Re/Max review: fraud, forgery 22

At the office, we have already received information indicating that Amir was charged with Possession of Instruments of Forgery, Possession of Counterfeit Credit Cards and Fraud which are criminal offenses according to Criminal Code of Canada. Notwithstanding, with this additional piece of information we have no doubt that Amir is a career fraudster. One does not go through life getting charged with these criminal offenses if one is not somehow involved in committing them.
We will keep Amir away from our wallets, files and clients and thank you for the heads up and useful information.

Our broker hires any guy off the street without doing a thorough background check. Will take this up with him. It goes to show his lack of credibility. Having a salesperson in our office with this kind of record is damaging to our collective reputations.

This ### is really ###ed up!

People should be Smart...
this is an obvious personal problem that Houshang has! I am confident that nothing is true here. Look at it this way. This incident true or falls, happened almost 17 years ago... I am confident that the guy is clean now. I had the pleasure of working with Amir once 5 years ago. He is in fact a "Caring Professional" . I got this through the process of Buying a home for my client. He was very fair to both his Client and the buyers; to the extend that I was surprised .
Readers please be clever and just think for a second... Why would such an out dated issue even be mentioned.
if so ... lets start blaming our selves with what we have done and was not right in our entire life.
I am sure that all the negative comments before me on this link are by the person who posted it. Look at the dates of posting comments! they all have been posted at the same date! that can not be any body other than the person who posted this. being a normal person I can strongly say; that guy from the office does not exist.

Thank you Max . I believe people should be smarter and just see the nature of such actions.
This is what I gathered from internet under his name Hooshang Attar Jafari,
http://reports.fja.gc.ca/eng/1995/1995fca0218.html
Read through it and you will know what a personality he(Hooshang) was back in many years ago? god knows what he has learned through these years.
he doesn't seem to be Honest and fair! how old was he in 1995 when he illegally Crossed the American Border? and breaking the Canadian Law? Honestly these questions are coming to my mind one after the other? and yet he was involve in another.
I suggest the readers to be a good fair citizen.

I have worked with Amir for many years and this allegation is just pure lies. Someone has a personal grudge against him and is using this forum to vent his issues. if you have an issue why don`t you just come forward with your real name and don`t hide behind all these phony user names you have created on this web site. Better yet, get a life!

Max Jamil is Prince filomena is Alex Bd is Faramarz Attar Jafari alias Maximus, alias Diva Feri alias Michael, alias Shawn alias Jeff and who knows what else he calls himself today, he sues fake names to mislead and defame others.

The facts speak for themselves. The police record attached is evidence of a mortgage related fraud/forgery confession given to a Canadian police detective by Ali Attar Jafari. Fraud charges can be laid, no time limit applies to criminal charges, Crown prosecutes on behalf of victim. A criminal conviction is likely the outcome as there is a confession recorded by police.

Max Jamil is Prince filomena is AlexBd is Faramarz Attar Jafari alias Diva Feri alias Maximus alias Michael, alias Shawn. He worked as bus boy and waiter at Patogh Restaurant, retail clerk at Tiffany where he was fired, and recently as of 2012 a commissioned sales rep. He is relatively a newcomer, confused, green.
http://www.remax-oa.com/on/faramarz-attarjafari-94074-ag/

Hi everyone, we see Ferouz Jafari, AKA Hooshang Attar Jafari (the problem child of Attar Jafari Family ) is back from his trip now and saw the supportive comments about his sister. As usual (as seen in his other comments under other fake user names) he lashed out AGAIN (this time he is going at his sister and other brother Faramarz!)-> he has tempor issues, or maybe he forgot his medication again). He clearly can't see anything good said about his family! He attacks anyone and everyone in his family or outside his family who don't agree with his illegal actions. This Ferouz Jafari/AKA/ Hooshang Attar Jafari guy hates his family, hates his father, mother, three brothers and his sister . He hates anyone in the world that doesn't agree with him (Control Freak!) ! If you dis-agree with his actions, he will lash out at you and he will do his best to frame you for anything he can . He will try to start scaring you by using court and legal terms ! This is his way of intimidating people. . Yes, as I said, this is how his small brain gets satisfaction. Pay attention to all the comments trashing Ferial and the rest of her family: here or anywhere else on the internet. Ferouz, AKA Hooshang you can call your sister names as much as you like . Its easy to see thorugh this ! How is your relationsihp with other woman? Your ex-girl friends are talking about how you are a women beater and abuse woman all the time (one said you have serious anger issues). ! Get help! Maybe this time you can lie to government AGAIN and collect disability payments for brain damage! Looks like you suffer from one!

@ Max Jamil or Faramarz or Amir: People are smart but you need to have respect and online etiquette. One does not need to be a linguist to read and understand the attached police report. It is clear that Amir committed mortgage fraud. We already know about Amir's credit card fraud charges. What is obvious is that you are trying to distort the truth with more games and deceit.

The evidence speaks for itself. Max Jamil is Prince filomena is b.ham.g is AlexBd is you, Faramarz Attar Jafari and Amir Jafari also known as Ali Attar Jafari. Faramarz is clearly the crime partner of Amir. Now that Amir's criminal activities are going online, here and elsewhere, and people are taking note, these two individuals have resorted to using fake names in order to attack the innocent victim whose inheritance they also stole. That is how low these two individuals are. They don't realize that this evidence can be used against them in a libel lawsuit they cannot afford.

@ b.ham.g or Faramarz or Amir: Never mind your ### you sore losers, why don't you tell us about your own wife and male lovers?

@ b.ham.g: keep your sister and our ex-girl friends (that is if they give you time of the day) put them on your desk!

@ b.ham.g: What are the full names of those ex-girlfriends?

this firooz guy is mentally ill, look at the names he fabricates to post the comments.
it is good to know all the above comments after the beautiful comments of different people he obliviously attacks them with
different fake names in which you can check and see yourself that they have been posted all on the same day and just with minutes
different than each other just by clicking on the name beside the picture box in the light blue bar.
Isn't that something? can't you tell these are all the same person.. and guess who?

I agree, Hooshang/Ferouz Attar Jafari most likely suffers from schizophrenia and needs professional help.A mental institution is the best place for him to get treatment.

Didn't this guy used to work with York Regional Police money Launderer Reza "ray Ray" Behroozian? He was the "accountant" at the scam place that used to be called Toronto Auto Station.

The guys who helped Reza "ray Ray" Behroozian scam millions was also named Ali / Amir Jafari. I remember he looked like this guy. Just a little fatter.

He's part of the Maleki-Raei and Behroozian crime family. He won't get charged with anything . Trust me on that. They have dirty cops Maurizio Gentili #1133 and Mark James Charlebois #815 running to every justification to save their ###. I will post the documents I ave later on if you like. Their wives and family give blow jobs to these old dirty cops and they profit with the family.

Reza "Ray Ray" Behroozian is also a pedophile. He lives at 57 May In Richmond Hill. Here is his picture.

This guy Ali Jaferi registered the bank accounts for Toronto Auto Station.

wow...Look what I found ! wow ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nyxRYP_rr0Q

This looks like him too ...

Amir Jafari alias Ali Attar Jafari and Faramarz Attar Jafari, etc.: your comments under several fake names further validate your knowledge of your mortgage fraud and signature forgery. Faramarz is Amir's crime partner. Your collective displeasure with your criminal histories found online is noted. Incidentally, the psychiatry labels you throw around without understanding their meanings accurately describe yourselves. You are ignorant because you have not completed any university program in any discipline anywhere; you do not have the merits to get in and the required IQ to move along.

So you are just two of the many “dime a dozen” real estate salespersons, with a couple of dipstick easy courses you took to get a licence which every Joe and their grand mother has got. Start by taking ESL, English as a Second Language course and quit lying to yourselves. Most importantly, quit fraud, return what you have stolen from others.

Not to be confused with Antisocial personality disorder.
Avoidant personality disorder
Classification and external resources
ICD-10 F60.6
ICD-9 301.82
MedlinePlus 000940
eMedicine ped/189
MeSH D010554
Personality
disorders
Cluster A (odd)

Paranoid
Schizoid
Schizotypal

Cluster B (dramatic)

Antisocial
Borderline
Histrionic
Narcissistic

Cluster C (anxious)

Avoidant
Dependent
Obsessive-compulsive

Not specified

Depressive
Passive–aggressive

Sadistic
Self-defeating

Psychopathy

v
t
e

Avoidant personality disorder[1] (or anxious personality disorder)[2] is a Cluster C personality disorder recognized in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders handbook in a person characterized by a pervasive pattern of social inhibition, feelings of inadequacy, extreme sensitivity to negative evaluation, and avoidance of social interaction.

People with avoidant personality disorder often consider themselves to be socially inept or personally unappealing and avoid social interaction for fear of being ridiculed, humiliated, rejected, or disliked. Avoidant personality disorder is usually first noticed in early adulthood. Childhood emotional neglect and peer group rejection (e.g. bullying) are both associated with an increased risk for the development of AvPD.

There is controversy as to whether avoidant personality disorder is a distinct disorder from generalized social phobia and it is contended by some that they are merely different conceptualisations of the same disorder, where avoidant personality disorder may represent the more severe form.[3][4] This is argued because generalized social phobia and avoidant personality disorder have similar diagnostic criteria and may share a similar causation, subjective experience, course, treatment, and identical underlying personality features, such as shyness.[5][6][7]

Psychological abuse, also referred to as emotional abuse or mental abuse, is a form of abuse characterized by a person subjecting or exposing another to behavior that may result in psychological trauma, including anxiety, chronic depression, or post-traumatic stress disorder.[1][2][3] Such abuse is often associated with situations of power imbalance, such as abusive relationships, bullying, child abuse and abuse in the workplace.[2][3] There were "no consensus views about the definition of emotional abuse." As such, clinicians and researchers have offered sometimes divergent definitions of emotional abuse. However, the widely used Conflict Tactics Scale measures roughly twenty distinct acts of "psychological aggression" in three different categories:

Verbal aggression (e.g., saying something that upsets or annoys someone else);
Dominant behaviours (e.g., preventing someone to have contact with their family);
Jealous behaviors (e.g., accusing a partner of maintaining other parallel relations).

The U.S. Department of Justice defines emotionally abusive traits as including causing fear by intimidation, threatening physical harm to self, partner, children, or partner's family or friends, destruction of pets and property, forcing isolation from family, friends, or school or work.[4]

In 1996, Health Canada argued that emotional abuse is motivated by urges for "power and discontrol", [3] and defines emotional abuse as including rejecting, degrading, terrorizing, isolating, corrupting/exploiting and "denying emotional responsiveness" as characteristic of emotional abuse.

Several studies have argued that, unlike physical and sexual maltreatment, an isolated incident does not constitute emotional abuse. Tomison and Tucci write, "emotional abuse is characterised by a climate or pattern of behaviour(s) occurring over time [...] Thus, 'sustained' and 'repetitive' are the crucial components of any definition of emotional abuse."[5] Andrew Vachss, an author, attorney and former sex crimes investigator, defines emotional abuse as "the systematic diminishment of another. It may be intentional or subconscious (or both), but it is always a course of conduct, not a single event."[6]

Subtler emotionally abusive tactics include insults, putdowns, arbitrary and unpredictable inconsistency, and gaslighting (the denial that previous abusive incidents occurred). Modern technology has led to new forms of abuse, by text messaging and online cyber-bullying.
Contents

1 Pathology
1.1 Prevalence
1.1.1 In intimate relationships
1.1.2 In the workplace
1.2 Characteristics of abusers
1.3 Effects
1.4 Popular and clinical perception
1.5 Cultural causes
2 See also
3 References

Pathology
Prevalence
In intimate relationships
Main article: Domestic abuse

Domestic abuse—defined as chronic mistreatment in marriage, families, dating and other intimate relationships —- can include emotionally abusive behavior. Psychological abuse does not always lead to physical abuse, but physical abuse in domestic relationships is nearly always preceded and accompanied by psychological abuse.[2] Murphy and O'Leary[7] report that psychological aggression by one partner is the most reliable predictor of the other partner's likelihood of first exhibiting physical aggression.

A 2005 study by Hamel[8] reports that "men and women physically and emotionally abuse each other at equal rates". Basile[9] found that psychological aggression was effectively bidirectional in cases where heterosexual and homosexual couples went to court for domestic disturbances. A 2007 study of Spanish college students (n = 1, 886) aged 18–27 [10] found that psychological aggression (as measured by the Conflict Tactics Scale) is so pervasive in dating relationships that it can be regarded as a normalized element of dating, and that women are substantially more likely to exhibit psychological aggression. Similar findings have been reported in other studies.[11] Strauss et al.[12] found that female intimate partners in heterosexual relationships were more likely than males to use psychological aggression, including threats to hit or throw an object. A study of young adults (N = 721) by Giordano et al.[13] found that females in intimate heterosexual relationships were more likely than males to threaten to use a knife or gun against their partner.

Numerous studies done between the 1980 and 1994[1][14][15][16][17][18] report that lesbian relationships have higher overall rates of interpersonal aggression (including psychological aggression/emotional abuse) than heterosexual or gay male relationships. Furthermore, women who have been involved with both men and women reported higher rates of abuse from their female partners.[19]

In 1996, the National Clearinghouse on Family Violence, [3] for Health Canada, reported that 39% of married women or common-law wives suffered emotional abuse by husbands/partners; and a 1995 survey of women 15 and over (n = [protected]% reported emotional abuse during childhood or adolescence, and 39% experienced emotional abuse in marriage/dating; this report does not address boys or men suffering emotional abuse from families or intimate partners. A BBC radio documentary on domestic abuse, including emotional maltreatment, reports that 20% of men and 30% of women have been abused by a spouse or other intimate partner.[20]

Straus and Field [21] report that psychological aggression is a pervasive trait of American families: "verbal attacks on children, like physical attacks, are so prevalent as to be just about universal". A 2008 study by English, et al.[22] found that fathers and mothers were equally likely to be verbally aggressive towards their children.
In the workplace
Main article: Workplace bullying

Rates of reported emotional abuse in the workplace vary, with studies showing 10%[23] 24%[24] and 36%[25] of respondents indicating persistent and substantial emotional abuse from coworkers.

Keashly and Jagatic [26] found that males and females commit “emotionally abusive behaviors” in the workplace at roughly similar rates. In a web-based survey, Namie[27] found that women were more likely to engage in workplace bullying, such as name-calling, and that the average length of abuse was 16.5 months
Characteristics of abusers

In their review of data from the Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study (a longitudinal birth cohort study; n = 941) Moffitt et al.[28] report that while men exhibit more aggression overall, gender is not a reliable predictor of interpersonal aggression, including psychological aggression. The study found that whether male or female, aggressive people share a cluster of traits, including high rates of suspicion and jealousy; sudden and drastic mood swings; poor self-control; and higher than average rates of approval of violence and aggression. Moffitt et al. also argue that antisocial men exhibit two distinct types of interpersonal aggression (one against strangers, the other against intimate female partners), while antisocial women are rarely aggressive against anyone other than intimate male partners.

Male and female perpetrators of emotional and physical abuse exhibit high rates of personality disorders.[29][30][31] Rates of personality disorder in the general population are roughly 15%-20%, while roughly 80% of abusive men in court-ordered treatment programmes have personality disorders.[1]

Abusers may aim to avoid household chores or exercise total control of family finances. Abusers can be very manipulative, often recruiting friends, law officers and court officials, even the victim's family to their side, while shifting blame to the victim.[32][33]
Effects

English, et al.[34] report that children whose families are characterized by interpersonal violence, including psychological aggression and verbal aggression, may exhibit a range of serious disorders, including chronic depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, dissociation and anger. Additionally, English et al. report that the impact of emotional abuse "did not differ significantly" from that of physical abuse. Johnson et al.[35] report that, in a survey of female patients (n = 825), 24% suffered emotional abuse, and this group experienced higher rates of gynecological problems. In their study of men emotionally abused by a wife/partner or parent (n = 116), Hines and Malley-Morrison[36] report that victims exhibit high rates of post traumatic stress disorder, drug addiction and alcoholism.

Namie's study[27] of workplace emotional abuse found that 31% of women and 21% of men who reported workplace emotional abuse exhibited three key symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (hypervigilance, intrusive imagery, and avoidance behaviors). A 1998 study of male college students (n = 70) by Simonelli & Ingram[37] found that men who were emotionally abused by their female partners exhibited higher rates of chronic depression than the general population.

A study of college students (N = 80) by Goldsmith and Freyd[38] report that many who have experienced emotional abuse do not characterize the mistreatment as abusive. Additionally, Goldsmith and Freyd show that these people also tend to exhibit higher than average rates of alexithymia (difficulty identifying and processing their own emotions).

Jacobson et al.[39] found that women report markedly higher rates of fear during marital conflicts. However, a rejoinder[40] argued that Jacobson's results were invalid due to men and women's drastically differing interpretations of questionnaires. Coker et al.[41] found that the effects of mental abuse were similar whether the victim was male or female. Pimlott-Kubiak and Cortina[42] found that severity and duration of abuse were the only accurate predictors of aftereffects of abuse; sex of perpetrator or victim were not reliable predictors.

Analysis of large survey (N = 25, 876) by LaRoche[43] found that women abused by men were slightly more likely to seek psychological help than were men abused by women (63% vs. 62%).

In a 2007 study, Laurent, et al., [44] report that psychological aggression in young couples (n = 47) is associated with decreased satisfaction for both partners: "psychological aggression may serve as an impediment to couples development because it reflects less mature coercive tactics and an inability to balance self/other needs effectively". A 2008 study by Walsh and Shulman[11] reports that relationship dissatisfaction for both partners is more likely to be associated with, in women, psychological aggression and, in men, with withdrawal.
Popular and clinical perception

Several studies found double-standards in how people tend to view emotional abuse by men versus emotional abuse by women. Follingstad et al. found that, [45] when rating hypothetical vignettes of psychological abuse in marriages, professional psychologists tend to rate male abuse of females as more serious than identical scenarios describing female abuse of males: "the stereotypical association between physical aggression and males appears to extend to an association of psychological abuse and males" (Follingstad et al., p. 446) Similarly, Sorenson and Taylor randomly surveyed a group of Los Angeles, California residents for their opinions of hypothetical vignettes of abuse in heterosexual relationships.[46] Their study found that abuse committed by women, including emotional and psychological abuse such as controlling or humiliating behavior, was typically viewed as less serious or detrimental than identical abuse committed by men. Additionally, Sorenson and Taylor found that respondents had a broader range of opinions about female perpetrators, representing a lack of clearly defined mores when compared to responses about male perpetrators.

According to Walsh and Shluman, "The higher rates of female initiated aggression [including psychological aggression] may result, in part, from adolescents' attitudes about the unacceptability of male aggression and the relatively less negative attitudes toward female aggression".[11]

Hamel's 2007 study found that "prevailing patriarchal conception of intimate partner violence" led to a systematic reluctance to study women who psychologically and physically abuse their male partners.[47]

Dutton found that men who are emotionally or physically abused often encounter victim blaming that erroneously presumes the man either provoked or deserved the mistreatment of their female partners.[48] Similarly, domestic violence victims will often blame their own behavior, rather than the violent actions of the abuser. Victims may try continually to alter their behavior and circumstances in order to please the abuser.[49]

Simon [50] [51] argues that because aggression in abusive relationships can be carried out subtly and covertly through various manipulation and control tactics, victims often don't perceive the true nature of the relationship until conditions worsen considerably.
Cultural causes

Some scholars argue that hundreds or thousands of years of male dominated societies have created negative attitudes towards women among many men, and that wife abuse stems from "normal psychological and behavioral patterns of most men ... feminists seek to understand why men in general use physical force against their partners and what functions this serves for a society in a given historical context".[52] Similarly, Dobash and Dobash claim that "Men who assault their wives are actually living up to cultural prescriptions that are cherished in Western society--aggressiveness, male dominance and female subordination--and they are using physical force as a means to enforce that dominance", while Walker claims that men exhibit a "socialized androcentric need for power".[53][54]

While some women are aggressive and dominating to male partners the majority of abuse in heterosexual partnerships, at about 80% in the USA, is by men.[55] (Note that critics[56] stress that this Department of Justice study examines crime figures, and does not specifically address domestic abuse figures. While the categories of crime and domestic abuse may cross-over, most instances of domestic abuse are not regarded as crimes or reported to police—critics thus argue that it's inaccurate to regard the DOJ study as a comprehensive statement on domestic abuse because compelling evidence shows that men and women tend to commit emotional and physical abuse in roughly equal rates.) A 2002 study reports that ten percent of violence in the UK, overall, is by females against males.[57] However, more recent data specifically regarding domestic abuse (including emotional abuse) report that 3 in 10 women, and 2 in 10 men, have experienced domestic abuse.[20]

Some argue that fundamentalist views of religions, which have developed in male-dominated cultures, tend to reinforce emotional abuse, citing the Book of Genesis as an example of a text that has been used to justify men abusing women: "in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children: and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee".[58] Critics also suggest that fundamentalist religious prohibitions against divorce make it more difficult for religious men or women to leave an abusive marriage: A 1985 survey of Protestant clergy in the United States by Jim M Alsdurf found that 21% of them agreed that "no amount of abuse would justify a woman's leaving her husband ever", and 26% agreed with the statement that "a wife should submit to her husband and trust that God would honour her action by either stopping the abuse or giving her the strength to endure it." [59]

Many older and some not so old children's stories contain gender stereotyping, and music videos and computer games for children and teenagers have been criticised for continuing to portray men as aggressive and in control, while the females are there only for their sexual allure; women are portrayed as wanting to be chased and caught when they run away.[32]

Critics argue that legal systems have in the past endorsed these traditions of male domination and it is only in recent years that abusers have begun to be punished for their behaviour.[32] Some laws in past centuries have however specifically prohibited punitive wife-beating: "The Body of Liberties adopted in 1641 by the Massachusetts Bay colonists states, 'Every married woman shall be free from bodily correction or stripes by her husband, unless it be in his own defense from her assault.'[60] In 1879, Harvard University law scholar wrote, "The cases in the American courts are uniform against the right of the husband to use any chastisement, moderate or otherwise, toward the wife, for any purpose."[61]

While recognizing that feminist researchers have done valuable work and highlighted neglected topics[62] critics suggest that the male cultural domination hypothesis for abuse is untenable as a generalized explanation for numerous reasons:

Many variables (racial, ethnic, cultural and subcultural, nationality, religion, family dynamics, mental illness, etc.) make it difficult or impossible to define male and female roles in any meaningful way that apply to the entire population.[63]

Studies show that disagreements about power-sharing in relationships are more strongly associated with abuse than are imbalances of power.[64]

Research has not discovered that male privilege is a necessary and sufficient sole cause of abuse of women. On the contrary, peer-reviewed studies have produced inconsistent results when directly examining patriarchal beliefs and wife abuse. Yllo and Straus[65] argued that "low status" women in the United States suffered higher rates of spousal abuse; however, a rejoinder argued that Yllo and Straus's interpretive conclusions were "confusing and contradictory".[66] Smith[67] estimated that patriarchal beliefs were a causative factor for only 20% of wife abuse. Other studies failed to find a causal link between spouse abuse and traditionalist/conservative cultural beliefs. Campbell[68] writes that "there is not a simple linear correlation between female status and rates of wife assault". Other studies had similar findings.[69][70] Additionally, a study of Hispanic Americans revealed that traditionalist men exhibited lower rates of abuse towards women.[71]

Studies show that treatment programs based on the patriarchal privilege model are flawed due to a weak connection between abusiveness and one's cultural or social attitudes.[72][73][74]

Numerous empirical studies challenge the concept that male abuse or control of women is culturally sanctioned. Such studies show that abusive men are widely viewed as unsuitable partners for dating or marriage.[75] A minority of abusive men qualify as pervasively misogynistic.[76] The majority of men who commit spousal abuse agree that their behavior was inappropriate.[77] A minority of men approve of spousal abuse under even limited circumstances.[78] Furthermore, the majority of men are non-abusive towards girlfriends or wives for the duration of relationships, contrary to predictions that aggression or abuse towards women is an innate element of masculine culture.[79][80][81][82]

Dutton[1] argues that the numerous studies establishing that heterosexual and gay male relationships have lower rates of abuse than lesbian relationships, and the fact that women who've been involved with both men and women were more likely to have been abused by a woman "are difficult to explain in terms of male domination". Additionally, Dutton suggests that "patriarchy must interact with psychological variables in order to account for the great variation in power-violence data. It is suggested that some forms of psychopathology lead to some men adopting patriarchal ideology to justify and rationalize their own pathology".