“Directly” with People in Foreclosure

Posted August 17th, 2007 by Joe Kaiser

Isn't it much more likely, Rob, based on our track record of delivering on promises, that your office simply got it all wrong?

Dear Rob,

You’re not going to allow me to do deals with people in foreclosure?

My partner and I did some 300 deals with people in foreclosure and in all that time (seven years) your office received ZERO complaints about us from any of those 300 sellers.

So, even though no one ever complained, you want me to agree that I will not deal with these people?

You cannot be serious.


“directly”

Here’s the ridiculous demand . . .

Not to engage in any transactions directly with any person whose property is subject to a pending foreclosure in order to transfer interests in real property or to transfer any interests in proceeds from real property. — Cheryl Kringle, former AAG
5/9/2007 Settlement Proposal

In other words, even though no seller has ever complained to your office about me, you feel it’s unfair for them to do deals with me.

Is that about right?

That’s just plain nuts, Rob.


Clues

Reality is this . . . scams leave clues.

One of those clues, I suggest, is consumer complaints. The fact there are none (and here’s a hint for Cheryl) suggests there was none.

Or, perhaps, I am such an extraordinary scamster that sellers never even realized the scam happened?

Good luck with that.

The reason there were never any complaints is we never did anything remotely unfair.


Promises kept

Everyone who’s done business with me, if truthful, will say I did exactly what I promised I’d do.

If I said I’d pay them, I paid them (and to the penny).

If I said I’d stop their foreclosure, I stopped their foreclosure.

And if I said they’d be able to stay, they stayed.

Fiscal Dynamics, Inc., made a lot of promises in those seven years, doing hundreds of successful transactions with people in foreclosure. None of them complained, yet your office demands I never again do business directly with the people who need my help the most.

Huh?

Let’s be real. Isn’t it much more likely, Rob, based on our track record of delivering on promises, that your office simply got it all wrong?

Or that Cheryl Kringle was pretty much clueless in her agenda driven investigation?

Seriously, considering the facts of this case, could anyone without such an agenda conclude otherwise?


More clues

You know what else leave clues?

Incompetence. Agenda. Zeal. Ignorance. Politics. Ambition. Greed. Naiveté.


delivering solutions

Demanding I be barred from dealing directly with people in foreclosure is clear indication your office is so far off track you can’t tell which end is up.

kringle-presentation-13.jpg

I have an unblemished track record that establishes a long history of delivering solutions, exactly as promised, to the people of this state facing foreclosure.

And I will put that track record up against anyone’s, Rob, including former AAG Cheryl Kringle’s.

Respectfully,

Joe Kaiser


3 Responses to: ““Directly” with People in Foreclosure”

  1. Brad Crouch responds:
    Posted: August 17th, 2007 at 10:42 am

    Joe,

    This kinda reminds me of Las Vegas.

    You can be a gambler or even a professional gambler, and the casinos welcome you with open arms. Unless you are a consistant and “significant” winner.

    If you’re “too” successful, you could be barred from entering a casino floor. Or even some casinos. They put your name and photo on some kind of list.

    It sounds like you have made somebody’s list!

    I guess you’re just too good at what you do. If you were less succcessful you probably wouldn’t have all this nonesense going on now.

    This policy might work for Las Vegas, but the government agencies are supposed to be more fair in my view. The same way judges are supposed to be fair.

    This looks like malicious prosecution to me, and I am hoping it all gets sorted out, eventually.

    I suspect that the Washington Attorney General’s office will have a ton of liability when it does get sorted out.

    Brad Crouch

  2. Alan Sweitzer responds:
    Posted: August 17th, 2007 at 12:10 pm

    Good grief, can this happen in the USA, sounds almost communist, I’m curious if 70.5% of assessed value is ok by them.

  3. adrian w. responds:
    Posted: August 19th, 2007 at 9:15 pm

    Ya know. Where I live requiring 70% of the assessed value would make an Investor stand up and dance!!!!! Why?? Because the assessed values represent roughly 50% of the Fair Market Value!!! Joe, you can partner out here anytime you’d like!!!! I wonder how that’d play out for the AG??


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.