I Call BULLSHIT, #129

Posted August 9th, 2007 by Joe Kaiser

Your office promotes what it must know to be pure huey, simply because you're unwilling to admit its embarrassing error.

Dear Rob,

Your March 14, 2007 press release is troubling and it’s not so much the fact that it’s filled with inaccuracies.

That much, we get.

What troubles me is knowing the press release epitomizes the quality of your investigation.

Astounding.


Yet another quote

Your fundamental premise is fundamentally flawed . . .

After taxes are paid from the sale price, there may be substantial money left over. State law says that such a surplus rightfully belongs to the person who owned the property.— Assistant Attorney General David Huey

Not true, David.

As you’ll recall, I spent much of last week discussing this very law, RCW 84.64.080. I did so because it is the heart and soul of your case against me, and because your office’s interpretation of the law is, to put it kindly, pure huey.

Again, astounding.


The Tax Sale Statute

The law was created as part of an elaborate overage play designed to facilitate overage funds escheating to county coffers by eliminating claims from creditors.

When we cracked the code back in 2002, the law was quickly amended to further muddy the waters. What it didn’t do was affect property rights.

Huey pretends the law tells former owners, “it’s your money.” It says no such thing (and could not even if it wanted to).

The law merely establishes a chain of title for that overage money and identifies the owner of record at the time of the filing of the foreclosure suit as the root of that chain.

That owner is free to sell me his property, including any claim to future overage funds that may materialize. Once sold, his rights become my rights and no amount of “magical thinking” by over-zealous, out-of-control AAG’s will change that.

Property rights such as these are fundamental, protected by the constitution, and should not to be trifled with.

You’re trifling, Rob.


Not going away

Your office promotes what it must know to be pure huey, simply because you’re unwilling to admit its embarrassing error.

Admitting error is a sign of character, not defect, Rob.

You’re willing to waste hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of dollars of taxpayer funds to avoid having to admit your mistake and you audaciously continue this charade in hopes I’ll crumble and quietly disappear.

I won’t.

Instead, it’ll all come out on the front page of the USA Today, detailing yet another no complaint, agenda driven, bogus consumer protection violation case brought by the Office of the Washington State Attorney General that costs taxpayers millions.

And you, Rob, will be the star.

Respectfully,

Joe Kaiser


4 Responses to: “I Call BULLSHIT, #129”

  1. spyboy responds:
    Posted: August 9th, 2007 at 3:18 pm

    Greetings,

    Hummm, from this non-lawyers, non-attorneys, legal teachers / scholars perspective, it sounds like it could be leading to a claim for “Tortious Interference”; you think ?

    Thank you.
    SpyBoy

  2. Joe Kaiser responds:
    Posted: August 9th, 2007 at 3:37 pm

    It goes much deeper than that.

    Joe

  3. spyboy responds:
    Posted: August 9th, 2007 at 10:48 pm

    Greetings,

    Oh goody !

    SpyBoy

  4. Joe Kaiser responds:
    Posted: August 9th, 2007 at 10:57 pm

    Stay tuned.

    Joe


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.