The oral argument portion of the appeal in The State of Washington v. Kaiser, et al, has been scheduled for September 9th, 2010.

It’s a 10 minute per side hearing, so there’s not a lot that can be argued in that time. Still, I’m looking forward to the chance to participate and perhaps make a salient point or two along the way.

Have to admit . . . it’s been a long and difficult road and will be glad to get this part done.

Assuming it would be the same nonsense as always (with the State desperately trying to twist and distort the facts to make a case where they themselves know none exists), I never bothered to look at it . . . at first.

And sure enough, I was right.

In turn, we filed our “Reply Brief,” which addressed the foolishness in their rebuttal.

For anyone so interested, attached here is the Reply Brief.

What’s next?

We anticipate an oral argument hearing sometime in the summer. It’s a simple affair with each side having 10 or 20 minutes to explain their position and perhaps answer questions posed by the three-person court.

And then, we wait.

The last appeal where the court determined we were 100% right about the ownership of the tax sale overages, (with the State being 100% wrong, btw) took another five or six months from the hearing date to learn of their decision.

That puts us into the end of the 2010 or even the beginning of 2011 until results of the appeal are known. And, if successful, we get to go right back into court and do it all over again.

That’s the hope, at least.

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 . . .

My attorney, David Corbett, filed our appeal today.

He did a wonderful job drafting the brief and I am delighted to have found a really great attorney to help me from here on out.

Here’s the brief: (1) Opening Brief, (2) Appendix to Brief

Fascinating stuff, for sure.

In the arena,

Joe Kaiser

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

You gonna have to kill me . . . –”Cool Hand” Luke Jackson

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

1. My name is Joseph M. Kaiser and I am one of the Defendants in this case. I make this declaration on the basis of personal knowledge except where specifically indicated or as indicated by the context to be on the basis of information and belief. I am competent to testify to the facts set forth herein.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

2. Plaintiff submits its bill for in excess of $800,000.00 and therein evidences its malicious prosecution against me.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

3. Demonstrating cost is of no consequence, Plaintiff confirms it has spent in excess of $800,000.00 of public funds in this litigation. Plaintiff’s 95 page costs bill is a virtual road map of the witch-hunt Plaintiff has employed to make a case where none exists.

4. Plaintiff requests costs for the time Assistant Attorney General James Sugarman spent tampering with witnesses. When Mr. Sugarman told Terry M., a person I rescued from foreclosure (transcript of the recorded interview is attached), that my other witnesses “were not people who supported his (my) position,” (5:25) and were actually “very angry” with me (6:1), that I say to keep “threatening and threatening” clients to get them “further into the hole until they just give up,” (13:24-25), that my transaction was “a loan” and that I “just didn’t say deed of trust,” (17:19-22), that Mr. M. was in “kind of an emotional state” where he “couldn’t hardly make decisions well,” (21:15-16), that Mr. M. basically gave his home away “for nothing,” (25:8) and “screwed up,” (49:19) that my transaction with him demonstrates “unconscionability” and is “not allowed,” (49:13), and that I was “evicting people left and right before we sued them,” (52:16), NONE OF WHICH IS TRUE, you have proof an out-of-control Office of the Washington State Attorney General is acting with utter contempt for the legal system.

CONCLUSION

5. Plaintiff is involved in a malicious prosecution, concocting a foreclosure rescue scam that never happened, and has needlessly spent hundreds of thousands of dollars of the public’s funds to secure a victory that would not be attainable otherwise. The facts do not support the allegations and the Court need merely look at my track record to see that no scam has taken place. There is no misery or suffering in my wake. There are only satisfied clients who were paid in full, as promised, and clients in their homes today who undoubtedly would have lost them to foreclosure. When securing a victory requires the Office of the Attorney General to spend public funds at a rate a drunken sailor could only aspire to, and terrorize my clients by demonizing me with lies and innuendo in so-called “interviews” that are clear acts of illegal witness tampering, there can be no disputing I am a victim of a malicious prosecution. I ask the Court to dismiss this lawsuit and sanction Plaintiff for its waste of public funds and illegal witness tampering.

I DECLARE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON THAT THE FOREGOING IS TRUE AND ACCURATE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE.

Joseph M. Kaiser

Click here to view the press release that went out today.

In the arena,

Joe Kaiser