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, Rob.

In the arena,

Joe Kaiser

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 . . .

induce |inˈd(y)oōs|
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.

Favorable?

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?”

Ditto.

Unfair

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.

Deplorable Actions

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,

Joe Kaiser

For the sake of argument, you’re in foreclosure, with 24 hours to get it brought current or you lose your home.

Are you with me?

In 24 hours, if you don’t get this thing squared away, your home is sold at auction.

And then I show up and make you the following proposal . . .

The Proposal

I’ll stop your foreclosure by curing the default, and ultimately, all you’ll have to do is pay me 50% of the future profits.

I’ll even let this thing run four years, so you don’t have to be concerned about paying me any time soon. In fact, you don’t have to pay me a penny for that entire time. And, if any problems come up that require funds, I’ll be glad to step in and get them handled.

And when that four years is up, I’ll even finance my profits so you don’t have to get a loan from a bank or risk not being able to get a loan at all. Just start making payments at 10% and we’ll call that good enough.

And, I’ll advance all your closing costs so you don’t have to bring a penny to escrow when it comes time to settle up.

Even better, if you’re short of funds and need some operating capital at that time, I’ll loan you an additional $10,000 (we’ll just add it into the loan) so you can walk out of escrow with a check in hand.

You interested?

Of course you are. You, along with everyone else on the planet at risk of losing his home takes this deal in a heartbeat.

Insane?

Who’d ever offer anyone that deal?

Me.

It’s a real deal, and it worked out exactly like that (and in case you’re wondering, we did just fine ourselves).

Four years later, the fellow is still in his home, and when AAG Jim Sugarman and ace investigator Renee Shadel met with him last month, they made it clear he’d been scammed.

He told them my deal felt like a Christmas present.

Not to be deterred, Sugarman told him he “screwed up,” saying he’d have been better off letting it go to the foreclosure sale in hopes an overage was created.

I kid you not.

Sugarman actually suggested passing on my “Merry Christmas” deal and instead losing his home to foreclose made more sense.

It leaves us with only one possible conclusion, Rob . . . your people are idiots.

Reality

Today, the fellow is paying us with the equity the house created. It doubled in value during those four years and had we not been around, that appreciation never happens for him.

Had we not been around, he’s foreclosed on, evicted, and homeless, hoping bidding activity creates an overage. That’s absurd. Suggesting it’s a better solution than my deal only makes sense if you enjoy living in your car.

He doesn’t.

Mucked up

And thinking he’d be able to collect the overage, if any, was equally absurd because if your people had a clue they’d have known title was mucked up as well, with his deceased grandmother showing up as a part owner.

Any overage created would not have been collectible without an attorney opening probate, a process requiring funds he did not have and more than a few months he could not have afforded to wait.

I have just one question, Rob . . . could your office possibly get it any more wrong?

Truly, I cannot imagine how.

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

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

How bad is your new consumer protection law dealing with foreclosure rescue scams?

Worse than you could ever imagine.

It’s so bad, in fact, real estate agents are running from people in default, refusing to list their properties or help them sell.

Now, here’s the crazy part . . .

discrimination

The attorneys for the NWMLS and/or the Washington Association of Realtors® have concluded that people in foreclosure are not a “protected class” and as such, may be discriminated against.

Yes, I’m serious.

Agents are now being told they can legally refuse to list properties for no other reason than the owner is at risk of foreclosure.

And, agents are deciding not to show other homes to their own buyers if it’s known a seller may be in default, making it that much more difficult for people in foreclosure to sell.

Who’s next?

So, with this new law, you’ve eliminated investors, real estate agents, and now even buyers in general from the foreclosure marketplace.

Don’t you think it’s time someone with half a brain steps in and gets this thing fixed before it actually goes into effect next week?

And if not, are you prepared to deal with the consequences (’cause there will be plenty)?

bungle in the jungle

And how ironic is it that an intended consumer protection law is so poorly conceived and executed that agents, considering it nothing short of dangerous, have little choice but to discriminate against sellers in default . . . and may do so because people at risk of losing their homes are not considered a legally protected class?

These folks now face not only foreclosure, but, because of your new law, discrimination as well?

Insanity!

In the arena,

Joe Kaiser

Do you play poker?

If you do, you know Texas Hold ‘em is a very simple game.

It’s so simple, in fact, you can learn it in five minutes, tops. Nothing to it.

How to Play

It’s this easy . . .

1. You’re dealt 2 cards face-down, as is everyone at the table, and there’s an initial round of betting.
2. Then 3 community cards everyone shares are dealt, “the flop,” and a round of betting ensues.
3. Next another card community card is dealt, “the turn,” and yet another round of betting takes place.
4. And at long last, a fifth community card, “the river,” is dealt and the final round of betting happens.

The winner is the person making the best hand out of his two cards and the five community cards on the board (provided, of course, he isn’t bluffed out of the pot at some point along the way).

5 minutes

They call Texas Hold ‘em “the Cadillac of Poker,” adding, “it takes five minutes to learn and a lifetime to master.” Sure, it’s a simple game, if that’s all you know.

In reality, there’s nothing simple about it.

There are nuances a beginner wouldn’t understand, if he realized they existed (he doesn’t). And there are dozens of things effecting every hand someone with little experience could not discern nor appreciate.

Simple it’s not

What things?

Position, blind size, chip stack size (both yours and everyone else’s), pot odds, table image, who’s at your table (particularly who’s to your left), betting patterns, hands previously shown down, your opponent’s playing style (tight, loose, passive, aggressive, and in what combination). . . and on and on and on.

To the inexperienced it looks like a very simple game, and on paper it is. To someone who understands the game, it looks a lot more like this poker lesson.

Laughable

Why the poker talk on a blog about foreclosures and real estate?

I still can’t get over AAG Jim Sugarman testifying before the legislature and describing HB 2791 as “a very simple bill.”

This bill completely changes the real estate industry in Washington. It goes well beyond anything ever done in any other state . . . to the point of being laughable.

Can you imagine suggesting a buyer has a fiduciary responsibility to a seller?

That’s ludicrous and demonstrates yet again just how out-of-their-over-zealous-minds these foreclosure-scam, consumer protection advocates actually are.

And the absurdity of creating a law requiring buyers to put seller’s needs above their own rocks the fundamental core of all transacting and is fatally flawed on so many levels. Mark my words, it will be one of the first things tossed out as “bad law.”

And simple?

It’s the exact opposite of simple.

Understanding lacking

And do you know why Jim Sugarman calls it a very simple bill?

Obviously, in terms of understanding the foreclosure marketplace, Jim doesn’t have the knowledge to appreciate how NOT simple this new law is.

Texas Hold ‘em, like foreclosure investing, on paper at least is simple and takes five minutes to learn . . . it’s that “lifetime to master” thing that bites you on the ass if you’re not careful.

In the arena,

Joe Kaiser