440,000 Licensed Real Estate Professionals in California are sustaining a Hoax
that was put into motion many years ago. 

Buyers and Sellers are being harmed.
The Credibility of the Industry has deteriorated. 
Sincere Professionals exited the Industry because of It. 

The "Professionals" left are benefiting while covering up a MASSIVE HOAX,
and they are asking others like them to pile in while the "gettin' is good". 

It's time for Change. 

Remember the key word.     Preposterous.    It stands out.
Learn how to defend against it with "Gas Lighting" light.    Quickly. 
It's the only tool they have to try to defend a "Preposterous" Clause.

Below is the most straightforward way to  present this to Attorneys, Real Estate Pros (both straight and crooked), and others of Legal mind.  

• Those outside of California will read this and Cringe. 

• You will struggle to imagine how some of your Professional peers in California have been so duped.  That will only last a short time, until you realize those left aren't duped. They're all in on it.  All 440,000 of 'em.  

• As someone famous once said about a different group, "It's a Big Club, and we ain't in it".  

• Some "Pro's"  in California will Lash Out like Wildfire. Have bucket brigades at the ready.

• That's what one does to protect an Ego and Careers that are about to get Shattered and fed to the Wind.

In 1985, California created CA 1102 to regulate the Disclosure Process in Residential Real Estate Transactions.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?division=2.&chapter=2.&part=4.&lawCode=CIV&title=4.&article=1.5.

• CA 1102.6  specifies the Transfer Disclosure Statement (the TDS) as a regulated disclosure document. 

• CA 1102.7  requires Good Faith in article, act and ‘honesty in fact in the conduct of the transaction’.

• CA 1102.3  indicates the TDS shall be delivered to the prospective buyer “as soon as practicable, BEFORE Transfer of Title”.

• Contract Clause 13B indicates Transfer of Title Transpires at time of Contract Acceptance

• Contract Clause 14A indicates Statutory Disclosure documents are due to the Buyer AFTER Contract Acceptance 

And that's it. There's the Hoax in plain view. 
It's right there, in plain view.  Do you see it yet? 

There's a mutually exclusive conflict that exists when
the last three bullets' are combined.  Do you see it yet? 

Here it is the Mutually Exclusive Conflict in Summary...

Option 1:   Disclosure documents are due BEFORE Contract Acceptance  (CA 1102.3 and Contract Clause 13B)

Option 2:  Disclosure Documents are due AFTER Contract Acceptance (Contract Clause 14A)

Only 1 of those two options can be correct.  Legally, It's option 1

Unfortunately, nobody even knows that's an option because it can not be surmised from the Contract Template being provided for use by Brokers to uneducated and trusting Buyers and Sellers who may only experience the stress of home buying a once or twice in a lifetime. 

In the context of Consumer Protection and Good Faith Negotiations, which makes more sense?  Option 1 takes the cake clearly, too.

Option 1:  Deliver Documents that detail material facts and defects to Prospective Buyer BEFORE they complete an offer, for proper consideration and fair negotiations.  

Option 2: Deliver Documents that detail material facts and defects to a Buyer AFTER they complete an offer and take Equitable Title, so they can be "surprised" by things the Seller knew about the property that diminished it's Equitable Value AFTER they agreed to a Binding Price for purchase and AFTER they took Equitable Title.

It hurts to have had to write this out with such clarity.  The next part hurts more...

 Those "mutually exclusive options" for delivering Disclosure Documents are diametrically OPPOSED to each other

• No buyer or seller is going to look up CA 1102.3 and go through this process to figure out there should have been another option, when the "professionals" are handling the process.

• All of them should have read 14A and thought "something's not right about this".  

• Unfortunately those who questioned it were shooed away with "gas lighting" light techniques like "real estate is complex",   "that's just the way it is",  or "you can renegotiate after ratification if you find something you don't like,  let's just win the bid first", with the latter being a grossly false suggestion in a "Seller's Marketplace", as California has been for the past decade or more. 

• By putting the Cart Before the Horse, the opportunity for "mind control" was inserted into one of the most sacred experiences a human can have after marriage and giving birth. 

 Those  "mutually exclusive options" for delivering Disclosure Documents are diametrically OPPOSED to each other

• They are 180 degrees out of phase.   

• Only one set of information can be correct. 

• And unfortunately, it's NOT the one that over 700,000 Licensed California Professionals have been using to properly manage the Interests of Consumers. 

1. Incalculable FINANCIAL HARM to Buyers. 

2. Incalculable EMOTIONAL HARM to Buyers and maybe some Sellers too. I'll bet my Seller hasn't been feeling "peachy" for a while now...

3. Incalculable SOCIAL HARM to our Communities.

Financially...

It's estimated that 1 TRILLION DOLLARS in transactions have transpired since 1994 and $50 BILLION DOLLARS in Commissions have been paid to Brokers by Sellers only,  to facilitate a gross Hoax against Buyers. 

Buyers are the "non-paying customers" with regards to Professionals Services in the transaction, they were the primary targets of the Hoax, and some Attorneys currently seem to state Buyers may have no proper standing to sue in a class action?

Surely that's not true. 

If so, it would seem the entire US Legal System needs to be eviscerated too. 

If the average buyer overpaid by 5%, due to a Seller's ability to feel they could mask defects with the biased contract better with less chance for culpability,  that would be $50 BILLION dollars in losses to Buyers. 

HOWEVER, that's only transactional losses. It does not account for the Legal Fees paid by many to chase propriety.  

That does NOT include the costs to those who got screwed with Fraudulent Disclosures (like we did), and then spent time, money, and energy on Attorneys to seek some type of "equitable solution" with an "inequitable contract" as a negotiating platform.  

That's likely BILLIONS more that went straight to the Legal industry. 

Emotionally...

This has been an exhausting situation to deal with. 

The Brokers, Agents, Transaction Coordinators, Property Inspectors and Contractors involved in our transaction, are as bent as a field of springs.  

The seller is terribly twisted too, but that would not have been an issue without an industry created to cater to his faults. 

Then, having to chase Attorneys who proudly claim to charge $400/hour and up to ask for support, only to get passed off to others when the details weren't in a nice box that could be summed  up with ease was  demoralizing.

We didn't make for an ideal "mark" for the Attorneys any more than we did for the Brokers or Seller.  

It's difficult to think about Community and Society when you can see Service Providers looking at you like meat to be consumed without Aviator Glasses to mask the darkness.  

Socially...

California Consumers these days are NOT operating with a strong moral compass.  That's just a fact. 

With "leaders" like Pelosi, Schiff, Feinstein, and Newsome at the Helm, and Rogue Propagandists masquerading as Media Personalities like Kara Swisher and Andy Serwer in play, things are much worse across the state than they need to be. 

Anyone who bought a home in this Market who was on the moral fence already, and got minorly or majorly screwed with disclosures in a transaction, were trained by their experience to feel it was justified because the contract didn't say it wasn't, as clearly as it should have. 

Then, when their time came to sell, they wanted the same benefits of obfuscation and deceit their Seller was given. 

With this Scheme, the Citizens were literally trained to abuse each other with malice. 

My Seller, as an Example...

I have numerous written statements from the Seller in our Transaction stating that exact position, even though the actual circumstances of his purchase from a deceased person's son who had minimal knowledge of property details was  far different than his level of knowledge about his own home. 

He didn't care about the fact he was lying and omitting information to us.  He only cared about the idea that we should have been given a minor amount of information in the same manner he felt he got. 

In his own processing,  he omitted the fact that the home, when he purchased it, would not qualify for A paper loans, and that he paid a far lower price than he would have had the home been marketable for A paper.  He was clueless to all of that, partially because playing the victim seemed more comfortable to him. 

He also failed to realize paying others to make a home look like it was A paper worthy, while concealing defects, is a banking crime as well as a civil violation and criminal act.  

He has much to learn, and someone needs to burn him to remind him that fire is hot. 

We could spend an hour or two discussing the Why of this and speculating about many things. 

The names and thoughts of the Scheme originators are of great interest, along with many of the benefits they gained, as well as the benefits of those that came after them, but that's actually irrelevant right now.  

We all know that creating confusion has many benefits in a commercial transaction, and that suffices for the short term.  FUD is a powerful tool and one used with intention.  More on that in the footnotes. 

What you can be assured of is that those still acting as Licensees in this market place are the Bottom of the Barrel.  

The better ones have left the Industry due to too much Toxicity.  

If they are still in it, no matter how pretty they may be, they have skin thick. 

What's relevant is that the instructions in the suggested Contract Template are fully illogical and contrary to State Code, and not one out of 440,000 of the current Licensees OR any of the Real Estate Attorneys in the State  felt like making a stink to make things right for future Consumers.  

Ironically, some counties have set rules to ignore 14A instructions to play ball better.  I have that in writing from an Associate Broker. That won't bode well for them, and unfortunately, for all of us, just making up rules Ad Hoc for your Brokerage or your County was NOT  the right thing to do.  

For faulty Clause 14A to fit in better,  other contract clauses had to be manipulated to make it look more appropriate. The center-line for the entire contract is off, not just a single clause.  

Just eliminating that clause doesn't center the contract between Buyer and Seller. It still has too much Seller Bias to be properly useful.  

So, even though some Buyers and Sellers were escorted around Hoax Clause 14A, they were still strapped with other biased and inappropriate clauses, and left to wonder what they were missing with a Contract that had such a strange Clause.  

The confusion still affects them and there is no way that contract could ensure their rights with clarity during and after escrow. 

They only have a few defensive positions available, because remember something unique here... 

If any "hired Attorneys" speak out to much against long standing, "universal" Real Estate Law understanding, The National Association of Realtors (NAR) and their own industry members outside of California will need to step in to attempt to protect their own reputations.

1. Legal Standing - They will say that I, as a Buyer who paid for no services, has no standing to sue my Buyers Broker or the rest of them.  I'm smarter with the rest of the stuff, it's the gateway to this one that I'm struggling with.  I'm quite confident there are existing cases for Buyer Broker fiduciary failure on the books?!  Alternatively, this can be or is a Tort, not a Contract Dispute, and that opens this up ? By including NAR, CAR, 50 County Based Associations of Realtors, and 120,000 California Brokers as Defendants (personally as well as corporations), it has to be a tort, right?

2. Contract Clause 13B is inaccurate - They may try to claim that contract clause 13B, which clearly states the buyer "takes title" at time of Contract Acceptance does NOT correlate to the Title referred to in CA 1102.3.  Better yet, they'll claim "take is not equal to transfer".  That, defense is suicide one of a dozen ways, not the least of which is that it undermines what is likely 1000's of years of real estate title law, that NAR will have to acknowledge, if need be.  It was the King of Wu who trained Sun Tzu. 

3. Ignorance/Negligence  - They will claim they didn't know. They will claim they were confused by the vague wording. Unless any of them have documents showing they pursued clarity from Attorneys, they will have no proof they questioned something all should have questioned when they saw a "singular reference" to a two event process in CA 1102. All should know by heart, the Transfer of Title is a TWO EVENT PROCESS, and they should have recognized it for the Universal Clause it was instantly. Asking us to accept ignorance is asking us to accept the idea they had no understanding of the relevance and usefulness of Disclosure Statements in a Real Estate Transaction. Only suggested if they like the wet side of skin facing out. 

4. The "Scooby Doo" Defense - "The flower on the wall was supposed to be red.  It came out blue and just because he wanted yellow, is no reason to find in their favor." ---  I don't believe that which drives those will show wings and think of flying, but there are some really bent Attorneys out there who may ask it for an initial Whisper.  Again, NAR will need to come to the rescue if they'd like to survive. 

5. The Buyer Created the Contract Terms - Superficially this starts out as their best defense. It falls flat quickly. (see next section)

There's no other defenses I'm aware of at this time, primarily because of the Scooby Do catch all.  It is inclusive and should cover the others.   

We presented a contract to the Seller that suggested he could withhold statutory documents until after they were legally due to us.  

We did NOT tell him we wouldn't sue him for breaching California Code if he followed the suggestion while being uncorrected and improperly guided by his Broker.   

The Seller's Broker should have warned his client of the trap laid for him. 

The Seller's Broker should have suggested to his Seller that he provide statutory disclosures during Bid Consideration to comply with CA Law. 

The Buyers Broker should have told us when we extended the Contract to the Seller we were setting the seller up. He didn't. That's one Fiduciary Failure. He was obligated to notify us of that even if he thought we were doing it intentionally.  But there's a bigger failure for him too.  

When the Buyers Agent saw an unguided Seller break the law, he should have called foul upon Contract Acceptance,  reported the Selling Broker to the CA DRE and the Attorney General of CA. 

He then should have reported himself, because he actually works for the Seller and by allowing the Seller to break the law, he violated his duties to his Seller as their Sub Agent.  The Buyers Agent (Seller's Sub Agent) had no business allowing his paying Seller to Break the Law without trying to protect him,  and by not doing that, he wrought damage on us, who he also had a Fiduciary Duty to protect. 

Brokers are Chartered for "Consumer Protection". Not Maximizing Profits as typical company CEOs and executives. 

Facilitating a Transaction that suggested / encouraged the Seller to hold back disclosure information that was available and useful to a Buyer during offer consideration violates the "practicable" requirement of Disclosure in CA 1102.3.  

It's a basic tenant of Good Faith negotiations that is specified with perfect clarity when CA 1102.7, CA 1102.6, CA 1102.3 and Contract Clauses 13B and 13D are viewed as part of one transaction.  

The Glaring contradiction between those and 14A should now be obvious to all, with absolute clarity. 

Providing no statutory disclosure information at the time of Bid Negotiations was a violation of CA 1102.3 and everybody was in on it. 

Impossible to Sue without an inverting twist?

1. We were provided a Contract Template for use by Coldwell Banker. 

   1. Coldwell Banker will say they are not liable for a rogue clause, given they did not create the contract

   2. They will claim they didn't realize it was illegal. "Gosh, we didn't realize it".  

Ignorance is not a viable defense, but pursuing fault for the creation of the text is not the right place to pursue it. 

Ultimately no one can or will be held liable for the creation of the Contract Template. The scam has been setup to put the onus of the Contract Content on the Buyer. 

Let that sink in.  Read it again.  This comes straight out of a Gypsy Handbook 101. 

The Brokers present themselves as "Real Estate Pros" but the content of the Contract they "suggest for use" will be pinned on the Buyer for "appropriateness".  

There is more than one way to skin a Cat that plays like that.

Buyers Broker as a Fiduciary  - Fully liable for failure to advise of Buyers Rights under CA 1102

1. We were given a Contract Template for Consideration for use in our Transaction. 

2. The Contract Template suggested we speak with our Attorney for any questions. We did not do that. We made an assumption the Contract Template provided to us by our Broker accurately represented CA Real Estate Law.  We made a mistake there, but it doesn't let them off the hook, as they had an obligation to provide us with "legal suggestions" before we sent our offer to the Seller.  We also don't feel a pre-offer consult with a practicing Real Estate Attorney would have told us to correct that clause in the Contract.  If any knew it needed to be corrected, they would have sued the industry already and won money for that, or at very least, filed complaints with the CA DRE and California AG as Whistleblowers.  In the absence of that not one Attorney in the land would have been useful. 

3. Brokers, by Case Precedent, are required to know Real Estate Law.  

   1. The case precedent indicates that a Broker un-responsible for knowing Real Estate Law serves no purpose to the public. 

   2. Furthermore, Real Estate is SO UNIQUE it's viewed as a Consumer Protection Service for the Public AND Real Estate Brokers can be held PERSONALLY LIABLE for the acts of those in their Company.  It's actually classified more like a "Consumer Protection Agency" operating in private industry. Kind of a "Quasi Government Agency" like the FED, established at nearly the same time, and now exposed to be equally crooked. 

   3. There is no other opportunity to sue crooked executives like this in Corporate America, and there's not a Responsible Broker in California who isn't now personally liable for some really bad Mojo.  Any moron who read 14A should have questioned it, and all 120,000 Brokers will self identify way above Moron on the intelligence scale.   

4. We asked our experienced Brokerage Representative, who was also our Transaction Coordinator,  to change the default time period for inspections from 17 days to 21 days. He told us that minor change might make us non-competitive.

5. We then asked about contract clause 14A, the "inverted clause" that suggested the Seller could deliver facts we needed to review to make a prudent offer after the time they would be useful.  

   2. 1. We were told by our experienced Brokerage Representative, who was also our Transaction Coordinator,  that that clause was representative of how disclosures were done in Monterey County.  We didn't ask to change it, given our request to change a minor time frame was warned against. [this was his opportunity to advise us of our legal rights and he chose not to]

6. During Escrow, when it was apparent the Sellers Agent and Seller had committed a lot of Fraud together, we questioned the Coldwell Banker Associate Broker responsible for Supervising our Transaction. We asked about 14A and the entire inverted disclosure process that lead to their ability to attempt the "sell a lemon" scam with no reasonable process to expose it to future buyers.  

   2. 1. We were told in writing, by that Associate Broker, that clause 14A  was the standard operating clause for California. [this was her opportunity to advise us of our legal rights and she chose not to]

      2. She indicated some Counties and Brokers required their Sellers to present information before the offer, but it was really up to the Counties and individual Brokerages to manage. (Huh!? So they know the process as presented in the Contract is bad and they just selectively apply the right way to do things!! That's SUPER to have in writing from one of the Responsible Brokers!!) 

      3. In that dialogue I also asked specifically about how they viewed Equitable Title and the affects of non disclosed Defect Discovery during escrow . She said I'd have to waive my concerns to get to closing.  She also made no references to Contract Clause 13B which detailed transfer of title at time of Contract Acceptance, even though I had specifically asked how they view Equitable Title.  

      4. Just after that written dialogue, she oddly interfered in a signature process. She inserted herself in our transaction and created agitation. She seemed to turn on us and attempt to get us to exit the transaction in ways similar but different to the Sellers Agent. As if they started working in concert.  We told her she was no longer welcome in our transaction,  and we spoke to a Regional VP to make sure we had higher support.  

      5. Our Responsible Broker  and the Regional VP reported no Seller Broker Malfeasance to the CA DRE or the Attorney General of Maryland as was appropriate given the facts they were exposed to.  That's what makes this a Conspiracy and Racketeering. 

Claims/Charges - Fraud, Conspiracy to Commit Fraud, Racketeering

• ALL Licensees (Agents, Associate Brokers and Brokers) in California should know CA 1102 by heart

  • ALL Licensees in California should know about "Two Title" Property ownership systems by heart

  • ALL Licenses who had questions about the "singular" reference to taking title should have defaulted to a universal application of that prose, as appropriated and intended, as is evident if you read all the code.  Instead, they decided to view it as a clause that diminished Buyer rights drastically and illogically, with no basis for such a limited application

• ALL Licensees in California should have been able to identify the problems with clause 14A in the contracts they were suggesting for use at face value. 

• ALL Licensees are bound by Fiduciary Duty to 1) know basic real estate law 2) to know the purpose of Disclosure Statements 3) to know Consumer Protection information AND 4) to inform Buyers, when creating their offers with the suggested contract, that state law allows them to demand the delivery of statutory disclosure documents prior to making an offer, contrary to the default template prose suggested to snow them. 

• ALL Licensees who saw Seller's Agents/Brokers who were not providing Statutory Disclosure Documents voluntarily and transparently prior to or during the bid consideration process had a Consumer Protection Obligation to report other Agents and Brokers to the CA DRE and the Maryland Attorney General for failure to comply with CA Code 1102. 

  • • By not doing so, they became conspirators in the Fraud.  

    • Thus, the Charges are filed against the Buyers Brokers who suggested a contract for use without clarifying a benefit unclear in the contract template prose created by Casper the Ghost. 

    • The charges extend to the Seller's Broker's because they failed to properly inform their Seller's of required good faith behavior and a suggestion that caused them to break the law.  

    • A conspiracy of silence among ALL BROKERS and AGENTS was required for this to transpire.  Most resembling a Cult. 

We have HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of DOLLARS in Concealment and Disclosure Fraud related matters to pursue for our individual situation.  

We finished the transaction because we were between a rock and a hard place, and obviously operating in an industry that might never provide us with a fair shake, given the suggested Contract Template in play, seemingly written by Casper himself.  

We have additional BROKER FRAUD issues other than those mentioned above related to 14A that will blow most minds. 

If we pursue our Individual Claim while ignoring 14A and the Industry Claim, we are pursuing a claim with a Contract that makes for bad toilet paper.  Our recovery will be limited, AND this Hoax will stay in Play. 

We need a SMALL ARMY of sincere Attorneys who are willing to fight them.  This is not hard. All the facts are there. You just have to be willing to FIGHT. 

Obviously, we can not and will not fund this FIGHT by paying hourly fees out of pocket.  That would be illogical for us to consider. That makes it difficult to keep our relationship with Attorneys on the up and up.  Nobody likes to work for nothing.  I've been doing it for a long time. It sucks, but sometimes you do what is required to find the trail up the Mountain.   

We will consider very generous splits on proceeds, beyond the industry norm if need be.  

We will also consider starting a public funding campaign for some fees and expenses, if we can agree to proper relationship terms. 

Someone needs to talk 440,000 people down from their Blimp.  

They are operating way beyond the bounds of reasonable consideration.  

They can either come down quickly or it's time to cut their life lines and "set them free", while pushing them soundly into a world of far hotter misery. 

Hopefully you are part of the Solution. 

Seeking much needed Legal Support, 

Bryan and Holly