated Minn. Stat. §§ 58.02, 58.04, 58.13, subd. 1(a)(6), (9), (19), 58.14, 58.16, 325N, 325N.04 (1), and 45.027, subd. 1a.
5. Discipline of Respondents, National Modification Preparation, Jason Glasser, and Elias Ponce is in the public interest.
Based upon these Conclusions, and for the reasons explained in the accompanying Memorandum, the Administrative Law Judge makes the following:
5
RECOMMENDATION
IT IS RECOMMENDED that appropriate disciplinary action, sanctions, and civil penalties be taken against Respondents, National Modification Preparation, Jason Glasser, and Elias Ponce.
Dated: May 17, 2012
/s/ Manuel J. Cervantes
MANUEL J. CERVANTES
Administrative Law Judge
Reported: Default
NOTICE
This report is a recommendation, not a final decision. The Commissioner of Commerce will make the final decision after a review of the record. The Commissioner may adopt, reject or modify the Findings of Fact, Conclusions, and Recommendations. Under Minn. Stat. § 14.61, the final decision of the Commissioner shall not be made until this Report has been made available to the parties to the proceeding for at least ten days. An opportunity must be afforded to each party adversely affected by this Report to file exceptions and present argument to the Commissioner. Parties should contact Mike Rothman, Commissioner, Minnesota Department of Commerce, 85 Seventh Place East, Suite 500, St. Paul, MN 55101 to learn the procedure for filing exceptions or presenting argument.
If the Commissioner fails to issue a final decision within 90 days of the close of the record, this report will constitute the final agency decision under Minn. Stat. § 14.62, subd. 2a. The record closes upon the filing of exceptions to the report and the presentation of argument to the Commissioner, or upon the expiration of the deadline for doing so. The Commissioner must notify the parties and the Administrative Law Judge of the date on which the record closes.
Under Minn. Stat. § 14.62, subd. 1, the agency is required to serve its final decision upon each party and the Administrative Law Judge by first class mail or as otherwise provided by law.

This company has been shut down by many states for operating illegally.

By the way the original poster is also one of the people who helped shut down this company.

Good Job