Jump to content
RemedySpot.com

Re: Trying to help people

Rate this topic


Guest guest

Recommended Posts

Not picking sides because the only sides I know of are those that

have the dollars rolling in, and those who are franticly trying to

get as much out of that pay check as humanly possible. I think most

all are have as hard of a time of it as I am. I really think Dr.

Lipsey is right when he insist some type of metrics concerning mold

need to be provided for the judges, and jury. I know the

manufactures of the products that go into the construction of a home

monitior what goes into a product and emmission from the plants.

They do have guidelines for proper use of the products such as the

material safety data sheets (MDSS). Caulking and Sealing is very

important as is the vapor barrier, but there usally is very little to

no inspection, until the problem is a problem. I speak from

knowledge as caulk guy for Sara Lee's deep freeze blast freezer. So

many are on edge, just keep pushing the simple concept any way you

know how. All molds are signs of problems that need some form of

immediate attention. One of my buddies from high school flunked out

of nursing school, got laid off as a manager of a wendy's, and got

laid off as a Tom's Peanut Snack Delivery man. He left stale, (out

of date) products on the sales shelves. Some companies are very

serious about not allowing old moldy proucts with their name on it be

kept in the public eye. Keep the pressure on the ones that are

taking your money, and put the laws in the hands of the judges that

will make them return it, when their products won't perform

Its great to get some words to the law making bodies, in order for

them to put the word in there that they would like to see. I know

the used card lemon law gave the local justices, and judges some

guidelines on what is accptable sales practices.

> The following are some e-mails that started after I read the Texas

news story

> about there being no construction lemon law in Texas. I sent my

Construction

> Lemon Law to Janet of HOBB to try and help. See her responses and

maybe that

> is why many will not help her.

>

> If somebody offers me help, even if I don't agree with their point

of view, I

> am polite enough to say thank you. It is called common sense and

being

> polite. I know a " little " about dealing with politicians having

worked in

> Washington with National politicians of both parties since 1970.

I've helped

> get meaningful Federal Legislation passed by two Presidents that

protects

> Handicapped Children and Adults.

>

> One thing Janet forgets in her attempt at a lemon law is that those

she says

> would make a determination are in many cases the same local or

state

> officials that allowed the builders to operate in the first place.

Some may

> have been paid off by these same bad builders. I put my trust in a

jury of my

> peers. Hit them in the pocket book and see how they react.

>

> Ken Moulton

>

> Subj: Lemon law

> Date: 10/23/2002 9:23:02 AM Eastern Daylight Time

> From: KENHMOULTON

>

> hobb@j...

>

> File: moldlaw.doc (68096 bytes) DL Time (52000 bps): < 1 minute

>

>

>

> Janet,

>

> I thought I sent this to you before. Just change Massachusetts to

Texas. You

> do have my Toxic Mold Law don't you? It is attached in case you

don't.

>

> Ken Moulton

>

>

> AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR ENFORCEMENT OF LOCAL AND STATE BUILDING,

FIRE, HEALTH,

> SAFETY, ELECTRICAL AND BUILDING CONSTRUCTION LAWS AND STANDARDS.

>

> Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General

Court

> Assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:

>

> Chapter 1. Construction Lemon Law

>

> Article 1. General

Provisions

>

> 12669.A. This Chapter shall be known, and may be cited. as the

H.

> Moulton Jr. Construction Lemon Law Act for Massachusetts.

>

> Chapter 12669.B: Section 1. All new Commercial and Residential

construction

> or rehabilitated construction, must meet all applicable, local,

state and

> federal codes, standards and ordinances at the time of the

completion of

> construction or rehabilitation.

>

> Chapter 12669.C: Section 1. Civil actions and remedies; class

action; demand

> for relief; damages; costs; exhausting administrative remedies.

> Section 1. (1) Any person, or person's, who has (have) been

injured by

> another person, person's, local or state government employee, local

or state

> government agency, commission or body, a company or corporation

use or

> employment of any method, act or practice declared to be unlawful

or that is

> in violation of Local, State or Federal Building, Fire, Plumbing,

Electrical,

> Health or Safety codes or standards may bring an action in the

superior

> court, or in the housing court whether by way of original

complaint,

> counterclaim, cross-claim or third party action, for damages and

such

> equitable relief, including an injunction, as the court or a jury

deems to be

> necessary and proper.

> (2) Any persons entitled to bring such action may, if the use or

employment

> of the unfair or deceptive act or practice has caused similar

injury to

> numerous other persons similarly situated and if the court finds in

a

> preliminary hearing that he adequately and fairly represents such

other

> persons, bring the action on behalf of himself and such other

similarly

> injured and situated persons; the court shall require that notice

of such

> action be given to unnamed petitioners in the most effective

practicable

> manner. Such action shall not be dismissed, settled or compromised

without

> the approval of the court, and notice of any proposed dismissal,

settlement

> or compromise shall be given to all members of the class of

petitioners by

> certified and registered mail delivered through the United States

Postal

> service.

> (3) At least thirty days prior to the filing of any such action, a

written

> demand for relief, identifying the claimant and reasonably

describing the

> unfair or deceptive act or practice relied upon and the injury

suffered,

> shall be mailed or delivered to any prospective respondent. Any

person

> receiving such a demand for relief who, within thirty days of the

mailing or

> delivery of the demand for relief, makes a written tender of

settlement which

> is rejected by the claimant may, in any subsequent action, file the

written

> tender and an affidavit concerning its rejection and thereby limit

any

> recovery to the relief tendered if the court or jury finds that the

relief

> tendered was reasonable in relation to the injury actually suffered

by the

> petitioner. In all other cases, if the court or jury finds for the

> petitioner, recovery shall be in the amount of actual real,

medical, loss of

> use, legal fees and pain and suffering damages; or up to three but

not less

> than two times such amount if the court or jury finds that the use

or

> employment of the act or practice was a willful or knowing

violation of said

> section two or that the refusal to grant relief upon demand was

made in bad

> faith with knowledge or reason to know that the act or practice

complained of

> violated said section two. For the purposes of this chapter, the

amount of

> actual damages to be multiplied by the court shall be the amount of

the

> judgment on all claims arising out of the same and underlying

transaction or

> occurrence, regardless of the existence or nonexistence of

insurance coverage

> available in payment of the claim. In addition, the court or jury

shall award

> such other equitable relief, including an injunction, as it deems

to be

> necessary and proper. Notwithstanding any other provision to the

contrary, if

> the court or jury finds any method, act or practice unlawful with

regard to

> any security or any contract of sale of a commodity for future

delivery as

> defined in section two, and if the court or jury finds for the

petitioner,

> recovery shall be in the amount of actual damages.

> (3A) A person may assert a claim under this section in a district

court,

> whether by way of original complaint, counterclaim, cross-claim or

> third-party action, for money damages only. Said damages may

include double

> or treble damages, attorneys' fees and costs, as herein provided.

The demand

> requirements and provision for tender of offer of settlement

provided in

> paragraph (3) shall also be applicable under this paragraph, except

that no

> rights to equitable relief shall be created under this paragraph,

nor shall a

> person asserting a claim hereunder be able to assert any claim on

behalf of

> other similarly insured and situated persons as provided in

paragraph (2).

> (4) If the court or jury finds in any action commenced hereunder

that there

> has been a violation of section two, the petitioner shall, in

addition to

> other relief provided for by this section and irrespective of the

amount in

> controversy, be awarded reasonable attorney's fees and costs

incurred in

> connection with said action.

> (5) Any person entitled to bring an action under this section shall

not be

> required to initiate, pursue or exhaust any remedy established by

any

> regulation, binding arbitration contract, administrative procedure,

local,

> state or federal law or statute or the common law in order to bring

an action

> under this section or to obtain injunctive relief or recover

damages or

> attorney's fees or costs or other relief as provided in this

section. Failure

> to exhaust administrative remedies shall not be a defense to any

proceeding

> under this section.

> (6) Recovering or failing to recover an award of damages or other

relief in

> any administrative or judicial proceeding, except proceedings

authorized by

> this section, by any person entitled to bring an action under this

section,

> shall not constitute a bar to, or limitation upon relief authorized

by this

> section.

>

> Subj: Fw: Lemon law

> Date: 10/23/2002 1:20:59 PM Eastern Daylight Time

> From: hobb@j...

>

> KENHMOULTON@a...

>

> File: moldlaw.doc (68096 bytes) DL Time (52000 bps): < 1 minute

> Sent from the Internet (Details)

>

>

>

> Ken,

> This response is not meant to discourage your efforts or offend

but, what you

> call a Home Lemon Law is a combination of other consumer laws

already in

> place with modifications.

>

> A Home Lemon Law should be very simple and be resolved by a simple

state

> administrative procedure without the use of an attorney. Otherwise

your

> efforts are doomed to failure. The Lawsuit Abuse people will be

all over

> you. They currently have a nationwide multimillion dollar TV ad

campaign for

> that very reason.

>

> A Home Lemon Law is simple. If a builder fails to repair the home

after

> three tries he must buy it back. The qualifying conditions should

be, if the

> home has a Major Structural Defect or if the damage substantially

reduces the

> value of the home. Finally, if the house is contaminated with

Toxic Mold the

> builder must buy it back within 30 days after notice is given. If

the

> builder fails to buy back the home after the decision is made

through the

> process administered by the agency charged with enforcement, then

the builder

> will not be allowed to do business in that state and will forfeit

their bond.

> Again, it must be a simple process.

>

> If the homeowner doesn't like the results they can always us the

judicial

> system that is already in place under state law.

>

> Also your bill gives multiple choices, " double or treble damages. "

Then you

> also provide for attorneys fees. Usually the rational for treble

damages is

> so an attorney can take the case on a contingency basis with

assurance they

> will be paid, so the laws with treble damages doesn't provide for

additional

> attorney fees. That brakes down to: one third is for actual

damages, one

> third is for pain and suffering and one third is for the attorney

fees.

>

> This bill is too complicated. I have spoken with the state agency

that

> showed an interest in the home lemon law that was introduced in

Texas and was

> reported in the Boston Globe.

>

> There is only one more problem. That is that because HADD has

never shown

> significant efforts to be proactive toward working with legislator

to enact

> new legislation we have found it necessary to distance ourselves.

We must

> have everyone on the same page working with legislators and not

criticizing

> them but rather to show them the problems and solutions, in order

to make a

> difference. I sincerely regret that HADD has been openly negative

and

> critical instead of expending efforts that offer positive

legislative

> solutions.

>

> Of course our efforts are a full time job with no pay, and it is

time

> consuming to keep our own efforts productive, positive and

professional and

> our membership on the same page. To try and work with other

organizations

> that do not deliver that same productive message and when their

efforts are

> counterproductive, it reduces our effectiveness. This is most

unfortunate.

>

> It is my hope that you will not take this messages as an insult or

undue

> criticism of your efforts but as a message of encouragement to

direct your

> efforts in a positive, productive way. Unfortunately, we don't

have hundreds

> of thousands victims who can afford or who are willing to march on

Washington

> to make our point and bully ourselves into position for changes.

That would

> take a miracle that will never happen.

>

> Even NAHB recognizes our effectiveness and have taken steps to

counter,

> causing them to expend a great deal of effort and money to fight

our

> successes. Yes they have the money but we have the credible

attention with

> legislators, and the press. They see us as the underdog who keeps

getting

> knocked down but persistent at working toward logical solutions.

>

> Sincerely,

> Janet

>

> Janet Ahmad, President

> HomeOwners for Better Building

> San , TX

> http://www.hobb.org

>

> Subj: Re: Fw: Lemon law

> Date: 10/23/2002 1:29:40 PM Eastern Daylight Time

> From: KENHMOULTON

>

> hobb@j...

>

>

>

>

> I understand what you are saying but current state and federal laws

do not

> allow for any coverage after the fact. You are forced to use breach

of

> contract lawsuit. HUD uses part of this law which is where I got it

as well

> as normal product lemon laws.

>

> I think that it is hard for a politician or anybody else to say no

to my

> legislation when similar legislation is used for defective or

faulty

> appliances. They would be saying the covering a 20 dollar toaster

is find but

> not your home.

>

> This is what I have written and put out there for anybody to use.

If it won't

> fly in Texas that is up to you and HOBB. I believe in using parts

of existing

> law to show how stupid any politician or group is to go against the

law. If

> the Federal government used a part of the same law to protect HUD,

why is it

> not good enough to protect all homeowners. That is what opponents

will have

> to answer to voters.

>

> Ken

>

> Subj: Fw: Re: Fw: Lemon law kdpdfpkf

> Date: 10/23/2002 6:01:46 PM Eastern Daylight Time

> From: hobb@j...

>

> KENHMOULTON@a...

>

> Sent from the Internet (Details)

>

>

>

> Ken,

> Why would you want " to show how stupid any politician " is? We need

> politicians if we want to get legislation passed. Getting

legislation passed

> is not a matter of showing how stupid politicians are. We need

easy

> effective solutions and arguments to get politicians to support the

passage

> of bills for the consumer.

>

> As for HUD you need to keep them out of any argument for the

passage of a

> home lemon law. They have no real enforcement power because,

homebuilding is

> the only chief economic indicator that is holding up the economy

today and

> our elected official will not allow HUD to do nothing to bring down

any

> homebuilder no matter how bad the behavior of the builder. I have

worked on

> that for four years and now understand the enormity of the

problem. I don't

> know if you know it but we have been successful at getting a

federal

> investigation by HUD, FHA and VA of the largest homebuilder in the

country .

> HUD only demonstrates and provides a picture of the problem but

complicates

> the solution. You don't need complicated arguments to get a bill

passed for

> the consumer, you need to keep it simple.

> It is not a matter of " it not flying in Texas. " Remember we are a

> nationwide organization. The bill introduced in Texas is the first

of it's

> kind to be filed and considered in any state. It is supported by

many

> consumers groups and had the input of one of the largest national

consumer

> groups before it was ever filed. It has also gotten a great deal

of

> national press.

>

> A number of legislators are considering filing one in other

states. It is

> designed after the Car Lemon Law that has a long track record of

success to

> protect the consumer. That is a huge argument in the consumers

favor and

> that it can be administered in a simple inexpensive manner. It is

effective

> and has resulted is cars that are now safer and have long term

bumper to

> bumper warranties. Isn't that what you really want? It is a

simple common

> sense argument. In fact, all of the arguments for a Car or Home

Lemon Law

> are simple and difficult to argue against. You don't need to

reinvent a

> lemon law that is simple and successful.

>

> Unfortunately, what you are proposing is not a Lemon Law. You open

yourself

> and others who support a " true home lemon law " proposal to

unnecessary

> ridicule and give the builders a huge argument that discredits your

efforts.

> You only help builders demonstrate that homeowners and consumers

groups are

> promoting expensive long term lawsuits that only make trial lawyers

rich and

> homes more expensive. You also open yourself up the builders

arguments that

> promotes arbitration. This is a real effective argument for the

builders and

> tort reformers. Why would you want to give them a platform to

promote binding

> arbitration?

>

> It is not a matter of Texas, it is nationwide. Why would you want

a very

> difficult, complex and ineffective argument, that makes trial

lawyers rich?

> It doesn't work. Why? Unfortunately their argument also is

effective with

> legislators. You need something that keeps home disputes out of

court that

> can also be used as a state enforcement tool, that promotes good

sound

> building practices, and prevents lemon homes. It creates an

incentive for

> builders to build quality homes so that they don't have to buy them

back.

>

> To repeat, it must be simple and a true lemon law, not a law to

promote

> lawsuits. The builders then don't have an argument when it can be

done

> without lawsuits being filed. They tried to use that argument last

session

> by claiming the Home Lemon Law would promote lawsuits and increase

the cost

> of homes and that argument failed miserably. That is their only

argument.

>

> Case in point - Last week we held a press conference on the

capitol steps

> about insurance, mold and lack of consumer help from the Governor

and

> Attorney General. We aren't even in session now, yet the

homebuilders felt

> the need to make a statement about the Home Lemon Law that we only

mentioned

> as one of many solutions. Look at the dumb comment made by TBA.

They

> didn't give an argument to anything we said except they felt the

need to give

> this pitiful statement about the Home Lemon Law.

> Kristi Sutterfield, vice president of the Texas Association of

Builders,

> said lemon laws that are like those for automobiles would not work

for

> homes.

>

> " Homeowners have it incumbent upon them to do preventive

maintenance, " she

> said. " If a homeowner changes the direction of his drainage, he may

cause

> water damage to his home's foundation. "

>

> Sutterfield said the association favors arbitration instead of

lawsuits.

> The home lemon law is not designed to work for Texas only but can

be

> implemented in any other state as a simple, true dispute resolution

method

> and as an alternative to the courts. It resolves a dispute and

simply

> determines if a home is a lemon. Not to promote filing lawsuits.

>

> The homebuilders are scared to death of the Texas Home Lemon Law

and the

> threat has been taken seriously by builders associations across the

country

> and NAHB because they don't have an argument against a solution

that does not

> cause lawsuits to be filed but it in fact prevents unnecessary

lawsuits from

> being filed. If you promote more lawsuits your effort is wasted

and

> discredits the true purpose of a Lemon Law.

>

> What you have prepared is not a Home Lemon Law but just another

bill to

> promote lawsuits. That will hurt other true efforts to pass a Home

Lemon

> Law, which would be most unfortunate.

>

> Please don't respond too quickly to this e-mail as a defense of

your well

> intended bill. Instead, read my first e-mail again and this one to

> understand the big picture and what a Home Lemon Law is truly

designed to

> accomplish. That is, one that is designed to be simple, effective

and a

> proven solution.

>

> Sincerely,

> Janet

>

> Janet Ahmad, President

> HomeOwners for Better Building

> San , TX

> http://www.hobb.org

>

>

> Subj: Re: Fw: Re: Fw: Lemon law kdpdfpkf

> Date: 10/23/2002 6:12:34 PM Eastern Daylight Time

> From: KENHMOULTON

>

> hobb@j...

>

> File: cdcletter.jpg (150379 bytes) DL Time (52000 bps): < 1 minute

>

>

>

> The bill I sent you is before the Massachusetts Legislature. I have

asked

> Senator's McCain and Kerry to file a similar Federal bill.

McCain has

> offered support for it and my Toxic Mold bill.

>

> I had been in government and around politicians at the federal

level for a

> few years. It is a political kiss of death to say you support

legislation

> that will cover a toaster but not a home. I learned to play the

political

> game over 30 years ago in Washington.

>

> If you are fighting the Toxic Mold issue too, have you seen the CDC

letter I

> put out for everybody. A lot of folks say it is the first time

anybody has

> gotten the CDC to admit Mold is a danger. Shots down the insurance

companies

> and their witnesses.

>

> I offered my bill to try and help. If you have something better

good. I

> intend to have my legislation at the Federal level so all states

must obey

> it. Goof luck with HOBB and your efforts.

>

> Ken

>

> Subj: Fw: Re: Fw: Re: Fw: Lemon law

> Date: 10/23/2002 10:25:32 PM Eastern Daylight Time

> From: hobb@j...

>

> KENHMOULTON@a...

>

> File: cdcletter.jpg (150379 bytes) DL Time (52000 bps): < 1 minute

> Sent from the Internet (Details)

>

>

>

> Ken,

> We are not talking about a Mold Bill now. We are talking about a

Home Lemon

> Law.

>

> Your response was predictable and anticipated. That is why I did

not respond

> sooner. Today you asked for my comments and you did like them.

As I said

> before, this response is not meant to discourage your efforts or

offend you

> personally. Nor is it intended to demean your abilities or argue

with you.

>

> Please try an understand the effect your litigious bill can have on

the hard

> work of many people. We have been working on the state level and a

Federal

> Home Lemon Law long before you introduced yourself last year to

HADD and

> HOBB. Your efforts while they a commendable, are not well thought

out and

> will definitely interfere with years of hard work of others.

>

> To make it a little more blunt and clear. This is most unfortunate

that you

> don't understand how detrimental your effort can be for the passage

of a

> legitimate Home Lemon Law. What you have prepared is not a Home

Lemon Law

> and can cause unnecessary difficulties for those who originated and

developed

> the Home Lemon Law over the last several years. Since your bill

does not

> resemble a Home Lemon Law, if you could just stop calling it a Home

Lemon Law

> it will not hinder or interfere with others efforts. Otherwise

you are

> giving the homebuilders the tool that will make our efforts much

more

> difficult.

>

> ly it is unfair if not outright unethical for you to cash in

on our

> hard work and is an insult to our intelligence, by trying to

reinvent our

> work and pass it off as a Home Lemon Law. At best it is

plagiarism. It is

> apparent that you have never looked at our Home Lemon Law or even a

Car Lemon

> Law? If it is your intention to try and impress someone with your

superior

> intelligence, you have in fact offended the intelligence of every

person who

> has worked much longer and harder then you on these issues.

>

> I urge you to be more considerate and show come common sense about

your

> approach and give the common courtesy of not calling your bill a

Home Lemon

> Law. Please don't wish us good luck and undermine our efforts for

the

> benefit of the homebuilding industry.

> Sincerely,

> Janet

>

> Janet Ahmad, President

> HomeOwners for Better Building

> San , TX

> http://www.hobb.org

>

>

> Subj: Fw: Re: Fw: Re: Fw: Lemon law

> Date: 10/23/2002 10:25:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time

> From: hobb@j...

>

> KENHMOULTON@a...

>

> Sent from the Internet (Details)

>

>

>

> Ken,

> You really don't understand. The Code of Federal Regulation already

provides

> for HUD to disallow insured loan participation by builders whose

homes do not

> comply with HUD standards.

>

> HUD no longer approves the loans or funds them. Homebuilders

originate and

> approve their own FHA and VA loans by simply certifying that they

did it

> right. In 1993 HUD gave the homebuilders the full authority to

self regulate

> on a promise to build it right, with no oversight.

>

> How do you think KB Home could build 350 homes on a former bombing

range

> without first cleaning up the thousands of bomb that remain on the

land?

> When the federal government sold the land it had and still has a

specific

> deed restriction that does not allow for development until an

unexploded

> ordnance contractor first clears the land. KB built, sold 300

homes that

> have FHA and VA financed loans. Today, HUD knows about it and yet

KB

> continues to build and finance homes on that same land without any

clean up.

> Now your tax dollars and mine will pay for the clean up by the Army

Corp of

> Engineers. It is now a priority 1 clean up site for the Corp of

Engineers.

>

> This is an area that I have done a great deal of work with HUD and

federal

> legislators for the protection of homebuyers and taxpayers.

>

> Remember what I said about the leading economic indicators? KB is

the

> largest builder in the country. We don't need to pass laws that

will

> duplicate laws already on the books, that are ineffective because

of the

> economy. This is a complex issue that is totally different.

>

> Builders have no incentive to build it right because they have

established

> themselves as the authority to create the federally insured loans

and

> homeowners can not hold builders accountable in a court of law

because of

> Binding Arbitration where law does not apply.

>

> We could argue all of the complex issues and it doesn't change the

fact that

> we need the same protection we when we buy a car or a home. Your

bill will

> not do that nor will it clean up HUD. What good is it to pass a

law to sue

> if the homeowner must submit to arbitration and the arbitrators

decision does

> not have anything to do with the law?

>

> Sincerely,

> Janet

>

> Janet Ahmad, President

> HomeOwners for Better Building

> San , TX

> http://www.hobb.org

>

> KENHMOULTON@a...

> hobb@j...

> Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 18:15:23 EDT

> Subject: Re: Fw: Re: Fw: Lemon law kdpdfpkf

>

> One final point, if a builder knows they will receive no bank

loans, my

> federal law, and will be sued if they build substandard or illegal

homes,

> isn't that an incentive. If they don't get paid, they go broke and

out of

> business.

>

> Ken

>

> Subj: Re: Fw: Re: Fw: Re: Fw: Lemon law

> Date: 10/24/2002 9:08:40 AM Eastern Daylight Time

> From: KENHMOULTON

>

> hobb@j...

>

>

>

>

> It is interesting that you say I am setting back the cause. Melinda

Ballard

> said they same to me about you hurting her cause against insurance

companies.

> I started our fight over a decade ago which is long before HADD or

HOBB came

> about. I've tried to help HADD and the NTMC and anybody else that

has asked

> for my help including folks from HOBB.

>

>

> I don't take your comments personal. I have always let you know

what I am

> doing but you have never offered any support even when I asked for

letters of

> support. I do not just deal with legislation on the narrow issues

of

> construction and toxic mold. I gave written other legislation on

other areas

> to include health care, education, elder affairs and the publics

right to

> know.

>

> I wish you and HOBB good luck.

>

> Ken

>

> Subj: Re: Fw: Re: Fw: Re: Fw: Lemon law

> Date: 10/24/2002 9:12:12 AM Eastern Daylight Time

> From: KENHMOULTON

>

> hobb@j...

>

>

>

>

> I know about the HUD Law because I got it from them because of the

> Vice-President. My Law allows citizens their day in court which

current state

> and federal laws do not allow. I also have a bill in Washington

that I am

> trying to get attached to the FDIC and FHA that sets up standards.

>

> Ken

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...