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

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

Does your office approve of an Assistant Attorney General tampering with witnesses?

Isn’t tampering with witnesses illegal?

I ask because I’m troubled by what’s been reported to me about AAG Sugarman and the things he’s said in “interviews” with potential witnesses in this case.

Illegal Witness Tampering?

Here’s the statute:

A person is guilty of tampering with a witness if he or she attempts to induce a witness . . . to: (a) Testify falsely . . . (b) Absent himself or herself from such proceedings . . . –RCW 9A.72.120

Does lying about me to potential witnesses induce them to give false testimony? Unquestionably.

Here’s the definition of “induce,” btw . . .

induce |inˈd(y)oōs|
verb [ trans. ]
1 succeed in persuading or influencing (someone) to do something : the pickets induced many workers to stay away.

By vilifying me with lies and half-truths, potential witnesses have been influenced and persuaded to do and say whatever they believe will assist the State in its case against me (and feel justified in doing so).

It’s a Class “C” felony.

What’s been said?

So, what’s Sugarman been telling witnesses to induce them to testify falsely? Here are just a few of the lies that have been reported to me (I am paraphrasing so don’t take the quotes a gospel) . . .

The people he listed as witnesses were not people who supported his position. They were very angry with him . . .

He says to keep threatening and threatening and get people farther into the hole until they just give up . . .

He made you a loan. I just like the way he didn’t say deed of trust . . .

You’re the first one in 300 transactions who’s actually gotten title back to his house . . .

It’s called “unconscionability” and not allowed . . .

He was evicting people left and right . . .

— AAG James Sugarman
Consumer Protection Division

Would these lies be considered attempts to influence potential witnesses to “testify falsely?”

Without a doubt.

Favorable?

And what does Sugarman say to witnesses he deems favorable to me and wants to dissuade from showing up and testifying on my behalf?

Witness fees are not going to make up for your time in court because they’re very low . . .

Would this statement to a potential witness be considered attempting to influence him or her to “absent himself or herself from the proceedings?”

Ditto.

Unfair

Tampering with witnesses by lying about me to convince them I’m a bad guy (and, in turn, they victims) is illegal. And having done exactly that, Sugarman’s actions have made it impossible for me to receive a fair trial.

Were my potential witnesses very angry with me and not in support of my position? Of course not (although I’m sure they were after Sugarman got done with them).

Did I ever suggest to just keep threatening people until they gave up? Nope. That’s just plain stupid.

Did I ever tell people I was making them a loan and just not use a deed of trust to trick them? Never happened.

Were there 300 foreclosure rescues and did only one guy get title back. Nope. Not even close. We did three dozen, not 300, and no one ever lost title . . . it was just moved to another entity while we co-owned it.

Were our transactions unconscionable or not allowed? Of course not.

And were we evicting people left and right before the AG got involved? A complete fabrication. Out of the three-dozen families we rescued, we evicted exactly one guy who’d already vacated. He left us no other choice.

Deplorable Actions

If this is how the game is played by the Office of the Washington State Attorney General, Rob, you should be ashamed of yourself, your staff, and one AAG James T. Sugarman in particular.

His actions are deplorable.

You’d think 1,500 attorneys and multi-million dollar budgets would be enough. Do you really need to cheat, too? Apparently so.

In the arena,

Joe Kaiser

It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it. –Upton Sinclair