To Sweet Melissa

Posted August 29th, 2007 by Joe Kaiser

Do you think it's possible for an investor to make a profit in a foreclosure situation, or is profit evidence of a scam?

Dear Rob,

My recent email exchange with foreclosure rescue-rescue attorney Melissa Huelsman . . .

(I’ve never met Ms. Huelsman before, btw).

—–Original Message—–

From: Joseph Kaiser
Sent: Monday, August 27, 2007 9:14 PM
To: Huelsman, Melissa
Subject: Foreclosure Rescue Scams

Hi Melissa,

I’ve spent an hour or so on your website tonight. Very good.

What do you consider to be the fundamental fraud in a typical foreclosure rescue scam?

I suggest it’s a broken promise, but I’m not an attorney.

Do you think it’s possible for an investor to make a profit in a foreclosure situation, or is profit evidence of a scam?

Joe Kaiser

=======================================================

—–Reply—–

Mr. Kaiser,

I will not engage in a dialogue about foreclosure rescue scams with someone who teaches people how to perpetrate them and who has an entire “course” devoted to avoiding any legal liability for those scams through the use of further deceptive techniques. If you want to talk about the definition of fraud in a foreclosure rescue context, I suggest you have that conversation with your own criminal lawyer.

Melissa A. Huelsman
Law Offices of Melissa A. Huelsman, P.S.
705 Second Avenue, Suite 501
Seattle, Washington 98104
(206) 447-0103 – Office
(206) 447-0115 – Fax

=======================================================

—–Reply—–

From: Joe Kaiser
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2007 9:07 AM
To: Huelsman, Melissa
Subject: Re: Foreclosure Rescue Scams

That’s pretty funny, Melissa. I didn’t realize you were the clueless sort. I guess it goes with the territory.

Joe Kaiser

=======================================================

—–Reply—–

From: Joe Kaiser
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2007 9:07 AM
To: Huelsman, Melissa
Subject: Re: Foreclosure Rescue Scams

I think I’ll post your reply to my blog. It’s a really good example of what legitimate investors are up against.

Joe Kaiser

=======================================================

—–Reply—–

Go ahead but be sure to add the fact that you are not a “legitimate investor”.

Melissa A. Huelsman
Law Offices of Melissa A. Huelsman, P.S.
705 Second Avenue, Suite 501
Seattle, Washington 98104
(206) 447-0103 – Office
(206) 447-0115 – Fax

=======================================================

—–Reply—–

Melissa,

You sound foolish when you make these kinds of statements.

I did 300 foreclosure deals in the last 7 years without a single complaint. Why do you suppose that is?

Joe Kaiser

=======================================================

—–Reply—–

Simple – you haven’t been caught…. Oh except for that whole Attorney General action against you.

Melissa A. Huelsman
Law Offices of Melissa A. Huelsman, P.S.
705 Second Avenue, Suite 501
Seattle, Washington 98104
(206) 447-0103 – Office
(206) 447-0115 – Fax

=======================================================

—–Reply—–

Melissa,

Everything in your world is just that simple?

You don’t suppose that after 7 years and 300 deals (actually, I’m closer to 400 now), if something were amiss and I was actually in the foreclosure rescue scam business, someone might have said something?

Maybe a call to the BBB or something?

It’s just not possible for you to admit that investors can provide a good and valuable service to people in foreclosure, is it?

Or the fact that I am a foreclosure investor doesn’t automatically make me a bad guy?

Have you really lost all sensibilities here?

It certainly appears so and that can’t be healthy or desirable for someone in your profession.

Joe Kaiser

=======================================================

Notice what you’ve done, Rob?

I’m now a bad guy (and NOT a legitimate investor, according to Ms. Huelsman), thanks to your bogus lawsuit against me.

That makes me the local scoundrel who not only cheats desperate homeowners out of their properties, I also, apparently, teach other people how to “perpetrate” foreclosure rescue scams and worse yet, have authored “an entire ‘course’ devoted to avoiding any legal liability for those scams through the use of further deceptive techniques.”

Sound about right to you?

How absurd.

Respectfully,

Joe Kaiser


5 Responses to: “To Sweet Melissa”

  1. DaveD responds:
    Posted: August 29th, 2007 at 7:11 am

    Did you honestly think Melissa was going to give you anything to work with? Quantifying profit… any amount… would confer legitimacy on you.

    Profit = turf. Since you supposedly aren’t legitimate, you have no claim to the goodies, ugh, I mean profits. And it further sucks that you aren’t a lawyer. How dare you tread on sacred turf!

    You see, it is far more compassionate for the seller to deal only with lawyers like Melissa. With the competition eliminated with lawsuits, that juicy fee-based income can then roll in. Who cares if the seller dies from a thousand cuts along the way. Like Ch13, Ch7, briefs, motions, phone calls, appearances, consultations… all chargable fees.

    Oh yeah, the other lawyer representing the lender has to get paid too… out of the sellers pocket. So this is a better deal? You bet… for lawyers.

    I think your masthead needs a few more dogs. A most revealing post, Joe.

  2. anemonehead responds:
    Posted: August 29th, 2007 at 9:49 am

    WOW!!!

    Are you sure Melissa doesn’t have the AG’s department of “consumer protection” on her CV? I bet if you dug a bit deeeper, she was Cheryl’s college roommate.

  3. anemonehead responds:
    Posted: August 29th, 2007 at 9:56 am

    I might also suggest that she didn’t know the answer to the question and that’s why she got her back up. It would be interesting to hear Melissa’s definition of a “legitimate” investor.

  4. Joe Kaiser responds:
    Posted: August 29th, 2007 at 12:24 pm

    I’m sure Melissa is a fine attorney and that her heart is in the right place.

    It just seemed unprofessional to respond in the manner she did, lumping me in with the foreclosure rescue scamsters based on no personal knowledge of the case.

    Except that, she does, apparently, associate with the new attorney in charge, Jim Sugarman, (Dreams Foreclosed) so maybe she has some inroads I wasn’t aware of.

    Jim, likewise, appears to be a fine attorney with a background in real estate, so that is a good thing in my book.

    We’ll see.

    Joe

  5. spyboy responds:
    Posted: August 31st, 2007 at 9:12 am

    Greetings,

    As an old carpenter, i’m reminded of the cliche’ “To a hammer, everything looks like a nail”. Similarly, “To a liberal/socialist consumer protection attorney, everyone who profits from a consumer related transaction is a crook”.

    Remember too that an essential element of control begins with the education systems established and maintained by the existing power structure. The various players are trained to each play their particular parts. Narrow and dogmatic thinking processes, limited attempts to understand opposing perspectives, and intolerance are part and parcel of a construct dependant on conflict, which perpetuates devision as a control methodology.

    As to attorneys particularly, they are in fact specifically trained to create and perpetuate conflict. After profiting from prolong that conflict through protracted litigation, they, eventually, may again profit from some resolution of that by now intensly aggravated situation. Of course, I’m generalizing.

    Thank You.
    SpyBoy


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.