It was good to hear AAG Jim Sugarman discussing the HB 2791 fiasco on KVI radio last Sunday. I wondered how far he’d be bending the truth and guessed it would be plenty.

He didn’t let me down.

So, even though the hosts didn’t throw anything but softballs his way, Michelle did ask the one question I’d talked to her about earlier.

The Question?

Here’s Michelle asking, “How many complaints?” and Jim’s response.

Thirty different organizations, thirty different names of people, err, of companies that people had complained about.— AAG James Sugarman
Consumer Protection Division

Thirty?

Rob, Jim knows that’s bullshit.

As late as March 31, 2008, your office provided me with copies of all foreclosure rescue complaints involving sale/leasebacks, and could only come up with four.

So, where is Jim getting this story of complaints regarding thirty different companies?

There are three possible scenarios . . .

1. 26 new complaints have been registered since April 1, 2008 (highly unlikely).

2. The four you provided earlier were the result of a botched public records production, and your office missed the other 26 (certainly possible, seeing how pretty much everything appears to be botched from your office).

3. The 30 figure is pure and simple BULLSHIT (my guess).

New PRA Request

Greetings,

AAG Jim Sugarman, on KVI radio this Sunday, told the listening audience he’d just “the other day” reviewed foreclosure rescue scam complaints made to your office involving some 30 different companies.

This is a surprise, since your office delivered only 4 relevant complaints when I asked for all copies of this very thing earlier this year.

Kindly provide copies of all such foreclosure rescue scam complaints to which Mr. Sugarman is referring. Thank you.

Joe Kaiser

Stupid is a Stupid does

And here’s where it turns ridiculous . . .

Of the 30 companies mentioned above, Jim talks of knowing of an organization that’s done two transactions, and another that’s done 300 (that would be me).

Michelle asks if this represents 300 homeowners stripped of their equity.

Jim’s response?

Right, in, one way or another . . . yeah.— AAG James Sugarman
Consumer Protection Division

An unjust, repellent, and nefarious characterization if ever there was one, Rob, and pure, unadulterated BULLSHIT.

And, it begs the question, are you people nuts?

Recklessness on Display

So in the fantasy land that is the World According to Jim, every transaction I’ve done stripped homeowners of their equity? All 300 (don’t forget to add the 100 more since my partner and I split up)?

Psssst . . . the rest of the world, (at least us Westerners), calls that “making a profit,” Rob.

Corrupt

You’re on record as saying people lost their homes when I promised I’d stop their foreclosures but didn’t, and now, every single transaction I’ve done resulted in owners being stripped of their equity.

This thing just reached a completely new level of insanity.

And it should be obvious to all, including judge Palmer Robinson, that your staff is out-of-control and will do or say anything to make a case where none exists.

Suggesting I stripped anyone of his or her equity, much less all 300 sellers I’ve dealt with in the last 10 years, Rob, is absolutely nuts . . . and I call BULLSHIT.

In the arena,

Joe Kaiser

They’ve been a little strange of late, the comments I’ve been getting from one Ignacia Ramirez.

Clearly, Ignacia isn’t a fan, and from the comments, isn’t particularly intelligent, either.

But, I let them come in and to be fair, didn’t try to make her look foolish. She was doing a good enough job of that on her own.

Ignacia Ramirez?

Here’s a comment from yesterday . . .

You don’t have a constitutional right to rip people off.

These people who’s pictures you are putting on your website — it seems they are all consumer protection lawyers. Why would they be against these foreclosure deals if the transactions weren’t so bad?

Also, I’m not sure you should be putting their pictures on your blog. I can’t image you have their permission to do it, based on what you are saying about them. Where did you get the pictures from, anyway? — Ignacia Ramirez
2008/04/23

Odd?

I think so. And what’s the weird “I can’t imagine you have their permission . . . Where did you get the pictures from, anyway?” stuff?

My BS detector tells me this is a bogus post, but I let it go through anyway.

There’s more

Today, two more comments from Ignacia. Here’s one . . .

Here’s why it’s very simple: if you don’t want to violate the new law, don’t do foreclosure rescue scam transactions. — Ignacia Ramirez
2008/04/24

And the other . . .

If there was one lawyer out there in left field with some odd-ball complaint about these scams, then maybe you would have a point. But it’s not just one lawyer you’re attacking. You’re going after a whole bunch of lawyers, from the attorney general on down. You’re also attacking a state representative.

These are government people, so it’s not like they have a financial interest in this matter (like you do). And it’s not only Washington where these deals are getting banned — a lot of states are passing legislation to stop these scams. Are the consumer protection advocates in all those states crazy too?

What’s “pretty silly” is your suggestion that anyone should believe you — a guy with a clear and direct financial interest in the subject matter — over an entire group of consumer protection experts who are probably just calling it like they see it. Also, since most of them are attorneys, at least they have some apparent expertise and educational background. Your only apparent credential is that you’re being prosecuted for consumer fraud by a state attorney general.

Oh, and generally speaking, a person whose home is sold at a foreclosure auction generally does better than a person who is swindled out of the home in a rescue scam. So Rep. Lantz was right. — Ignacia Ramirez
2008/04/24

Email notices

I also get emailed a copy of the comment whenever anyone posts. Here’s what the first post from today looks like when it arrives in my email inbox . . .

A new comment on the post #522 ""A Very Simple Bill"" is waiting for your approval:

Comment: Here's why it's very simple: if you don't want to violate the new law, don't do foreclosure rescue scam transactions.

Tukwila?

I’m guessing tukw.qwest.net is local, perhaps Tukwila, WA, but I dont’ know for sure. Still, it does make me wonder who I know in Tukwila who might be yanking my chain.

Ignacia, what are you up to?

But hey, there’s an IP address attached to the post – 65.102.114.35.

See it up there?

Gotcha

I wonder what happens when we search for other comments from that IP address?

Well, we find four from Ignacia, and we also find this one . . .

A new comment on the post #474 "It's Official" is waiting for your approval:

Comment: As one of the people who helped draft HB 2791 and get it passed, I am loving watching you guys squeal.

And to whom does that one belong to?

Eric, you putz

None other than our friend . . . Eric Dunn

As one of the people who helped draft HB 2791 and get it passed, I am loving watching you guys squeal. — Eric Dunn – staff Attorney at Northwest Justice
Project and co-author of HB 2791

Why am I not surprised?

Disgusting

Rob, please let this little scamster know we’re on to him and his alter ego, Ignacia Ramirez. His deceit is contemptible, and I hope the Washington Bar sits up and takes notice of his unethical behavior.

Here, again, is his now entirely laughable comment . . .

Also, since most of them are attorneys, at least they have some apparent expertise and educational background. — Eric “Ignacia Rameriz” Dunn

That expertise and education doesn’t make Eric better than the rest of us, Rob . . . it only makes him that much more dangerous.

Now, Eric, we get to watch you squeal. And btw, I so call Bullshit.

In the arena,

Joe Kaiser

Interesting reading, that press release of yours.

I looked at it recently and remembered why we’re in this mess today . . . you fudge the facts to fit your story, having little and sometimes no regard for the truth.

As investors, we don’t have the opportunity to fudge facts. We have to play by the rules.

Most of us do.

inundated with paperwork

Case in point?

Your press release where you state . . .

Huey said property owners who agreed to receive “help” from the defendants were inundated with paperwork . . .— March 14th AG press release

“Inundated with paperwork?”

That’s ridiculous.

We’ve always attempted to use the absolute minimum of paperwork to bring about well-documented transactions. Doing so facilitates getting them done quickly (since there’s often no time) and with the least amount of effort.

And, we use simple documents with big print in plain terms so there can be no misunderstandings.

A typical deal involves a purchase and sale agreement (3 pages), a seller acknowledgement addendum (2 pages), and a quit claim deed (1 page).

Where an overage play is considered, add a tax sale addendum (3 pages), an assignment agreement (1 page), a letter to the county (1 page) and a Power of Attorney (1 page).

All total, that’s a dozen pages or so for us to do our typical deal, and in your world, that’s “inundated.”

Nonsense.

Try buying a home today

Bought or sold a house lately? Or looked at an MLS purchase and sale agreement in this century?

That one document alone is more than a dozen pages.

Add all the addendums, disclosures, and forms and a simple real estate transaction today often consists of upwards of 30 or 40 pages of fine print documentation, or more.

My former partner related a story about refinancing and spending nearly a half hour signing all the loan docs (and having time to read almost none of it).

So, my dozen pages of docs is the owner being “inundated,” because no one from your office bothered to notice that a normal loan deal today takes 30 minutes, a dozen signatures, and 50 pages to make happen?

Isn’t anyone but me paying attention here?

Are you really this obtuse, or is it intentional to validate a case that needs all the help it can get?

Partnering Up

We also do partnership deals that require a trust agreement (12 pages) an escrow agreement (5 pages), and a lease agreement (4 pages).

Sure, that’s more docs and more pages, but it’s the minimum required to do that deal and even then, is significantly less than simply refinancing today.

But “inundated” sounds unfair and makes me look like some despicable character hitting poor homeowners over the head with more paperwork than they could ever hope to make sense of.

Pure, unadulterated huey.

If you want to experience inundated, go buy a new home with a new loan and learn what being buried in paperwork is really all about. You’ll see, at a minimum, 100 pages of paperwork in a thick file in front of you.

By comparison, my doc package will feel as inundating as a fried chicken and potato salad picnic on a sunny day in June.

The Minimum Document Set

We’ve always used the minimum of paperwork, with the biggest print, with the clearest, “plain English” clauses, reviewed or created by real estate attorneys who make sure we’re fair to all.

And in your world, this is “inundated?”

Rob, I call BULLSHIT, and please pass me the buttermilk biscuits.

Respectfully,

Joe Kaiser

Spending the day, yesterday, reviewing the amended lawsuit and wondering if there’s anything your office won’t say to make its case.

I doubt it.

Whatever it takes to win? The end justifies the means? We can make it up as we go because we’ve got the power to do so?

BULLSHIT.

Nothing from Nothing

I mention this because it’s so ham-handed I cannot imagine anyone not seeing through it.

Yes, I know it’s your gig and how you guys work, but still, come on, be serious.

Case in point . . .

As pointed out in an earlier post, The Smoking Gun, your office had zeroed in on my letter that says “you’ll receive nothing,” or something to that effect.

Looking for a reason to justify a no-complaint investigation, former AAG Cheryl Kringle maintained that very letter was, at least in part, the genesis for this investigation.

In turn, my post showed how your office mistakenly believed the letter to be routinely sent to “owners” when in fact it is sent to “lienholders.”

Lienholders, as I describe in that particular letter, do receive nothing.

Unfortunately, by then your office had already made a big deal about me telling people they’ll receive nothing at tax sales, claiming it deceptive because I know there’s a possibility of overage coming their way.

How to fix it?

Easy . . .

Defendant and his agents misrepresent to property owners during meetings and telephone conversations, they will receive nothing if the home or land goes to foreclosure, thus making the property owner’s situation appear financially worthless.— Amended Complaint, dated June 21, 2007

“During meetings and telephone conversations?”

Pathetic, Rob.

Really, really bad form.

How convenient

So, now it’s not about my letter at all?

Now that it’s been shown your office mistakenly made a claim about my letter based on ignorance and not on fact, you spin it to “meetings” and “telephone conversations” and poof, the bogus, “deceptive letter” claim never happened?

What, you guys just make this up as you go?

In writing

Our documentation, clearly, shows that on overage play transactions, owners acknowledge understanding the concept of overage, the possibility of receiving more at the sale than we offer today, and the acceptance of an amount certain rather than a future roll of the dice at auction.

And yet you maintain I tell them their situation appears “financially worthless?”

100% never happened, you just made it up, you’re lying through your teeth, pure, unmitigated fiction.

And you have no problem doing so. Amazing.

Tax Sale P&S Addendum

In reality, I tell sellers the exact opposite. I even put it in writing and they sign, acknowledging they understand.

Here, in part, is our Purchase and Sale Agreement Addendum for Tax Sale Property . . .

2) Seller has been told, fully realizes, and acknowledges that as a result of the impending foreclosure sale of the foregoing described property, there may be an overage. If such an overage materializes it would normally be paid to him/her. He/she further acknowledges that a condition of the agreement requires him/her to assign the right to that overage, so that the Buyer and not he/she will receive all of the overage, if any.

3) Seller, in lieu of the contingency of possibly receiving an overage in an undetermined amount, a contingency over which he/she would have no control, he/she has instead chosen to accept Five Hundred and 00/00 Dollars ($500.00) as a full and complete payment for the transfer of ownership in the property and relinquishment of the overage. This amount certain is accepted in lieu of the possibility that he/she would receive no overage, or would receive an overage in a lesser amount.

Clear enough?

It is for everyone looking at this matter not having an agenda, that much I am certain. Equally certain is that “everyone” does not include your clearly agenda-driven office.

Hard to Believe

It repulses me to read the things you accuse me of, knowing they never happened and knowing you know they never happened. Things your office simply made up to bolster a lawsuit you know is based on nothing.

And speaking of nothing, is there nothing your office won’t do or say to win a bogus consumer protection case?

I doubt it, Rob, and I call BULLSHIT.

Respectfully,

Joe Kaiser

Your March 14, 2007 press release is troubling and it’s not so much the fact that it’s filled with inaccuracies.

That much, we get.

What troubles me is knowing the press release epitomizes the quality of your investigation.

Astounding.

Yet another quote

Your fundamental premise is fundamentally flawed . . .

After taxes are paid from the sale price, there may be substantial money left over. State law says that such a surplus rightfully belongs to the person who owned the property.— Assistant Attorney General David Huey

Not true, David.

As you’ll recall, I spent much of last week discussing this very law, RCW 84.64.080. I did so because it is the heart and soul of your case against me, and because your office’s interpretation of the law is, to put it kindly, pure huey.

Again, astounding.

The Tax Sale Statute

The law was created as part of an elaborate overage play designed to facilitate overage funds escheating to county coffers by eliminating claims from creditors.

When we cracked the code back in 2002, the law was quickly amended to further muddy the waters. What it didn’t do was affect property rights.

Huey pretends the law tells former owners, “it’s your money.” It says no such thing (and could not even if it wanted to).

The law merely establishes a chain of title for that overage money and identifies the owner of record at the time of the filing of the foreclosure suit as the root of that chain.

That owner is free to sell me his property, including any claim to future overage funds that may materialize. Once sold, his rights become my rights and no amount of “magical thinking” by over-zealous, out-of-control AAG’s will change that.

Property rights such as these are fundamental, protected by the constitution, and should not to be trifled with.

You’re trifling, Rob.

Not going away

Your office promotes what it must know to be pure huey, simply because you’re unwilling to admit its embarrassing error.

Admitting error is a sign of character, not defect, Rob.

You’re willing to waste hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of dollars of taxpayer funds to avoid having to admit your mistake and you audaciously continue this charade in hopes I’ll crumble and quietly disappear.

I won’t.

Instead, it’ll all come out on the front page of the USA Today, detailing yet another no complaint, agenda driven, bogus consumer protection violation case brought by the Office of the Washington State Attorney General that costs taxpayers millions.

And you, Rob, will be the star.

Respectfully,

Joe Kaiser

It’s obvious your March 14, 2007 press release about my company was created to sensationalize this investigation and do so for political gain.

There can be no other explanation for all the mistakes it contains.

And speaking of mistakes, you mentioned a problem with the fact that we sometimes notarize documents ourselves.

Problem?

I call BULLSHIT.

More Huey

From that press release . . .

The Attorney General’s suit also alleged that legal documents used for these details were signed days, or even hours, before the pending foreclosure auction; that no notary was present at the time of the signing; and that the defendants sometimes notarized documents themselves. — March 14, 2007 Press Release
Office of the Washington State AG

Let me break it down for you so there is no possibility of confusion:

1. We sometimes do deals and sign documents “days or even hours before the pending foreclosure,” and
2. We once did a deal where documents were signed and “no notary was present,” and
3. We sometimes notarized documents ourselves.

1. days or even hours

Yes, we sometimes do deals and sign documents “days or even hours before the pending foreclosure. I admit it.

That’s pretty much the way things play out, Rob. We are “drop dead day” investors who can spring into action and get things done with only moments to spare.

Why?

Because that’s when most people in foreclosure call.

They wait until the last minute, hoping they can work things out on their own and when they find they cannot, they pick up the phone and call.

Yes, sometimes with just “days or even hours” to call.

Your press release makes it sound like it’s something sinister. It’s not. It’s the reality of foreclosure investing that anyone with an ounce of foreclosure experience will confirm.

Clearly, no one from within your organization has that requisite ounce.

2. no notary

Yes, we once did a deal where documents were signed and “no notary was present.” I admit it.

We did the deal, at midnight, the night before a pending foreclosure sale. There were no notaries available, and neither my partner nor I were notaries at the time.

And so, we had the seller sign a deed and later that week, had it notarized by a friendly notary.

Were we wrong to do so?

Absolutely.

Would I do it again?

You’d better believe it.

As I explained during my deposition, it was a matter of saving the seller’s home from foreclosure and in order to do that, we all bent the rules.

There was no fraud or deception in doing so. No one was damaged, and the seller agreed with the plan every step of the way.

And the next day, as promised, (and only because we had a deed in hand), we were able to buy his house at the auction.

Yes, it happened, once.

No, it wasn’t a bad thing.

3. notarized by Joe

Yes, we sometimes notarized documents ourselves. I admit it.

And, it’s no coincidence that nearly everyone working at Fiscal Dynamics, Inc. got set up as a notary public. That included me, my partners, my staff, and practically everyone who was a regular around the office.

Let’s take a look at the code, RCW 42.44.080, the “Standards for Notarial Acts” statute.

(10) A notary public is disqualified from performing a notarial act when the notary is a signer of the document which is to be notarized.— RCW 42.44.080

Pssssst, that translates into, “Joe can notarize any signature other than his own.”

Can I even notarize a quit claim deed where the property owner is deeding his property to me?

Absolutely.

It matters not whether I am a party to the transaction. It’s simple . . . I can’t notarize my own signature and that’s the end of it.

Scoundrels

It’s completely unfair, Rob, doing that thing you do.

Your press release was concocted to make it appear my partners and I were up to no good, scamming people out of their homes.

Shame on you.

People call me with mere days or even hours before their foreclosures take place, and I step up and save them from foreclosure.

Yes, I even notarize the documents, sometimes. It’s not a scam, Rob, it’s the nature of the business and what’s required when homes are at risk.

But for your office to create a press release implying we are scoundrels, or to take the one incident where we bent the notary rules to save a family’s home and make it appear as if we do that regularly, maliciously, or as a part of a scheme?

I call BULLSHIT.

Respectfully,

Joe Kaiser

The March 14, 2007 press release is a mess, filled with so many inaccuracies it makes the truth is impossible to recognize.

For instance?

You’ve said I cheated “more than 100 consumers” in the matter of overage plays.

I call BULLSHIT, Rob.

blatant distortions

Here’s a quote from that press release now posted on your site:

The money will be used to provide refunds to consumers who would have received proceeds from the sales of their homes or land had the defendants not diverted the proceeds for their own use. Based on current information, more than 100 consumers may be entitled to receive restitution. — March 14, 2007 Press Release
Office of the Washington State AG

More than 100 consumers?

I only wish we had done a hundred overage plays, because I’d be driving a much nicer car today if that were true.

Is this sort of distortion of the truth permitted within your office?

100?

Good grief, Rob, fight fair.

I’m looking at the updated spreadsheet right now, and the exact number?

We collected on a measely eight overage plays.

Yes, eight.

but hey, who’s counting?

I’d have to double-check with my ex-partner, but it appears that of the overage plays we completed and actually collected our profits, the number is eight, not 100.

How could your office be this far off?

It cannot possibly be by accident to overstate the number by some 12 times reality. That’s contemptable.

100?

BULLSHIT.

Get your facts right

It begs the question, if this press release is so completely and intentionally distorted, what about all the other information that comes from your office?

Can’t we assume the degree to which your office values accuracy and truthfulness is demonstrated in the March 14, 2007 press release about my case?

Scary, if true.

Your lie

Your press release is nothing short of recklessness. I expect much more from the Office of the Washington State Attorney General.

The story it conveys is an ugly, blatant lie and as long as this press release remains on your site, under your signature, it’s YOUR lie, Rob.

Respectfully,

Joe Kaiser

Your office accuses me of fooling people in foreclosure into thinking I’m there to help them when in actuality, I’m there for one reason only – to get paid.

I admit it (the getting paid part, that is).

And no seller who’s transacted with me believed otherwise.

practice what I preach

I don’t pretend to offer anything other than a “for pay” service, and to suggest sellers think I’m knocking on their door out of the kindness of my heart is nonsense.

I’ve been preaching this to my students for years, telling them how ridiculous it is to do the “sorry to hear about your problem” and the “I’m here to help you” stuff.

And, you obviously confirmed this when your spy, Chris “the mole” Johnson, participated in my recent Blue Pen Flip online training program and heard me tell students that right out of the gate, our job as investors is to “Investor Up.”

What’s that?

It’s me saying to the seller . . .

“Mr. Johnson, I’m an investor . . . which means I can’t buy your property unless I’m confident I can turn around and sell it at a significant profit within 30 days.”— Joe Kaiser, from The Blue Pen Flip™

Does that sound to you like I’m trying to pull the wool over his eyes or trick him into thinking I’m offering free help?

Wasn’t Chris paying attention to the training?

In reality, I do the exact opposite of what you claim, taking it to the extreme so there can be no confusion about my intentions.

Yet what do you accuse me of doing?

Pretending my services are free.

That’s so BULLSHIT.

guru in the house

I was on some foreclosure guru’s mailing list and he sent me an email about how to work the foreclosure business. It was obvious to me he had no idea what he was talking about.

In that email, he suggested the reason for knocking on a seller’s door was “to help,” and I thought that was the worst suggestion possible.

Here’s the email I sent to my list of subscribers in response.

Hey <$firstname$>,

Joe

wool is not my style

My approach?

I’m an investor, I’m there to get paid, and I’m not about to apologize for it. There’s nothing untoward about it.

It’s my job (and the only honest way to do this business).

I am determined to be completely clear with everyone so there can be no confusion about what I do or what I offer. I’m 100% up front about all of it, and profit is not something I need to hide or tap dance around.

I provide a service and am not about to pretend it’s a free service, and I don’t.

Yet, in spite of all of this, your office says I’m a wolf in sheep’s clothing, taking advantage of unsophisticated owners in foreclosure by pretending to offer them help out of the kindness of my heart.

Never happened, Rob.

And I call BULLSHIT.

Respectfully,

Joe Kaiser

I’m a marketer.

That means, for me anyway, I create different kinds of mail pieces to send to people in foreclosure.

My goal is to get them to pick up the phone and call. Every now and then, they do.

I never know, really, if the piece works until it’s in the mail. Some of my very best ideas (at least I thought they were) proved to be terrible, with dismal results.

And some I thought only average turned out to be spectacular, getting far more calls than expected.

So how do we know what works and what doesn’t?

We test.

again with the scam thing?

How does your office describe this testing method?

. . . some solicitations use fictitious names and give the appearance they are coming from a person other than defendant.— Amended Complaint, June 21, 2007

I call BULLSHIT.

There is nothing sinister in what we do.

Any reasonable person looking at our activities would agree, and yet your office takes test marketing, standard in virtually every industry, and turns it into something diabolical.

Nonsense.

Last year we sent thousands and thousands of postcards. We used different names and different phone numbers so we could track our callbacks and see what was working and what was not.

All callbacks went to the same call center and all calls were returned by my staff. There was no confusion with any seller and no intent to deceive anyone.

test results

Certainly, no one actually believed Bobo the world’s only real estate buying chimp would be returning their phone calls.

That was one postcard we tested in the bunch.

How’d it work out?

Not so hot, but than again, who’d call a chimp to save their home? Or, the better question, who’d call someone who sent a postcard featuring a chimp to save their home?

I decided to find out and so I tested.

You may recall I also tested “Does Your Property Suck” and “The Problem Property Guy,” the other two postcards to which you’re referring.

And now we know a little more about what works.

more testing

Here’s one I’m playing around with now (click picture) . . .

It’s a little silly and not really refined at the moment, but it’s a start and it’ll be interesting to see if people respond.

I hope so.

three faces of Eve

No one postcard or marketing campaign can pull off what three good postcards and three separate marketing campaign can.

So, beyond simply testing, we create and send marketing pieces with different looks and different styles in hopes one of them hits home.

Some people like an approach that’s strictly business. Others respond to fun stuff like Bobo. And some react best when you’ve told a long story (and others, a short, one line story).

That’s we why create and send a wide range of marketing pieces.

And that’s why it’s not a scam.

Dots connect

Once again, Rob, your office has connected the dots and done so in their usual and extraordinarly inaccurate manner.

But I’m used to that by now.

In the meantime, I will give you this . . . Bobo is a ficticious name (but please don’t tell him because I guarantee, he’ll throw poop).

That much you got right.

The rest of it?

Complete and total BOBOSHIT.

Respectfully,

Joe Kaiser

Have you ever lost your family’s home in foreclosure?

I have.

Back in 1983, when things were tough and my little auto repair business wasn’t doing well, (the break-ins didn’t help) we lost our home in foreclosure.

My wife and our couple kids, just babies at the time, found ourselves on the streets.

I quickly located a temporary place to live but by the time I got back to the old house to get our stuff it had all been thrown away. The fellow I found working there told me he’d taken everything to the dump.

And then he called me a loser.

not finished yet

It was the beginning of winter and unable to buy oil for the furnace, I’d take a five gallon can down to the gas station and buy diesel fuel to heat the house, paying with pennies.

Pennies I stole from my kids.

Five gallons last a day and a half, which meant every other day we’d wake up without heat, 52 degrees or thereabouts registering on the thermostat.

So, we scrambled as best we could. We had no other choice. Eventually, we moved to Puyallup and took over payments on a place that would become our home.

And four years later I lost that home in foreclosure as well.

I had over 100 rental units by then, but not really knowing what I was doing, I’d soon lose all of those properties to foreclosure, too.

The scars are permanent

Just talking about it brings it all careening back. Those feelings, raw as ever, are right below the surface.

And they kill me.

I die, just a little bit, every time I think back on it. I’m dying, just a little bit, right now.

You cannot imagine the absolute terror I faced as a young father and businessman, trying my best to succeed yet failing so badly my family was forced out onto the street with nothing.

Twice.

my life’s mission

Rob, my mission in life, for many many years now, has been to help people save their homes so they would not have to face what I experienced.

Thankfully, I have helped many people avoid the very foreclosure tragedies I was not able to avoid.

And the pain of losing their homes, losing their possessions, and being out on the street with no money and no one to turn to?

They never had to go through it.

That’s what I do.

I am the real estate equalizer and I rescue people from foreclosure.

scheme

And then I have to read this nonsense . . .

Defendant’s sale/buyback scheme is designed to allow Defendant to obtain ownership of homes with large amounts of equity without paying any cash or only nominal amounts to the property owner.— Amended Complaint, dated June 21, 2007

Your claim is nothing short of idiotic.

The people I rescued, Rob, for the most part, are still in their homes today.

None of them were forced out on to the street. None of them had to yank their kids out of school. None of them went through the terror of being out of money, homeless, desperately searching for a place to live.

And do you know why that is?

It’s because I made sure of it.

avoiding tragedies

Your office maintains these people have been wronged.

Your office maintains these people received nothing, or “only nominal” benefits for having transacted with me.

Your office is nuts.

but you’re not finished

Apparently, you believe this entire “foreclosure rescue” thing is nothing more than a scheme. And you’re right. I admit it. It’s all a scheme. One I created personally.

But it has nothing to do with “obtaining ownership of homes,” as you’ve claimed.

It’s a scheme to help people out of tough spots, help them avoid foreclosure and all of the nightmares that go along with it, and allow them to keep their lives (and much of their equity) intact.

If stealing their homes had been our goal, we would have exercised our rights under the agreements to declare the sellers who haven’t paid as agreed in breach and removed them from the properties.

We haven’t.

No, not even once.

whatever it takes

My ex-partner and I decided long ago we’d do whatever it takes to make certain no one loses their home.

Our actions document our intentions and there can be no question they are genuine.

With some three dozen foreclosure rescues and not a single incident of us throwing anyone out of his home or snatching away his interest, you’d think that would be sufficient to demonstrate our character.

Apparently, not.

avoiding tragedies

The foreclosure rescues I did were tragedies avoided.

I stepped up when no one else would, put myself directly in harm’s way, risked my own money and stopped foreclosure for dozens of folks.

And even more remarkably, I then let them stay in their homes.

Rob, I made sure they experienced none of the terror and humiliation I went through when I lost my homes. They all told me “thank you.”

Some even called me “hero.”

And yet your office looks at this and calls it a “sale/buyback scheme” designed to steal homes, knowing full well we have done nothing of the sort.

Are you out of your minds?

I call BULLSHIT, Rob.

Respectfully,

Joe Kaiser