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

Like my case, the Stevens investigation was a story of government corruption and attorneys providing false evidence.

I found this part of particular interest . . .

The lawyers, Brendan Sullivan and Robert Cary, called the case “a sad story and a warning to everyone. Any citizen can be convicted if prosecutors are hell-bent on ignoring the Constitution and willing to present false evidence.” –NPR.org

Yes, I know I sound like a broken record here, but it’s reality . . .

Not only did I pay EVERY seller in full, the nearly three dozen families I rescued from foreclosure are in their homes today with more equity than when I snatched their homes from the jaws of foreclosure.

And now I’m a “notorious foreclosure rescue scammer?”

Notorious? Like as in not a single complaint and exactly one lawsuit in 10 years?

That now makes me notorious?

This is nuts.

In the arena,

Joe Kaiser

I read with great interest your comments in the Yakima Herald regarding the waste of public funds and the overzealous attorneys engaged in a “win at all cost” strategy.

Here are your comments . . .

They engaged in a number of instances of questionable conduct which wasted a million dollars of public money … Walsh and Witchley had a duty to zealously advocate for their client but chose to ignore the fact that even zealous advocacy has boundaries.–Assistant Attorney General John Hillman
Regarding Defense Attorneys Walsh and Witchly

Would it be possible for someone in your position to perform a similar review in a case of wasted public money involving your office?

This request may be out of the ordinary, and I have no expectation of fairness because of the obvious conflict of interest, but contacting you seems an appropriate place to begin my search for a review.

I’m involved in a consumer protection case with your office having no actual consumer complaints. The fact no scam exists did not prevent the attorneys involved from wasting a million dollars of public money pursuing me, nor did they recognize that zealous advocacy has boundaries.

It’s an injustice, a waste of public funds, and a violation of the public’s trust. I believe someone with objectivity such as yourself should take a critical look.

If $200k spent defending someone on trial for his life in a capital murder case is excessive, (to say nothing of the million dollars Walsh and Witchly spent) what are we to think of attorneys spending a million dollars in a consumer protection case where there were no complaints, no victims, and everyone involved acknowledges they were paid in full?

What would you suggest in terms of a review of the case or of the actions of the attorneys involved, or is that even possible? Is there an outside party I should be contacting? Perhaps the Governor? Please advise. Thank you.

Joe Kaiser

In 2006, North Carolina defense attorney Joe Cheshire helped expose former Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong and his trumped up charges against members of the Duke University lacrosse team.

Former Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong

I’m guessing at least two things happened at Joe’s firm shortly thereafter. One, his rates went up, and two, he probably never spent another nickel advertising his legal services.

You got a problem in Durham County and need a criminal defense attorney to fix it, I’m betting you’re calling Joe Cheshire, pronto.

Nifonged? No, but I have been McKennafonged. The short story is 10 years in business, 400 transactions without a single complaint, and the AG’s office claiming I owe $132,400,000 in a consumer protection action that is 100% a figment of their twisted imaginations (you can buy a lot of smoke & mirrors with a million dollars of public funds).

If you’re a gifted attorney and recognize the benefits of instant fame and celebrity, are not afraid to step in front of the media’s cameras, can handle a complex appeal involving foreclosure real estate and bogus claims of wrongdoing by consumer protection terrorists, and can stomach AAG’s engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit and misrepresentation (and that’s on their good days), I encourage you to contact me.

I’m unable to pay attorney fees. Your compensation is the priceless opportunity to shine before a big audience (this will soon be national news). Win or lose, there’s a million dollars of free publicity to be had here.

Email me today if you’re ready to be THE law firm Seattle big-business runs to when they’re under siege.

Joe Kaiser

I intend to do just that, but I have a problem . . . I’m pretty much out of dough. This two and a half year battle has drained me in every manner possible, including my bank account.

To keep on fighting the good fight won’t be easy. If you can help in any way, it’s much appreciated.

Thanks,

Joe Kaiser
P. O. Box 64700
University Place, WA 98464

It’s all over but the shouting, and I’ve lost.

The AG’s motion for partial summary judgment was granted on Friday, Nov 21, and I am forevermore a foreclosure rescue scam artist.

And the fact I did 400 transactions without a single complaint or that of the 30 families I rescued, all are still in their homes today with more equity than when we first met?

Didn’t matter a twit.

It’s really simple . . . if you’re a foreclosure investor today, listen up, you are a predator that must be stopped (AG spent in excess of a million bucks coming after me).

Thanks for following along these last couple years, and no regrets, I hope. Certainly, none from me.

See you around, or not,

Joe Kaiser

Although I’ve never met attorney David Leen, he has been a hero of mine for many years.

Way back in the 80’s, he sued on behalf of an owner in foreclosure who’d been mistreated and forever ensured foreclosure trustees in Washington State play fair.

After Cox v. Helenius, there was no question that foreclosure trustees owed fiduciary duties to both lender and borrower.

David Leen, no doubt, is a good guy and, apparently, a foreclosure rescue scam artist (no, not really).

Misleading Website?

David, it seems, has a website, as do many attorneys in this state.

I’ve reviewed his site and note one damning inequity shines above all: Leen represents himself to the property owners as an expert who will use his superior knowledge of foreclosure and real estate to help the property owner during their ‘difficult time.’

Unconscionability, if not outright fraud, should be presumed in these instances because Leen and his associates so obviously misrepresent their intentions to the property owners by asserting that they are going to help them out while instead helping themselves to enormous profits to the substantial detriment of property owners.

The Help Word

Mr. Leen misleads by mentioning “help” no less than four times on his website, and as you know your office makes it clear you can’t both help and charge for your foreclosure rescue services.

As such, according to AAG David Huey, there can be no other conclusion . . . it’s a scam.

“You gotta help or make money,” Huey says. “If you’re in it to make money, then you shouldn’t be telling people that you’re gonna help them because our experience is they don’t get help in this type of transaction.” — The Seattle Weekly

I’m sure everyone visiting Mr. Leen’s site assumes he stops foreclosure out of the goodness of his heart and his services are provided at no charge, especially since he makes no mention of costs or fees.

Imagine the hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions, he’s taken from deceived homeowners faced with the loss of their homes (again, no, not really).

More “Help” Words

Here’s a couple of the deceptive passages on his site . . .

At Leen & O’Sullivan, PLLC, we will make every effort to help you keep your home and get you back on the track toward financial recovery.

We will clearly explain all of your options and help you find a creative solution to stop foreclosure.

Think of the people who, believing they’d be rescued from foreclosure at no cost, hired Mr. Leen to represent them and were subsequently forced to pay thousands of dollars for his services, becoming victims of his foreclosure rescue scheme in the process (again, no, not really).

Other perps

I was shocked to learn Mr. Leen and his associates aren’t the only Washington attorneys with deceptive websites (again, no, not really). Here are just a few I quickly located who are using the “help” ruse:

At the Law Office of Jason Anderson in Seattle, Washington, we are committed to helping our clients avoid foreclosure and holding mortgage companies accountable. Attorney Jason E. Anderson

Are you worried that the bank might foreclose on your home? . . . Don’t worry, I can help.Attorney David Fuller

Contact a Seattle real estate litigation attorney to learn how we can help protect your interests in any real estate dispute.Barrett & Gilman
Attorneys at Law

If you need expert help with a real estate matter in Seattle, Washington, please contact William Snell for a personal consultation regarding your situation. Attorney William N. Snell

Let’s get ‘em

I’m glad you’re on to them now because they’re doing exactly what your office has been warning us about . . .

AAG David W. Huey

They’re trying to make money off someone’s foreclosure.
AAG David W. Huey

Maybe it’s time we round up these scammers and spend a million dollars suing each and every one of them to end the “outright fraud” in which they are so obviously engaged (again, no, not really).

Help AND get paid . . . sheeez!

In the arena,

Joe Kaiser

Your recent motion for summary judgment states . . .

But one damning inequity shines above all: Kaiser represented himself to the property owners as an expert who would use his superior knowledge of foreclosure and real estate to help the property owner during their ‘difficult time.’

Unconscionability, if not outright fraud, should be presumed in this instance because Kaiser and his associates so obviously misrepresented their intentions to the property owners by asserting that they were going to help them out while instead helping themselves to enormous profits to the substantial detriment of property owners. Rob McKenna
Motion for Summary Judgment
October 24, 2008

May you be hoisted with your own petard, Rob.

In the arena,

Joe Kaiser

Received a copy of Jim Sugarman’s six-page letter asking for more and more discovery items.

Apparently, the 41,000 pages he admits to having gone through to date aren’t quite enough.

So, once again, I’m on it and will attempt to provide him everything he’s asked for, per my attorney’s instructions, including the Jenna and Clare videos.

Jenna and Clare

Longtime students may remember my two college helpers, Clare and Jenna. They worked for me back in 2005 and spent a month as real estate investors.

It was a wild idea, me wanting to find out if anyone could do what we do. So, I asked the girls to jump in and with a little training and oversight (think Charlie’s Angels), they went to work.

And the result?

I think they signed up something like 18 deals, if memory serves, and I think we ultimately ended up closing on five or six of them. I remember at least a couple lots and a couple houses (in particular, a pink castle), but the rest I’d have to check.

Working girls

So Rob, if you’ll let Jim know the link to the Women at Work blog, again, is here:

http://joekaiser.typepad.com/womenatwork/

I trust this will suffice and will provide you whatever information you need regarding their efforts.

Watch and learn

Readers, feel free to visit the site and watch the girls in action. I haven’t seen it in a long time but just watching the videos and hearing them on the phone cracks me up to this day.

Even better, as you watch, listen, and perhaps even learn a thing or two, imagine how Jim Sugarman will now take their month long adventure and twist it into something vile.

These two girls wouldn’t steal a stick of gum, but you can be sure Jim’s preconceptions will let him see only scam artists in action.

Jim at Work

And Rob, I’ll be watching and learning, too.

Frankly, I cannot wait to see what Jim comes up with on this one.

And if he suggests either of these gals have in any way done anything wrong or were involved in a scam, you can be sure I’ll consider AAG Jim Sugarman one very twisted puppy.

Woof.

In the arena,

Joe Kaiser