My attorney, David Corbett, filed our appeal today.

He did a wonderful job drafting the brief and I am delighted to have found a really great attorney to help me from here on out.

Here’s the brief: (1) Opening Brief, (2) Appendix to Brief

Fascinating stuff, for sure.

In the arena,

Joe Kaiser

For the last few years you’ve been calling me a scam artist, saying the overage funds we claimed actually belong to former owners who sold us their properties because the law, RCW 84.64.080, says so.

You even sued me over it and won, obtaining a judgment that included nearly $650k in restitution to these same owners in repayment of the overage funds we collected.

I beg to differ

Of course, we’ve said time and time again the law says no such thing and could not possibly say such a thing. We bought properties and, as owners, any profits we created were ours to keep.

Who’s right?

The Court of Appeals ruled on your interpretation of RCW 84.64.080 today, forever answering the question, “Who gets the money?”

In this corner

Put succinctly, (and straight from the horse’s mouth), here’s your position . . .

After taxes are paid from the sale price, there may be substantial money left over. State law says that such a surplus rightfully belongs to the person who owned the property (when the suit to foreclosure was filed).— Assistant Attorney General David Huey

And here is mine . . .

A property owner in tax foreclosure is free to sell me his property, including any claim to future overage funds that may materialize at the tax sale. And once sold, his rights become my rights.Joseph M. Kaiser

The ruling

But who cares what I think? Here’s what the Court of Appeals, Division II, State of Washington has ruled . . .

Because RCW 84.64.080 was intended to protect the treasurer in paying out tax sale proceedings and not to determine ownership or prevent a tax-delinquent property owner from selling his or her interests, we reverse and remand for the trial court to determine who actually owned the property at the time of the sale.

Who owned the property at the time of the sale?

That would be me, and, as such, I am the rightful owner of the overage funds in question. The ruling continues . . .

. . . the trial court erred in finding the assignment void under RCW 84.64.080 because the procedural nature of RCW 84.64.080 has no impact on determining the rightful owner of the proceeds. –Authored by Judge David H. Armstrong,
Concurring Judge J. Robin Hunt and
Judge Marywave Van Deren

Here’s the complete Court of Appeals Opinion.

The State v. Kaiser

We can now be certain RCW 84.64.080 has “no impact” on the ownership of overage funds. None, and it never did, in spite of the ridiculous claims your office made to the Court and in the press suggesting it did.

Likewise, we can now be certain that contrary to your office’s farcical contentions, the law does not unconstitutionally reinvest former owners with rights to claim proceeds from properties they’ve long since sold.

The Damage is done

With zero consumer complaints, this investigation started because Pierce County Prosecuting Attorney Bob Dick, upset about paying us overage funds (the County prefers to keep the funds), told your office we were violating RCW 84.64.080.

We weren’t, and Bob Dick was 100% in error.

As were all the county treasurers who told former owners “the law says it’s your money.” It doesn’t. Yes, Lisa and Barbara and Steve and Rose and Phil and McGoon and all the rest of you who said we’d scammed sellers by simply buying their properties (and paying them in full), we didn’t.

Also 100% in error was former AAG Cheryl Kringle, as are AAG David Huey and AAG James Sugarman today.

As are you and your office, Rob, about what we investors do. 100% wrong. Buying properties in tax foreclosure and using the sale as an exit strategy is not a scam and never was.

Overage Plays

And yes, it’s really that simple . . .

We bought junk properties in tax foreclosure, let them continue on to sale in hopes there’d be an overage, and the Court of Appeals has now confirmed any overages those sales created are ours to keep.

100% ours, in fact, and EXACTLY what I’ve been saying all along.

It begs the question, “How could the Attorney General of the State of Washington be so completely wrong regarding basic, fundamental property rights?”

I shuddered at the very thought.

In the arena,

Joe Kaiser

Like my case, the Stevens investigation was a story of government corruption and attorneys providing false evidence.

I found this part of particular interest . . .

The lawyers, Brendan Sullivan and Robert Cary, called the case “a sad story and a warning to everyone. Any citizen can be convicted if prosecutors are hell-bent on ignoring the Constitution and willing to present false evidence.” –NPR.org

Yes, I know I sound like a broken record here, but it’s reality . . .

Not only did I pay EVERY seller in full, the nearly three dozen families I rescued from foreclosure are in their homes today with more equity than when I snatched their homes from the jaws of foreclosure.

And now I’m a “notorious foreclosure rescue scammer?”

Notorious? Like as in not a single complaint and exactly one lawsuit in 10 years?

That now makes me notorious?

This is nuts.

In the arena,

Joe Kaiser

In 2006, North Carolina defense attorney Joe Cheshire helped expose former Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong and his trumped up charges against members of the Duke University lacrosse team.

Former Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong

I’m guessing at least two things happened at Joe’s firm shortly thereafter. One, his rates went up, and two, he probably never spent another nickel advertising his legal services.

You got a problem in Durham County and need a criminal defense attorney to fix it, I’m betting you’re calling Joe Cheshire, pronto.

Nifonged? No, but I have been McKennafonged. The short story is 10 years in business, 400 transactions without a single complaint, and the AG’s office claiming I owe $132,400,000 in a consumer protection action that is 100% a figment of their twisted imaginations (you can buy a lot of smoke & mirrors with a million dollars of public funds).

If you’re a gifted attorney and recognize the benefits of instant fame and celebrity, are not afraid to step in front of the media’s cameras, can handle a complex appeal involving foreclosure real estate and bogus claims of wrongdoing by consumer protection terrorists, and can stomach AAG’s engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit and misrepresentation (and that’s on their good days), I encourage you to contact me.

I’m unable to pay attorney fees. Your compensation is the priceless opportunity to shine before a big audience (this will soon be national news). Win or lose, there’s a million dollars of free publicity to be had here.

Email me today if you’re ready to be THE law firm Seattle big-business runs to when they’re under siege.

Joe Kaiser

Although I’ve never met attorney David Leen, he has been a hero of mine for many years.

Way back in the 80’s, he sued on behalf of an owner in foreclosure who’d been mistreated and forever ensured foreclosure trustees in Washington State play fair.

After Cox v. Helenius, there was no question that foreclosure trustees owed fiduciary duties to both lender and borrower.

David Leen, no doubt, is a good guy and, apparently, a foreclosure rescue scam artist (no, not really).

Misleading Website?

David, it seems, has a website, as do many attorneys in this state.

I’ve reviewed his site and note one damning inequity shines above all: Leen represents himself to the property owners as an expert who will use his superior knowledge of foreclosure and real estate to help the property owner during their ‘difficult time.’

Unconscionability, if not outright fraud, should be presumed in these instances because Leen and his associates so obviously misrepresent their intentions to the property owners by asserting that they are going to help them out while instead helping themselves to enormous profits to the substantial detriment of property owners.

The Help Word

Mr. Leen misleads by mentioning “help” no less than four times on his website, and as you know your office makes it clear you can’t both help and charge for your foreclosure rescue services.

As such, according to AAG David Huey, there can be no other conclusion . . . it’s a scam.

“You gotta help or make money,” Huey says. “If you’re in it to make money, then you shouldn’t be telling people that you’re gonna help them because our experience is they don’t get help in this type of transaction.” — The Seattle Weekly

I’m sure everyone visiting Mr. Leen’s site assumes he stops foreclosure out of the goodness of his heart and his services are provided at no charge, especially since he makes no mention of costs or fees.

Imagine the hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions, he’s taken from deceived homeowners faced with the loss of their homes (again, no, not really).

More “Help” Words

Here’s a couple of the deceptive passages on his site . . .

At Leen & O’Sullivan, PLLC, we will make every effort to help you keep your home and get you back on the track toward financial recovery.

We will clearly explain all of your options and help you find a creative solution to stop foreclosure.

Think of the people who, believing they’d be rescued from foreclosure at no cost, hired Mr. Leen to represent them and were subsequently forced to pay thousands of dollars for his services, becoming victims of his foreclosure rescue scheme in the process (again, no, not really).

Other perps

I was shocked to learn Mr. Leen and his associates aren’t the only Washington attorneys with deceptive websites (again, no, not really). Here are just a few I quickly located who are using the “help” ruse:

At the Law Office of Jason Anderson in Seattle, Washington, we are committed to helping our clients avoid foreclosure and holding mortgage companies accountable. Attorney Jason E. Anderson

Are you worried that the bank might foreclose on your home? . . . Don’t worry, I can help.Attorney David Fuller

Contact a Seattle real estate litigation attorney to learn how we can help protect your interests in any real estate dispute.Barrett & Gilman
Attorneys at Law

If you need expert help with a real estate matter in Seattle, Washington, please contact William Snell for a personal consultation regarding your situation. Attorney William N. Snell

Let’s get ‘em

I’m glad you’re on to them now because they’re doing exactly what your office has been warning us about . . .

AAG David W. Huey

They’re trying to make money off someone’s foreclosure.
AAG David W. Huey

Maybe it’s time we round up these scammers and spend a million dollars suing each and every one of them to end the “outright fraud” in which they are so obviously engaged (again, no, not really).

Help AND get paid . . . sheeez!

In the arena,

Joe Kaiser

Your recent motion for summary judgment states . . .

But one damning inequity shines above all: Kaiser represented himself to the property owners as an expert who would use his superior knowledge of foreclosure and real estate to help the property owner during their ‘difficult time.’

Unconscionability, if not outright fraud, should be presumed in this instance because Kaiser and his associates so obviously misrepresented their intentions to the property owners by asserting that they were going to help them out while instead helping themselves to enormous profits to the substantial detriment of property owners. Rob McKenna
Motion for Summary Judgment
October 24, 2008

May you be hoisted with your own petard, Rob.

In the arena,

Joe Kaiser

During your recent campaign debate in Gig Harbor with John Ladenburg, you discussed this case and got everything completely wrong, again.

And you did it with a smug look on your face.

Attorney General Rob McKenna, having not a clue

How could you not, by now, have a clue? You’ve spent a million taxpayer dollars on this bogus investigation and you still have no idea what it’s all about?

No one could get it this wrong, this often, Rob. No, not even you.

Clueless in Seattle

Let’s parse it . . . word for word, with my comments following.

For those of you who read the papers you’re also aware that we brought a series of actions here in Washington State against mortgage rescue scammers.

Yes, it’s all about the papers, isn’t it Rob? That’s pretty much what matters to you . . . getting your “I’m Rob McKenna, aren’t I wonderful? Vote for me” stories into the newspapers. Why am I not surprised?

And no Rob, you didn’t bring “a series of actions.” You brought “an” action (yes, one, as far as I can tell) against my partners and me. And, we are not mortgage foreclosure investors, we are tax sale investors.

Suggesting we’re “mortgage rescue scammers” shows you have no idea what we do.

We’re gonna be announcing the latest of these actions against a scammer operating out of Florida in the next few weeks.

Whoopie. One can only wonder how badly you’ve screwed up that one.

But the first actions we brought happened to be against mortgage rescue scammers in Pierce County and King County.

Again, not in the mortgage foreclosure business. It’s not that difficult, really, to wrap your head around this “tax sale investor does not equal mortgage foreclosure investor” concept.

These are the folks who approach people in foreclosure and they say, “You’re in foreclosure. I’m gonna help you out.”

No, we say nothing of the kind. We make proposals to folks in tax foreclosure and if they decide our proposal works for them, we deliver on our promises and make their problems go away.

And no one we’ve rescued has ever suggested otherwise.

“All you have to do is sign your property over to me. I’ll take title to it. I’ll pay the back taxes. I’ll refinance it. You can rent it back. You can still live there. You’ll have an option to buy it back when you get back on your feet.”

“All you have to do is . . . ?” Sick. Again, you’re demonstrating how completely clueless you are about this case.

We take title, typically in a trust, obtain an interest, typically 50%, and allow our partners to stay in their homes.

We’ll refinance? Huh?

And we don’t offer any sort of “buy it back when you get back on your feet” option. We’re simply co-owners of these properties, a concept your office cannot possibly begin to understand (I won’t attempt to explain fractional ownership, again).

And what the scammers have done and and we’ve proven in a series of actions that we brought . . .

No, you have not “proven” anything of the sort.

You successfully intimidated my ex-partners into settling with threats of financial ruin. And when they settled they did so admitting no wrong-doing whatsoever. Suggesting you’ve somehow “proven” a scam took place is an extraordinary inaccurate portrayal of what happened.

Turns out it’s difficult, if not impossible, to prove a scam that never happened, happened.

. . . is they have taken title to the property and had the owner sign a lease frequently for a rental amount larger than their old mortgage payment . . .

Again, completely wrong. You’re confusing us with all the other mortgage foreclosure rescue guys who do sale/lease-backs. We ask our partners to pay us a fair rent for our share, and it’s often a few hundred dollars a month, at most.

And, if they don’t pay, we don’t give them any grief about it. We’re simply hoping to cover the tax payments we know will be coming due.

As to “their old mortgage payment,” again, completely inaccurate. The vast majority of the properties we deal with are free and clear.

. . . and in some cases they’ll go ahead and let the property go into tax foreclosure anyway and the people lose their property.

A complete lie, and you know it. We’ve documented this again and again. No one we promised to rescue was not rescued, and they’re all pretty much still in their homes today (as you well know).

Properties we let go to tax foreclosure are properties we owned outright, with the seller have no ongoing interest, having sold all interest to us.

This is the same story you told the Spokane Review, and the same story I asked you to document, and we all know how that turned out (through a public records request your office admitted this sort of thing never happened).

Smugless in Seattle

It is incredible how badly this story gets botched every time you tell it. Again, after these many months I’m unwilling to believe it’s by accident.

Sooner than later, Rob, this thing ends and your office is exposed for the lies and deceptions it’s foisted upon all of us.

I wonder if that smug look of yours goes away right about then?

I’m guessing it does the very same moment they throw this stupid case out of court and tell you to write me a very big check for my time and trouble.

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

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