My “Threatening” Letter

Posted August 4th, 2007 by Joe Kaiser

Cumulative hereby claims the overage funds that resulted from the tax sale of the above referenced properties.

Dear Rob,

Last year I wrote the following letter to Kitsap County Treasurer Barbara Stephenson, regarding the three successful overage plays we’d put together in her county.

Former AAG Cheryl Kringle has stated, in writing, that this letter is “threatening.”

I’d like to know why. Or, perhaps I’ve got the wrong letter (although this is the only such letter I can think of).

Please advise.


Cumulative, LLC
P. O. Box 64700
Tacoma, WA 98464

March 30, 2006

Barbara Stephenson
Kitsap County Treasurer
614 Division Place
Port Orchard, WA 98366

Re: Claim of Surplus Funds (2006 Kitsap CountyTax Sale)

Glen Pszczola (Aladdin Trust)
3749-001-001-0007
4358-001-023-0001
152602-2-017-2004

Toney & Beverly Montgomery
12240111092001

Daniel & Linda Pleger
2224020902008

Dear Barbara Stephenson:

Cumulative hereby claims the overage funds that resulted from the tax sale of the above referenced properties.

Please note that RCW 84.64.080 in no way prevents the owners of record from selling their interests in their claims. The ability to contract is a fundamental right and neither the state, the county, nor you can or should prevent anyone from selling his or her interest should he or she so choose.

Not coincidently, previous to the 2006 tax sale, Pszczola, Montgomerys, and Plegers in fact did exactly that.

Each party, being fully advised, deciding to secure an amount certain rather than “roll the dice” at the tax sale, exercised their right to contract and accepted our offer to purchase any overage claim that materialized.

Cumulative, LLC has paid each party that amount certain, in full, is the true owner of the overage funds, and is the only party legally entitled to apply for the funds (I have attached documentation that evidences our transaction and once again request an application to claim our funds).

Kitsap County, by this letter and the attached documentation, is formally on notice that the parties mentioned above have irrevocably assigned their interests in and to the overage funds to Cumulative, LLC.

Accordingly, be advised that should anyone other than Cumulative LLC attempt to collect the overage funds, he will be guilty of fraud, the illegal conversion of funds belonging to Cumulative LLC, and tortious intentional business interference.

Be further advised that should Kitsap County assist anyone other than Cumulative LLC in the execution of his attempted fraud and approve his application and pay out the funds in disregard of the documentation evidencing our purchase, Cumulative LLC will hold Kitsap County responsible for the entire amount of the claim and will not hesitate to bring an action against the county to make it whole.

I strongly suggest Kitsap County consider interpleading the overage funds into the Kitsap County Superior Court so the matter can be litigated appropriately.

Please advise of your intentions at your earliest convenience. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Joseph M. Kaiser, Manager
Cumulative, LLC


You be the judge

Your office considers this letter threatening, Rob?

How can that be?

Readers, what to you think?

Respectfully,

Joe Kaiser


3 Responses to: “My “Threatening” Letter”

  1. DaveD responds:
    Posted: August 4th, 2007 at 3:51 pm

    It’s a matter of perspective, Joe.

    Kringle comes from the perspective that you are scamming people out of their rightful proceeds, INCLUDING THE COUNTY. So it stands to reason that any letter you send to the county implying litigation is baseless, and you are being obnoxious to boot! How DARE you reach for a slice of the pie!

    I don’t share that perspective. My guess is if Kringle suddenly found her taxpayer provided salary, benefits and pension cut off by the whim of someone outside of her control who had a different agenda… well let’s just say the fur would fly indeed. Threats? Just get between a government worker and their “entitlement” and you will find out the meaning of threat. Again, her opinion is nothing more than drool from a clueless sort who has never made a living in the real world.

  2. adrian w. responds:
    Posted: August 4th, 2007 at 8:35 pm

    Well, lets see… Ok, you bought the owners interest/rights in their property. So good so far..
    Ok, then you are trying to educate them in their own laws..Hmmm. That could be construed as an insult, except they don’t seem to have much of a clue on the law…
    Then you show them physical evidence that you have an interest in a couple of properties. (That was kind of you, Joe. But your a pretty nice guy, anyways. They could have looked it up themselves)
    Then your Warning them, “Please, don’t give the money to fraudulous owners”..ok.
    Then your telling them to keep their hands out of the ‘cookie jar’ and once again, telling them to not give it away to Nonowners of the property if the money doesn’t belong to them . Well, as pointed out, the law is on your side Joe. Creating a chain of title of ownership on the property…
    Ok, I guess I missed the threat???? Where’s the part missing about assault, bodily injury, mental angquish, yadda , yadda???? No sir, don’t see nuthin’ like that here…… and that is my opinion…..Have a nice day folks..

  3. spyboy responds:
    Posted: August 5th, 2007 at 1:00 pm

    Greetings,

    Words have multiple meanings, which could be expressed, implied, unexpressed or unimplied, or by nuanced context and texture of the particular usage in a particular situation. One must be mindful of the meaning of the actual conveyer of the word ( which may not be redily decernable ), the implied meaning of the conveyer ( which may be entirely different from the actual meaning, ie; the meaning the conveyer wants you to believe, for whatever motivation or purpose; the misdirection ), and the literal meaning, both in a common usage context ( standard dictionary meaning ) and in a legal context ( legal dictionary meaning ).

    I think you may be have the idea that Kringle was using the word ” threatening ” in a the limited sense of “some perceived or actual threat to physical safety ” ( which may very well be the meaning that she hoped you would understand ), when what she may have actually meant is that your letter was threatening to the county’s escheat revenue generating scheme currently in place.

    Understand that if it could be construed ( by that system ) that somehow you may be a potential threat ( in the physical safety context ), a whole nother legal mechanism could be put in place, which would give them expanded police / enforcement powers in dealing with you, and at the same time would take away ( in their ” procedural ” and/or ” administrative ” due process legal system ) certain or your substantive rights.

    My perspective is that she was tempting you to help her to put you into some catagory as a threat, effectively baiting you, appealing to your emotional nature, seeing if you would angrily re-act. I’m interested to learn the specifics of her response, and of your response to hers.

    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.