Deadbeat Congresswoman Defaulted on Three Properties, Claims to Be Victim
On Thursday, deadbeat Congresswoman Laura Richardson denied her home was in foreclosure:
In a carefully written statement released Wednesday evening, she challenged Capitol Weekly’s story about “the residential property that I own in Sacramento,” and said that it had not been subjected to foreclosure. She also said that she renegotiated a loan in connection with the transaction, but did not provide details.
“I have worked with my lender to complete a loan modification and have renegotiated the terms of the agreement — with no special provisions. I fully intend to fulfill all financial obligations of this property,” she said.
But last night, the AP reported, she acknowledged that it was:
Rep. Laura Richardson claimed Friday that her Sacramento home was sold into foreclosure without her knowledge and contrary to an agreement with her lender.
D’oh!
Here’s the kicker:
She said that she is like any other American suffering in the mortgage crisis and wants to testify to Congress about her experience as lawmakers craft a foreclosure-prevention bill.
She is unlike “any other American suffering in the mortgage crisis” in a few important respects, however. She makes nearly $170,000 per year, and receives a per diem from the State of California as well.
Oh — and she has defaulted on three properties, not just one:
Rep. Laura Richardson, who lost her Sacramento home in a recent foreclosure auction, has also defaulted on properties in Long Beach and San Pedro, records show.
Richardson, D-Long Beach, was able to bring her payments up to date on the Long Beach home relatively quickly, but the San Pedro property lingered in the foreclosure process for almost eight months, and still has a pending auction date.
I agree with her on one point, however. I, too, want to see her testify before Congress about all of this.
(Links above mainly found through the L.A. Times blog L.A. Land.)
Actually, I think she just may be very much like the rest of the people being foreclosed upon. Like most of them, she voluntarily took out loans that she was unlikely to be able to repay, and now she wants somebody else to bail her out of her mistakes.
PatHMV (0e077d) — 5/24/2008 @ 9:48 amPat…I don’t think most people want bailouts…while they’ll take them, I think most people bought houses that they wanted to try to keep, and wanted to make it work….they probably shouldn’t have, but they did want it to work….
But, this IDIOT…she is gaming the system…and worse yet, the system is letting her do it….if she walked away twice, who is the OTHER IDIOT who gave her a third loan….
reff (e20e4c) — 5/24/2008 @ 10:25 amShe seems to have a bit of an honesty problem.
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/24/2008 @ 10:36 amBut, this IDIOT…she is gaming the system…and worse yet, the system is letting her do it….if she walked away twice, who is the OTHER IDIOT who gave her a third loan….
Using the term “default” is misleading, but effective for Patterico and the other gossips. She didn’t “walk away twice” she “defaulted” twice. You can “default” on a mortgage these days, the way the contracts are written, by sneezing too loud. I’ve probably “defaulted” on mine several times, by accidentally sending a payment a day late, or having mail delays.
In fact, this woman is managing her finances in a manner very similar to the way Congress and the President are currently managing our country’s finances – except she can’t print herself more money to pay her overextended debt.
It’s too bad the real dirt on Congress — i.e. the fact that they all, collectively, have put our whole nation into way more debt than we need — gets barely any press at all these days. Of course the blame for that falls at the feet of both parties, so it can’t be used in a juicy, polarizing partisan story like this crap.
Phil (0ef625) — 5/24/2008 @ 11:04 amUsing the term “default” is misleading, but effective for Patterico and the other gossips. She didn’t “walk away twice” she “defaulted” twice. You can “default” on a mortgage these days, the way the contracts are written, by sneezing too loud. I’ve probably “defaulted” on mine several times, by accidentally sending a payment a day late, or having mail delays.
Phil, before you look any more like an idiot, read the story. She was several months behind on all three houses. The only person being misleading here is you, by suggesting that she defaulted by sending in payments a few days late.
Patterico (cb443b) — 5/24/2008 @ 11:12 amShe certainly sounds like an expert on flipping houses. If Obama wins, I suggest he nominate her for HUD, or whatever bloated bureaucracy is fulfilling that role these days.
Mike K (86bddb) — 5/24/2008 @ 11:22 am#6 Mike K:
If the object is to lose money, I think it would be difficult to find anyone better.
EW1(SG) (84e813) — 5/24/2008 @ 12:02 pmPhil:
Would you care to document the existence of the “sneezing too loud” clause in contemporary mortgage contracts? Or is that claim simply one more example of left-wing hyperbole designed to avoid having to deal with inconvenient facts?
Rhymes With Right (fc98e0) — 5/24/2008 @ 12:26 pmYou need not hold your breath waiting for her testimony before Congress. When and if the day comes when she’s sworn as a witness, her answer to every substantive question will be, “On the advice of my counsel, I must assert my right under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to refuse to answer on the ground that it might incriminate me.”
Beldar (836c92) — 5/24/2008 @ 1:05 pmThis lady is a real piece-of-work.
Following is a Letter to the Editor I sent to the Long Beach Press-Telegram on 5/23 @ 0837:
“The Hon. Laura Richardson:
Another Drew (8018ee) — 5/24/2008 @ 1:33 pmDemocrat;
Congressmember;
Public Liar;
Deadbeat.
Did I miss anything?”
You can “default” on a mortgage these days, the way the contracts are written, by sneezing too loud.
What, you bought one of Hillary’s Whitewater mortgages in the 80s?
Paul (de3f43) — 5/24/2008 @ 1:52 pmAnother Drew – yes you missed something: Laura Richardson is a superdelegate. She is pledged to support Hillary Clinton.
http://cancelthebee.blogspot.com/2008/05/deadbeat-clinton-superdelegate-walks.html
Kevin Gregory (c3090c) — 5/24/2008 @ 1:56 pmI read where her excuse for the missed payments was that she had to put all her money into her campaign for Congress.
That’s a general liberal tactic – screw other people in your pursuit of power.
Also, she had four jobs in four months. I didn’t get a complete list though.
Joseph Somsel (eb722b) — 5/24/2008 @ 2:30 pmLong Beach City Councilwoman, while on the staff of Lt.Gov. Cruz Bustamante (2005);
Another Drew (8018ee) — 5/24/2008 @ 2:49 pmAssemblyMember (elected 2006);
CongressMember (elected in special election, 2007).
Oh, BTW, the opponent she defeated for the seat in Congress, is a Lt.Col., currently serving in Iraq.
“…was sold into foreclosure without her knowledge…”
Yeah, THAT’S pretty common. Oftimes I come home wondering, ‘hey, has my home been sold into foreclosure without my knowledge?’
I’m not as curious about who she’s trying to fool as I am about who she WILL fool with this bunk.
Kevin (834f0d) — 5/24/2008 @ 4:17 pmPhil, as others have pointed out, you don’t know what you’re talking about. She certainly did default on two other houses. One has an auction pending.
It’d be easy to verify whether she was merely late on payments or she did default: there would be notices of default filed with the county recorder’s office by the lienholders.
Care to try again?
steverino (b12c49) — 5/24/2008 @ 4:20 pmThis woman used to be married to the police chief of Long Beach & be on the city council there. She is a real piece of work. Her republican opponent in the congressional election, John Kanaley is a Lt. Col. in the US Army & deployed to Iraq after he lost the election. While Richardson defaults on her loans, tax & utility bills, Lt. Col Kanaley fights in Iraq. The voters in her district are not very bright.
Stan Switek (7cfd24) — 5/24/2008 @ 6:51 pmPhil…
You complain that this has something to do with partisanship…
Try explaining that one…please…
reff (e20e4c) — 5/24/2008 @ 8:44 pmPhil, before you look any more like an idiot, read the story. She was several months behind on all three houses.
Why don’t you try reporting meaningful stories, rather than being a gossipy partisan hack?
The poster to whom I responded equated “defaulting” on a mortgage with “walking away from” the mortgaged property. He made that inference because of the way your post was written.
It is not the same thing. You “default” on a mortgage when you violate any number of conditions the lender sets forth in the loan contract.
For example, I have a client who was declared “in default” on a commercial loan without ever missing a payment, because his cosigner declared bankruptcy. That was an “event of default” under the mortgage.
I can understand the commenter’s confusion, because Patterico conflates foreclosure and “default” in this post, by first pointing out that this senator is being foreclosed on, and then saying “and she defaulted on two other homes!”
As though being foreclosed, and “defaulting” is the same thing. Because that would be an awesome scandal, and if this isn’t one, gosh-darn it, Patterico’s gonna make it one.
As the story he links to makes clear, the senator is clearly having financial troubles. There’s a shocker! She owns three properties in one of the worst-hit real estate markets in the country!
He’s trying to capitalize on that unfortunate circumstance to make her look like a crook. Apparently, he’s taking lessons from the L.A. Times.
This post is misleading, it’s gossip, it’s irrelevant to the political process, and its the sort of thing partisan bloggers salivate for. I have no patience for it.
Phil (0ef625) — 5/24/2008 @ 9:31 pmOh, you have no patience for it? That’s pretty hilarious, Phil.
Not the least because most of your hairsplitting is irrelevant because her defaults were directly related to paying the mortgage, not other loan terms. Really? A reference to a commercial loan default? Playing non sequitur today?
As for making her look like a crook, I can’t speak for what Patterico wanted to make her look like, but she succeeded in making herself look like a liar all by herself.
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/24/2008 @ 10:23 pmFor example, I have a client who was declared “in default” on a commercial loan without ever missing a payment, because his cosigner declared bankruptcy.
Wait, hold up.
The whole point of a co-signer is that you don’t have good enough credit to be trusted to pay off the loan, so you get someone else who DOES have good credit to vouch for you; they go to the mat and shoulder part of the responsibility for the loan.
If they’re bankrupt, then the under-qualified guy who got the loan just lost his backing– there’s nothing to make the lender risk giving him the loan.
How exactly is this an example of a “sneeze” of any level?
Foxfier (15ac79) — 5/25/2008 @ 1:28 amAnd you are a bullshit artist like Levi, and I just don’t have the patience to bother with that crap.
EW1(SG) (84e813) — 5/25/2008 @ 4:29 amWhy don’t you try reporting meaningful stories, rather than being a gossipy partisan hack?
What’s-a-matter, Phil? Don’t like having the truth of a Dem pointed out?
The other aspect of this story that you seemed to have missed, Phil, pointed out by WLS on May 21, is that Richardson fell several months behind on her payments while loaning her campaign $60,000.
And that’s not all. WLS wrote a very detailed post asking several good questions, like this one:
That’s why this is a meaningfu story, Phil, and not gossipy partisan hackery.
Try to keep up.
Paul (de3f43) — 5/25/2008 @ 5:15 amFor example, I have a client who was declared “in default” on a commercial loan without ever missing a payment, because his cosigner declared bankruptcy. That was an “event of default” under the mortgage.
Phil – I hope that you are a personal trainer or gardener or something because when you use the word client you scare me. You display absolutely no knowledge of business, finance or law
or matters which require ethics or fiduciary responsibilities in a relationship to another party. I have no desire to insult personal trainers or gardeners, but you Phil, are a complete and utter moron. Everyone here is more stupid for having read your comments.
Technical default on loan covenants is different than a default on basic loan elements such as monthly payments, but both can lead to the same conclusion, foreclosure, if the defaults aren’t cured. Foreclosure is a time intensive process that doesn’t happen overnight after payment defaults.
Phil, do you have any idea how this deadbeat voted on the various mortgage bailout bill? Hopefully she had the good sense to recuse herself if they would have any impact on her situation.
Moron!
daleyrocks (7b62a8) — 5/25/2008 @ 6:43 amI think the story speaks very deeply to the Democrap mindset. I don’t understand how in this day and age anyone would seriously consider many Democraps for any office. The overarching value I see in the Democratic camp is “Rules are for the little people.”
paul from fl (bacb61) — 5/25/2008 @ 7:31 amWhen a Dem gets in trouble it is almost always someone else’s fault.
Yeesh
But but this is the fucking stupidest most fucking boring story ever in fucking history. Fucking reporters get fucking fired for doing fucking lame fucking stories like this! Fuck this! Torture torture torture torture torture torture torture. You’re all morons! Here’s a “basic civics lesson!” Fuck. Shit. Fuck.
The sound made by Levi's rear end (b796b4) — 5/25/2008 @ 9:35 amThat anyone would defend this crooked, buffoon of a woman speaks volumes. Her trying to latch onto some sort of “I feel the pain too” argument to justify her irresponsible, “I am the law” attitude is an insult to every hard working person who has jumped through hoops to secure loans and pays their bills in a timely manner just to have a nice home for themselves. Dismissing criticism of her as partisan hackery and gossip? Oh please. Could you imagine if McCain or any Republican had played fast and loose with the system like this crook has? Phil, I agree, is a snide idiot the likes of which we haven’t seen since the last time Levi breathed. You have clients? God help them, because you are an ignorant fool.
Jack Klompus (b796b4) — 5/25/2008 @ 9:42 amPhil, here was my advice to you several comments ago:
Phil, before you look any more like an idiot, read the story. She was several months behind on all three houses.
Too bad you didn’t take it. I was actually trying to *prevent* you from looking stupider than you already did.
It didn’t work.
Patterico (cb443b) — 5/25/2008 @ 9:53 amPatterico, Phil sure did take a pounding in here, didn’t he?
Paul (de3f43) — 5/25/2008 @ 10:00 amPhil, I agree, is a snide idiot the likes of which we haven’t seen since the last time Levi breathed.
Actualy, Jack, Phil’s been around longer than Mr. Sunny.
Paul (de3f43) — 5/25/2008 @ 10:03 amNow, Phil, you’re forcing me to quote all the parts I had advised you to read, to demonstrate how idiotic your arguments look:
So she was several months behind on that one. And the property “lingered in the foreclosure process for almost eight months, and still has a pending auction date.”
So she was several months behind on that one as well.
And these are in addition to her home in Sacramento — the one that she denied had gone into foreclosure, but actually had.
So you really should shut your squeakhole with this lame whining about how checks get lost in the mail, and payments get made a few days late, and cosigners declare bankruptcy.
None of that has anything to do with this irresponsible moron who bought THREE properties and fell months behind on ALL THREE of them.
You know what you sound like when you go on about such utterly irrelevant nonsense?
A shyster. A dishonest civil attorney who constantly tries to distract people and scream about nonsense that has nothing to do with the matter at hand.
What do you do for a living again?
Patterico (cb443b) — 5/25/2008 @ 10:05 amAnd these are in addition to her home in Sacramento — the one that she denied had gone into foreclosure, but actually had.
Also, has this question been answered: was she getting a tax-free per diem on that Sacramento home which she used to finance her election campaign?
Paul (de3f43) — 5/25/2008 @ 10:18 amA shyster. A dishonest civil attorney who constantly tries to distract people and scream about nonsense that has nothing to do with the matter at hand.
Better known to liberals as: “Masters of the Universe” who are anointed to manage our lives.
Perfect Sense (b6ec8c) — 5/25/2008 @ 11:02 am“Masters of the Universe”
“Captain Garth–”
“LORD Garth! Master of the Universe!”
Paul (de3f43) — 5/25/2008 @ 11:06 amPatterico, hey have a heart – people like Phil makes us remaining honest 1% of civil attorneys look bad.
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/25/2008 @ 11:44 amA shyster. A dishonest civil attorney who constantly tries to distract people and scream about nonsense that has nothing to do with the matter at hand.
What do you do for a living again?
I don’t believe Phil is a lawyer. He might be a paralegal. How poor a lawyer can you be and still not know that if an obligor (even a joint obligor) tries to discharge a secured debt in bankruptcy, the secured creditor must claim his collateral or lose it?
nk (d7f5f5) — 5/25/2008 @ 2:42 pmYou must understand that “Phil” is attempting to lead all of us out of this partisanship and typical politics – as – usual; he’s enlightened, and we’re the poor benighted souls wandering in the wasteland of ignorance.
Phil’s the one who wants the “changieness” and “hopeiness” – how dare we intercede on his fantasy.
Dmac (66e1f8) — 5/25/2008 @ 3:17 pmHow poor a lawyer can you be and still not know that if an obligor (even a joint obligor) tries to discharge a secured debt in bankruptcy, the secured creditor must claim his collateral or lose it?
Heck, nk, you don’t need to pass the bar to know that. I wonder if Phil even read the terms of his home loan…if he has one.
Paul (de3f43) — 5/25/2008 @ 3:36 pmC’mon, Phil, your premise is in dire need of help!
You wouldn’t completely abandon it because you took a beating, would you?
Phil?
Paul (de3f43) — 5/26/2008 @ 10:50 amFor Phil’s edification, I’ll repeat what I believe I posted earlier, and that was in the Daily Breeze article:
One of Cong. Richardson’s first votes after being sworn in, was to vote “aye” on a bill changing the IRS code so that bank forgiveness on a foreclosure sale was not taxable to the defaulter. That vote saved her income taxes on the difference between her indebtedness to WaMu ($585K), and the foreclosure sale price ($388K).
In her tax bracket I would think that would be worth about $60K, or more?
No conflict of interest here. Just move along.
Another Drew (8018ee) — 5/26/2008 @ 11:17 amActually, Another Drew, you didn’t mention that before. She should have sat that vote out. But hey…
Why would she do that after possibly funneling tax-free per diem funds for the Sacramento home into her election campaign, while letting that home and two others slide into default and foreclosure procedings?
Paul (de3f43) — 5/26/2008 @ 12:40 pmPaul…
If you had read the linked articles in the Daily Breeze and the LB Press-Telegram (both owned by L.A. Media Group, which also owns the L.A. Daily News), you would have read about her foregiveness vote.
Why did she do that? Because, as one of the annoited (Dem politician, MBA/USC, BA/UCLA), she feels entitled.
She has progressed beyond Arrogance, and has entered the realm of Hubris.
The question now arises: When will one of her constituents file an Ethics Complaint with the House of Representatives? And, will the Cmte on Ethics, take up the matter?
Also, go back to the original post on 5/22 or 5/21 and read the comments on this matter. There is a lot of info there.
Another Drew (8018ee) — 5/26/2008 @ 1:39 pmDrew, my question was sarcastic. I guess I should have tagged it.
Paul (de3f43) — 5/26/2008 @ 2:52 pmYou’re excused.
Another Drew (8018ee) — 5/26/2008 @ 4:46 pmWe covered that in my “Legal Environment of Business” class two semesters ago at the Community College…
Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 5/26/2008 @ 9:38 pmAnother pathetic story of a politician’s irresponsibility. I fully expect Ms. Richardson to succeed in getting another term in Congress this year, as scandals and chicanery must be overwhelming for voters to reject an incumbent. Of course, her brothers and sisters in Washington pay no price for getting our nation deeper and deeper in debt, so why should she, right? There are two sets of rules: Those for the elite, and those for the rest of us.
Robert Kiefer (d671ab) — 6/3/2008 @ 9:48 am42, AD, I don’t think citizens can file ethics charges in the US House. I think only sitting members can, and you know those crooks cover their own, especially the Democrats as “Cold Cash” Jefferson is still seated in the House. He should have been expelled for his actions during Katrina alone.
PCD (5c49b0) — 6/3/2008 @ 9:58 am