A year later in Outlook

Posted December 2nd, 2007 by Joe Kaiser

And as a further result, you've deemed them victims of my scheme to strip them of their equity.

Dear Rob,

You may recall the foreclosure rescue deal I did with the family in Outlook last year.

It will be one year to the day this week. Unbelievable how time flies when you’re scamming people.

Yes, I did say scamming, because you’ve included this transaction in your list of my foreclosure rescue scams.

Which, by the way, is news to Ruth and Hector.

Just Another Victim

I talked to Ruth yesterday, following up on a phone call she made to my office. There’s some new activity and a potential buyer for part of the property, and we discussed how best to handle it.

We’re a team now, and together we decide what works for all of us.

Since I had her on the phone, I asked about how it felt to be considered a “victim” by your office.

She couldn’t believe it.

I explained that in your opinion, she and her husband might have been better off letting their property go to tax sale and hope enough people show up and bid to create overage.

What Huey said . . .


AAG David W. Huey

While not all properties in tax foreclosure attract bids, most of them do and many of these sell at or near their assessed value. For example, if your home were to sell for $65,000, Mr. “Sanchez” would receive a check for approximately $58,500, which is the amount by which the selling price ($65,000) would exceed the taxes due ($6,500).— AAG David W. Huey
December 7, 2006 letter to Ms. “Sanchez”

Nonsense, David.


It is inconceivable to me that after speaking to Ms. Sanchez on the telephone, with her practically begging your office to get out of their way, David Huey still doesn’t get it.

Rob, it’s their home.

They don’t want to leave.

It’s been in the family for years.

The money is meaningless.


Suggesting they essentially roll the dice at a tax sale and risk the loss of their home demonstrates how little Huey understands what happens at tax sales and why he has no business handing out advice to people in foreclosure.

Aside – This notion that any attorney can be put in charge of an investigation, be it real estate or living trusts or health care, even though he or she has no ability to understand what he or she is dealing with, appears to be your office’s standard operating procedure. The results are predicable, and not good.

It also demonstrates how your staff just doesn’t care. With Ms. Sanchez begging you not to screw up her deal with me, David doesn’t seem to have heard a word she’s said.

And Cheryl Kringle just laughed at her.

Rather than help, (which he could have easily done by simply agreeing not to come after me for rescuing their family from foreclosure), he tells her about overages, Rob.

I asked, “would you have ever considered letting it get foreclosed on and collecting the overage?”

She said, “that’s exactly what I told them I didn’t want to happen!”


David also tells her I should not have involved your office, saying . . .

As I advised you over the phone, it was improper for Mr. Kaiser to attempt to involve our office in his negotiations with you. It is entirely Mr. Kaiser’s decision whether he wishes to do business with you and on what terms.


She just asked your office to butt out so we could save their home. Nothing whatsoever having to do with “negotiations” was involved.

And by the way, I didn’t involve your office, YOU DID.

That part about “entirely Mr. Kaiser’s decision?”

Can I quote you on that?

It was, in fact, both my decision and their decision to move forward with a transaction we deemed mutually beneficial, and we did.

Likewise, it is up to you to decide if you wish to do business with him?

Yes, Rob, it was.

And yes, Rob, they did.

Today, they are in their home, delighted with the solution I’ve provided, and because your office is out-of-control on this “foreclosure rescue” business, you cannot admit it.

To you, they’re all victims.

To you, “it is up to you to decide if you wish to do business with him” are merely words in a letter that mean nothing.

You’re sorry?

David continues . . .

I am truly sorry that we were unable to assist you at the last hour. Should you secure the services of an attorney, you may have him or her contact me if there are any questions.

Contact David with questions about what?

How to avoid eviction because your office could offer them no meaningful solution to their foreclosure problem?

Where to find the nearest U-Haul store so they could rent a truck for their belongings?

What to say to their kids who want to know why the sheriff posted a notice to vacate on the door?

Or, where to find the nearest homeless shelter?

Thankfully, they didn’t need to secure the services of an attorney, Rob, because I stepped up in spite of your office’s interference and got it done. Had I not, they would have lost their home.

Not Under My Watch

You’re office is “truly sorry” it was unable to assist them?

Good to know.

But, that’s not really true, is it?

Your office was perfectly able to assist them, had it chosen to. Instead, it chose to abandon them.

Your office refused to do what they asked of you because by doing so you’d be forced to admit I offer people in foreclosure a good and valuable service.

And, because of your need to be justify your misguided actions is this investigation, you had no problem putting them at risk and letting them lose their home.

Saved in spite of your office

I saved Ruth and Hector from foreclosure, Rob, in spite of Cheryl and David and Renee and Jim and all the nonsense from your office.

I saved them knowing you’d come after me for having done so.

I saved them because unlike everyone in your office involved in this investigation, I do understand what it’s like to lose a home in foreclosure and am committed to making sure that doesn’t to anyone I can help.

Not under my watch.


And now, a year later in Outlook?

Ruth and Hector are in their home, safe, secure, delighted with our deal . . . and described by your office as victims of my foreclosure rescue scheme.

You may want to give them a jingle to let them know they’ve been scammed because I think I’ve really got them fooled here.

Don’t you?

In the arena,

Joe Kaiser

4 Responses to: “A year later in Outlook”

  1. Loya responds:
    Posted: December 2nd, 2007 at 9:46 pm

    Rob,et al just don’t get it. He and his office are up for election and are traveling in the “nifong” lane of life. Speeding along their set course and ignoring all the warning signs (and even hitting pedestrians) along the way.

    He is driven to get re-elected at all costs. He forgets he works for all the people of the state and that includes you, Joe. He is blinded by ambition. Has he ever asked you to explain your side or has he just listened to county employees that you have sued and prevailed?

    Fight Joe….Fight hard…

    Rob does not know the truth or what is reality—–he just wants to get re-elected—–sickening. I thought State officials worked for all of us—-obviously I am wrong.

  2. olyguy responds:
    Posted: December 3rd, 2007 at 12:10 am

    Thanks for posting this story. One more case where the AG’s office shows themselves in violation of their sworn duty as officers of the State of Washington.

  3. DaveD responds:
    Posted: December 4th, 2007 at 8:10 am

    I’m thinking it would be nice if some of your “victims” could write a guest spot to help in your shove back. While they might not be professional writers, the truth does tend to demonstrate it’s own simple elegance, doesn’t it? It would really illuminate the nauseating ongoing deception and slander against you for what it is… in someone elses voice.

    At the end of the day, really, that’s what is important. Those you have helped know you are a stand-up guy.

  4. Joe Kaiser responds:
    Posted: December 4th, 2007 at 9:12 am

    Excellent idea there, DaveD. I’ll see what I can do.

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.