Angels or Devils?

Posted May 21st, 2008 by Joe Kaiser

Dear Rob,

M. C. Escher, the amazing 20th Century artist (you’ve seen his works before, Drawing Hands – 1948, and Relativity – 1953) created the woodcut pictured above – Angels and Devils.

What do you see?

Black or white?

The story goes that you see what your preconceptions allow you to see. So, if you see black devils where others see white angels, it’s said to be something inside your head that makes it so.

Or not . . . that whole concept might just be a bunch of huey.

In any case, it’s a great metaphor for how this investigation and subsequent lawsuit were handled.

Humming along

I have some two dozen families still in their homes, having rescued them from foreclosure. And while they all have their share of problems (most haven’t made the agreed rental payments), every one of these transactions is humming along just fine.

Anyone unbiased or without preconceptions would look at this track record and say, “remarkable,” particularly in light of the fact we’re now told your office has NEVER seen a legitimate foreclosure rescue.

But, you didn’t call it remarkable, did you?

You saw only devils and called it a scam.

Everyone a Victim

I recently talked to one fellow we rescued who is again 100% owner, having bought us out. He calls the transaction we did with him, “the perfect solution.”

What do you call it?

A scam, and you’ve listed him as my victim. In doing so, you ignore reality in order to fit your twisted “we see devils” preconceptions.


You say that in order to be restored to full ownership, our partners must overcome “onerous” terms.

The fellow mentioned above, in three plus years, NEVER MADE A SINGLE PAYMENT. And, when it came time to retain full ownership, we sold him our share on an owner contract, with nothing down, and paid all the closing costs out of pocket.

Additionally, we loaned him $10,000.00 so he could pay off his credit cards and, with a little luck, refinance the whole thing sometime soon.


Only if you’re blind to anything but devils.

Last Example

In the last few years I’ve worked with half a dozen attorneys in order to secure the overages we created. They’re not going to be happy when they find out you’ve branded them as my partners in crime.

They are all respected, real estate knowledgeable attorneys whose ethics are beyond reproach. They’d never do anything that might be considered improper or questionable. Certainly, they wouldn’t in a million years agree to assist me in a scam.

And yet here they all are, considered by your office to have abetted my tax overage scheme. Clearly, you’re only capable of seeing devils, even when doing so means accusing respected attorneys of misconduct.

Remarkable, and it begs the question . . .

Is there nothing you won’t do to make your facts align with your case, or is your office comfortable with recklessly tarnishing the reputations of upstanding attorneys in order to have a shot at winning it?


The outcome of this investigation was decided before the facts were known. As a result, the facts are meaningless. They have to be in order for your case to have any kind of chance.

What you should have done, Rob, is looked at the facts and realized we’re not devils at all. Some folks look at us and actually see angels.

But, there was no possibility of that happening, was there?

The outcome was already decided upon and with your office looking to get a new foreclosure law passed, it was on a mission to bring down an investor or two.

And why not . . . we’re all devils anyway.

In the arena,

Joe Kaiser

5 Responses to: “Angels or Devils?”

  1. David Alexander responds:
    Posted: May 21st, 2008 at 5:20 pm

    I’m hopin’ if you see both it means balance… ;)

  2. Davido responds:
    Posted: May 22nd, 2008 at 7:17 am

    Very nice, Joe! Very nicely said. Present this thought to the Jury. Present it yourself, just like you did here.

  3. DaveD responds:
    Posted: May 23rd, 2008 at 7:12 am

    Not only does he see the devil in you, Joe, but he wants the whole world to know about it! Why else would he optimize the search engines to connect you with the “press release,” full of “facts” that it is.

    Incidentally, have you done anything likewise to optimize Rob, WA AG, AGs run amok, etc. to drive more traffic to your site? Or are you taking the high road here, knowing it means your site remains relativly obscure?

    I’m betting all of your rescues can see the angels, from the comfort of their own homes.

  4. Ken responds:
    Posted: May 23rd, 2008 at 7:14 am


    I have been reading this blog for months and months…..obviously you are taking this thing all the way through. I dont know when you will actually go to court, and if there will be a jury or just a judge….but I wish you good luck!

    I know this has been a battle and many have suredley advised you to cut and run like your former partner did. I truly hope that the outcome does justice to not only what the reality of this is, but also to your willingness to stay and fight, enduring the agony and expense of the fight as well.

    I will continue to watch and root for you…..I only wish the courthouse was not so far away, as I would attend the trial the day you testified… and watch you kick some butt.

    Best wishes,


  5. Loya responds:
    Posted: May 26th, 2008 at 1:22 pm

    I wonder why they could not sit down with you or your atty to see what your business was doing/all about…….It just seems that this is just an agenda driven investigation for political reasons or at least to gain some brownie points for some aag. Hmmmmmmmm….

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.