The Foreclosure White Paper

Posted April 27th, 2008 by Joe Kaiser

The white paper describes virtually every known method to unwind a sale . . .

Dear Rob,

In the latest version of your lawsuit against me (more on that later) you’ve included the nonsense about me writing a book “to protect investors when being sued for using his investment methods.”

As you know, the actual point of the book is to thoroughly document our foreclosure transactions so the seller and some clever attorney can’t lie about what took place down the road.

Why be concerned about the seller claiming we’d unfairly taken advantage, or the seller saying he thought it was a loan, or any of the other phony arguments typically made?

The Northwest Justice Project, and it’s Foreclosure White Paper, that’s why.

Bulletproofing Required

The white paper describes virtually every known method to unwind a sale and provides example after example of case law that might be useful to the attorney in that effort.

The existence of this widely-shared Foreclosure White Paper is proof positive my course, 37 Ways to Bulletproof Every Foreclosure Deal should be required reading for every investor considering transacting with anyone in foreclosure.

Because if the strategies described in my course aren’t implemented, attorneys armed with the Foreclosure White Paper will turn your “fair and square” deal into a scam, and that once perfectly delighted seller into your latest victim.

Oddly Familiar

The paper is some 77 pages, and you’ll have to read it yourself (and you should) for the complete story. Trust me, it’ll be interesting.

Here’s one paragraph that caught my attention . . .

Certainly no reasonable homeowner would enter willingly and knowingly enter into a transaction of this kind. Therefore, it should not be surprising that foreclosure rescue scam artists tend to prey upon the most vulnerable homeowners, such as the elderly, people with cognitive or mental disabilities, and so forth. — Foreclosure White Paper
Northwest Justice Project

Sounds oddly familiar, doesn’t it?

I seem to recall a letter to the Seattle Post Intelligencer editor with much the same tone . . .

Not only are these deals inherently unfair, but since no rational homeowner would knowingly enter into one of these transactions, the scam artists target vulnerable homeowners, such as the elderly, persons with disabilities, and persons with limited English language proficiency. — Attorney Eric Dunn


So, while Eric isn’t mentioned by name in the white paper, it’s clear he had a hand in developing it.

Just for fun, lets check out the “Properties” tab in the Word doc to see what info it has . . .

Turns out Eric wrote the damn thing.

No surprises there, and explanation as to why he’s here posting his extremist views (though why he chooses to do so as a wide-eyed latina, we’ll never know).

Why I wrote 37 Ways to Bulletproof Every Foreclosure Deal?

Attorneys like Eric Dunn, who, when dealing with real estate investors at least, don’t believe the rules or the truth matter all that much.

In the arena,

Joe Kaiser

2 Responses to: “The Foreclosure White Paper”

  1. BikerJim responds:
    Posted: April 27th, 2008 at 1:01 pm


    I’m in the middle of reading the ‘white paper’, thanks for the link.

    So far, I agree 100% with what’s been observed/commented on thus far, with regard to the mindset of these attorneys, and their lack of understanding.

    Which is truly a scary thought.

    Makes me wonder how many folks have gone to attorneys for advice, when facing foreclosure, and were told some blatantly false information, or directed toward a ‘better solution’? (ie: bankruptcy and still losing their house to foreclosure, just delayed) . . . shouldn’t there be a law about that too while we are at it? Oh wait, most legislators are/were attorney’s.

    The main thing that catches my eye in the white paper is the liberal use of the term “Scam artist”. This is obviously not a paper that helps anyone answer a simple basic question . . .

    “Was I the victim of a foreclosure rescue scam?”

    Rather, it assumes that all foreclosure transactions that allow the seller to remain in the property as it’s occupant, must be and are scams.

    Again, scary stuff.

    The silver lining in all this Joe, as I see it, and frankly, my attorney as well, (He’s an investor first, attorney second, and has been reading here, apparently after I told him of your blog) . . . anyway, the silver lining, is that most of what these folks are implementing, very well could be, should be, and will be, overturned when challenged.

    The simple fact that eric/ignacia has shown his cards, only helps matters.

    My attorney and I have faced a few attorney’s who thought they could ‘undo’ a deal we’d previously closed . . . all of which went home with their tail between their legs, and surely, unpaid bills by the supposed plantiffs.

    Bottom line, you have this eric/ignacia’s number down, as well as the rest of their ilk . . . and they don’t even know it.

    Hopefully it was not our tax dollars that paid for erics education, because whoever paid for it, deserves a refund.

    Hey that’s it . . . a class action against attorney’s who advised people in foreclosure to take certain courses of action, other than selling their home for full value . . . especially those who were days and/or hours from auction.

    Wouldn’t they too be considered scammers? since the possibility, no matter how small, (according to Eric anyway) of them selling for FMV existed?

    How many legal fees plus interest could one collect for that,for say, the last 5 years?

    Probably enough to settle the national debt.

    Slow day, sorry for the ramble . . .

    Thanks for your blog, it’s insightful, and frankly, much needed.

    Take care,

  2. Warner responds:
    Posted: April 27th, 2008 at 6:08 pm


    How about writing a white paper as a rebuttal, using all the information you have written in this blog in addition to others?

    I say this only half kidding because the length of Eric’s white paper is going to give it the perception of legitimacy. I am sure there is some very useful information and some very valid points in the paper. However, not having read it, I’m sure it doesn’t mention the primary problem of broad labeling all investors who deal in the foreclosure market as scam artists.

    It’s hard for anybody outside of our field (i.e lawmakers) to believe you can tell a person you are going to make a significant profit on their property and that they would agree to do it and actually be satisfied with the result.

    Therefore, they write law that tells them what they can agree and not agree to do with their own house during foreclosure, because they know what’s good for them. They didn’t take the time and didn’t care to look at what exactly constitutes a scam and thus have hurt ALL Washington state investors and even worse, severely limited the option of homeowners during this time.

    Keep at it Joe. Having read this entire blog, the work you have put into this will not go unrewarded.


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.