Peter Vekselman

When I was writing my last post for this blog on California unemployment, I saw an advertisement on my own website that I could not believe.

Someone was running an ad of a very attractive young woman (with deep cleavage) saying "She will NOT TALK to You if You are Broke!"

WOW!  That's sure not subtle.

But what I found completely fascinating was that the "Click Here Now!" button of the ad was right over her left breast!  Literally the "C" of "Click" was hovering over her left nipple!  Talk about Pavlovian associations!

This is classic subliminal advertising, or subconsciously introducing sexual images into sales messages in order to stimulate not just sales.  It's been done for years by huge companies everywhere from Disney to Coca-Cola but this is the first time ever that I've seen such methods used to sell real estate home study courses and seminar tickets.  Here are some examples of subliminal advertising.

I wanted to find out who was advertising this way.  Real estate gurus usually talk about using your head in creative ways but in this case I wasn't sure what head was meant.

At first, I thought the real estate guru's name was "Peter Now."  After all, the ad says "Get Real Estate Coaching from Peter Now."

What the ad really meant to say was "Get real estate coaching from Peter now."

The link, CoachingByPeter.com, takes you to a site maintained by Peter Vekselman.  A video on the site by Mr. Vekselman introduces you to him, his experience, and what he has to sell.

I have never heard of Peter Vekselman before.  What I found positive about his sales pitch is that his real estate experience is DIRECT and not INDIRECT.

What I mean by this is a great many real estate gurus claim the deals and success of their clients as THEIR experience.  For example, a sales agent and broker in ten years might close 200 deals worth $100 million on behalf of their clients.  Great work!  But when this agent starts selling their "How I Did $100 Million in Real Estate Deals" home study course for $2,995 the deals suddenly became their own and not their clients.

This is a very common get-rich-quick real estate guru trick.  For example, when MONEY magazine investigated Foreclosures.com real estate guru Alexis McGee in 2007, MONEY learned that the experience she was claiming as a dealmaker actually came from transactions she arranged for clients while acting as an agent.  MONEY also investigated a "successful" McGee student named Daryl White and came to the same conclusion.

McGee, for example, claimed she made "millions" of dollars with foreclosure properties.  MONEY could only find four actual deals with her name on them.  The rest were transactions she did as an agent.

So when Peter Vekselman up front claimed that he personally has done many real estate transactions over many years, I appreciated that statement.  (I'll assume it's true.)

Mr. Vekselman has many websites on the Internet, as is the practice of many real estate gurus.  In other words, he's part of the business.  But here is one Peter Vekselman profile he created on a website called BiggerPockets.com where he claims he only started investing in real estate in October 2008!  Could there be two Peter Vekselmans, father and son?  I honestly don't know.



He also has many pitch videos available on YouTube, much like this one.

I would appreciate learning more on Peter Vekselman.  As I said, I know nothing about him or his products.   He is not selling a book as far as I can find.  It seems he is mostly offering mentoring services, of which I can say I am not a fan.  They are usually very expensive.  Consider the HOURLY cost, not the value of the claimed benefits.

For the record, I also do not believe any of the comments I read online about Mr. Vekselman since I know that nearly 100% of what is written about me is false.  Anonymous posters on the Internet almost always have an axe to grind, for good reasons or malicious ones.  Either way they exaggerate.

As I do with all real estate gurus, I wish Mr. Vekselman the best, but I really hope he changes his ad.  I know many gorgeous women who not only talk to broke guys but refuse to date any other type.  These broke, often unemployed, and insolvent men go by many names---musicians, actors, and artists.

California Unemployment

The California Employment Development Department today reported that 4,000 non-farm jobs were created in the state in the month of February 2012.

California now has an unemployment rate of 10.9%, unchanged from January.

The same office tells us there are TWO MILLION unemployed people in the state of California.

Only 4,000 jobs created in an entire month in the largest state in the United States.

2,000,000 people officially unemployed.  How many hundreds of thousands more underemployed and so discouraged they are no longer part of the California labor market?

I keep hearing about the amazing economic recovery underway.  How a new prosperity is sweeping the land as all the financial sins of the past melt away in the sunshine of the new always blue skies ahead.

There's only one problem.

The unemployment numbers being reported by the states like California do not match the GDP growth statistics and national economic measures coming from the Feds in DC.

I wish Congress would investigate these numerous and troubling discrepancies, starting with how the Bureau of Labor Statistics calculates the unemployment rate.  How fewer desperately seeking job seekers can be working but the unemployment rate goes down is just too complex for me.  I'm a common sense person.  Unemployment goes up when fewer people who want jobs have them and vice versa.  Even an educated guy like Larry Summers can't explain the BLS Labor Force Participation Rate with clarity.  Watch this interview.

The state of California alone has the NINTH largest economy in the world.

This is what I find most troubling of all.

All the wild government spending in Sacramento that is bankrupting the state and all the private businesses in California with borrowing costs near zero could only produce 133 jobs a day.

4,000 jobs down.

1,999,996,000 to go.

Howard Roark

In Hollywood films, there are few heroes in the world of real estate.

Most real estate developers, brokers, and sales agents are portrayed as villains, greedy sniveling weasels who take pleasure in destroying the environment, evicting widows and orphans from their homes, and stealing the dreams of everyday people just to make a profit.

The list of negative portraits of real estate professionals in the movies is long, very very long.  And the list is always getting longer for me.

The other night I watched Eddie Murphy star in THE HAUNTED MANSION, the 2003 film based of all things on a Disney theme park ride.  (Just like Johnny Depp's PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN films, by the way).  In this (boring) movie you can see real estate agent Eddie sleaze his way through all sorts of real estate deals.  My favorite is when he doesn't think the listing agent needs to reveal that the mansion they are trying to sell is....HAUNTED.

All this may seem like harmless fun but it is not.  DECADES of these negative portrayals have left the general public (and their elected representatives in your local City Hall zoning and land use offices) with the idea that the only reason people go into real estate development is to make lots of money at the expense of the poor and the innocent.  The presumption from the start is AGAINST your projects,  your subdivisions, and your renovations because profit is the motivation, not altruism or the desire to actually provide safe, clean, and affordable housing and office space.

Try to get a new real estate project approved, even one you can prove is necessary for a community and will create jobs and other benefits.  The battle is always uphill.  Always, no exceptions.

Hollywood and its relentless message of real estate greed is part of the reason.



One of the few real estate heroes in all of film history is Howard Roark from Ayn Rand's famous novel, THE FOUNTAINHEAD.  Portrayed by Gary Cooper in the 1949 film, the architect Roark is hired to build a housing development called Cortlandt but only on the condition that no changes be made to his plans.  When his patrons betray him and gut his project, Roark destroys Cortlandt with dynamite.  Charged with a crime, he offers this defense in court---and is acquitted.

It is certainly one of the longest movie monologues in history outside of Shakespeare.

But I dare you to listen to it and not think about this year's election.  AND what being a real estate professional means to you.  Is it really just about money?

Ayn Rand wrote the screenplay.  Those are her words you hear.  If you like them, read more.

You can also start with this impressive interview she gave with CBS reporter Mike Wallace.

Robert Abalos Real Estate Report Comments

I have activated the Comments feature of this blog.  If you have a question or comment about something I write please feel free to post your words.


This blog will be moderated by me for the time being.  Short of profanity or hate speech I won't delete anything anyone writes.


Je ne suis pas parfaite, je ne prétends pas l'être.


My goal is to encourage a healthy debate about real estate investment and development, starting with how real estate information is taught to the public.


I also believe that real estate is an interdisciplinary practice, more art than science in the end, and that an open mind and a good sense of humor tend to make this business a whole lot more tolerable than it appears at first glance.

Senator Happy Chandler

"All of us owe the government; we owe it for everything we have--and that is the basis of obligation--and the government can take everything we have if the government needs it.  The government can assert its right to have all the taxes it needs for any purpose, either now or at any time in the future."

U.S. Senator Albert Benjamin "Happy" Chandler

(Democrat from Kentucky)

From a speech delivered on the Senate floor

May 14, 1943

Rule 3.3

This is Rule 3.3 of the American Bar Association Model Rules of Professional Conduct.  I am posting it here for the sake of reference in case anyone needs a reminder.  Lawyers who ignore Rule 3.3 can get into big trouble.

Rule 3.3 Candor Toward The Tribunal

(a) A lawyer shall not knowingly:

(1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer;

(2) fail to disclose to the tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposing counsel; or

(3) offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. If a lawyer, the lawyer’s client, or a witness called by the lawyer, has offered material evidence and the lawyer comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal. A lawyer may refuse to offer evidence, other than the testimony of a defendant in a criminal matter, that the lawyer reasonably believes is false.

(b) A lawyer who represents a client in an adjudicative proceeding and who knows that a person intends to engage, is engaging or has engaged in criminal or fraudulent conduct related to the proceeding shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal.

(c) The duties stated in paragraphs (a) and (b) continue to the conclusion of the proceeding, and apply even if compliance requires disclosure of information otherwise protected by Rule 1.6.

(d) In an ex parte proceeding, a lawyer shall inform the tribunal of all material facts known to the lawyer that will enable the tribunal to make an informed decision, whether or not the facts are adverse.

These are the official ABA comments to Rule 3.3.

Advocate
Rule 3.3 Candor Toward The Tribunal - Comment

[1] This Rule governs the conduct of a lawyer who is representing a client in the proceedings of a tribunal. See Rule 1.0(m) for the definition of "tribunal." It also applies when the lawyer is representing a client in an ancillary proceeding conducted pursuant to the tribunal’s adjudicative authority, such as a deposition. Thus, for example, paragraph (a)(3) requires a lawyer to take reasonable remedial measures if the lawyer comes to know that a client who is testifying in a deposition has offered evidence that is false.

[2] This Rule sets forth the special duties of lawyers as officers of the court to avoid conduct that undermines the integrity of the adjudicative process. A lawyer acting as an advocate in an adjudicative proceeding has an obligation to present the client's case with persuasive force. Performance of that duty while maintaining confidences of the client, however, is qualified by the advocate's duty of candor to the tribunal. Consequently, although a lawyer in an adversary proceeding is not required to present an impartial exposition of the law or to vouch for the evidence submitted in a cause, the lawyer must not allow the tribunal to be misled by false statements of law or fact or evidence that the lawyer knows to be false.

Representations by a Lawyer

[3] An advocate is responsible for pleadings and other documents prepared for litigation, but is usually not required to have personal knowledge of matters asserted therein, for litigation documents ordinarily present assertions by the client, or by someone on the client's behalf, and not assertions by the lawyer. Compare Rule 3.1. However, an assertion purporting to be on the lawyer's own knowledge, as in an affidavit by the lawyer or in a statement in open court, may properly be made only when the lawyer knows the assertion is true or believes it to be true on the basis of a reasonably diligent inquiry. There are circumstances where failure to make a disclosure is the equivalent of an affirmative misrepresentation. The obligation prescribed in Rule 1.2(d) not to counsel a client to commit or assist the client in committing a fraud applies in litigation. Regarding compliance with Rule 1.2(d), see the Comment to that Rule. See also the Comment to Rule 8.4(b).

Legal Argument

[4] Legal argument based on a knowingly false representation of law constitutes dishonesty toward the tribunal. A lawyer is not required to make a disinterested exposition of the law, but must recognize the existence of pertinent legal authorities. Furthermore, as stated in paragraph (a)(2), an advocate has a duty to disclose directly adverse authority in the controlling jurisdiction that has not been disclosed by the opposing party. The underlying concept is that legal argument is a discussion seeking to determine the legal premises properly applicable to the case.

Offering Evidence

[5] Paragraph (a)(3) requires that the lawyer refuse to offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false, regardless of the client’s wishes. This duty is premised on the lawyer’s obligation as an officer of the court to prevent the trier of fact from being misled by false evidence. A lawyer does not violate this Rule if the lawyer offers the evidence for the purpose of establishing its falsity.

[6] If a lawyer knows that the client intends to testify falsely or wants the lawyer to introduce false evidence, the lawyer should seek to persuade the client that the evidence should not be offered. If the persuasion is ineffective and the lawyer continues to represent the client, the lawyer must refuse to offer the false evidence. If only a portion of a witness's testimony will be false, the lawyer may call the witness to testify but may not elicit or otherwise permit the witness to present the testimony that the lawyer knows is false.

[7] The duties stated in paragraphs (a) and (b) apply to all lawyers, including defense counsel in criminal cases. In some jurisdictions, however, courts have required counsel to present the accused as a witness or to give a narrative statement if the accused so desires, even if counsel knows that the testimony or statement will be false. The obligation of the advocate under the Rules of Professional Conduct is subordinate to such requirements. See also Comment [9].

[8] The prohibition against offering false evidence only applies if the lawyer knows that the evidence is false. A lawyer’s reasonable belief that evidence is false does not preclude its presentation to the trier of fact. A lawyer’s knowledge that evidence is false, however, can be inferred from the circumstances. See Rule 1.0(f). Thus, although a lawyer should resolve doubts about the veracity of testimony or other evidence in favor of the client, the lawyer cannot ignore an obvious falsehood.

[9] Although paragraph (a)(3) only prohibits a lawyer from offering evidence the lawyer knows to be false, it permits the lawyer to refuse to offer testimony or other proof that the lawyer reasonably believes is false. Offering such proof may reflect adversely on the lawyer's ability to discriminate in the quality of evidence and thus impair the lawyer's effectiveness as an advocate. Because of the special protections historically provided criminal defendants, however, this Rule does not permit a lawyer to refuse to offer the testimony of such a client where the lawyer reasonably believes but does not know that the testimony will be false. Unless the lawyer knows the testimony will be false, the lawyer must honor the client’s decision to testify. See also Comment [7].

Remedial Measures

[10] Having offered material evidence in the belief that it was true, a lawyer may subsequently come to know that the evidence is false. Or, a lawyer may be surprised when the lawyer’s client, or another witness called by the lawyer, offers testimony the lawyer knows to be false, either during the lawyer’s direct examination or in response to cross-examination by the opposing lawyer. In such situations or if the lawyer knows of the falsity of testimony elicited from the client during a deposition, the lawyer must take reasonable remedial measures. In such situations, the advocate's proper course is to remonstrate with the client confidentially, advise the client of the lawyer’s duty of candor to the tribunal and seek the client’s cooperation with respect to the withdrawal or correction of the false statements or evidence. If that fails, the advocate must take further remedial action. If withdrawal from the representation is not permitted or will not undo the effect of the false evidence, the advocate must make such disclosure to the tribunal as is reasonably necessary to remedy the situation, even if doing so requires the lawyer to reveal information that otherwise would be protected by Rule 1.6. It is for the tribunal then to determine what should be done — making a statement about the matter to the trier of fact, ordering a mistrial or perhaps nothing.

[11] The disclosure of a client’s false testimony can result in grave consequences to the client, including not only a sense of betrayal but also loss of the case and perhaps a prosecution for perjury. But the alternative is that the lawyer cooperate in deceiving the court, thereby subverting the truth-finding process which the adversary system is designed to implement. See Rule 1.2(d). Furthermore, unless it is clearly understood that the lawyer will act upon the duty to disclose the existence of false evidence, the client can simply reject the lawyer's advice to reveal the false evidence and insist that the lawyer keep silent. Thus the client could in effect coerce the lawyer into being a party to fraud on the court.

Preserving Integrity of Adjudicative Process

[12] Lawyers have a special obligation to protect a tribunal against criminal or fraudulent conduct that undermines the integrity of the adjudicative process, such as bribing, intimidating or otherwise unlawfully communicating with a witness, juror, court official or other participant in the proceeding, unlawfully destroying or concealing documents or other evidence or failing to disclose information to the tribunal when required by law to do so. Thus, paragraph (b) requires a lawyer to take reasonable remedial measures, including disclosure if necessary, whenever the lawyer knows that a person, including the lawyer’s client, intends to engage, is engaging or has engaged in criminal or fraudulent conduct related to the proceeding.

Duration of Obligation

[13] A practical time limit on the obligation to rectify false evidence or false statements of law and fact has to be established. The conclusion of the proceeding is a reasonably definite point for the termination of the obligation. A proceeding has concluded within the meaning of this Rule when a final judgment in the proceeding has been affirmed on appeal or the time for review has passed.

Ex Parte Proceedings

[14] Ordinarily, an advocate has the limited responsibility of presenting one side of the matters that a tribunal should consider in reaching a decision; the conflicting position is expected to be presented by the opposing party. However, in any ex parte proceeding, such as an application for a temporary restraining order, there is no balance of presentation by opposing advocates. The object of an ex parte proceeding is nevertheless to yield a substantially just result. The judge has an affirmative responsibility to accord the absent party just consideration. The lawyer for the represented party has the correlative duty to make disclosures of material facts known to the lawyer and that the lawyer reasonably believes are necessary to an informed decision.

Withdrawal

[15] Normally, a lawyer’s compliance with the duty of candor imposed by this Rule does not require that the lawyer withdraw from the representation of a client whose interests will be or have been adversely affected by the lawyer’s disclosure. The lawyer may, however, be required by Rule 1.16(a) to seek permission of the tribunal to withdraw if the lawyer’s compliance with this Rule’s duty of candor results in such an extreme deterioration of the client-lawyer relationship that the lawyer can no longer competently represent the client. Also see Rule 1.16(b) for the circumstances in which a lawyer will be permitted to seek a tribunal’s permission to withdraw. In connection with a request for permission to withdraw that is premised on a client’s misconduct, a lawyer may reveal information relating to the representation only to the extent reasonably necessary to comply with this Rule or as otherwise permitted by Rule 1.6.

New Amazon Headquarters

Amazon.com has decided it wants to build a headquarters in Seattle.  It has tentatively selected land in downtown Seattle literally in my neighborhood.  So I went over to take a look at the site and give my impressions from a development perspective.

Amazon plans a massive project.  Two or three 30+ story towers (depending on the final design) that would add more than one million square feet of Class A space and up to three million square feet overall.  The site Amazon selected is blocks from Seattle's Space Needle and near its current South Lake Union "walking" campus and is more than two full city blocks in size.

I posted sixteen photos I took of the proposed site in a Facebook Page album called New Amazon HQ Site.  The photos really give you a sense of the neighborhood and the sheer size of project.

Amazon's plan would require the demolition of two well known but nevertheless dated and insignificant buildings.  The King Cat Theater is an old favorite with many Seattle residents.  It was an old movie house from the 1970s that has gained fame as a live music venue, especially during Seattle's grunge years when Nirvana, Pearl Jam, and others played there.  The theater hosts, ironically, many Bollywood movies and heavy metal music bands!  The Sixth Avenue Inn is a massive and undistinguished building that I'm surprised no one tore down years ago.

Amazon has promised an answer on development at the site by June 3, 2012.

My hope for Amazon shareholders and the City of Seattle is that Amazon will abandon this project and use the site for another purpose.

If I had the chance, I'd ask Amazon three questions:

1.  Why Seattle?

There is a reason that really big "Seattle" companies do not build headquarters in Seattle.  Microsoft is in Redmond, WA and Costco in Kirkland, WA for a reason.  Those ten extra miles from the Seattle City Limits save tens of millions of dollars each year in property taxes, imposed labor costs, environmental rules, and more.  If Amazon wants a big campus it can build a larger one for less money and have lower operating costs with respect to it for decades by moving a few miles to another location in King County.

Amazon's loyalty to Seattle is admirable but misplaced.  I prefer loyalty to AMZN shareholders.

2.  Why build?

If Amazon wants a Seattle city campus, why build?  There is tons of vacant Class A space all over the city.  Consolidate some leases and buy an existing building.  This is precisely what Russell Investments did when they moved from their Tacoma, WA headquarters into Seattle.  The company bought the WaMu building and renamed it the Russell Investments Center.  The building is pictured above.

See the lovely Seattle skyline and all the pretty buildings?  Many of them are half empty.

The tallest building in Seattle is the Columbia Tower, where my office is maintained.  It is the tall (75 story) black building near the center of the picture above.

Amazon plans to add enough space to fill TWO Columbia Towers.

Well, the existing Columbia Tower is currently 36.3% vacant.  Does adding new space and not buying existing space make sense?  Amazon is building three million new square feet of space.  The entire City of Seattle only has thirty million square feet.  Do we need an instant 10% increase in Class A and street retail use space when the city is already drowning in vacancies?

3.  Why now?


AMZN shareholders have been getting killed lately due to concerns about excessive spending at the company.  Amazon seems to be spending money everywhere, from its Kindle Fire (which I love) to its Amazon Prime Video Service (which is great too) but Wall Street is unhappy with all the cash flying out the door.

Here is the six month chart on AMZN.  Not pretty.

Why announce a major real estate development project that could cost upwards of $1 billion when shareholders and investors are concerned about excessive corporate spending?

The site Amazon has chosen is far better suited for mixed development uses than a massive corporate headquarters that works 9-5 during the week.  The problem with this entire area for generations is that it is a ghost town after 6PM and on weekends.  Do these new buildings really improve that situation?

Amazon is a fine company that loves Seattle and I can respect that.  But their decision in my opinion is incorrect and I hope the company announces another use for the proposed site.

I'll let you know what they decide.

Robert Abalos Live Seminars

You can now register for my upcoming Los Angeles Investing in Land Live Seminar and all my other events by going to my Facebook Page under EVENTS.

My Los Angeles seminar to be held on Monday, April 30, 2012 in Century City is already on the site.

http://www.facebook.com/robert.abalos.seattle/events

If you are a Facebook user just click on the JOIN button and you are all set.  I like the functionality of this method including providing maps and directions to each location.

All my Investing in Land Live Seminars are FREE.  I'm not speaking to sell you anything.  There are plenty of real estate gurus who do nothing but that and I'm not one of them.

For more information on my Investing in Land Live Seminars, go here.

Robert J. Abalos Facebook Page

I have been posting on my Facebook page a great deal.

http://www.facebook.com/robert.abalos.seattle

I will be exploring the functionality of this page in greater depth in the months ahead.

But for right now I'm posting whatever is on my mind.  There usually is some sort of investment angle if you read between the lines---and hopefully you will.

The other day it was the plunging price for natural gas.  This is a natural long/short play for investors.  This is easy money if you know what you are doing.

Then I was curious who actually was Dexter Horton.  You see his name all over Seattle but I never really studied his life.  I am fascinated with what I learned, especially if you consider yourself an ordinary person without a great education but you still want to make some money in real estate and do it the old fashioned way.

Dexter Horton was just a normal man, a farmer and a logger from Seneca Falls, New York, who came to Seattle in the early days of the city as a laborer.  He saved up the money he earned cutting wood and opened a general store which became a success.  He started making some shrewd investments in real estate and started a new career for himself.  He then opened a bank which he named (surprise, surprise) The Dexter Horton Bank which helped build many impressive real estate projects all over the city.  The bank he formed in 1870 eventually became Seafirst Bank, a well known local Seattle bank for generations, that was acquired by the Bank of America in 2000.  Not bad for a regular guy from upstate New York with no formal education and no skills other than farming and chopping trees.

His crown jewel, The Dexter Horton Building, is still one of the building gems of Seattle.  That is part of the main lobby above.

Anyway, I'm posting a great many things of interest to me (and hopefully you) on my Facebook page so I hope you stop in and check it out.  If you think hard about what I write, there is money to be made.

Hedge Funds Buy Homes

The big boys are starting to play in the single family house residential market.

Not a good trend for individual investors.

They can borrow money cheaper than you can.

They can set neighborhood rents lower than your break even points and do it on purpose so you will sell your properties to them.

They can offer incentives on rentals you cannot match.

The single family house investor almost always was an individual investor, a mom-and-pop operator.  Not a private equity fund or publicly traded REIT.

The institutional investors are chasing yields and they will chase a good many individual investors out of this market for good.

Kurt Cobain Investigation Update

It was my intention to post the results of my investigation into the suicide of Kurt Cobain in this blog.

But, upon reflection and discussion with some interested parties, the material is more appropriate for a book than a series of long posts here.

I have decided to write this book.

What I can share with you now, unequivocally, is that Kurt Cobain was not murdered by anyone.

Books and websites that make such claims are shameful.  Courtney Love was not a perfect wife for sure but individuals who accuse her of complicity in her husband's death falsely do so.

Like with the unexplained and premature death of any famous figure, conspiracy theories abound, mostly rooted in coincidences or immaterial contradictions of facts and events.  None have any merit in the case of Kurt Cobain---and I looked at them all.  The Seattle Police Department did not do a thorough job of investigating his death because, to them, it looked like the suicide of a notorious drug user who had attempted to kill himself before.

The SPD was indeed correct, but still, the fact they did not bother to investigate more than they did leaves the record incomplete forever.  It is in this failure that many of the conspiracy theorists find their fodder.

In a sad story filled with great ironies, one of the most observable is also the most disconcerting.  The more famous Kurt Cobain became, the more suicidal he got.

Just four months before he killed himself, he moved into a $1 million home in the most exclusive neighborhood of Seattle.  7,800 square feet, five bedrooms, and five fireplaces.  Built in 1902, it is one of the most historic homes in the entire city.  (Today, the house is valued at $4.8 million on Zillow.)

Just five short years before, Kurt Cobain was essentially homeless, living in his car, in hospital emergency rooms, anywhere he could safely sleep including under a highway near a river. He could not hold a regular job and was fired from a few.  His last real employment before Nirvana hit it big was as a janitor---the character he ridicules in the video "Smells Like Teen Spirit."

But in the last full year of his life, Kurt Cobain earned more than $5 million, nearly $1.6 million in songwriting royalties alone.  Nirvana was offered the headlining position at the 1994 Lollapalooza Tour that summer, a series of gigs that would have netted the band more than $8 million.

Between performing and merchandising, Kurt's share would have been more than $2 million---for six weeks of work doing what he used to say he loved.  Playing music.

Instead, he decided in a cool and methodical way to kill himself.  He was what psychologists call a "rational actor" not driven by hysteria or panic but instead a steady and unflinching logic known to only his own mind.

He tried to commit suicide more than once.  Others stopped him from succeeding.

He often acted so recklessly, especially in his final months, that he seemed not to care if he died.  It seemed he hoped that fate would spare him the need of physically ending his own life.

Kurt Cobain got what he wanted on April 5, 1994.  He planned his end down to the last detail, injecting himself with a lethal dose of heroin immediately before he pulled the trigger on the shotgun in his mouth.  He was taking no chances anyone was going to save him once again.