{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.023890784982935155, 'fraction_numerical': 0.012514220705346985, 'mean_word_length': 5.197183098591549, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
To Stop a Predator: Is a Complete Ban on For-Profit Foreclosure Rescue Operations the Best Way to Prevent Equity Stripping?

Crisis presents opportunity, and the U.S. residential foreclosure crisis of 2007-08 is no exception. “Foreclosure rescuers” have capitalized on the unfortunate situation by inducing financially distressed homeowners to enter deceptive and onerous sale-andrepurchase or leaseback agreements under the illusion that the agreements are viable alternatives to foreclosure. On September 1, 2007, Massachusetts became the first state to enact a permanent ban on such for-profit foreclosure rescue practices. The ban was the measure Attorney General Martha Coakley saw as the solution to “an egregious problem at the end of a bad process.” The process to which she refers is the foreclosure process—a common result in the subprime and predatory lending markets.