There’s a property I’m interested in buying, and though I haven’t talked to the homeowners yet, I have put together the paperwork.

When I drive out to see them, I like having documents ready to go so if they’re inclined to accept, we can get the process underway.

But, like everyone in WA investing in foreclosures, I am confused.

Consultant

Your foreclosure rescue laws requires me to provide sellers with a Distressed Home Consulting Agreement, even if I’m not there to consult. So, if I just want to buy a foreclosure property outright, because I’m in the business, such an agreement is required.

That makes no sense, but it’s hardly the problem.

And because the people I’m approaching will likely want to stay, they’ll be considered “distressed homeowners” (it’s what we’re now calling people who want to stay in their homes), and that makes me a “distressed home purchaser,” (apparently, no one knows for sure).

Now, here’s the crazy part . . .

As a distressed home purchaser, one of the things the law forbids is for me to tell the seller I’m a “consultant.”

Here’s that actual language:

A distressed home purchaser shall not: (4) Represent, directly or indirectly, that (a) the distressed home purchaser is acting as an advisor or consultant . . .WA State’s New Foreclosure Law

Am to

So, on the one hand I am required to provide sellers with a Distressed Home Consulting Agreement wherein, because of the required language in the agreement, I must call myself a “consultant.”

And on the other hand, because these are distressed homeowners (again, people wanting to stay) I am forbidden to, “directly or indirectly” represent I am acting as a consultant.

Maybe it’s just me, but wouldn’t giving sellers the required Distressed Home Consulting Agreement represent to them that I’m acting as a consultant?

And wouldn’t that make me in violation of the new law?

Am Not

What to do?

As always, I just did the very best I could, creating my own document entitled . . .

It says my services include no consulting services, even though the language required by the new law says I must call myself a consultant no less than three separate times.

Pure insanity, of course, but after careful review, I believe I am in full compliance with your new foreclosure rescue laws.

Huh?

Remember when Eric Dunn called this new law “the nation’s strongest, most sophisticated protection against foreclosure scams?”

Sophisticated?

Good grief, Rob, this is completely nuts.

In the arena,

Joe Kaiser

At some point the day of reckoning arrives and we see how you and your staff operate.

Of particular interest will be the actions of one AAG Jim Sugarman, particularly in light of what Sen. Brian Weinstein has exposed.

I’ve been talking about it for months as it relates to the bogus foreclosure rescue scam complaint you filed against me, and now others appear to be joining in. I’m guessing it won’t be long before the lies and deceit become obvious to all.

Life of Brian

Your office bragged about your new foreclosure rescue law, and then disavowed it when it become clear it was a disaster.

You then attempted to shift the blame, pointing to Brian Weinstein as the person at fault. You went on to say you worked with Realtors to fight the final version of the bill, and as I’ve shown with Jim’s video from an earlier post, that’s a complete lie.

The Seattle Weekly describes the scenario as it occurred, and features Brian Weinstein letting us in on what actually took place with your office.

The attorney general’s office was involved in
every phase of crafting the final law. —Sen. Brian Weinstein

And he says Sugarman told the committee, “I just wanted to emphasize that all three of these bills are very positive in terms of helping people. I think they need to be conformed in terms of definitions and applying to both mortgages and tax sales.”

Pants on Fire

The article goes on and on and describes emails that prove the AG’s office was involved every step of the way, and notes Sugarman’s version of the voting debacle (Sugarman claims he didn’t know what he was doing and mistakenly supported the wrong bill . . . yeah, that’s much better).

Sugarman demonstrates the truth means little to him, and shows exactly what I’m up against . . . attorneys from the AG’s office who will not hesitate to lie whenever they deem it appropriate (and they deem it appropriate a lot).

The second hearing, I had signed in in support
of the bill, and the reason I did that was
becauseI didn’t realize it was a striker. — “confused” AAG Jim Sugarman

Rob, Assistant Attorney General Jim Sugarman is, among other things, a liar. Just ask Sen. Brian Weinstein.

In the arena,

Joe Kaiser

I’m tuned in to a belief system I previously was not aware of.

Sure, I’d seen signs of it in the past, but until dealing your office, I had no understanding of how deep these twisted beliefs run and how far these likewise twisted advocates will go in the name of consumer protectionism.

When there’s no hesitancy to do whatever it takes because the end justifies the means, destroying businesses with whom they disagree becomes just another day at the office.

God is on our side

“Do it in the name of heaven, justify it in the end?”One Tin Soldier
written by Dennis Lambert and Brian Potter
and featured in the 1971 movie, Billy Jack

Ditto for consumer protectionism, apparently.

How else do you explain AAG’s who have no problem saying or doing whatever needs to be said or done in order to get their point across?

Case in point?

AAG Jim Sugarman testified before the state Senate about foreclosure rescue scams in an effort to get your new foreclosure rescue bill passed. Here’s the video of his performance (we’ll be using it throughout this post) . . .

I’ve marked the times so you can easily view the action, starting with Jim’s statement that . . .

Now that foreclosures have gone up 70%, it’s a thriving industry . . .— AAG James Sugarman
Consumer Protection Division
(at the 00:23 mark)

Jim says the sale/lease-back scam is “a thriving industry.” I suggest four complaints in five years indicates the problem is virtually non-existent (there have been approximately 100,000 foreclosures in our state during that same time).

But, Jim is on a mission here, trying to get a law passed, and is willing to say or do whatever needs to be said or done. And, if characterizing a non-existent problem as a “thriving industry,” is what it takes to get that done, why not?

He’s a consumer protection advocate, after all, and that makes it okay, apparently.

At their mercy

Jim continues . . .

In these circumstances the normal rules of the market place do not apply. You have an investor who knows everything about the seller . . . they have to make this transaction work so they’re at their mercy . . . — AAG James Sugarman
Consumer Protection Division
(at the 01:47 mark)

Suggesting sellers are at our mercy is about what I’d expect from Jim. Obviously, he’s never done a deal with anyone in foreclosure because if he had, he’d know nothing could be further from the truth.

I make proposals to sellers and if acceptable, we get things handled. If not, we move on. Telling the Legislature sellers are powerless or under our control and will do something they choose not to do is a fantasy.

Clearly, what happens in the real foreclosure world has little or no bearing on Jim’s testimony.

Buy back Jack

Jim continues, letting the legislature know the AG’s office is litigating against investors who are signing up scam deals and marketing them to other investors, telling them not to worry about the seller buying the property back because . . .

. . . they will never be able to buy the property back, it’s designed to fail. — AAG James Sugarman
Consumer Protection Division
(at the 02:46 mark)

Hmmm, that’s interesting and news to me.

I’m unaware of the AG’s office litigating against any investor other than me. Of course, I may be wrong, but one would think you’d be issuing press releases if there were others, Rob.

And if there are no other investors currently in litigation with your office, Rob, would it be fair to say Jim is just making this stuff up?

And if he is just making it all up, why?

Was it really so important to get this law passed that your office was willing to distort the facts to give the appearance it was urgently needed?

Legitimate Businesses

Brian Weinstein asks, “are there any legitimate businesses that do do these sale/lease-backs and actually do sell them back?”

Jim’s response . . .

I’ve never seen a legitimate sale/lease-back . . . — AAG James Sugarman
Consumer Protection Division
(at the 03:10 mark)

Since we’ve done 30 of them, and since they’re all humming along fine, and since more than a couple have bought us out and have no problem telling your office how well they’ve worked, for Jim to say he’s never seen one succeed is another example of his willingness to make up whatever he feels he needs to say to get his point across.

But, not withstanding it’s a complete fabrication . . . that’s okay, apparently, because he works for the Consumer Protection Division where that sort of thing is considered business as usual.

It’s not working

Jim is next asked about the 82% thing, and since we’ve discussed this recently, I won’t go into it other than point out the obviously unsupported-by-the-facts statement he makes about it . . .

It’s working, so we figured we ought to do it that way. — AAG James Sugarman
Consumer Protection Division
(at the 04:27 mark)

Telling the Legislature it’s working in Minnesota is an example of either Jim’s ignorance . . . or his willingness to lie about the success of Minnesota’s 2004 foreclosure law. It’s not working. It’s never worked. And anywhere it’s been implemented it’s been proven to be a disaster.

Tax Foreclosure Sales

Jim talks about the other legislation and says it does not apply to tax foreclosure sales, saying . . .

. . . we have found that there are quite a few perpetrators on that side of the equation as well. — AAG James Sugarman
Consumer Protection Division
(at the 05:40 mark)

I’ll have to ask about this via a public records request because I seriously doubt your office has found “quite a few perpetrators in the tax foreclosure sale arena.” I’m willing to bet it amounts to me and my former partners and that’s about it.

But, far better to mislead the Legislature into believing it’s a big problem that must be brought under control, I guess.

No contradiction

Rob, your video about the new law is posted here at Pushed to Shove in the post entitled The Fix Is In (it’s the last video).

In it you say, “The state Senate added in a lot of language that we never intended and that we actively opposed with our friends in the realtor community.”

I guess the video we’re featuring today must be a fake because here’s Jim “actively” opposing its inclusion (beginning at the 06:00 mark and running for a full minute and a half) and ending with . . .

. . . that’s about all I have . . . — AAG James Sugarman
Consumer Protection Division

And in the minute and a half we can see AAG Jim Sugarman never saying a single word that in any way “opposed” the addition of the new language. In fact, he confirms it doesn’t “contradict” and that both bills could harmoniously co-exist as your new law.

Frankly, I’m certain Jim and your office were delighted with the additional language, knowing it made it that much more difficult for investors to deal with homeowners in trouble.

Over Zealous

Unbridled advocacy in the hands of out-of-control AAG’s is a dangerous thing, particularly when they’re willing to bend the rules and worse, believe the rules apply to everyone but them.

Allowing Jim Sugarman to make up whatever he wants, and likewise, to have you now point the finger at Sen. Brian Weinstein when it’s clear your office was and is 100% responsible for the mess we’re in today, is unacceptable.

If there is anyone to be blamed, Rob, it’s you and your office for operating under the outrageous belief that because you work to protect consumers, it’s okay for you to lie to get your way.

It’s not.

And operating under the mistaken believe you answer to a higher calling (do it in the name of consumer protectionism, you can justify it in the end), and that the end somehow justifies it is nonsense.

You don’t and it doesn’t.

It only means you can’t be trusted.

In the arena,

Joe Kaiser

As you know (though appear to be confused about), the new law requires investors to pay 82% of market value to any homeowner who either stays or has a continuing interest after selling.

You’ve complicated it further by requiring the investor provide the seller a check the very moment he decides to vacate.

We just took it . . .— AAG James Sugarman
Consumer Protection Division

Additionally, the 82% requirement remains in perpetuity, so if the seller is still in the property 10 years later, he’s entitled to 82% of the future market value as well.

And that makes sense to you?

No sense to me

I’ve got to tell you, it doesn’t make a lot of sense to me or anyone I’ve spoken with. And certainly, it makes no sense to the sellers I’ve talked to about it.

Apparently, you’re unaware of the dynamic that makes sale leasebacks unfair, but I’ll save that for a later date (or for the court).

What’s important today is to understand how the 82% figure was arrived at.

Of critical importance

When you create laws that have tremendous impact and effect the outcome of home ownership, it’s incumbent on you to do your homework so you’re certain you’re not causing more harm than good.

If your intention is to deny the owner his right to freely contract and by doing so put him in the position of not being able to save his home because you don’t think anything less than 82% is fair, you’d better have the facts to back it up.

Uhhh . . .

So, Rob, how did your office arrive at the 82% figure and why is it the number that’s so critically important it’s effectively barred investors from doing deals with people who want to stay in their homes?

I’ll let AAG Jim Sugarman explain it for all of us . . .

Brilliant.

Just brilliant, Rob.

Minnesota 2.Doooooooh

Rob, wouldn’t you agree it’s time Jim Sugarman gets his facts straight and stops lying about this foreclosure business?

Virtually everyone agrees the 2004 Minnesota foreclosure laws were a disaster. Not only were they ineffective, foreclosures sky-rocketed immediately after the laws went into effect.

And how did Jim characterize for the Legislature?

“It’s working so we figured we ought to do it that way . . .”

No clue

It is now obvious, Rob, that your office has no clue why the 82% figure even exists. None.

You’ve demanded that owners and investors use that percentage, stripping them of their rights and preventing them from saving their homes . . . yet you have NO IDEA WHETHER OR NOT IT EVEN MAKES SENSE.

To impose a law this extreme, and to have no idea why 82% matters (or not), is proof your office is incompetent and out-of-control.

Bend over

You have the audacity to deny sellers the opportunity to save their own homes in the manner they see fit and you make staying an impossibility, yet you cannot tell us where the number comes from?

Good freakin’ grief.

“We just took it?”

Yes, Rob, we did . . . right up the you know what.

In the arena,

Joe Kaiser

I see you’ve recorded a video detailing the HB 2791 debacle and suggesting there’s a very simple fix . . . going back to the original version your office “crafted.”

Crafted?

The original version was a total mess, and going back to it isn’t what most of us consider a fix.

Remember the original version?

that 82% thing

The original version talked about minimum acceptable purchase prices, eliminating the owner’s rights to freely contract and setting the number as a percentage, 82%.

It was so bungled you’d based it on the owner’s equity and not the market value of the property. That means to do a distressed property transaction, investors are required to pay what is, effectively, more than full price.

Embarrassing.

foreclosure is better

And let’s not forget, your original version, sponsored by Rep. Pat Lanzt, was based on the ridiculous notion that “foreclosure is better.”

Is that the original premise we’re returning to?

And, if so, does it really make sense to put your staff in charge of fixing this mess?

A Very Simple Bill

Does that also mean AAG Jim Sugarman, who appeared before the Legislature in support of the final version of this bill, will be involved?

He demonstrated how little the truth mattered when he called it “a very simple bill,” knowing full well it was anything but. And with him appearing on KVI radio last week saying every transaction I’ve done was a case of “equity stripping,” it’s clear he’s incapable of fair and reasoned thinking.

Putting him in charge of fixing the mess he created and encouraged the Legislature to support is a clear case of the inmates running the asylum.

The fix is in

And now, to assure us all the fix is in (as if we didn’t already know), we have you doing a video about how you’ll get it corrected by returning to the original version.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t that the version modeled after the 2004 Minnesota law that’s proven to be a disaster and has contributed to sky-rocketing foreclosures?

And isn’t that the version that restricts a homeowner’s right to freely contract and sell the property as he see’s fit?

And isn’t that the version that’s based on Pat Lantz’s “foreclosure is better” notion that is nothing short of absurd?

And isn’t that the version that Northwest Justice Project helped to create, the same group that believes making ANY profit is unfair and that we Westerners lag behind our Islamic counterparts?

And isn’t that the version that banned the use of valid Powers of Attorneys and required sellers to personally attend closing, even if they’d long since moved away?

And isn’t that the version that effectively prevents owners from staying in their homes by barring investors from doing deals both owners and investors deem fair and acceptable?

And isn’t that the version your office created for nothing other than to gain political points for the upcoming election, knowing full well that only four foreclosure rescue scam complaints had been registered with your office?

The True Fix

There is an opportunity for a real fix, Rob, and it’s very simple.

To preserve our real east marketplace, take investors and agents out of the line of fire, and allow owners in foreclosure the right to freely contract (and at least have a shot at saving their homes), all you have to do is admit the whole thing was a mistake and end it.

We don’t need a foreclosure rescue scam law. ANY law like it has proven to be ineffective and cause more problems than it solves.

You proved it yourself, and it will be interesting to see what, if anything, you’ve learned from this multi-million dollar foreclosure rescue scam mess your office foisted upon us.

The fix?

Just say “no,” Rob.

Simple as that.

In the arena,

Joe Kaiser

Yes, I know as the unintended consequences of HB 2791 start to add up, it gets more and more obvious that putting consumer protection attorneys in charge of drafting real estate law was a really bad idea.

The Email

How bad?

Here’s my recent email to county treasurers . . .

Dear County Treasurer,

Heads up . . .

As you may know, the Office of the Washington State Attorney General asked for a new “foreclosure rescue scam” law. The bill, HB 2791 was passed and signed into law earlier this year, becoming effective June 12, 2008.

I encourage you to read it, (a copy of which is attached). Kindly note pages two and three, particularly the following language which will be of interest to you:

(3) “Distressed home consultant” means a person who:

(b) Systematically contacts owners of property that court records, newspaper advertisements, or any other source demonstrate are in foreclosure or are in danger of foreclosure.

As such, the new law makes county treasurers “distressed home consultants.”

The law imposes certain obligations upon distressed home consultants, in particular fiduciary responsibilities. Here’s the pertinent part of that section of the new law:

Sec. 3. A distressed home consultant has a fiduciary relationship with the distressed homeowner, and each distressed home consultant is subject to all requirements for fiduciaries otherwise applicable under state law. A distressed home consultant’s fiduciary duties include, but are not limited to, the following:

(1) To act in the distressed homeowner’s best interest and in utmost good faith toward the distressed homeowner, and not compromise a distressed homeowner’s right or interest in favor of another’s right or interest, including a right or interest of the distressed home consultant;

Although an unintended consequence of the new law, you appear to be barred from holding tax sales and foreclosing on properties with delinquent taxes unless and until this law is changed.

Your fiduciary obligation to “not compromise a distressed homeowner’s right or interest” makes all tax foreclosures illegal in this state and any county treasurer ignoring the new law is subject to treble damages and potentially $100,000 in fines.

Here is that section:

(2) In a private right of action under chapter 19.86 RCW for a violation of this chapter, the court may double or triple the award of damages pursuant to RCW 19.86.090, subject to the statutory limit. If, however, the court determines that the defendant acted in bad faith, the limit for doubling or tripling the award of damages may be increased, but shall not exceed one hundred thousand dollars. Any claim for damages brought under this chapter must be commenced within four years after the date of the alleged violation.

I’ve reviewed the new law more than I care to admit, and although I am not an attorney, I’m confident my conclusions are sound and suggest you check it out for yourself.

Joe Kaiser

Just getting started here

And by the way, I’m convinced foreclosure trustees may no longer process trustee’s sales. Since they too systematically contact owners in danger for foreclosure, they are, by law, distressed property consultants and have HB 2791-defined fiduciary responsibilities that bar them from foreclosing.

So, no tax sales this year, Rob, no new trustees sales, and yet another unintended consequence of your office’s new foreclosure law.

In the arena,

Joe Kaiser

It was good to hear AAG Jim Sugarman discussing the HB 2791 fiasco on KVI radio last Sunday. I wondered how far he’d be bending the truth and guessed it would be plenty.

He didn’t let me down.

So, even though the hosts didn’t throw anything but softballs his way, Michelle did ask the one question I’d talked to her about earlier.

The Question?

Here’s Michelle asking, “How many complaints?” and Jim’s response.

Thirty different organizations, thirty different names of people, err, of companies that people had complained about.— AAG James Sugarman
Consumer Protection Division

Thirty?

Rob, Jim knows that’s bullshit.

As late as March 31, 2008, your office provided me with copies of all foreclosure rescue complaints involving sale/leasebacks, and could only come up with four.

So, where is Jim getting this story of complaints regarding thirty different companies?

There are three possible scenarios . . .

1. 26 new complaints have been registered since April 1, 2008 (highly unlikely).

2. The four you provided earlier were the result of a botched public records production, and your office missed the other 26 (certainly possible, seeing how pretty much everything appears to be botched from your office).

3. The 30 figure is pure and simple BULLSHIT (my guess).

New PRA Request

Greetings,

AAG Jim Sugarman, on KVI radio this Sunday, told the listening audience he’d just “the other day” reviewed foreclosure rescue scam complaints made to your office involving some 30 different companies.

This is a surprise, since your office delivered only 4 relevant complaints when I asked for all copies of this very thing earlier this year.

Kindly provide copies of all such foreclosure rescue scam complaints to which Mr. Sugarman is referring. Thank you.

Joe Kaiser

Stupid is a Stupid does

And here’s where it turns ridiculous . . .

Of the 30 companies mentioned above, Jim talks of knowing of an organization that’s done two transactions, and another that’s done 300 (that would be me).

Michelle asks if this represents 300 homeowners stripped of their equity.

Jim’s response?

Right, in, one way or another . . . yeah.— AAG James Sugarman
Consumer Protection Division

An unjust, repellent, and nefarious characterization if ever there was one, Rob, and pure, unadulterated BULLSHIT.

And, it begs the question, are you people nuts?

Recklessness on Display

So in the fantasy land that is the World According to Jim, every transaction I’ve done stripped homeowners of their equity? All 300 (don’t forget to add the 100 more since my partner and I split up)?

Psssst . . . the rest of the world, (at least us Westerners), calls that “making a profit,” Rob.

Corrupt

You’re on record as saying people lost their homes when I promised I’d stop their foreclosures but didn’t, and now, every single transaction I’ve done resulted in owners being stripped of their equity.

This thing just reached a completely new level of insanity.

And it should be obvious to all, including judge Palmer Robinson, that your staff is out-of-control and will do or say anything to make a case where none exists.

Suggesting I stripped anyone of his or her equity, much less all 300 sellers I’ve dealt with in the last 10 years, Rob, is absolutely nuts . . . and I call BULLSHIT.

In the arena,

Joe Kaiser

I happened to discover the Better Business Bureau’s August 07 article about the so-called foreclosure rescue scam epidemic, and although it isn’t broken down by state, they do confirm claims have been made in “almost all 50 states.”

Almost?

Hmmm . . .

But what about in our area?

Northwest Region

The BBB’s northwest region reported 11 foreclosure rescue scam complaints in the previous 12 months.

I’m guessing most of those are the typical “advance fee” scams where homeowners paid a consultant to stop foreclosure and the consultant didn’t come through, as promised.

As to the sale/lease-option deals your new law targets, probably in the minority of complaints.

Three states

That means in all of Alaska, Washington, and Oregon, 11 complaints were received by the BBB for the year in question.

Eleven complaints in three states in 12 months isn’t an epidemic necessitating a wholesale rewrite of our property rights laws, Rob, and pretending it is makes us wonder what else you’re pretending about.

Maybe my case, for instance?

In the arena,

Joe Kaiser

You’ve probably heard by now I sent an email to all current WA State Legislators, giving them my view of your office’s HB 2791 fiasco.

Here’s the email . . .

The email . . .

Greetings,

Although we’ve probably never met or been formally introduced, you’ve likely heard of me . . . and even more likely, you’ve heard of my exploits.

For the record, I’m the fellow the Office of the Washington State Attorney General has sued for “foreclosure rescue scams,” and am said to be the reason, at least in part, for the need for HB 2791, the distressed properties conveyance act.

My purpose in writing you today?

I think you’ve been hoodwinked, but that’s just my opinion and matters not. In the end, you can decide for yourself (or not – it’s totally your call) if the facts merit that unenviable characterization.

Fair enough?

So, I’ll give it to you straight up so you know the real story, and it goes like this . . .

The Attorney Generals office (1) created the foreclosure rescue scam epidemic out of whole cloth (it’s little more than a hoax) (2) bamboozled members of the legislature into believing a law to protect people in foreclosure was desperately needed, (3) assigned its drafting to attorneys with zero real estate experience, (4) modeled existing law in other states already proven to be disasters, and (5) is now running away from it and its consequences by pretending anyone other than the AG’s office is to blame for the fiasco.

Yes, I realize this scenario is more than a bit unsavory, to be sure, but it is the indisputable truth. The supporting facts are as follows:

(1) The foreclosure rescue scam hoax: There is no foreclosure rescue scam epidemic in our state, and never has been. My formal public records request to the office of the AG confirmed they’ve received a grand total of four complaints in the last five years. Does that surprise you? Were you mislead to believe otherwise? In contrast, in 2007 there were 314 travel related complaints, and it came in 20th on the list of the top twenty categories of complaints. Four foreclosure scam complaints, in five years, is statistically insignificant.

(2) As a member of the Legislature, you were led to believe a law to protect homeowners in foreclosure was desperately needed. It wasn’t (see item 1). The current system was working just fine and had a long-term record of success. Anyone scammed could simply hire an attorney and sue, and it worked wonderfully. The question becomes, did we really need to upend our state’s entire real estate industry over just four complaints? I suggest we did not.

(3) The creators of the new law had little to no real estate experience, as best as I can tell. They are first and foremost consumer protection attorneys who simply do not value the things we in this country hold dear, like property rights, the ability to freely contract, and acceptable risk-reward returns. These sacred and fundamental concepts are largely ignored, replaced by over-zealous, out-of-control consumer protectionism that in the end hurts rather than helps people in foreclosure. Any law that restricts a homeowner’s right to freely contract is, at its core, a bad law.

As an aside, at least one member of the foreclosure think tank that helped draft the new law has produced a CLE program containing the following proviso:

“The author acknowledges here the probable superiority of the view, most closely associated with the Muslim faith, that the making of any financial gain in return for the advancement of funds is inherently, “unjust.” Yet the balance of this discussion presumes that Western laws will continue to lag behind their Islamic counterparts in this regard.”

I ask you, is this really the sort of mentality we need influencing the drafters of critically important laws for this state? I suggest it is not, and further suggest we should be outraged to learn of this attorney’s participation in the creation process.

(4) Modeled after other state laws. Did you know that HB 2791 is modeled after the Minnesota foreclosure laws of 2004? And, did you also know those laws have proven to be a disaster? One would think we’d be smart enough to first check to see if an earlier law was actually working before deciding to adopt it as our own. The Minnesota law is universally acknowledged to be an unmitigated disaster, and yet it’s the very law we chose to emulate. This makes no sense whatsoever. It seems the goal was to get a working law in place, rather than getting a law that actually worked in place.

(5) The full impact of HB 2791 and the law now in effect is yet to be felt, but the initial response is overwhelmingly negative, and rightly so. It, for instance, was so poorly conceived that it’s now necessitated the rewriting of some 70,000 current listing agreements and has virtually upended the entire real estate industry in our state.

Today, real estate agents are running from people in foreclosure, refusing to list or even show their houses for fear of creating untold liability for both themselves and their clients.

The law is so misguided and inartfully drafted that agents have little choice but to discriminate against the very people the law was intended to help.

With its passage, people in foreclosure in our state have little chance to save their homes. With investors unable to participate due to the out-of-control consumer protection provisions of the law, and agents unwilling to participate for much the same reason, people in foreclosure today are quite literally abandoned. Prior to June 12, 2008, investors or agents might have been willing to make an offer. Today, not a chance.

And here’s where it turns ugly . . .

When it became obvious the unintended consequences of HB 2791 were overwhelmingly bad and the law itself a major debacle, the AG’s office went to work, desperately assigning blame to members of the state senate. I completely disagree with this conclusion.

The blame, if there is any to be assigned, falls squarely on the office of the AG. Again, this was a law that was never needed in the first place. The notion that foreclosure rescue scams were rampant was an outright hoax, and putting consumer protection attorneys in charge of drafting critical and highly sensitive real estate law showed extremely poor judgment that has culminated in what is now a disaster.

As someone who’s seen this thing develop from day one, it’s clear the entire operation was nothing but a politically motivated scheme concocted to make Rob McKenna look good in this, an election year . . . and little else.

That’s my story.

Make of it what you will, or not. In any case, I’m hopeful I haven’t offended you (apologies if so). My intention was simply to put the facts on the table so you can judge them for yourself.

And, to encourage you to visit my blog at:

www.pushedtoshove.com

There are many more details you may find of interest on the blog, as well as actual hard evidence documenting my claims.

As I final note, I ask that in the future you think carefully about enacting any new laws that infringe on the rights of property ownership. Stripping those rights, even if doing so with the best of intentions, can only be a bad idea. Frankly, the cost of doing so isn’t worth the very limited potential gains.

Did I mention just four actual complaints?

Or the 70,000 listing agreements now having to be redrafted at an estimated cost in the millions of dollars?

Again, I believe you’ve been hoodwinked. I’ll let you decide for yourself if that seems like a good word to describe it. Or not.

Comments, questions, concerns? I’m happy to address them all. Just give me shout.

Joe Kaiser
(253) 459-2937

joekaiser@mac.com

P.S. And oh, btw, the degree to which the creation of this law was mishandled is only exceeded by the degree to which the case against me was (and is being) mishandled. I am not and have never been a foreclosure rescue scam artist, no matter what the Office of the Washington State Attorney General has led you to believe. And, if need be, I’m happy to discuss that with you as well.

100%

Admittedly, it was a late-night thing that could have used a little finer editing, but I got it out there just the same . . . and I stand by it 100%.

In the arena,

Joe Kaiser

Have you seen what Eric Dunn is passing around?

He’s created a continuing legal education package called, “Fighting Predatory Lending in Washington.” Well, at least he and his partner have, both of them being listed as authors of the CLE materials.

I called Eric and asked about it, leaving a voice mail. That was a couple days ago and he’s never called back . . . and I’m done waiting.

Squeal

Regulars will remember Eric, the attorney from NJP. He originally came on board with this . . .

As one of the people who helped draft HB 2791 and get it passed, I am loving watching you guys squeal.

Eric Dunn – staff Attorney at Northwest Justice
Project and co-author of HB 2791

I found it offensive and asked him to apologize to my readers. So far, no apology has arrived.

bizarro world

Later, Eric, for who knows why, left a half dozen comments in the guise of one Ignacia Ramirez. Why he pretended to be a coy, innocent latina we’ll never know, but the fact he did took his participation into the realm of bizarre.

Turns out Eric was just getting started.

What Eric said

I’ve scanned and uploaded the first page of Eric’s materials, the Table of Contents of his presentation Fighting Predatory Lending in Washington.

Now, remember, Eric, in his own words, helped draft HB 2791, the foreclosure rescue scam law that today is crippling Washington’s real estate industry.

And, we know how Eric feels about investors from his original comment, the “loving watching you guys squeal” thing, as well as his subsequent “put on a dress and call me Sally” comments as Ignacia.

Here’s what we didn’t know, and I’ll let Eric describe his beliefs in his own words (the front page footnote from the CLE materials) . . .

The author acknowledges here the probable superiority of the view, most closely associated with the Muslim faith, that the making of any financial gain in return for the advancement of funds is inherently, “unjust.” Yet the balance of this discussion presumes that Western laws will continue to lag behind their Islamic counterparts in this regard.— Eric Dunn & Abbas Rizvi

Kinda takes your breath away, don’t it?

Thunk tank

This, Rob, is who you’ve included in your foreclosure “think tank?” You’ve allowed him and his radical Islamic beliefs to influence your effort to create laws for the rest of us uncivilized Westerners?

So, Eric Dunn and Northwest Justice Project (they even sponsored the thing) was there to “help draft HB 2791,” where his Muslim based belief that Westerners are backwards and unenlightened to think they should make any profit is allowed to take root and spawn our own state’s foreclosure law?

Are you kidding me?

This is nuts, Rob.

Co-authored

Now, there are two authors named in the CLE, so I can’t be sure if these are Eric’s words or his associate’s. I asked him to confirm one way or the other, indicating I would attribute the words to him if he chose not to respond.

He didn’t.

But, to be fair, the words may in fact be those of his co-author, Abbas Rizvi. In either case, it doesn’t matter. As co-author, Eric is responsible for the presentation materials and since he takes to the podium and teaches from this material, attributing the words to him seems fair.

And, even if the words are actually from his co-author, it changes little. This is the mentality of at least one local attorney teaching other Washington attorneys about Fighting Predatory Lending in Washington, and that, in an of itself, is just plain wacko.

Excuse me?

So, excuse me for being a Westerner, for being backwards and uncivilized, and for not accepting the “superiority of the view” that making a profit by advancing funds is unjust.

Eric’s views only confirm the “investor bad” notion that’s behind all of this nonsense, Rob, and allowing and encouraging his participation in the creation of your foreclosure rescue law was a terrible mistake.

Financial gain unjust?

Good grief, Rob, your office is out of control.

In the arena,

Joe