And Now I Own 100% of it

Posted July 19th, 2007 by Joe Kaiser

Dear Rob,

Bobo and I did a deal yesterday with Jim, a nice fellow from Tacoma (and long-time real estate investor).

Heads up . . .

When your investigator Rene contacts him to let him know he’s been scammed (I’m guessing he’ll now been added to your list of people I’ve cheated), he’s the kind of fellow who will tell her she’s nuts.


click to play

I’d called to talk with Jim about a property he’s got in the upcoming Pierce County tax sale, and we came to an agreement right there on the phone . . .

Here’s how that call went . . .

So, later that day, he stopped by the office to complete the transaction and pick up his money.

We’d already been to the bank and had his $10,000.00 cashier’s check ready to go. And, we’d prepared a deed to convey 100% ownership of the property.

Ten minutes later, Jim was out the door with 10 grand in his pocket.

And us?

Bobo and I are the proud new owners of a unbuildable lot on the Stuck river in Sumner.

It’s a done deal.

100% done.

Bought and paid for done.


Done. Done. Done.

Did I mention, done?

property rights

I’m not an attorney, but even I know that as the owner of this property, certain rights are now mine.

Among other things, I have the right to use it, to mortgage it, and the right to profit from it.

Equally important, I also have the right (subject to zoning and what not, of course) to decide what to do with it from here on out.

That’s my call.



What about Jim?

And Jim’s rights?

He has no rights to this property. None. Zero.

Any rights he had he sold to me.

When he accepted my check and deeded me “all interest in and to” the property, his interest forever ended and any rights or claims he had to the property became mine.




Overturning Magna Carta

But, apparently, not according to you.

Your office believes that if I let this property (MY property) go to the upcoming tax sale (one of My rights) and a profit is created there (MY profit), that money belongs not to me, but, (and I kid you not) to Jim?


That belief is an absurdity and a position difficult for thinking people to understand.

That belief is NOT what the applicable statute says.

And that belief has no basis in law (again, not an attorney but not stupid, either) and will become the first part of your lawsuit a thinking judge tosses out.

Magical thinking

And this investigation?

It and your multi-million dollar lawsuit is based on the fundamentally flawed and constitutionally unsupportable claim that Jim and others like him, having previously sold their property rights to me, have those rights magically restored by virtue of the Washington State tax sale statutes.

And that’s nonsense.


Joe Kaiser

Be the first to comment on this post.

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.