“Man of Your Word,” Revisited

Posted July 23rd, 2007 by Joe Kaiser

It's that "your words matter" thing to which your office so maniacally holds me.

Dear Rob,

This investigation (and subsequent Consumer Protection Act violations lawsuit) should have never happened.

Why?

In the seven years my partner and I did business as Fiscal Dynamics, Inc., we did 300 plus deals, most involving people in foreclosure, and in all that time your office received NO COMPLAINTS about us.

None.


what matters most?

As you recall, Rob, you said earlier the volume of complaints received by your office is your number one concern regarding bringing a CPA violations action . . .

Well, first of all how many consumers are actually complaining? . . . That’s the number one concern.— Robert M. McKenna

The lawsuit against me is EXACTLY what you’ve described as something your office would not pursue, a lawsuit where complaints DID NOT come from consumers.


agenda driven

Rob, you made a follow-up statement regarding your “number one concern.” Do you recall it? It had to do with your other criteria for what you deem a valid CPA violations claim . . .

Is this actually coming from the public from consumers or is it an investigation driven by an agenda or by politics?— Robert M. McKenna

Not only has your staff ignored your admonition that consumer complaints be their top criteria, they compound their mistake by manufacturing a consumer protection violations case they themselves know to be “driven by agenda.”

And that is outrageous, particularly when the hustle comes from the Office of the Attorney General.


It’s all about the money

Where are the complaints, Rob?

I’ll give you a hint: the ONLY complaints your office received came from county prosecutors upset that I target tax sale overages they consider their own.

What does that make this case?

It makes it all about the money that didn’t escheat to county expense funds, and that makes it 100% agenda driven, and that makes it 100% bogus.


word up

It’s that “your words matter” thing to which your office so maniacally holds me.

Well, I think it only fair you’re held to that very same standard.

Or does this “no complaint, agenda driven” investigation prove your words during Monte’s radio interview were nothing more than hollow campaign promises to his listeners?

If so, that introduces the possibility of “politics,” influencing your office’s continued involvement in this investigation and if true, that makes you three for three, Rob.


the trifecta

“How many consumers are actually complaining?”

ZERO.

“Is it an investigation driven by agenda?”

UNDENIABLY.

“Is it an investigation driven by politics?”

LOOKS THAT WAY TO ME.

How ’bout it, Rob?

Are you a man of your word, or not?

Respectfully,

Joe Kaiser


9 Responses to: ““Man of Your Word,” Revisited”

  1. Seth responds:
    Posted: July 23rd, 2007 at 7:10 am

    Brass tacks: “the ONLY complaints your office received came from county prosecutors upset that I target tax sale overages they consider their own.”

    Joe, I’d like to echo comments from earlier posts: I hope you’re using your considerable marketing skills to get the word out about this blog. I’m sure there are 10s of thousands of people who would find this saga of interest. Especially in these times of growing concern about the overuse of power by our PUBLIC SERVANTS.

    Best, Seth

  2. USA TODAY responds:
    Posted: July 23rd, 2007 at 8:05 am

    JOE:

    THE USA TODAY STORY IS ONLY A MATTER OF TIME…

    AND PLEASE EXPLAIN THE BELOW INFO IN GREATER DETAIL SO THAT WE ALL GET CLARITY ON THIS MATTER.

    “I’ll give you a hint: the ONLY complaints your office received came from county prosecutors upset that I target tax sale overages they consider their own” THEIR OWN????…HUH?

    WHAT…..THE COUNTIES RECEIVE THE TAX SALE OVERAGE MONEY ON THE PROPERTY?

    WHAT ABOUT THE OWNER….I THOUGHT THE OWNER(S) RECEIVED THE MONEY?

    WOW, IF THIS IS THE CASE AND THE COUNTIES HAVE BEEN TAKING MONEY FROM OWNER(S)…MAYBE IT’S THE COUNTY AND STATE THAT SHOULD BE PROSECUTED.

    BETTER YET, LETS CONTACT EVERY PROPETY OWNER IN THE PAST 10YRS THAT HAD PROPERTY GO TO TAX SALE AND SEE IF THEY RECEIVED THEIR TAX SALE OVERAGE MONEY THAT WAS DUE TO THEM.

    IN ANY EVENT, WHAT A HUGE CONFLICT OF INTEREST!!

  3. Joe Kaiser responds:
    Posted: July 23rd, 2007 at 9:08 am

    I haven’t gotten into it all just yet, but . . .

    This entire case would never have happened if county prosecutors, upset that we go after tax sale overages (many of which we create ourselves), hadn’t complained.

    Maybe they got tired of getting beat up in court?

    Here’s the reality no one wants to talk about . . .

    TAX SALE OVERAGES BELONG TO THE COUNTIES.

    County prosecutors and treasurers know this. They know the entire WA State tax sale system was designed to produce unclaimed overages that ultimately escheat to their county expense funds.

    It is the foundation upon which the system is built AND THEY WILL DO WHATEVER IT TAKES TO PROTECT THIS SOURCE OF FREE INCOME.

    Anything that in any way impacts their ability to collect unclaimed overages is targeted and destroyed.

    And that would be me.

    The AAG’s investigating this case, in their naiveté, think tax sale overages belong to the former owners, and that’s silly.

    Sure, a former owner can apply for those funds, if . . .

    #1 The county knows where he’s at so they can send him an application, and

    #2 If someone from the county bothers to send an application, and

    #3 If actually finds him, and

    #4 If he bothers to open it (he’s been tossing away letters from the treasurer for years, thinking it’s a tax bill), and

    #5 If he realizes it’s an application to allow him to apply for the funds, and

    #6 If he gets it properly filled out, signed, notarized, and returned to the county, and

    #7 If he does so within three years from the sale of his property, and

    #8 If there isn’t some kind of title problem (there almost always is), and

    #9 If the county approves his application (they will use anything they can to deny it), then

    And ONLY then, can he obtain the overage funds. I suspect more than a few fall through the cracks somewhere along the way, don’t you?

    And when they fall through those cracks?

    Counties get the money.

    It’s the ultimate “overage play.”

    That’s the law, and that’s what this case boils down to. Counties view tax sale overages as their money from day one. Money leaving their accounts and getting paid to former owners is considered a bad thing.

    And money “intercepted” by investors like me?

    A very bad thing, indeed.

    And this case?

    IT’S A TURF WAR.

    Joe

  4. Vlad responds:
    Posted: July 23rd, 2007 at 12:10 pm

    Joe,

    That knotted bunch of ropes the dogs are pulling apart (in the picture above) doesn’t seem like much of a turf war bounty…

    Any idea of what’s REALLY at stake here (numerically)?

    All the best!

    -Vlad

  5. Jamal B. responds:
    Posted: July 23rd, 2007 at 1:05 pm

    Ahhh….Now the picture at the top of the page makes sense!

  6. Joe Kaiser responds:
    Posted: July 23rd, 2007 at 8:55 pm

    Vlad,

    We’ll know shortly what the exact totals look like in terms of funds escheating to county expense funds statewide. It won’t be a small number.

    Joe

  7. John Blythe responds:
    Posted: July 29th, 2007 at 4:08 pm

    Alot of the funds that escheat to the county are equity that elderly people have built up in their homes over a lifetime. Most those homes are owned free and clear. So it looks like the counties are in the business of trying to keep the equity that belongs to the elderly in their county.

    Hmmm.

    Wonder how this is going to look on the 6:00 news…..

  8. Redline responds:
    Posted: August 8th, 2007 at 11:56 pm

    Joe – looks like you found the smoking gun. Now atleast all this nonsense makes some sense!

  9. Mall responds:
    Posted: November 27th, 2012 at 11:54 am

    Please someone! I am tnriyg so hard to think of two books written several years ago on the elite members of PG County. I want to say the authors name was Connie. Maybe last name was Briscoe. I am wrecking my brain. Help!! LOL.


Post a Comment

Enter Your Details:


You may write the following basic XHTML Strict in your comments:
<a href="" title=""></a> · <acronym title=""></acronym> · <abbr title=""></abbr>
<blockquote cite=""></blockquote> · <code></code> · <strong></strong> · <em></em>

  • If you’re a first-time commenter, your response will be moderated.
  • If your response includes a link, it will require moderator approval.
Enter Your Comments:



Note: This is the end of the usable page. The image(s) below are preloaded for performance only.