If you followed along back then, you’ll recall the story of how the wife called the AG’s Office and pleaded with them to get out of the way so I could help.

You’ll also remember how the Assistant Attorney General in charge at that time laughed in her face. It was incredibly cruel and left the wife and I in tears.

I was proud to have stepped up and rescued them, with no time to spare, in spite of the fact the AG’s office would likely sue me for having done so. And, they did.

There’s an update to the story here.

The final update, which I haven’t talked about, is remarkable.

The couple, whose actual name is Steve and Clare Garza, ultimately testified AGAINST me at my trial, convinced I was some sort of con man. They’d long forgotten the AG’s Office laughing in their face and their promise they’d be right there with me if the matter ever went before a judge.

And, I’m hearing now that I should expect to be served with a lawsuit they’ll soon be filing against me. No, I’m not surprised.

I saved their home with minutes to spare, knowing it was a dumb thing to do but feeling like I owed it to them. Here’s my recent letter to Steve and Clare . . .

March 19, 2010

Re: Your home in Outlook

Dear Steve and Clare,

I’m hearing through the grapevine that you’re going to be suing me for the return of your home, and I understand.

Please remember that I was the fellow who stepped up at the very last minute, with much personal risk, and saved your home from tax foreclosure. There would be no property to be discussing today were it not for my efforts to help you.

I have done nothing wrong and would not do anything to harm or injure any of my clients. The AG’s office is masterful at brainwashing people like you into believing they’re somehow victims, and I do not hold you responsible for falling into that trap.

Attached are the posts I made to my blog about you a year or two ago. They tell the real story of what happened here. I encourage you to read them to see what it feels like from the other side of the table.

I remember a couple things really clearly about you. The first was the effort Clare made to get the AG out of the way so we could assist, and how Assistant Attorney General Cheryl Kringle laughed in her face at the very thought that she could ask anything of the AG. For me, at least, it made it clear the AG’s office is not about helping people in need. Kringle could have very well caused you to lose your home (and no, you would not have been better off).

And, I remember driving out to meet both of you in mid-winter, checking to see that you had wood for heat and offering to buy wood if not. I also remember when you said the $300 a month was difficult that I responded by saying “just do your best.” You made only two payments in more than three years and we never said a word.

In ten years as a tax foreclosure investor, we did 400 deals with people in foreclosure, and everyone with whom we dealt was paid in full and everyone rescued, like you, is in their homes today. The AG’s foreclosure rescue “scam” story is 100% made-up by consumer protection crazies who have no boundaries or respect for the truth.

Rob McKenna, et al, has now spent in excess of $1,000,000.00 of taxpayer money coming after me in a Consumer Protection case having not a single consumer complaint. It sickens me.

In the end, you’re still in your home and that makes me proud. Please have your attorney contact me at the number below and I will execute a quit-claim deed to put the property back into your name.

You owe me nothing other than promising me you’ll think long and hard about what actually took place before calling me a “scam artist.” I am not a scam artist . . . I’m the guy who, with no time to spare, with the AG on my back threatening to sue me for millions, pushed all of that aside and saved your home.

Sincerely,

Joe Kaiser

And so it continues . . .

For the last few years you’ve been calling me a scam artist, saying the overage funds we claimed actually belong to former owners who sold us their properties because the law, RCW 84.64.080, says so.

You even sued me over it and won, obtaining a judgment that included nearly $650k in restitution to these same owners in repayment of the overage funds we collected.

I beg to differ

Of course, we’ve said time and time again the law says no such thing and could not possibly say such a thing. We bought properties and, as owners, any profits we created were ours to keep.

Who’s right?

The Court of Appeals ruled on your interpretation of RCW 84.64.080 today, forever answering the question, “Who gets the money?”

In this corner

Put succinctly, (and straight from the horse’s mouth), here’s your position . . .

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 (when the suit to foreclosure was filed).— Assistant Attorney General David Huey

And here is mine . . .

A property owner in tax foreclosure is free to sell me his property, including any claim to future overage funds that may materialize at the tax sale. And once sold, his rights become my rights.Joseph M. Kaiser

The ruling

But who cares what I think? Here’s what the Court of Appeals, Division II, State of Washington has ruled . . .

Because RCW 84.64.080 was intended to protect the treasurer in paying out tax sale proceedings and not to determine ownership or prevent a tax-delinquent property owner from selling his or her interests, we reverse and remand for the trial court to determine who actually owned the property at the time of the sale.

Who owned the property at the time of the sale?

That would be me, and, as such, I am the rightful owner of the overage funds in question. The ruling continues . . .

. . . the trial court erred in finding the assignment void under RCW 84.64.080 because the procedural nature of RCW 84.64.080 has no impact on determining the rightful owner of the proceeds. –Authored by Judge David H. Armstrong,
Concurring Judge J. Robin Hunt and
Judge Marywave Van Deren

Here’s the complete Court of Appeals Opinion.

The State v. Kaiser

We can now be certain RCW 84.64.080 has “no impact” on the ownership of overage funds. None, and it never did, in spite of the ridiculous claims your office made to the Court and in the press suggesting it did.

Likewise, we can now be certain that contrary to your office’s farcical contentions, the law does not unconstitutionally reinvest former owners with rights to claim proceeds from properties they’ve long since sold.

The Damage is done

With zero consumer complaints, this investigation started because Pierce County Prosecuting Attorney Bob Dick, upset about paying us overage funds (the County prefers to keep the funds), told your office we were violating RCW 84.64.080.

We weren’t, and Bob Dick was 100% in error.

As were all the county treasurers who told former owners “the law says it’s your money.” It doesn’t. Yes, Lisa and Barbara and Steve and Rose and Phil and McGoon and all the rest of you who said we’d scammed sellers by simply buying their properties (and paying them in full), we didn’t.

Also 100% in error was former AAG Cheryl Kringle, as are AAG David Huey and AAG James Sugarman today.

As are you and your office, Rob, about what we investors do. 100% wrong. Buying properties in tax foreclosure and using the sale as an exit strategy is not a scam and never was.

Overage Plays

And yes, it’s really that simple . . .

We bought junk properties in tax foreclosure, let them continue on to sale in hopes there’d be an overage, and the Court of Appeals has now confirmed any overages those sales created are ours to keep.

100% ours, in fact, and EXACTLY what I’ve been saying all along.

It begs the question, “How could the Attorney General of the State of Washington be so completely wrong regarding basic, fundamental property rights?”

I shuddered at the very thought.

In the arena,

Joe Kaiser

We foreclosure investors have one simple rule we absolutely cannot break. It’s so important to those of us serious about the foreclosure business we consider it nothing short of sacred.

It’s our “golden rule,” and it goes like this . . .

Don’t f*ck it up!— The Foreclosure Golden Rule

While there are lots of other rules investors must follow to insure their success, this one is head and shoulders about all others.

Why?

Investors know that when dealing in foreclosures, you f*ck it up and someone loses a home.

There are consequences

AAG David Huey recalls when Hector and his wife were at foreclosure’s doorstep in December, 2006, and how she called to ask your staff to get out of our way so I could save their home.

David and former AAG Cheryl Kringle and their supervisor all decided Hector’s family was better off losing the home and refused to help.

In doing so, your staff broke the golden rule. They f*cked it up, and someone almost lost their home (almost being the key word here . . . put it on my tab).

There are consequences

The Golden Rule is based on the principle of “cause and effect.”

What your office does has consequences, and doing anything to the foreclosure ecosystem where homes are in the balance must be carefully considered before being acted upon.

HB2791 is anything but “carefuly considered.”

This isn’t something we can afford to have your office get wrong, Rob. You do, and people lose their homes.

The at risk owner

As an investor, it’s vital I’m able to help save homes from foreclosure, especially when the sale is only a day or two away. But, with the passage of HB2791, I’d have to tell the owner my hands are tied.

Here’s how that conversation goes . . .

Me: I’m sorry, but the new foreclosure law the Office of the Washington State Attorney General created says I can’t help you and you’ll probably have to lose your home to foreclosure.

He: What? I have to lose my home? No way, have plenty of equity.

Me: I know you do, and I’d love to be able to partner up, pay off the foreclosure, and together you and I co-own the property so your family can stay.

He: Well, that sounds good to me, let’s do it.

Me: Here’s the problem. According to the new law, I have to pay you 82% of its value once the dust settles.

He: But I’m not asking you to pay that much. Heck, if you’re willing to let me stay, I’d take half and call it good.

Me: Doesn’t matter, the law says I have no choice.

He: But don’t I have some say in what works for me?

Me: Not in this state you don’t.

He: You know, with the current market, the declining values, and typical closing costs and commissions, I don’t think I’d net 82% if I list it and get a full price offer.

Me: I don’t think the AG’s office thought that deep on it, and I’m guessing math isn’t their strong suit, anyway.

He: Okay, if we can figure out a fair price, can we do a deal?

Me: Maybe, we’d have to get the property appraised first.

He: But we don’t need an appraisal. We know it’s got plenty of equity!

Me: Yeah, I’m sure it does, but it’s now a requirement.

He: There’s no time for that sort of thing. I have till 4:30 tomorrow to get this thing paid.

Me: We’d better hustle then.

He: Okay, I can get it appraised. I know a guy who owes me a favor and I’ll have an appraisal in my hands by noon tomorrow. Can you loan me the $425 he charges?

Me: Sorry, but the new law forbids me to give you any money in advance as an inducement to get you to take my deal.

He: But I’m not asking for an inducement, I’m asking for a loan so I can pay the appraiser.

Me: In court they’ll call that an inducement, I promise you.

He: Never mind, I’ll figure something out and get it done.

Me: Great, that’s a good start. Now, I’ll need to get you qualified and check your credit, bill paying history, assets, debts, and your current income. Just to be on the safe side, I should probably get a couple year’s worth of tax returns, too.

He: WFT for?!?!? I’m not asking you for a loan. I’m selling you my property.

Me: Again, it’s the new law. It says if you’re going to stay and rent the place or possibly buy it back from me down the road, I have to first prove you can afford it.

He: But I’m in foreclosure now. I have no credit and my debts are out of this world.

Me: So, I guess you don’t qualify, huh?

He: No, no, no. With this new job I’m back on my feet. In another year or two, tops, I’ll be looking good. I’ve got an idea . . . how about I just write you a letter that states I can afford to pay whatever we agree to.

Me: Sorry, the law says we can’t do that. It says if I haven’t checked you out using the actual documents needed to do a legitimate qualification, I’ve broken the law.

He: Well, that’s great if we had the time, but we don’t. I lose my home tomorrow!

Me: Like I said, we’d better hustle. Get me what you can, we’ll do our best, I guess.

He: Geez! This is nuts. Anything else I need to know?

Me: Yeah, we’ll have to open escrow, and now.

He: Can’t I just give you a deed and we go down and record it? That’ll save us time and escrow fees.

Me: No, unfortunately, with the new law I can’t accept a deed from you. “Kitchen table” closing aren’t possible any more, even if it’s the only way to save your home.

He: That’s the craziest thing I’ve ever heard.

Me: Don’t sweat it. I have an escrow gal who can get it done quickly, maybe. I’ll set it up for noon tomorrow since we only have the afternoon.

He: Noon works for me, but I’ll need you to run a notary out to my job site because my crew is jammed up and I’ve got to be there all day.

Me: Ugh, small problem. The new law says you have to personally show up at the escrow office. Mobile notaries are no longer permitted.

He: What? Why the hell not?!?!?

Me: They’re afraid investors will close their own transactions and homeowners will get tricked into signing deeds when they think they’re signing loans.

He: Hasn’t that been a problem forever, anyway, and don’t they have the right to turn around and sue dishonest investors like that?

Me: Sure, I guess, but this law is supposed to curb that sort of transacting. I suspect dishonest investors, being dishonest investors, will just ignore the new law as they’ve ignored the old ones and keep right on doing what they’ve always done.

He: You’re right about that. Okay, I’ll get the appraisal done and my financials together as best I can. You get the paperwork put together and get escrow set up for noon. I’ll figure out a way to get away from the job and be there to sign, no matter what. I cannot lose my home!

Me: Just make sure your wife comes with you to sign.

He: Errrr, she’s been in California for the last week or so, helping out. Some sort of flu that’s knocked her mom off her feet. But, not to worry, I’ve got her power-of-attorney and will sign for her.

Me: Ugh, minor detail. The new law says powers-of-attorney may not be used to close foreclosure transactions.

He: You’re kidding, right?

Me: Hey, we’re the government and we’re here to protect you.

He: I can’t use a valid power-of-attorney and now I lose my home?

Me: What can I say?

He: Could we email the docs to her today? That way, she’d be able to overnight the originals back and we’d have them in the morning.

Me: Makes sense to me. Unfortunately, the new law doesn’t allow for that. She has to be physically present at the closing. No exceptions allowed.

He: Screw all of this! Let’s just meet at my attorney’s office tomorrow and let him take care of it. I don’t need the new law looking out for me. I’ll have my attorney put together a waiver that says you and I are free to deal directly and we’ll get it done that way.

Me: That sounds good, but it’s not possible. The new law says you’re not free to opt out of it, even if you and your attorney say you want to. It’s what they call a “violation of public policy.” Apparently, that’s more important than you being able to save your home.

He: This can’t be happening, Joe. You cannot be serious about all this new law stuff.

Me: I kid you not.

He: So, since my wife isn’t here to sign and since the law won’t let me use her power-of-attorney, and since even my lawyer can’t get me out of this, we’re sunk?

Me: Pretty much screwed.

He: Joe, on my word, I promise if you do this deal for me and save our home, I won’t turn around and sue you, no matter what, and I’ll put that in writing.

Me: We do this deal and you put that in writing and when it hits the fan and some rescue-rescue attorney shows up, she’ll be asking for triple damages as well as the $100k bonus damages the new law gives you, and that agreement becomes “bad faith” Exhibit A.

He: This is crazy . . . I just want to save my home . . . I have plenty of equity . . . and now because of this stupid law I can’t?

Me: I’m sorry, but no, you can’t. The Office of the Washington State Attorney General has made certain of that. But, if it makes you feel any better, they’re convinced it’s for your own good.

He: Gee, I feel much better now knowing they’re looking out for me. Hey, isn’t there some kind of federal law that prevents them from doing this to me?

Me: Yeah, it’s called the Constitution.

Cause and effect

Causes?

• Requiring an arbitrary “82% of value” purchase price in any market, much less one as uncertain as the current market, means you’ve f*cked it up.
• Requiring an expensive, time-wasting appraisal where none is otherwise needed means you’ve f*cked it up.
• Requiring the owner to be proven creditworthy where it is impossible to make such a determination that satisfies any meaningful criteria means you’ve f*cked it up.
• Requiring a costly, slow escrow process and not allowing fast, efficient kitchen table closings or mobile notary signings, even when there’s no viable alternative, means you’ve f*cked it up.
• Requiring owners to physically attend closings and not allowing them to use email or overnight mail or faxes or whatever else to take care of the signing means you’ve f*cked it up.
• Banning the use of valid powers-of-attorney, especially when no other manner will suffice, means you’ve f*cked it up.

Effect?

This new law gets in the way of people trying to save their homes. With foreclosure bearing down, the last thing they need is a law that makes the task of saving their home that much more difficult.

Does Washington State really need a law that says people in foreclosure lose their right to freely contract?

No, it does not.

Yet that’s exactly what you’ve done. You haven’t helped these people at all. You haven’t protected them or saved their equity. In reality, all you’ve done is strip them of their rights.

And the effect?

Someone loses a home. No, make that thousands of someones lose their homes.

Minnesota 2.0

You don’t casually lob mortar shells into the foreclosure ecosystem and hope that’ll somehow fix the problem (which, frankly, I remain unconvinced is a problem).

Before making any changes, the foreclosure system should be looked at with careful consideration. The dynamics that come into play should be thoroughly understood before taking even a single step forward.

Any changes impacting that ecosystem should then be applied thoughtfully and deftly, with only the lightest possible touches. These changes, once engaged, should be regularly reviewed to confirm the law is effective and is delivering the hoped for results.

Or, you could do what your office did and just drop a big bomb on it.

These draconian, anti-investor measures will have a huge impact on folks in foreclosure who no longer are free to contract. They will pay the price of your office’s ill-conceived rush to get a foreclosure law with your name on it on the books.

Rob, your office broke the only rule that really matters in the foreclosure business, the golden rule . . . you f*cked it up.

In the arena,

Joe Kaiser

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’s THEIR HOME

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.

Malpractice?

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!”

Negotiations?

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.

Negotiations?

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.

Update

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

This audio confirms what I’ve said all along . . .

You have inexperienced attorneys assigned to cases they are unqualified to work, in areas of law in which they have no experience, with predictably bad results.

Former AAG Cheryl D Kringle

I was gonna, ya know, go out and get the bad guys . . . — Cheryl D. Kringle
Former AAG running this case

What’s a trust?

Here are just a few comments from Cheryl describing how entirely inappropriate it was for her to be put in charge of cases involving living trust matters . . .

What is your office thinking?

So what do you do?

You put her in charge.

And to this day Cheryl believes she “didn’t really need to know a lot about how trusts work or what they were about” in order for her to work her trust cases.

Brilliant.

Do you suppose this is the same pattern of putting unqualified, fresh-out-of-law school attorneys in positions they are not qualified to hold that led to the Pacific Health Center debacle?

And do you suppose that’s what’s brought us here today, with Cheryl having concocted a real estate scam out of nothing but her own inexperience and lack of judgment?

Or because she really “didn’t need to know a lot” about how this real estate thing works?

Or maybe it was more about going out and getting the “bad guys?”

Psssssst . . . all of the above.

Not a problem

Cheryl believes there’s really no need to understand a lot about living trusts in order to work her living trust cases.

From what I’ve seen, she takes a similar approach to real estate cases like mine.

A problem?

Not according to Cheryl . . .

Fortunately there were lawyers like you who were willing to help me understand the documents when I got them. — Cheryl Kringle
Teaching a class for Ethics Credits to other attorneys

I’m sure she got plenty of help from attorneys on my case, too.

Lawyers like prosecuting attorneys Bob Dick and Alan Miles and Dave Grant and Doug Ruth, maybe?

Hook, Line, and Sinker

It’s very simple . . .

This case begins and ends with county prosecutors upset at me for intercepting tax sale overages that formerly escheated to their counties.

They put your office up to this “Foreclosure Rescue Scam” nonsense, and your naive staff bought it hook, line and sinker. As evidenced by Cheryl’s childlike comments, it wasn’t difficult.

Heck, she was their dream come true.

Naiveté

Precious Cheryl goes on to say . . .

“I think it’s ironic . . .”

She thinks it’s “ironic,” Rob, to now be viewed as an authority about something to this day she knows almost nothing about, living trusts.

But, I’m guessing, compared to real estate investing, she’s a living trust expert.

And no, it’s not ironic.

I can think of a lot of different words to describe it, Rob, and “ironic” isn’t among them.

In the arena,

Joe Kaiser

NOTE: This post contains a self-playing audio. Please turn your computer’s sound on.

You’re killing me.

Cheryl made $3,415 a month working for your office?

Good grief.

Who’s in charge here?

I have no idea what goes on behind the scenes at your office, Get Joe, Inc., and I can’t be sure former AAG Cheryl Kringle was in charge of anything.

But, with her taking the lead in my deposition and subsequent contacts with my attorneys, it’s clear she had a major role.

Monte Kline mentions her “shakedown” letter demanding a million dollars from him in the early stages of what would become the Pacific Health Centers fiasco, so I’m guessing Cheryl took a lead in that case as well.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I doubt it.

You Can’t be Serious

I did a little checking . . .

Cheryl was admitted to the Washington State Bar Association on June 6, 2002. Was she a lawyer in some other state prior to that, or did she actually have a whole ONE YEAR experience prior to handling million dollar investigations for your office?

One year?

You can’t be serious, Rob.

Just over a year after being admitted to the bar, she’s working as an Assistant Attorney General and sending letters to at least one Washington business making demands for millions?

Here’s how Monte tells it on his website . . .

On August 27, 2003 Assistant AG, Cheryl Kringle, sent me a “shakedown” letter charging that we were violating the Consumer Protection Act and demanding that we pay $1 million and stop doing Electrodermal Testing!

Unless . . . we stop doing Electrodermal Testing, they will file suit for up to $6,000,000!— Monte Kline
Pacific Health Centers

Maybe Cheryl had prior experience and wasn’t just some young, fresh out of law school lawyer trying to make a name for herself, but I doubt it, too.

Or maybe she was savvy beyond her years and even with little or no meaningful experience in the AG’s office was able to handle multi-million dollar cases on behalf of the state of Washington without breaking a sweat?

Ugh, no.

Right and Wrong

Or maybe she was exactly what I believe she was, a brand new attorney with a shiny law degree, determined to show everyone how tough she was by going after cases she knew that if successful, would make her the star AAG of the Consumer Protection Division.

And we tax payers paid a million dollars for her actions when your office ultimately lost its bogus Consumer Protection case against Monte Kline.

How could you let that happen, Rob?

Again?

And a better question . . .

How could you let a low-level AAG with zero meaningful experience take charge of the state’s multi-million dollar lawsuit?

And after having humiliated your office by bringing that wholly without merit Pacific Health Centers suit, how could you then let her do it yet again by suing me?

A low-level, little to no experience, naive, ambitious, arrogant, $42k a year AAG Cheryl Kringle, was time and time again allowed to put millions of tax payer dollars at risk by bringing meritless Consumer Protection lawsuits?

Duck!

In the arena,

Joe Kaiser

I’ve maintained all along that former Assistant Attorney General Cheryl Kringle acted inappropriately while involved in this investigation.

Her overzealous advocacy showed no bounds.

This, coming from the Office of the Attorney General of the State of Washington, is inexcusable.

The List

So, I thought I’d start making a list of things Ms. Kringle said or did that were improper and reveal what I consider to be unethical behavior.

Admittedly, some of these things may not be directly attributible to her, but they did happen under her watch and as such are ultimately her responsibility.

I think I figured out the problem . . .

Former AAG Cheryl D Kringle

Fiscal Dynamics does not provide a valuable service to Washington property owners— Cheryl D. Kringle

In the arena,

Joe Kaiser

It’s been quite a ride, from my seat at least, being stuck on this consumer protection roller coaster.

Fun?

Not hardly.

I’ve experienced your office doing its best to justify a groundless investigation, watching as you’ve tried to crush me with claims and demands and all the other huey your Consumer Protection division dreams up, knowing I’ve done nothing at all wrong.

I suspect you know it, too.

right and wrong don’t matter?

I’ve heard of this kind of bogus lawsuit in the past and never really believed it possible, with the Nifong case being the rare exception.

I always thought there’d be at least an element of truth to the “attorney general brings action against scam artists” type cases and “where there’s smoke, there’s fire.”

But today I know differently and it’s completely changed the way I look at and think about government, authority, and all that other political business.

In spite of everything, I refused to let go of my belief that the Office of the Washington State Attorney General, certainly, was above all of it, being honorable and actually caring about things right and wrong.

Now, I know otherwise.

no problem

And that’s how an out-of-control AAG can take absolutely nothing and turn it into a 50 million dollar Consumer Protection Act violation claim, in spite of all evidence to the contrary.

Or how that same AAG can look at my seven year track record consisting of hundreds and hundreds of transactions with zero complaints or lawsuits, only to decide my business was nothing more than a scam.

Coming from Cheryl “no complaints, no problem” Kringle, that conclusion isn’t surprising. Heck, that’s normal in her mixed up world.

We get that.

What does surprise me, though, is that you’ve allowed it to continue in her absence. She’s gone and her embarrassing investigation of this matter could have easily been disposed of right along with her.

Yet the circus continues unabated.

where’s common sense?

My ex-partner and I assumed you didn’t know what was happening here because surely, we thought, once someone in a position of authority looked at this investigation and brought some common sense to bear, they’d kill it in a heartbeat.

How wrong we were.

We just never understood how vitally important it is to you and your staff to avoid having to admit a mistake.

I expected far more from you, Rob. I expected you’d step up, do the right thing and end it, admitting your mistake.

woefully misguided

This is post #89.

For nearly three entire months now I’ve posted my side of the story in an attempt to educate both your office and the regular readers of this blog about what it is we do as foreclosure investors.

And in that time I’ve demonstrated how woefully misguided your office’s actions have been.

Now you know

We all now know, for instance, that the “overage play” farce was little more than your staff not understanding the statutes and county prosecutors taking advantage of their ignorance by using them in an attempt to remove us from competition for those funds.

Well, now you know.

We also now know the entire “unlawfully requesting public records” claim was, by intention or ignorance, a monumental error by your office and should have never been made (it is in direct opposition to the formal opinion of your office).

And now you know that, too.

the earlier screw-up

We can all see how Cheryl, determined to make up for her million dollar loss in the Pacific Health Center debacle, brought a baseless CPA violation claim against me in a desperate attempt to mitigate the damage she’d done.

Do you suppose she thought no one would notice the earlier screw-up if she scored big against me?

Pssst . . . we noticed.

Every claim

In my review of the settlement proposal presentation over the last ten days, we’ve seen just how determined Cheryl was to make a case for herself, even if that meant making it all up along the way.

Are you kidding me, Rob?

Every claim you’ve made in your lawsuit is on par with the public records fiasco. Yes, every single claim.

Yet no one from your office is big enough to step forward and say, “this is crazy, enough already?”

Hello?

Respectfully,

Joe Kaiser

It was really nice to be able to take a couple day break from talking about Cheryl’s proposed settlement agreement.

And yet here we are, Monday, right back at it?

You’d better believe it.

No value?

Good grief, Rob, how did you let her get away with that crap?

The seven years

My company, Fiscal Dynamics, Inc., had been doing business for more than seven years by the time my partner bought me out. We did something like 300 deals together, most of them with people in foreclosure.

And in every case, each seller agreed we’d brought a significant value to the table.

Do you really think they’d have sold us their properties had we not?

No value?

That’s ridiculous.

their best offer

Sellers and I operate on a “value for value” basis with each of us exchanging what we believe to be fair consideration in return for what we receive.

Do sellers accept offers that don’t give them what they consider sufficient value?

Of course not.

The very fact a seller accepted my offer above all others and agreed to sell to me rather than someone else is indisputable proof of the value I’ve provided to him.

And by the way, sellers don’t accept the worst offers put in front of them. They accept only what they consider to be the very best value available.

For your office to spend years investigating us and for your AAG Cheryl Kringle, after all those years, to conclude . . .

Fiscal Dynamics does not provide a valuable service to Washington property owners. — Cheryl Kringle, former AAG
5/9/2007 Settlement Proposal

. . . is further proof she’s chosen to ignore the facts and is hard at work on her own agenda.

It’s a lie

No value?

Cheryl saying we provide “no value” is not merely an AAG expressing an opinion. It’s an AAG lying. She tells the lie to make a case where there is none.

No value?

Rob, I have some 300 sellers who decided I provide a valuable service, or has your office decided their opinions, collectively, don’t measure up to the opinion of one out-of-control AAG trying to make a name for herself?

And she has.

We call her Cheryl “no complaints, no problem” Kringle and recognize what she does for what it is . . . (more to come).

And what she does isn’t honest, fair, or appropriate for someone employed (or formerly employed) by the Office of the Attorney General of the State of Washington.

No value?

Rob, 300 sellers would seem to disagree.

“But seriously,” I suppose Cheryl says, “what the hell would they know?”

Respectfully,

Joe Kaiser