Ms. Direction

Posted July 27th, 2007 by Joe Kaiser

HB 1564 was intended to make it difficult for me to work MY overage plays so the county could continue to work THEIR overage plays.

Dear Rob,

In a word, HB 1564 is best described as “misdirection.”

Anyone not realizing its true intent no doubt believes it has something to do with protecting the overage funds of the Tom and Suzies of the state.

It does nothing of the sort and was never intended to do anything even remotely related.

Agenda Driven, and Bob at the Wheel

HB 1564 has one and only one intent: SAVE OUR OVERAGES

“Our,” being the counties of the State of Washington, btw.

Tom and Suzie don’t need to be protected.

They don’t even have an interest in those overages. I’ve long since purchased their properties and that means all interests in and to those properties, including any future overages profits, are now 100% mine, not theirs.

And someone needs to tell Bob they’re not the county’s, either.

safe from greedy investors

Bob’s problem is a fundamental property law matter that takes him back to first year law school where he was introduced to property rights.

And you can be sure Bob knows he can’t really just come out and say, “we need to change the law so tax sale investors don’t impact our ability to collect unclaimed overages.”

That wouldn’t get him far, and Bob is not stupid.

The next best thing?



Just make it look like you’re trying to do a public service by protecting consumers from greedy investors.

The New Law

HB 1564 did one thing in terms of overages and the law, RCW 84.64.080, adding a single sentence. Let’s talk about its effect.

Here’s the pre-HB 1564 statute:

If the highest amount bid for any such separate unit tract or lot is in excess of the minimum bid due upon the whole property included in the certificate of delinquency, the excess shall be refunded . . . on application therefor, to the record owner of the property. The record owner of the property is the person who held title on the date of issuance of the certificate of delinquency. — RCW 84.64.080 (pre HB 1564)

And after?

This sentence was added . . .

Assignments of interests, deeds, or other documents executed or recorded after filing the certificate of delinquency shall not affect the payment of excess funds to the record owner. — RCW 84.64.080 (post HB 1564)

It’s probably not what you think.

the act of payment

Rob, all the new law did was address the physical act of paying out overages. It has nothing to do with property rights.

Property rights are well beyond its control (I believe the constitution would concur).

The act of payment, however, IS something Bob can control.

If the law says he’s to pay Tom and Suzie, I can’t force him to do something different.

And, I don’t.

The law is just fine.

So the question becomes, does that new law in any way impact Tom and Suzie’s interest in an overage claim I’ve previously bought from them?

And if so, does it somehow restore them to full ownership of that overage (as the county claims), even though they’ve deeded me all rights to it?

No, and no.

little has changed

All that new law does is make it more difficult for me to collect my tax sale profits (not to worry, I’ve worked things out with the seller to allow me to collect those profits should the time come).

And the more difficult Bob makes it for me to collect, the more likely those overages will someday escheat to his county (SAVE OUR OVERAGES).

HB 1564 didn’t affect the changes your office imagines. All it did was give counties yet another method to ignore our claims and therein preserve theirs.


HB 1564 has nothing to do with protecting folks from greedy investors, even though that’s how it’s positioned.

Here’s reality, and it’s very simple . . .

HB 1564 was intended to make it difficult for me to work MY overage plays so the county could continue to work THEIR overage plays.

Its affect, at least in terms of property rights, is nil.

Still, you’ve got to give it to Bob. He fooled your staff and he fooled just about everyone else with this thing.

And Penn and Teller, mentioned yesterday?

Like Bob Dick, they are masters of misdirection.


Joe Kaiser

5 Responses to: “Ms. Direction”

  1. anemonehead responds:
    Posted: July 27th, 2007 at 2:47 pm

    Hey Joe,

    I think Wikipedia should add a new definition:

    Misdirection in Law with Bob Dick as the poster child.

  2. adrian w. responds:
    Posted: July 27th, 2007 at 6:28 pm


    Of course the county government could just raise the taxes……AGAIN! Doesn’t seem to matter where it comes from as long as they get their slice of the pie..

  3. anemonehead responds:
    Posted: July 27th, 2007 at 10:35 pm

    Why raise taxes and effect a large group of folks who may not reelect them next time when they can just cut a small group of people’s, who they paint with the “evil investor” brush, source of income?

  4. spyboy responds:
    Posted: July 28th, 2007 at 3:52 pm


    Misdirection is a fundamantal premise of political communication. Political communication is a fundamental premise of control of “The People” ( you know, those pesky ” sovereigns without subjects”; per US Supreme Court ) by the corporate de facto governmental structures, at whatever level; federal, state, municipal, etc. ).

    The goal is to see through the misdirection ( and the matrix/construct generally ) to the actuality. Thanks Joe for this peek into this real world, real time example of governmental power-mongering and linquistic smoke and mirrors. And thanks to Noam Chomsky for the education and insight that he has provided.

    Legally, it appears to me that what this statute has done is established that the recognized “record owner”, FOR, AND ONLY FOR, THE PURPOSE OF REFUND OF SURPLUS PROCEEDS FROM FORECLOSURE SALES OF TAX LEINS, will be the party who was the owner of record AT THE TIME OF THE INITIAL TAX DELIQUENCY, as contra-distinquished from the prior practice of recognizing the record owner as the owner AT THE TIME OF THE TAX LEIN FORECLOSURE SALE. It is a matter of “point in time”, ie; we will send the surplus proceeds to THE RECORD OWNER AT THIS POINT IN TIME.

    This is a fundamental change, but is limited as indicated. It seems to me that it effects the private investor overage player in this way; instead of the county refunding the surplus proceeds to the investor, who has acquired his/her rights post Deliquency Notice, the refunds go to the record owner pre Deliquency Notice ( who we will call the ” home/land owner ” ), and the investor now must contractually articulate ( with the home/landowner ) that any surplus proceeds from the sale ( if any ) will be the property of the investor
    ( as part of the contractural agreement ), and that the fact that those proceeds will be sent from the County to the home/land owner, as per State law, does not effect the RIGHT TO OR THE OWNERSHIP OF those proceeds in any way. Rather, the private contract is what establishes the right to and the ownership of any surplus proceeds.

    Further, the process of the home/land owner transferring any surplus proceeds funds to the investor would need to be articulated in the contract ( by specific terms and conditions ), as well as the investor s remedy for any home/land owners faillure to strictly abide by those terms and conditions, ie; home/land owner default.

    In one important sense, it seems to me this could be beneficial. Possibly very beneficial ( even though it does add another layer; time and expense ). Specifically, the parties in any dispute as to the right to ownership of surplus proceeds now is recognized ( by obvious implication ) by state government as between private parties ( no government entities involved ) and the grounds is now purely in the realm of law of “private contract law”, which is well established and protected by common-law, statute law and case law.

    This does add a burden of clearly recognizing and articulating the fact of this new statutory scheme, and of clearly articulating the rights and duties of the contract parties under this new statutory scheme in the contract. That being done, it appears to me that any default on the part of the home/land owner will be a pure and simple case of ” breach of contract “. Additionally, practically speaking, it is often much ” easier ” to collect on a court judgment from a private party than a government entity.

    Remember, Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution of the United States prohibits any State from creating any law that interferes with the rights of contract between private parties. That means that the rights of private parties to contract is at par with all other constitutional rights.

    Remember too that I am NOT an attorney, and that I am NOT a lawyer, and that all content of this and any information that I post on this forum is NOT “legal advice”, nor “advice” of any manner, but IS protected speech, which is shared here as a matter of right.

    Thank You.

  5. Davido responds:
    Posted: August 5th, 2007 at 11:07 pm

    “And the more difficult Bob makes it … to collect, the more likely ” …that you and the counties will be the only one left in the overage game. However, you’re blog has got me taking a second look as well.

Post a Comment

Enter Your Details:

You may write the following basic XHTML Strict in your comments:
<a href="" title=""></a> · <acronym title=""></acronym> · <abbr title=""></abbr>
<blockquote cite=""></blockquote> · <code></code> · <strong></strong> · <em></em>

  • If you’re a first-time commenter, your response will be moderated.
  • If your response includes a link, it will require moderator approval.
Enter Your Comments:

Note: This is the end of the usable page. The image(s) below are preloaded for performance only.