On this page the following entries were made in the “May, 2008” time-frame.
Archive for “May, 2008”
70,000 Contracts Invalidated
Your "very simple bill," has completely upended an entire industry . . .
Dear Rob,
By now your office has heard from the Board of Realtors, and you know their number, 70,000.
That’s the existing number of listing agreements that, as a result of your new anti-investor law, have to be rewritten.
Continue reading “70,000 Contracts Invalidated” »
Gentleman, Start Your Calculators
Or, maybe we can save a few bucks and get Ignacia Ramirez to create the spanish version?
Dear Rob,
Do you have any idea what you’ve now done to real estate agents with this new foreclosure rescue scam law?
Perhaps you should ask the Washington Realtors® and the NWMLS. They’ve got a few things to say about it . . .
Because the law is new and in some cases, ambiguous, it must be interpreted before it can be applied. Different lawyers and judges will interpret this statute differently. You are encouraged to seek the advice of your own lawyer in determining your approach to compliance with the law.— warealtors.org
Ambiguous?
That doesn’t seem to agree with AAG Jim Sugarman’s claim, it’s “a very simple bill,” does it?
Continue reading “Gentleman, Start Your Calculators” »
Have You No Decency, Sir?
You tell the story whenever you can, wherever you are, to whoever will listen. There's just one small problem with that, Rob . . . the story isn't true.
Dear Rob,
For the last year you’ve been calling me a con artist and talking about my foreclosure rescue scams.
I’ve posted articles, audios and videos of you describing your case against me and my former partners, and you always say the same thing . . . we steal homes.
Steal homes?
Have you no sense of decency??
Continue reading “Have You No Decency, Sir?” »
Absurdity, Again
If you choose to consider that bit of thuggery as having "nailed" us, congratulations, because you did just that.
Dear Rob,
Well, I was wrong.
Yesterday’s post mentioned the audio on your website describing how 82% of the seller’s equity in a rescue deal belongs to the seller.
I suggested what you’d intended wasn’t 82% of the equity, but 82% of the property’s market value.
My bad, and once again the lunacy of this thing rises to the surface and is in plain view for all to see.
Continue reading “Absurdity, Again” »
Please get it right
That's more than those sellers net if they list and get a full price offer.
Dear Rob,
The audio on your website describing the new foreclosure rescue scam laws is flat-out wrong . . .
Our bill to prevent rescue scams passed, it requires . . . that homeowners must receive at least 82% of the difference between the property’s fair market value and the underlying mortgage in the event they transfer their property to a third party who supposedly is going to keep them out of foreclosure.— Attorney General Robert M. McKenna
Press Release, March 14, 2008
The 82% has to do with the market value of the property itself, NOT the equity. Can you imagine the absurdity if it was based on equity?
Continue reading “Please get it right” »
