So utterly blinded by ambition that she actually believes it.
For the readers visiting here, I thought I’d give my views of the people in your office handling this investigation, your staff of AAG’s.
You at home may be wondering, what’s an “AAG?”
It’s a title, short for “Assistant Attorney General” and is on the business card, presumably, of nearly every attorney involved in this case.
And, to be sure, I believe these are all good-intentioned people. However, they are humans and that being the case, aren’t perfect by any means. They make mistakes, as do we all.
I also think when you work for the Consumer Protection division of the Office of the Attorney General, you run the risk of falling into the trap of letting your emotions get the better of you, and left unchecked, end up straying from what is right and fair.
It’s happened in this case and it’s clear, the end now justifies the means.
Up to no good
When you believe someone is up to no good, I’m convinced, you allow a “the end justifies the means” mentality to take root and you do things you probably wouldn’t (and shouldn’t) otherwise do.
For instance, stating that I’ve participated in “mortgage foreclosure rescue violations” (as you did, Rob, in your press release from March 14th), distorts the way your staff looks at me and my activities. Without question, they can’t now look at the evidence in this case with objectivity.
Again, while your AAG’s may in fact be fine people, they are only human.
That’s what allows David Huey to chuckle on the radio about my marketing letters as though he’s exposed them, and by extension, me, as being a scam. In anyone else’s hands, they’re just half-way decent letters.
When you’re driven by a desire to prove yourself and make your way up the ladder at the Office of the Attorney General, and when your compensation is, in part, derived from your success (or lack thereof) in snagging restitution settlements, it’s easy to see how crossing the line between what is a fair investigation and what is a witch hunt happens.
And don’t get me started about making headlines.
I contend, without reservation, that this is an absolute witch hunt and a blatant misuse of the power of your office.
When AAG’s decide “getting Joe” is the only thing that matters, and when they do and say things they know to be untrue to affect that outcome, they are out of control.
At a meeting not long ago one of your AAG’s mentioned to my attorney that there had been “six or eight” complaints filed against me. When he relayed that bit of information to me, I said, “no way.”
And so I did what anyone accused of wrongdoing would do and set out to prove her wrong. It wouldn’t take much effort.
I requested, under the Public Records Act, copies of all complaints filed with your office. That request included complaints against me, my partner, and my firm.
What I received from your office, Rob, was a “list of complaint.” Yes, “A” complaint. I contend “list” should be reserved for more than one, but your office seems to have problems with the concept of lists (more in a later post).
News to me
But, in reviewing the complaint, it became obvious this wasn’t a complaint at all. It was merely a copy of a four-year old letter I’d sent that someone had forwarded on to your office, saying he thought it might be a scam.
I don’t know the guy, I’ve never met him, and I’ve certainly never done business with him. Your office, as the accompanying notes indicate, looked at it and filed it away deciding no further action was needed.
300 transactions and seven years later, this is what’s caused you to decide I need to be investigated, fined, publicly ridiculed and harrassed out of business? This justifies a claim of Consumer Protection Act violations?
You cannot be serious, Rob.
Okay, if you want to call it a complaint (and I’m betting you do), it’s ONE complaint, not the “six or eight” your AAG advised my attorney.
Are AAG’s allowed to make things up as they go?
Rob, this is ridiculous.
Nothing to hang their hats on
Your AAG’s are out of control. They see everything as a scam and are on a mission to make Consumer Protection Act violation charges against me stick, even though there is nothing (with the exception of the four-year old letter) to hang their hats on.
But do you know what’s even worse?
Former AAG Cheryl Kringle, when asked why this investigation had even started, mentioned that four-year old letter. Am I expected to believe a letter filed away four years ago has somehow resurrected to become the smoking gun that started this investigation and fuels it to this day?
Once again, this is untrue and demonstrates how out of control your staff has become. When an attorney feels it’s okay to lie about something like this, knowing full well it is a lie, it shows that fairness cannot possibly exist in this investigation.
Or, even scarier, she may be so utterly blinded by ambition that she actually believes it.
The end does not justify the meanness
Telling me there have been complaints where complaints never existed is not acceptable from the Office of the Attorney General and is a matter I won’t allow to be swept under the rug.
I expect more, Rob. I expect to be treated fairly.
Telling me a four-year old letter is the genesis of this investigation when we all know it has nothing to do with it is an outright lie.
This too, is unacceptable from your office.
Being too blinded by ambition to ask for an explanation from me about any of this, an explanation that, incidentally, saves Washington State taxpayers the million(s) dollar loss this investigation is certain to create, is proof of AAG’s gone wild.
Do we really want the taxpayers of this state to endure yet another Pacific Health Center type debacle at the hands of the Office of the Washington State Attorney General?
I think not.
P.S. Readers, you may want to check out the full story of Monte Kline’s PHC bogus Consumer Protection Act case brought about by out-of-control AAG’s that will ultimately cost taxpayers of this state upwards of a million dollars.