**  A letter dated19 January 2006 from Alan Burlock to the Peter Fray The Editor Sunday Age in regard to the incorrect Age articles  Re: Alan Burlock Sunday Age Article January 15, 2006

I refer to the article that Mark Russel authored, which we note again contains a large number of errors of fact and sets out to defame Alan Burlock. I also refer to the letter written on 16^th May 2005 by Mr Issac Brott solicitor on behalf of Alan Burlock, wherein it was pointed out that the last articles by Mark Russel on 21 April 2005 (and previously) also contained a large number of errors of fact and were deliberately set to defame Alan Burlock.

Mark Russel and the Age were invited by Issac Brott to inspect documents which would refute every point of the articles and Mark Russel and the Age refused to avail themselves of this chance to appraise themselves of the facts. As no further articles appeared after Issac Brott’s letter, I had not at this point in time taken action in issuing defamation action. Now Mark Russel has produced another defamatory article full of errors of fact. I am advised that Mark Russel knows full well that these facts are incorrect because Mark Russel has been induced to write the articles by Mick Healy of Deco Holdings Group Pty Ltd (“Deco”) the builder of the 17 town houses at 107 Nepean Highway Seaford (“Project”) owned by Seaford Developments Pty Ltd (“SDPL”) as trustee for the Seaford Joint Venture (“JV”).

We are advised that Mark Russel has been induced to produce the articles to pressure Alan Burlock as a director of SDPL to withdraw an approx $2,000,000 claim by SDPL against Deco for faulty construction of the Project, and further to prevent SDPL from having Deco prosecuted by the relevant authorities as Deco has fraudulently substituted packaging foam for the specified “iso board” building foam on the outside cladding of the 17 town houses. Requiring, the 17 town houses to be reclad. This would be more newsworthy than the false stories Mark Russel attributes to Alan Burlock but would of course offend Deco, so we would not expect to see any articles by Mark Russel in the Age showing Deco in a bad light.

Again Issac Brott invited Mark Russel and the Age to inspect the reports and the Project to observe the defects and fraudulent activity of Deco, but again Mark Russel and the Age declined to so inspect – clearly neither Mark Russel, nor the Age was interested in the facts. We can go through the article para by para and point out the errors of fact but in summary:

All of these facts could have been easily checked with the most basic of research, Mark Russel and the Age have a duty of care to get the facts right. Especially, after being put on notice by Issac Brott of the errors in the previous articles, and being invited to inspect the documents. These articles have been written for the sole reason by Mark Russel to personally defame Alan Burlock, as we have never met it could not be for personal reasons, I must assume it is as I have been told because Deco have induced him. The Age has either deliberately or unwittingly assisted Mark Russel to defame Alan Burlock.

This has resulted in easily provable real damage to Alan Burlock where lenders based on these defamatory articles are now refusing to advance loan funds to Alan Burlock associated entities in due course I will issue proceeding against Mark Russel and the Age for these very substantial damages. We demand that the Age print a retraction (after correctly assessing the facts) and allow me to insert a letter in the Age pointing out the facts and advising that Mark Russel refused to inspect the documents and wrote the article knowing the facts to be incorrect.

I will make complaints to the relevant press councils about the articles and seek sanctions against Mark Russel and the Age. I await your urgent advice, and put you on notice that I will be issuing proceedings for defamation and the damages that have flowed from these articles and your continued refusal to even refer to the documents and the facts.

Signed A D Burlock

** Alan Burlock’s work shops and material were the best of all of the crop of wealth seminar givers, he was the only party telling you that if you kept purchasing property, and then as their value rose, you regeared them to the maximum and used those funds to purchase another property – YOU WOULD AT SOME POINT IN TIME GO BROKE.

Because no market continues to grow forever there is always a stagnant period or a fall, if you are geared to the maximum all the time – you ensure you will hit one of these periods, and you will be unable to pay the increased interest or your lenders will drop their LVR’s and require reduction of debt, you will be unable to refinance in such a market and your lender will auction off your portfolio.

This is the future for almost all highly geared investors.

Alan spoke the truth when he says your aim should be to reduce debt not increase it.

You need to accumulate properties after you have enhanced their value so you are starting out with gearing of 70% and keep reducing debt – better over long term to own 3 unencumbered properties than 10 highly geared properties. (Ray of Bundoora)

** Alan Burlock advised he can show you how you can control not 1 or 2 property with high risk and high debt by purchasing them. BUT you can control 10-20 properties and gain the upside benefit with no risk by Optioning them.  His Property Options are the most powerful legal documents in Real Estate today and allow you to control and earn massive profits from property without having to outlay massive amounts of your own capital. For decades, experienced property investors, have known of them and used them to create massive fortunes, and now we can all do it. THIS IS THE REAL WAY TO INVEST IN PROPERTY, gain upside on a lot of properties and your only risk is the option fee paid up front, if property grows in value – sell it (or option) and make the profit. If it drops in value leave to owner to suffer loss – you walk away debt free. Sure it is a bit harder to get someone to give you an option than gain an unconditional sale, but those, who want to succeed need to apply themselves as Anthony Robbins says “stretch yourself”, the ones who take this advice and do nothing, but complain are lazy or stupid or both – they could not get of their arse and take action – they are life's failures. (Mary of Roville)

** I sat through Alan Burlock’s seven day course, and the amount of information was extraordinary, I was brain overloaded until he took us on the bus trip and showed us property after property that he had optioned (got permit) to enhance value and sold for a profit – then it all clicked.

I retained 2 items DO NOT BUY AND GEAR & CONTROL PROPERTY BY OPTION, and I acted on them, it was hard work at first I made dozens of offers and no acceptances, then as my pitch got better I got options, the first one that made a profit gave me 3 years salary in one hit – now I only work couple weeks per annum and make plenty, Alan you are a genius and changed my life. Remember these words “the owner of a property enters into a binding contract to give the you the Option for the payment of a Option Fee to purchase the property for a period of time at agreed price” and you will get rich, Alan’s option documents are worth more than gold – but you have to do the work in finding sites, do not be deterred by rejections. (Clem of Brighton).

**  I agree with Clem I also attended Alan Burlock’s course and learnt to control 20+ properties by option (not debt), and at the expiration of the Option Terms, I could decide if it had increased in value to buy the property on a low LVR basis, or if it had not increased in value, I walked away with no debt. If I decide to buy the property the Seller must sell the property to me at the Price of the Option notwithstanding the property is now worth more, the Option Fee becomes part payment toward the Price. This is a no risk method of controlling many properties and gaining from the increase in value of those properties (Elain of Eltham)

**  The only reason anyone would want to purchase a property (other than ones own house) is to gain the capital growth, you would not want to just own property to provide an income for agents and trade people, pay rates to councils, & land tax to government, who wants the tenant troubles you get. Alan’s Options are god sent, you can control lots of properties with none of the problems of ownership, but gain all of the increases in capital value. Increase sell it for profit. No increase – walk – only lose option fee. Those that complain are to dumb to realize the opportunity these options provide or to lazy to achieve anything (Phil of Surfers Paradise).

**  Alan Burlock’s Property Options Plan will show you how to protect your capital, invest with minimal risk. Control many properties, with minimal cash outlay. Program your mind to become rich. Take action to achieve your dream, and to continue to take action until you succeed (George of Doncaster).

**   Alan Burlock warned many investment advisers today are selling clients property with the prices inflated by over 20% for their “commission”. This results in the Property being purchased way above Retail Value. These properties cannot grow enough to resell on, and make a profit, and the Property if funded will be > 120%+ of Valuation. Client will lose in the first Market correction, and probably his house as well, this advice stopped me purchasing a property through a famous Melbourne property spruiker named Henry Kaye. Alan I am eternally grateful, as my friends who did have either lost everything or battle to meet interest payments on property they paid to much for (Darren from Lilydale).

**  I agree with Alan Burlock in regard to the Age articles. Alan as director of the Trustee Company of the Seaford JV was suing Mick Healy as builder to complete the building, and to rectify the faults including the use of the wrong wall cladding in the development at Seaford, and Healy deliberately tried to prevent the completion of the project, thereby holding the JV partners to ransom on interest charges in order to get himself an indemnity for his illegal acts, and stupidly some of the Seaford JV Partners were trying to assist Healy to thwart Burlock from forcing Healy to complete the project and rectify defaults – go figure some people (John of Waverley)

**   Alan Burlock taught me one great point “a property tied up by option @ Retail today = Wholesale if settled 18+ months later”, this can be done by options with delayed settlements, I do not apply for a permit (option fee cost $1-2,000) Permit costs ($15-25,000), I simply option many properties at any price, and wait (sometimes I make cheap application I know council will reject so I can appeal and delay settlement longer). Just tie up plenty of properties and wait. A lot will increase to allow you to make good profits – this is the only business to be in (Terry from Frankston).

**   I wrote to the Sunday Age to both its script writer (he could not be called a reporter) Mark Russel & its editor Peter Fray, advising the contents of the Age articles were both incorrect and defamatory. Russel advised the articles would not stop until I left Mick Healy alone & Fray did not seem to care what his script writers fabricated.

I pointed out that the Seaford JV Partners (“JVP’s”) had commenced a bogus claim to avoid being forced to pay GST on the transfer of their lots from Seaford Developments PL to them (this worked). When this case to which Russel referred to strongly, came to court the JVP’s immediately withdrew, paid costs and released myself from any further claims. A point I note Russel failed to report in future articles.  The claim against Healy was for > $2 million for deliberate fraud in substituting packaging foam for Blueboard at the Seaford project and is still proceeding. I will not be bowed by black mail – although the bull shit articles by Russel do cause me serious damage, as a number of parties who do not know me read them and believe the articals, simply because they come form the Age. I note Russel protects Healy from bad reference on Google by deliberately mis-spelling Healy name as “Grealy”. (Alan Burlock)

**   Alan Burlock’s seminars taught me “Obtain the Capital Gain On 20 Properties For $20,000”

Gain the capital growth but gain none of the Risk of ownership or of market recession.

Who would have thought there was a technique to gain the growth on other peoples property ie “make money on other peoples money” Takes time and effort but it works anyone who is not doing this is stupid, why own when others can own for you, but you get increase (John from Waverley).

**   Alan Burlock teaches the same as Warren Buffet. Rule number 1. Preserve your capital. Rule number 2. Remember Rule No 1. Alan says do not risk capital to buy highly geared investment properties, or at some point you will lose them all. Gain investment properties on only low gearing and preserve your capital this is sound advice and is the property version of Warren Buffet (Stewart of Richmond)

**  Mark Russel of the Sunday Age wrote a defamatory article about Alan, full of innuendo and lacking in facts, I am advised that Mark Russel was offered the chance to attend the offices of solicitor Issac Brott to inspect all the relevant documents that would disprove all of his baseless accusations in his first article. Mark Russel refused to inspect any documents, as he wanted to continue to defame Burlock, until Burlock withdrew a legal writ on Mick Healey of Deco Holding Group Pty Ltd. I think Mark Russel is a whore being paid to blackmail Burlock. (Anna of Brayside)

**   What could be simpler than what Alan Burlock teaches use OPTIONS whereby the Buyer has the Option Term to increase the value of the property by gaining a Permit, or simply allowing the property value to increase pursuant to market forces;

If the property value increases, the Buyer onsells the property or option to another buyer, and then advises Seller that the Buyer will proceed to purchase the Property, and generally arranges a simultaneous settlement;

If the value of the property stays the same or decreases over the Term, then the Buyer simply walks away, and the Buyers only loss is the Option Fee which was paid at the outset.

Huge return on outlay can be achieved in Options, and while historic returns cannot be considered the basis for the returns to continue at that rate, the Company expects this rate of return to be achievable. Anyone not doing this simply does not want to be successful in making money (Greg of South Yarra).

 [ Alan Burlock ] [ Experience ] [ Comments ] [ Biography ]