“What’s happened to him was, basically, collateral damages from the business practices Crisp & Cole were engaged in,”

What does this mean?

It means he's taking no personal responsibility in decisions he made regarding fraudulent real estate purchases.  At least that's what I'm reading into it.

Benefit of the doubt.........................possibly he was "hood winked" by crisp & cole?  Evidently many people were including CSUB and Bakersfield in general.

Zane Richards was not an office worker at Crisp & Cole.  He was the head of David Crisp's personal security entourage.  Mr. Richards is a very stand-up guy ... I've known him since high school.  He comes from a wonderful family and has a great little family of his own.  By his lawyer stating that his situation is an affect of collateral damage, he is not stretching the truth there.  You have read many stories where people feel that they were mislead.  Just because Mr. Richards was affiliated with Crisp & Cole via his security business, it does not mean he was affiliated with them in their "other" business.  It really does not matter what everyone who reads this or adds to it "thinks," but what I "know" is that Zane Richards is a person of integrity.  If he gets charged with anything, then we will see if a court thinks any different.  Until then, do not give the Californian, its writers, or any other form of media the "privelege" of slander by freedom of speech.  I would hope that anyone who can navigate a website and find this blog would also have the intelligence to realize what spins the media is capable of putting on certain topics in order to stir up readers, provoke interest, etc.  I wish Zane and his family the best of luck in this ordeal and I pray that if he is innocent, such as I believe, then his name will be cleared and any form of media which as hinted that he is guilty of any wrong-doing will have the decency to print an apology.

Mr. Richards a man of integrity?  Integrity - adherence to moral and ethical principles; soundness of moral character; honesty.  What part of this definition fits Mr. Richards.  He purchased numerous properties in his name, thus he signed a note and deed of trust promising the lender to repay the loan AND to occupy the properties, as his principal residence within 60 days of close.  So lets see - He bought 10918 Vista Del Valle on 9/20/05 for $420,000 with 100% loans, then bought 1914 Three Bridges on 5/1/06 for $785,000 with 100% loans and then bought 12114 Rodeo on 5/12/06 (11 days later) for $484,000, then bought 12104 Crown Crest on 10/20/06 for $995,000 with 100% loans.  Mr. Richards was a busy little bee moving from one home to the other.  At worst, Mr. Richards has violated 18 USC 1001, 18 USC 1014, 18 USC 1344 which is punishable by up to 30 years in prison or $1,000,000 in fines, or both. 

Stand up guy? Hardly......... 

I got a feeling Mr. Richards is in for a bumpy ride.

gcrab695, I looked up your addresses, and found that Zane Richards was listed as the owner for all of them, though most are now foreclosed, bank-owned, AKA REO properties now.

Good work, gcrab695

Still, let's say that Zane Richards is innocent until proven guilty.

I am trying to upload photos of the properties in question, but am getting an error message.

1914 Three Bridges was sold for $795,000 by Crisp & Cole, but is now listed as an REO for $525,000.

12104 Crown Crest was listed by Crisp 7 Cole for $995,000 but sold for $925,000 on 9/19/2005.

In September of 2007 it was listed for $725,000, but by December it had sold as an REO for $505,000.

Still, let's say that Zane Richards is innocent until proven guilty. It is interesting to see the wild fluctuations of price, but what a crazy time that was.

Could Zane have run up a 4.2 million tab, and signed his name on all of those mortgages, without knowing what was up?

Let us give him the benefit of the doubt, because the Californian, CSUB, and many others were all taken in by the outward manifestations of success, the jet, the charitable donations . . .

It looks pretty bad for Zane Richards, as Desi Arnez said, he's got a lot of 'splaining to do.

I spoke with Zane the other night, after I wrote my comment.  He expressed to me that Mr. Crisp had deceived him and added documents to loans and performed other various acts which deceived him.  David Crisp and Zane had been good friends since high school.  As stated, the courts may have the chance to decide who was at fault here.  If Zane was telling me the truth, and we've been close friends for years so I do not see why he wouldn't, then I feel real bad for him ... not only because of the negative media feedback but also because he was deceived by a close friend of his.  Zane worked as a correctional officer and left that career to head Mr. Crisps security team.  If he believed or knew that Mr. Crisp was running a scheme, then he would not have left the security of a correctional officer career, his wife would not have allowed it, and he definitely would not have gone through Mr. Crisp to obtain a home loan(s).  I am not sure to what extent Mr. Crisp deceived him and I am not going to cast assumptions on it nor am I going to condemn him until I know all of the facts.  I urge you to do the same as well.  Put yourself in his shoes and imagine that you quit a career to work for your good friend who promises the world, then you trust that good friend when purchasing a home for your family, only to find out that you have been deceived, your not the only one to be deceived, and now you have to file bankruptcy and then hope you will be able to pick yourself up and obtain another lifelong career such as the one you left because you trusted your friend.  Pretty sad if you ask me.  I'm glad we do not live in a society where people get stoned to death because, unfortunately for Zane, he would have already been stoned without anyone completely knowing all of the facts.

nglann, David ruined a lot of good people.

For this I cannot forgive him. He can carry his bible all around and preach the word, but I have just one word for him:

REPENT!

But you know what?

I don't think he ever really will.

(I also think he has a formidable "stash of cash" in offshore accounts)

NGlann

Did Mr. Richards honestly  think he could make the payments on $2,715,000 in mortgage loans on his salary from his personal security job?

Ignorance of a law does not excuse anyone from obeying that law.  Naivete and blind trust in a friend does not excuse anyone from their obligation to repay a loan they pledged to honor when they signed the loan documents.  So, unless David Crisp forged his name to the loan documents, I don't see how  Mr. Richards can blame anyone, but himself,  for his predicament.

Audrey, one time long ago in a far off place, one of my stations was ripped off for an entire week of profits from selling petrol.

When confronted about the situation by my boss, I told him "You know sir, its partly our fault. All of the blame isn't on the thief or even our station managers! We are partly to blame!"

"What?"  he said incredulously.

"Yes sir. We allowed this man to be confronted with "easy pickins" due to our lack of good security measures. We indeed are partly to blame. This guy succumbed to basic human weakness. But we allowed him to be confronted with what he perceived as an "easy score". We certainly are complicit in my mind."

David is certainly to blame. So is Zane. But the "system" that allowed this to happen is too.

People will always succumb to human frailties if we allow it.  Our "job" is to see that measures are taken to not allow these mere humans to be confronted with such an "easy score".

At least that's just the way I figure it.

Chico

I made a bad deal on my first car.  I didn't negotiate at all and just took it at the asking price because I was naive and didn't have self confidence.

The last car I bought almost made the salesman cry because I wanted more, more, more.  Which I got.

Did I blame society for my first bad deal.  Nope,  I just blamed myself for being uninformed.  A dolt.  A rube. 

If loan companies went outside the law to make bad loans to idiots, it will be corrected by a new law.  Lawmakers can't predict where the next fleecing will take place so laws are created retroactively. 

I, personally, don't feel at fault for greedy people buying more than they could afford at "loan shark" interest rates.  Next time they'll be smarter.