Deceiving the Legislature, Again

Posted October 4th, 2008 by Joe Kaiser

The AG's office responded to my public records request about investors selling to other investorsl by stating "there are no such records." Not one.

Dear Rob,

I’ve received the public records requested about AAG Jim Sugarman’s testimony before the legislature regarding the need for the new foreclosure rescue laws.

You may remember I talked about it in the earlier post, One Tin Soldier.

And wouldn’t you know, the results once again are EXACTLY as I predicted . . . Sugarman lied.


These three things

There were three things I inquired about and requested the public record for, all related to statements Sugarman made in the video below to the legislature, namely . . .

Get the Flash Player to see this content.

(1) evidence the so-called sale/lease-back scam is now, as Sugarman stated, “a thriving industry,” and,

(2) evidence the AG’s office was litigating against investors flipping sale/lease-back deals to other investors, telling them, as Sugarman suggested, “they will never be able to buy the property back, it’s designed to fail,” and,

(3) evidence that, as Sugarman suggested, “we have found that there are quite a few perpetrators on that side [tax sale foreclosures] of the equation as well.”

Let’s look at them one at a time . . .


#1 – the “thriving industry” lie

Sugarman’s contention the so-called sale/lease-back scam is a thriving industry is nonsense.

Having reviewed the public record provided to me by his office, there are a very limited number of people doing these kinds of transactions, and there are relatively few complaints.

With over 100,000 foreclosures in our state over the last five years, this so-called scam affects, at most, 1 in 2,500 foreclosures.

And the notion it’s a thriving industry?

Pure BS. He simply made it up.


#2 – the “litigating against other investors” lie

The AG’s office responded to my public records request about transactions involving investors selling to other investors by telling me, “there are no such records.” No, not one.

Yet Sugarman told the legislature, point blank, his office was “litigating” against these very fellows.

Clearly, no such litigation ever took place, making this yet another example of him lying to the legislature.


#3 – the “quite a few perpetrators” lie

And, predictably, the “quite a few perpetrators” I suggested would amount to me and my associates and no one else . . . is exactly the response I got.

Here’s my earlier prediction . . .

“I’m willing to bet it amounts to me and my former partners and that’s about it.”

The reply to my public records request was that the group of so-called “perpetrators” included no one other than me and my handful of staff and occasional partners.

And that makes Sugarman three-for-three in the deception department.


For the Record

So, it’s yet again abundantly clear this entire foreclosure rescue nonsense is pretty much a fantasy made up by an AG’s office determined to ram-rod through unneeded legislation simply to make itself look good . . . and that very office was willing to make up lies in order to deceive the legislature into believing the need was real.

It isn’t.

That being said, it’s equally clear (1) there is no evidence this is a thriving industry, (2) there is no “litigating” taking place against investors flipping “designed to fail” deals to other investors, and (3) aside from me and a few of my investor friends, there are not “quite a few other perpetrators” in the tax sale business.

But there are, at least from the AG’s office and AAG Jim Sugarman in particular, no shortage of lies about it.

In the arena,

Joe Kaiser


One Response to: “Deceiving the Legislature, Again”

  1. Davido responds:
    Posted: October 4th, 2008 at 9:14 am

    Joe, thank you most sincerely for the tremendous effort you’ve put into exposing this misuse of power. You’re work, and willingness to share it here has been of wonderful benefit to those of us who are in the arena. For me, this blog has tremendously inspiring. I encourage you all the more to stay true to your convictions.

    The above post tends to ascribe a desire for publicity as a likely motive for the AG’s office to pursue this matter. Sure appealing to public and legislative misperceptions is part of the AG’s efforts.. However, it seems to me that the root cause of the case against you, and the reason it has been maintained, is still the tax sale overages that the counties loose due to your work. Surely it was the combined pleas and or pressure from multiple county treasurer’s that led the AG’s office to file against you,

    That pressure from the counties is rooted solidly in their fear of significant and increasing revenue loss to your legal and constructive business activities. So it seems worth mentioning that the AG’s primary motive in pursuing this case is the money. The AG’s office is dutifully (tho curruptly) attempting to preserve the counties’ monopoly on unearned tax sale overages.

    You face an uphill battle, but you’re inspiring many who believe that you can, should, and will take the hill. Best to you.
    Davido


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.