He was evicting people left and right before we sued him . . .
Does your office approve of an Assistant Attorney General tampering with witnesses?
Isn’t tampering with witnesses illegal?
I ask because I’m troubled by what’s been reported to me about AAG Sugarman and the things he’s said in “interviews” with potential witnesses in this case.
Illegal Witness Tampering?
Here’s the statute:
A person is guilty of tampering with a witness if he or she attempts to induce a witness . . . to: (a) Testify falsely . . . (b) Absent himself or herself from such proceedings . . . –RCW 9A.72.120
Does lying about me to potential witnesses induce them to give false testimony? Unquestionably.
Here’s the definition of “induce,” btw . . .
verb [ trans. ]
1 succeed in persuading or influencing (someone) to do something : the pickets induced many workers to stay away.
By vilifying me with lies and half-truths, potential witnesses have been influenced and persuaded to do and say whatever they believe will assist the State in its case against me (and feel justified in doing so).
It’s a Class “C” felony.
What’s been said?
So, what’s Sugarman been telling witnesses to induce them to testify falsely? Here are just a few of the lies that have been reported to me (I am paraphrasing so don’t take the quotes a gospel) . . .
The people he listed as witnesses were not people who supported his position. They were very angry with him . . .
He says to keep threatening and threatening and get people farther into the hole until they just give up . . .
He made you a loan. I just like the way he didn’t say deed of trust . . .
You’re the first one in 300 transactions who’s actually gotten title back to his house . . .
It’s called “unconscionability” and not allowed . . .
He was evicting people left and right . . .
— AAG James Sugarman
Consumer Protection Division
Would these lies be considered attempts to influence potential witnesses to “testify falsely?”
Without a doubt.
And what does Sugarman say to witnesses he deems favorable to me and wants to dissuade from showing up and testifying on my behalf?
Witness fees are not going to make up for your time in court because they’re very low . . .
Would this statement to a potential witness be considered attempting to influence him or her to “absent himself or herself from the proceedings?”
Tampering with witnesses by lying about me to convince them I’m a bad guy (and, in turn, they victims) is illegal. And having done exactly that, Sugarman’s actions have made it impossible for me to receive a fair trial.
Were my potential witnesses very angry with me and not in support of my position? Of course not (although I’m sure they were after Sugarman got done with them).
Did I ever suggest to just keep threatening people until they gave up? Nope. That’s just plain stupid.
Did I ever tell people I was making them a loan and just not use a deed of trust to trick them? Never happened.
Were there 300 foreclosure rescues and did only one guy get title back. Nope. Not even close. We did three dozen, not 300, and no one ever lost title . . . it was just moved to another entity while we co-owned it.
Were our transactions unconscionable or not allowed? Of course not.
And were we evicting people left and right before the AG got involved? A complete fabrication. Out of the three-dozen families we rescued, we evicted exactly one guy who’d already vacated. He left us no other choice.
If this is how the game is played by the Office of the Washington State Attorney General, Rob, you should be ashamed of yourself, your staff, and one AAG James T. Sugarman in particular.
His actions are deplorable.
You’d think 1,500 attorneys and multi-million dollar budgets would be enough. Do you really need to cheat, too? Apparently so.
In the arena,