The So-Called “Smoking Gun”

Posted October 6th, 2007 by Joe Kaiser

Dear Rob,

This is (was?) your smoking gun?

a computer generated list of the complaint (sic) against Joseph M. Kaiser . . .”

Good luck with that.

In the arena.

Joe Kaiser

10 Responses to: “The So-Called “Smoking Gun””

  1. AllAboutVoting responds:
    Posted: October 6th, 2007 at 12:20 pm

    Can you clue in those who are too lazy to read the pdf?

  2. David Alexander responds:
    Posted: October 6th, 2007 at 3:37 pm

    Guess… they are going to have their hands full….

    Thousands of investors and businesses across the country send out a similar letter in and effort to make a deal…..

    So, one guy mis interprets something and boom… your off to the races……

    Kinda makes you really wonder what’s really happening… behind the scenes…. Forget the other 19,000 complaints…. Let’s do something we can sensationalize in the current market…

    Guess, their mommas never told them that you can’t please everyone all the time…. and I’d say….. you actually never even had a chance to do business with this guy…

    But, somehow that’s a consumer complaint…. Lol…

    Hope the judges are smarter than this….

  3. anemonehead responds:
    Posted: October 6th, 2007 at 3:53 pm

    So let’s get this straight. John gets a letter from you asking if he or anyone he knows or is related to has an interest in a property or paper in Whatcom county that is about to be foreclosed for delinquent taxes. Your letter states in plain English that you’re willing to pay at the VERY least $100 for such interest. John misinterprets your letter thinking you’re trying to get money from people as opposed to buying something from them and alerts the WA AG, so they can look into it. That’s how this whole mess started?

    Without any other evidence or complaints of wrongdoing they now turn around and sue you and your company for HOW MUCH!?!?

    Talk about bureaucracy and power gone MAD!

  4. Joe Kaiser responds:
    Posted: October 6th, 2007 at 7:25 pm

    The AG’s office indicated this “consumer complaint” was, at least in part, the genesis of this investigation and consumer protection lawsuit.

    The PDF includes my request for any complaints against me per the Public Records Act (AAG’s had told my attorney they’d received “seven or eight” complaints against me).

    What we received as a result of the PRA request is also in the PDF, the official complaint filed against me by some fellow who’d received my letter and decided it was a scam.

    The office of the AG promptly dismissed it and filed it away, resurrecting it now in an attempt to add some credence to their bogus lawsuit.

    Except, they had no idea what it was (and were too arrogant to ask), so they got it all wrong, as usual.


  5. Gray responds:
    Posted: October 7th, 2007 at 6:27 am

    Hmm, ok Joe, this seems to be just one of those letters you send to generate new business opportunities, but I don’t really understand it.

    I mean, ok, you already pointed out in another post that a lender is at the losing end in tax foreclosure, because overage will go to the owner . I guess this is the same for a partial owner, too. But I don’t see what you can do to help someone in this position. That’s a case for a lawyer, not an investor, or not? And if someone is a lender or partial owner, is it correct to say that his “interest is completely wiped out and” he will “receive absolutely nothing”? Overage will go to the guy who was responsible for the taxes, sure, but of course others can sue this guy to get their share, or not?

    Joe, would you make this a bit more clear to me and maybe give us a clue what you could have done for the ‘interest’ holder in this case?

  6. Joe Kaiser responds:
    Posted: October 7th, 2007 at 8:25 am

    Gray, the lenders have interests that are “at risk” and as such can often be bought for pennies on the dollar, especially when the alternative is receiving zero.

    I can buy their interests for cheap and take control, paying the back taxes to stop the foreclosure and even doing my own foreclosure as new owner of the loan.

    In any case, it allows me to take control and profit handsomely, and with luck, put together a solution that is exactly what the homeowner is looking for.


  7. Davido responds:
    Posted: October 7th, 2007 at 10:07 am

    This was an excellent post. Very revealing. Leads one to wonder how the State can justify proceeding?

  8. spyboy responds:
    Posted: October 10th, 2007 at 5:38 pm


    I will preface my comment by reiterating that I support Joe in this matter, and do believe that in this instance this is a case of executive-branch law enforcement power exercising taken to abusive extreme.

    That being said, I can see in the letter what appears to me to be a potentially ( possibly, in some instances ) misstatement of fact, specifically; “…and you receive absolutely nothing”. IF an “unsophisticated consumer” ( a legal standard ) was unaware of the mechanics of the tax foreclosure and sale process, they could, and likely would interpret that portion of that sentence to indicate that they absolutely could not recover or realize any monies from such tax foreclosure sale of their property, which may be the case in many instances, but is most certainly not the case in all instances.

    The fact is that sometimes the homeowner loses a property to a tax sale foreclosure and receives nothing, and other times some monies are received. As I stated in an earlier post, the addition of the word “may”, or some other explanatory words would have been more accurate.

    If it was me, I would restate that entire sentence as such; ” You may not know that IF the back taxes are not paid AND the property does in fact get sold at auction, you are foreclosed away, your interest is completely wiped out and you will receive absolutely nothing IF there are no excess funds realized from the sale.”

    Thank You.

  9. Joe Kaiser responds:
    Posted: October 10th, 2007 at 6:12 pm


    Again, and perhaps I need to make it clear to those who didn’t see the original post about this letter . . . IT’S MY LIENHOLDER LETTER.

    It isn’t sent to owners, it’s sent to lienholders.

    Lienholders, by law (don’t get me started), receive absolutely NOTHING 100% of the time.

    The AG decided, like you did, that it was a letter I was sending to owners and as such, was deceptive. And, since their arrogance deemed it unnecessary to understand the intent of the letter, no one from their office asked.

    What did they do instead?

    Sue me.

    And, when I pointed their error out to them in Pushed to Shove, they changed things around so now I don’t say the “nothing” word in my letter. Now, apparently, I say it on the phone or during visits with the owner.

    Good grief.


  10. spyboy responds:
    Posted: October 11th, 2007 at 12:11 am


    Joe; oh yeah, now I remember. I did not connect the previous post regarding the leinholder letter to the info. in this post.

    Thank You

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.