Free Speech

Posted August 16th, 2007 by Joe Kaiser

In any case, Cheryl demanding I stop writing about things Cheryl does not understand is a bunch of huey.

Dear Rob,

Do you really intend to force me to stop writing about foreclosures or how to invest in distressed properties?

And are you serious about putting an end to my career as a real estate author and trainer?


I’ll tell you what, Rob; that really is nuts.

The first amendment

Here’s your demand . . .

Not to offer or sell training courses or training materials instructing others how to engage in any of the enjoined activities. — Cheryl Kringle, former AAG
5/9/2007 Settlement Proposal


I’m not an attorney, but I am aware of the concept of free speech and attempting to take that right away from me by demanding I stop writing is about as wrong-headed as it gets.

Compare that to this other demand . . .

Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech . . .
— The First Amendment
to the U.S. Constitution

Maybe I should hire a civil rights attorney, next (as if I haven’t hired enough attorneys already in this matter).

In any case, Cheryl demanding I stop writing about things Cheryl does not understand is a bunch of huey.

the author that never was

One of the things my ex-partner intended was to write a book about our exploits (pun intended) as real estate investors. Unfortunately he’s signed a settlement agreement with you that prevents him from now doing so.

And I find that nothing short of deplorable.

How your office could be so woefully misguided that it moves to terminate his rights to free speech is beyond me.

But, you got it done, for whatever that’s worth.

Don’s worth

Word on the street is Don Imus just settled for tens of million of dollars for having his first amendment rights similarly trifled with in a breach of contract matter with CBS Radio.

You’re trifling here, Rob.

Telling me what I can or cannot write is once again demonstrating the tenor of your office’s handling of this investigation, and it’s sickening.

Not gonna happen

Telling me I am forbidden from writing about whatever I feel like writing is a really bad idea. I refuse to as much as consider it.

Your office has demonstrated a pattern of getting things backwards, not understanding basic real estate concepts, making outrageous and inappropriate conclusions about my business, and now, trampling upon my fundamental rights of not only property, but of my freedom of speech.

Rob, I did 300 transactions without a single complaint to your office. And rather than admit Cheryl got it all wrong here, you seek to eviscerate my civil rights?

And you demand I stop writing about foreclosures?

Why am I not surprised?


Joe Kaiser

9 Responses to: “Free Speech”

  1. spyboy responds:
    Posted: August 16th, 2007 at 12:03 pm


    Your right to contract is at par with all other constitutionally recognized rights. So, you are able to contract to sign away
    ( waive ) any such rights.

    Virtually all “plea agreements” are such contracts, voluntariliy waiving certain rights for some benefit. The criminal justice system would collapse without such agreements. As a matter of fact, that system would likely gring to a halt if merely 5 % of the defendants who accept such offers declined to do so.

    They are just offering you the opportunity to do so in this instance. I applaued you for declining their offer. I am dissappointed that your former partner accepted their offer, but I’m sure he had his reasons.

    Thank You.

  2. Leon Blocksom responds:
    Posted: August 16th, 2007 at 12:44 pm

    As a tax paying citizen, I’m disgusted. Public officials are supposed to be leaders. It’s very very sad. You’ll have to search high and low to find one of our best and brightest working for the government.

    Rob, quit stealing tax sale overages. If you need more taxes than find a LAWFUL way of doing it. This is America Rob, we encourage capitalism here, and don’t you forget it. I hope for your sake Rob that your commrades don’t throw you under the bus this time. I believe the truth will come out here and if you ask me, you’ve already lost.

    Joe, never surrender and never retreat. It’s the Spartan way. Rob obviously will not protect our rights and way of life. Off with his head.

  3. Bruce responds:
    Posted: August 16th, 2007 at 1:54 pm

    OK, this is really getting crazy now….do these tin badge attorneys actually think they MAKE the law???….just like that, they decide you cannot write about real estate anymore. I have to agree, reading these posts presents a more and more chilling pattern. These state attorneys general must have a GOD complex.

    Plus, it’s clear from the more I read, that these lawyers don’t understand real estate investment practice at all. Virtually every demand they make is either completely counter-productive or appears to violate your basic rights.

    This blog is really an education. Makes me better appreciate why the framers of the US constitution were more afraid of a dictatorial US government than a foreign power.

  4. AKM responds:
    Posted: August 16th, 2007 at 5:10 pm

    This is an outrageous abuse of power Joe, and trampling on our First Amendment rights is completely intolerable. Have you consulted with the ACLU on this? If I were you, I would make this your next phone call.
    I admit I know very little about real estate, but it seems clear that you have uncovered a pattern of greed, corruption and deception, not to mention unfair business practices such as calling your satisfied customers and telling them untruths to make them change their minds (which ultimately profits the AG’s office).
    As your story unfolds in the courtroom, a judge and jury with any degree of intelligence is going to be so enraged that I hope they throw out your case so you can turn around and sue them “Imus-style” Good luck to you on this Joe – keep fighting the good fight!

  5. Davido responds:
    Posted: August 16th, 2007 at 6:20 pm

    Joe, please do address the clause, “Not to use the Public Disclosure Act in order to obtain information for commercial purposes” . The counties are using that alot. Do you know that background of that clause? There must be a Washington statute or some relevant case law that officials are told exempts the disclosure of Public info if it is intended for commercial purposes? Do you think that the AG’s position on commercial use holds water? Do you know of any case law on the matter?

  6. anemonehead responds:
    Posted: August 16th, 2007 at 7:46 pm

    Sounds like Rob would do a great job heading south and working for Hugo Chavez.

  7. spyboy responds:
    Posted: August 16th, 2007 at 9:23 pm


    Davido has asked about the injunction attempt to prohibit Joe ( and his corp.orate entities ) from using the public records for a commercial purpose. For any who are interested, an overview. The State statutes governing the publics access, and govts. requirement to provide such, are patterned after the Federal “Freedom Of Information Act”, commonly called FOIA. Keep in mind that FOIA primarily applies ( with exceptions ) to the executive branch of government, and generally not to the legislative or judicial branches, or certianly not to the same extent.

    FOIA has certian “exemptions” which are specifically excluded from the provisions of the law. Requests for a profit-making commercial purpose are not included in the exemptions ( I have’nt checked the statute for Washington State, so cant speak to that ), although such requests are charged higher fees. There has been some litigation about purely commercial purpose requests, where some govt. entity did not want to comply and the requestor thought he was entitled.

    Most recently the Illinois Supreme Court decided that although the preamble to the law states that it is not intended ” for the purpose of furthering a commercial enterprise “, because that phrase is not actually included in the body of the Act ( Law; Statute ) it has no substantial legal effect. Therefore, the University did have to comply with a private housing providers request for the names and addresses of people who had contacted the Univ. about freshmen housing. ( Lieber v. Board of Trustees of Southern Illinois University 176 111 2d. 401; 1997 ).

    I think whats important for people to understand and consider are a ) the politics of Attorney General enforcement actions; and b ) how the legal process actually works in this regard.

    Essentially, the prosecuter can ask for whatever he wants. it does not have to have any merit, or be reasonable, or anything at all. It is up to the defendant to make a move to prevent it, if he so desires. I have the idea from reading the posts that some are believing in the idea that these legal actions, and the legal system, are about truth, justice, fairness, etc. Like what they teach you in school. Well, class is over, and this is not about that; at all. This is the real world, and those
    illusions only interfere with seeing the real thing.

    Lets be frank; governments do what governments do. Power structures do what power structures do. Its not a big suprise, unless one has been living in a sanctuary or something. What is is what is. It doesnt do much good ( except to satisfy emotional needs ) to get worked up about it. Please do not misunderstand what I mean. I am not saying not to “do” something about it. There is a great need for action, but effective action. Venting, whining and complaining are not effective action, even though they do serve a need.

    Joe is setting a good example here, in that he is doing something, as opposed to giving in, sitting home feeling sorry for himself, saying it sucks, whatever. I do believe that what joe is doing here is having a tangible effect, now, and that such effect will be multiplied as he goes on. Isnt it great that now the technology exists which allows one to ( with minimal cost and energy investment ) to be effective and reach many others of like mind and similar intentions ?

    I appreciate the opportunity to express myself in this arena, and hope the my contributions will benefit Joe’s efforts. Lets all join in building the network. The pyramids are flattening ( all power structures currently are ” built ” as pyramids, power concentrated at the top in the few, big wide bottom of peons ) and the little guy is gaining more power, even as the powerful are slowly losing power.

    Please know that while my words might seem harsh or blunt, I am not pointing fingers or making judgments. Dont take anything personally.

    Thank You.

  8. Joe Kaiser responds:
    Posted: August 17th, 2007 at 4:17 am


    Here you go . . .

    Public Records Act


  9. Davido responds:
    Posted: August 17th, 2007 at 4:35 pm

    Dear Spyboy and Joe,

    Joe thanks for the link to “I call bullshit #23” of June 29th.

    It was exactly what I was looking for, and the llinks to resources are appreciated too. The Public Records Act’s exemption for “lists of individuals” looks clear enough. However, I expect to look at some of the cases that have litigated the issue. Will do that next time I’m at the Washington Supreme Court Law Library –its convenient for me and always pleasantly cool and calmingly quiet on hot summer days.

    Spyboy, thanks for the background info on FOIA as a pattern for the State laws, and for the discussion of its application to “commercial use”. You’re comments are helpful.

    Also, I agree with you that taking “effective action” is needed, and that Joe has set an excellent example here by standing up for his principles. However, I am puzzled by your suggestion that the existing pyramids of power are flattening? While I would certainly agree with the expectation that positions of power will eventually flatten, for the time being power is still being increasingly consolidated into into the hands of a global elite and most of us are none the wiser.

    Frankly, I suspect that the process of consolidating power into fewer and fewer hands will continue well into this century. Plans for coming energy shortages, global depression and resource wars are already being put into effect ala our Iraq and Iran policies. In regards to the idea that “Power structures do what power structures do.” (Preserve, Protect, and Promote their profits, position and privilege), I believe you‘ll find the following discussion of what power structures do to be of interest. See

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.