In Arizona, there has been several prosecutions of pre-foreclosure investors (I use the term investor here loosely) where they have received jail sentences for "rent skimming".

I'm sure someone will take a sentence or 2 and attack it.

One sentence is controversial in the entire bill and it's not weather or not illegals should be allowed to stay in the us.

Summary or Business Plan, are pretty simple to list when you know where to find the information.For most investors, identifying the market and needs analysis can be covered in a couple sentences.

If you omit any part of any significant element of the issue, you may not get the same answer.To ask for a deed to convey 1/50th or 1/1,000,000th interest is elementry and can be modified by a sentence.

My initial thought was more on the lines of Bill's first sentence.

I particularly enjoyed the very last sentence:"Blaming the loss on the investor appears as an ingenuous attempt to deflect accountability for prior excesses in loose lending practices."

I had asked that instead of reimbursement for damages we could maybe work out some "alternative sentencing" for the kid.

Let me give an example:Look at this sentence:"I did not say he stole the money."

The first sentence of section (a) seems to be the context of what they're trying to stop: fraud on the homeowner which could stop them from getting any "surplus funds" from the trustee sale.