Foreclosure Rescue Scammer or AG Victim: You be the Judge

In order to go into the foreclosure rescue business, foreclosure rescuers must make themselves believe that they are helping the homeowner. This is done in a cognitive way, by attending many foreclosure seminars, reading lots of books and memorizing scripts that can be played back inside the foreclosure rescuer’s head over and over again until it becomes real and true to them.

Similar to how we fool ourselves over and over again when we say to ourselves “it’s only one drink,” “it’s only a cookie” and “it’s not really sex.”  Self deception is very powerful and it appears to be working well with foreclosure rescuers.  I hear many phrases over and over again such as, “it’s perfectly legal,” “homeowners want to stay in their homes,” and “if it wasn’t for me, then….”  With the case of Joe Kaiser, we are starting to hear a different song. It’s the whine of the victim.  You know the type of person I’m talking about who constantly complains about being victimized to the point where they transform into victim.

Joe Kaiser (doing business as PreFlop, LLC, G. Hobus Investments, LLC, Bobo Buys Real Estate, and Unclaimed Funds, Inc.) makes money selling foreclosure rescue sales courses and books (examples: ‘The Subterranean Marketplace in 2009″ for $997. “Learn How to Day Trade in Real Estate Online Using Craigslist for $667.) though not everyone has been a satisfied customer.  Joe buys and sells homes in foreclosure but not just any kind of foreclosure: tax foreclosure.  Some of you will remember fine movie, “The House of Sand and Fog” very well acted by Sir Ben Kingsley, Jennifer Connelly, and the beautiful Shohreh Aghdashloo. I assign this movie as extra credit for my college students because of all the possible title insurance issues surrounding the tax foreclosure plot.  This movie should be required viewing for anyone thinking about entering the world of tax foreclosures.

In a very methodical way, described in his books, Joe locates homeowners who are delinquent on their real property taxes, and also have equity in their home.  This is a bit like a needle in the haystack kind of work today but during the bubble run-up, as others swarmed the trustee sales, Joe focused on tax foreclosures. Interestingly, several of his victims have Hispanic surnames but I digress. Le’ts read the public records documents:

The Court found that Mr. Kaiser violated the Consumer Protection Act by soliciting homeowners with false promises to help them keep or save their home when partial interest deals do not actually result in the homeowner keeping or saving their home.  The Court also found that, in the course of creating partial interest deals, Mr. Kaiser violated the Consumer Protection Act by falsifying real property excise tax affidavits and by acting as both trustee and co-beneficiary seeking a profit from the trust.

Kaiser solicits homeowners facing tax foreclosure and induces them to place their home in a trust, with Kaiser, through his business entities, as trustee and co-beneficiary.  Mr. Kaiser does not pay the homeowner for their homes. Once title to the home is in Kaiser’s control, he pays the delinquent property taxes and stops the sale of the home.

The land trust…that Kaiser created give him complete title and control over the homes and leave the former owners with only two tenuous rights: 1) the right to some percentage of the sales proceeds if Mr. Kaiser chooses to sell the property, and 2) the right to occupy the property for one to three years, provided the former owner pays rent. These two rights are tenuous because the documents contain hair-trigger default provisions which void these rights if the former homeowner is even five days late on a rental payment or violates any of the other terms contained in the numerous documents Mr. Kaiser has them sign.

Mr. Kaiser testified that every partial interest deal he has created is actually in default…therefore, none of the former homeowners maintains their right to possession of the property or a percentage of the proceeds if Kaiser chooses to sell it.  By virtue of the lease provisions and other contractual provisions for reimbursement of all of Mr. Kaisers expenses, his terms entitle him to receive either the entire home vacant or his share of the home’s equity without having ultimately paid any money….Homeowners who enter the transactions believing they are saving their homes are actually stripped of any ownership interest and are not even given a right of first refusal to buy back their home.  No fully informed person, not acting under compulsion would enter a transaction with such onerous terms.

There is much more in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and if you want to learn how to “Negotiate Foreclosures Like a SWAT Team Leader” then by all means, meet Joe here.

There are some investors who feel sorry for Joe.  Joe feels like he has been attacked by the AG’s office and is blogging about his new role as a victim. Let’s see if this logically works.

In the F&G M. transaction, Mr. Kaiser claimed he saved F&G’s home…What Kaiser actually did was purchase the home at the foreclosure sale and then had Mr. M. sign over his rights to the overage money from the foreclosure sale. As a result, Kaiser obtained both the house and the $45,428.47 in overage money he had paid at the auction. Kaiser never sold the house back to Mr. M. even when Mr. M. obtained a Realtor and made an offer. Kaiser then sent Mr. M. an eviction notice demanding Mr. M. immediately pay $2700 in rent or vacate the property.

I’m trying to work up some tears but they’re just not coming.  Now it’s your turn: is Joe Kaiser a posterboy foreclosure rescue scammer, a victim, a sociopath, a combination thereof, or am I too  justice oriented to become a real estate investor guru?  I just can’t look at someone, flat-out lie to them, and steal their house and money.  If that’s what it takes to be a real estate investor guru, count me out.

43 thoughts on “Foreclosure Rescue Scammer or AG Victim: You be the Judge

  1. This is what makes Jillayne one of the most competent AND ethical instructors I know.

    If we are ever going to turn around this tide of greed and corruption that greased our slide into this deep and painful recession, it is going to take the clear, fearless voices of peerless BS detectives like Jillayne to serve as beacons of passionate truth during these dark days.

    Frank

    ps: my vote for Joe is “sociopath”.

  2. Hi Frank,

    Thanks for the compliment. I am far from perfect, but you know this.

    I believe people like Joe have a great internal need to believe that what they are doing is honorable. Because of this great need, they continue to look for and find evidence that backs up their beliefs and they make an unconcsious decision to ignore evidence to the contrary. When that doesn’t work, they shift blame outward onto others.

    • Jillayne,

      Certainly, you’re free to believe whatever you want, but please stop the psychoanalysis stuff. You know nothing about my “great internal needs” and even less about the facts of the case against me.

      You’ve simply been duped. It happens, I’ve come to learn.

      And I don’t blame you for not recognizing it and reaching the conclusion you did. I wouldn’t have believed it either had I not just gone through it myself.

      Joe

  3. Hi Frank,

    Thanks for the compliment. I am far from perfect, but you know this.

    I believe people like Joe have a great internal need to believe that what they are doing is honorable. Because of this great need, they continue to look for and find evidence that backs up their beliefs and they make an unconcsious decision to ignore evidence to the contrary. When that doesn’t work, they shift blame outward onto others.

    • Jillayne,

      Certainly, you’re free to believe whatever you want, but please stop the psychoanalysis stuff. You know nothing about my “great internal needs” and even less about the facts of the case against me.

      You’ve simply been duped. It happens, I’ve come to learn.

      And I don’t blame you for not recognizing it and reaching the conclusion you did. I wouldn’t have believed it either had I not just gone through it myself.

      Joe

  4. Jillayne,

    Another great piece. You deserve a wider audience for your work.

    Didn’t last year’s WA ST legislature put an end to this kind of contraption? Or is this for violations committed prior to that?

    Was there evidence presented in the trial that Bobo actually helped anyone stay in their home, and save their equity? That is the claim he makes, isn’t it?

    Also, another question. What were the available choices to the homeowner? Were the other choices any better? Wouldn’t every other choice involve leaving the home? If there was SO much equity in the home, couldn’t the government have simply allowed the tax lien to grow, rather than foreclose?

    My over-riding question is:

    Is there ANY legitimate and useful application of Bobo’s procedure, that produces any kind of societal good, or is the procedure only beneficial to Bobo, and his disciples?

    Homeowners having choices is good, and if we are to preserve the ability to choose from a variety of options, then naturally, SOME of those choices may turn out to be bad ones. The goevernment cannot guarantee only good outcomes for everyone. Not for very long, at least.

    More questions than comments (a new record for me, I think!), but I know they are like catnip to you….

    Again, congratulations on a fine piece of reporting. We need this stuff, but even more importantly, we need this stuff read.

    OK, gush-o-meter off 🙂

    • Hi Roger,

      The state’s attorneys can pretty much turn any situation into something ugly and evil and vile, and they did exactly that.

      We didn’t do any deals you’d call “contraptions.” Most of our deals were simply straightforward purchases. We make an offer, seller accepts, we pay them the money and they give us a deed.

      What you’re probably referring to are the “rescues,” where people wanting to keep their homes sold us fractional interests in exchange for stopping the foreclosure.

      So, if your condo was in tax foreclosure and you called me the day before the sale, like Terry did, the deal probably ends up looking a lot like the deal I did with him.

      He valued the condo at somewhere around $100k, and I agreed to pay the $10k to stop the tax foreclosure then next day in exchange for a 25% interest in the condo. Simple. Might have been $8k. I don’t remember.

      But I do remember that Terry deeded the property to a land trust and assigned us 25% interest in the trust. Again, simple.

      Terry was supposed to pay $125 a month rent (for our 25% interest, deeply discounted), but he never did. And he was always getting into trouble for not paying his Association fees so we’d get threatening letters from them a couple times a year.

      But Terry was and is a good guy and we liked being his partner. Four years later we paid another $10k in taxes and told Terry it was time to do something. We asked him to buy us out and he did.

      We let him determine the price (he’s a licensed agent) and he let us know it was worth between $200-$225k. Since our share is 25% of that, we told him $200k would be fine.

      Terry had no funds and no ability at that time to get his own loan, so we agree to finance the buyout ourselves. Terry asked if we’d loan him an additional $10k so he could take care of his credit card debt and hopefully refinance and pay us off in another 6 or 8 months, and we agreed.

      And that’s how that deal played out. There was never a hint of “scam” or some sort of ulterior motive to steal his home. We were investors who created extraordinary solutions that people like Terry want and need and love. And we did everything we promised (and then some).

      If you’re keeping score here (and you can be sure I am), Terry was hours away from losing his home. He has no money and no where to go if that foreclosure happens. It doesn’t happen. And do you know why?

      I doesn’t happen because I made sure it did not happen. I’ve lost a home in foreclosure, and nothing thrills me more than helping people like Terry avoid the nightmare my wife and little kids went through when we lost everything.

      Four years after doing our deal, Terry, having not paid us a cent that entire time, walks out of escrow with 100% ownership of the condo once again and $10k in his pocket. In addition, his condo is worth more than double what it was.

      So while he owes us $60k or so (the loan, the back taxes, and 25% fractional ownership), he’s paying us back with equity we created. And, he’s thrilled with the way things have turned out. We’d even send Terry listings to help him out whenever we could.

      This was one of my favorite deals!

      It is an example of the sort of foreclosure solutions we routinely created and the State knows that every single one of them, with a rare exception having nothing to do with, turned out exactly like Terry’s… perfectly.

      I think I blogged about it, hold on… http://www.pushedtoshove.com/625/merry-christmas/

      Why the merry christmas link?

      Two members from the AG’s office interviewed Terry and tried to turn him against me by suggesting he’d been scammed (that’s how the game is played by the way). Terry said, no, the deal we did with him “felt like Christmas.”

      What does the State say about Terry’s deal? According to the State Terry is one of my hundreds of victims (they said I stripped 300 sellers of their equity). At trial, they said Terry would have been better off losing his home at the foreclosure sale that day rather than dealing with me.

      And, the judge agreed.

      Kinda takes your breath away, don’t it?

      Apologies for the length . . . I sometimes have a great internal need to look for evidence that backs up my claims. Thankfully, I never have to go far to find it.

      Joe Kaiser

  5. Jillayne,

    Another great piece. You deserve a wider audience for your work.

    Didn’t last year’s WA ST legislature put an end to this kind of contraption? Or is this for violations committed prior to that?

    Was there evidence presented in the trial that Bobo actually helped anyone stay in their home, and save their equity? That is the claim he makes, isn’t it?

    Also, another question. What were the available choices to the homeowner? Were the other choices any better? Wouldn’t every other choice involve leaving the home? If there was SO much equity in the home, couldn’t the government have simply allowed the tax lien to grow, rather than foreclose?

    My over-riding question is:

    Is there ANY legitimate and useful application of Bobo’s procedure, that produces any kind of societal good, or is the procedure only beneficial to Bobo, and his disciples?

    Homeowners having choices is good, and if we are to preserve the ability to choose from a variety of options, then naturally, SOME of those choices may turn out to be bad ones. The goevernment cannot guarantee only good outcomes for everyone. Not for very long, at least.

    More questions than comments (a new record for me, I think!), but I know they are like catnip to you….

    Again, congratulations on a fine piece of reporting. We need this stuff, but even more importantly, we need this stuff read.

    OK, gush-o-meter off 🙂

    • Hi Roger,

      The state’s attorneys can pretty much turn any situation into something ugly and evil and vile, and they did exactly that.

      We didn’t do any deals you’d call “contraptions.” Most of our deals were simply straightforward purchases. We make an offer, seller accepts, we pay them the money and they give us a deed.

      What you’re probably referring to are the “rescues,” where people wanting to keep their homes sold us fractional interests in exchange for stopping the foreclosure.

      So, if your condo was in tax foreclosure and you called me the day before the sale, like Terry did, the deal probably ends up looking a lot like the deal I did with him.

      He valued the condo at somewhere around $100k, and I agreed to pay the $10k to stop the tax foreclosure then next day in exchange for a 25% interest in the condo. Simple. Might have been $8k. I don’t remember.

      But I do remember that Terry deeded the property to a land trust and assigned us 25% interest in the trust. Again, simple.

      Terry was supposed to pay $125 a month rent (for our 25% interest, deeply discounted), but he never did. And he was always getting into trouble for not paying his Association fees so we’d get threatening letters from them a couple times a year.

      But Terry was and is a good guy and we liked being his partner. Four years later we paid another $10k in taxes and told Terry it was time to do something. We asked him to buy us out and he did.

      We let him determine the price (he’s a licensed agent) and he let us know it was worth between $200-$225k. Since our share is 25% of that, we told him $200k would be fine.

      Terry had no funds and no ability at that time to get his own loan, so we agree to finance the buyout ourselves. Terry asked if we’d loan him an additional $10k so he could take care of his credit card debt and hopefully refinance and pay us off in another 6 or 8 months, and we agreed.

      And that’s how that deal played out. There was never a hint of “scam” or some sort of ulterior motive to steal his home. We were investors who created extraordinary solutions that people like Terry want and need and love. And we did everything we promised (and then some).

      If you’re keeping score here (and you can be sure I am), Terry was hours away from losing his home. He has no money and no where to go if that foreclosure happens. It doesn’t happen. And do you know why?

      I doesn’t happen because I made sure it did not happen. I’ve lost a home in foreclosure, and nothing thrills me more than helping people like Terry avoid the nightmare my wife and little kids went through when we lost everything.

      Four years after doing our deal, Terry, having not paid us a cent that entire time, walks out of escrow with 100% ownership of the condo once again and $10k in his pocket. In addition, his condo is worth more than double what it was.

      So while he owes us $60k or so (the loan, the back taxes, and 25% fractional ownership), he’s paying us back with equity we created. And, he’s thrilled with the way things have turned out. We’d even send Terry listings to help him out whenever we could.

      This was one of my favorite deals!

      It is an example of the sort of foreclosure solutions we routinely created and the State knows that every single one of them, with a rare exception having nothing to do with, turned out exactly like Terry’s… perfectly.

      I think I blogged about it, hold on… http://www.pushedtoshove.com/625/merry-christmas/

      Why the merry christmas link?

      Two members from the AG’s office interviewed Terry and tried to turn him against me by suggesting he’d been scammed (that’s how the game is played by the way). Terry said, no, the deal we did with him “felt like Christmas.”

      What does the State say about Terry’s deal? According to the State Terry is one of my hundreds of victims (they said I stripped 300 sellers of their equity). At trial, they said Terry would have been better off losing his home at the foreclosure sale that day rather than dealing with me.

      And, the judge agreed.

      Kinda takes your breath away, don’t it?

      Apologies for the length . . . I sometimes have a great internal need to look for evidence that backs up my claims. Thankfully, I never have to go far to find it.

      Joe Kaiser

  6. Hi Roger,

    Thank you for your kind compliment. The Legislature took aim at foreclosure rescue scams with the passage of the 2008 Distressed Property Law. From what I read, the violations occurred prior to the DPL, and the violations that occurred were from the Consumer Protection Act.

    There was evidence that Kaiser helped the homeowners stay in their home. But in doing so, the homeowner gave up their equity.

    In terms of the available choices, it’s impossible to say without knowing each person’s individual circumstances.

    To answer your overriding question, “Is there any legitimate foreclosure rescue service?” Well all the foreclosure rescue salesmen say that their service is legitimate.

    My best advice to anyone being approached by a foreclosure rescue salesmen is to not sign anything without taking the paperwork to an attorney that YOU select and YOU hire with your own money. If you do not have money to pay an attorney to look at the contract, (some attorneys will let you hire them only for one or two hours, which can be more affordable than you think) then you can apply for free legal aid. Contact your state’s Bar Association for more details.

    • Again, Jillayne, not quite true.

      Sellers don’t “give up their equity.” I make sellers proposals they are free to accept or reject, and if they reject my proposal, fine… we go our separate ways.

      However, if they accept it, I do whatever was promised exactly as promised, and until the State knocked on their doors to tell them they were victims, no seller ever claimed otherwise.

      What you don’t understand is the key to a perfect scam is paying everyone in full as agreed. That way, no one is the wiser and you can get away with it every time.

      Worked for me, for awhile anyway.

      Joe

  7. Hi Roger,

    Thank you for your kind compliment. The Legislature took aim at foreclosure rescue scams with the passage of the 2008 Distressed Property Law. From what I read, the violations occurred prior to the DPL, and the violations that occurred were from the Consumer Protection Act.

    There was evidence that Kaiser helped the homeowners stay in their home. But in doing so, the homeowner gave up their equity.

    In terms of the available choices, it’s impossible to say without knowing each person’s individual circumstances.

    To answer your overriding question, “Is there any legitimate foreclosure rescue service?” Well all the foreclosure rescue salesmen say that their service is legitimate.

    My best advice to anyone being approached by a foreclosure rescue salesmen is to not sign anything without taking the paperwork to an attorney that YOU select and YOU hire with your own money. If you do not have money to pay an attorney to look at the contract, (some attorneys will let you hire them only for one or two hours, which can be more affordable than you think) then you can apply for free legal aid. Contact your state’s Bar Association for more details.

    • Again, Jillayne, not quite true.

      Sellers don’t “give up their equity.” I make sellers proposals they are free to accept or reject, and if they reject my proposal, fine… we go our separate ways.

      However, if they accept it, I do whatever was promised exactly as promised, and until the State knocked on their doors to tell them they were victims, no seller ever claimed otherwise.

      What you don’t understand is the key to a perfect scam is paying everyone in full as agreed. That way, no one is the wiser and you can get away with it every time.

      Worked for me, for awhile anyway.

      Joe

  8. Thanks for the answers, and absolutely, anyone considering such a complicated deal should consult an attorney.

    At least the attorney is required to act in a fiduciary manner, and could be sued (by another attorney!), for a course of action that was in such opposition to the homeowner’s best interests.

  9. This quote from the press release answers my questions most forcefully….

    “Kaiser entered transactions with more than 300 property owners. No one has ever successfully regained their home from Kaiser.”

    The essential promise of “foreclosure rescue” is that the “investor” will bring the home current, stop the foreclosure and subsequent eviction, and allow the borrower to take certain steps to regain ownership of their home.

    While those steps may be difficult to accomplish, or unlikely to occur, one would have to think if they occurred occassionally, there could be some merit to the program.

    Since none of the 300+ transactions resulted in the advertised outcome, we can conclude it has no mutual benefit or societal merit, and is only a predatory and parasitical ruse to enrich the parasite.

    Another vote for sociopath.

    • Let me see if I can change your mind, Roger.

      We did 300 or more transactions with people in foreclosure, that part is true.

      What the state has done though is twist the truth to make it unrecognizable, and that’s easy for them to do when they’re on a mission to demonize me.

      So yes, we did 300 transactions, but… only 3 dozen “rescues.”

      That means nearly 90 percent of our deals were properties (mostly junk lots with title problems or wetland problems or access problems) the seller wanted to be rid of.

      Which means 90 percent of the time sellers had no desire or expectation of ever buying back the property. They were simple buy/sell deals.

      If you’re an agent who’s sold 300 properties and I issued a press release saying you’re a scam artist because “no one in those 300 transactions was able to buy the property back,” I might be technically correct, but the story would be a lie.

      And their story is a lie.

      But, “no one in 300” sounds a lot better than “no one in three dozen,” and so they tell the lie.

      About three dozen of those 300 were transaction where sellers did have an expectation of buying back their properties…

      I promise everyone, up front, that no matter what happens down the road, I will never foreclosure or evict you, and I NEVER have. It’s simply not possible for me to do so and I don’t.

      http://www.pushedtoshove.com/636/zook-mann/

      The suggestion you posted (that investors buy with the expectation of evicting) may be true for others, but not for me.

      I work it the other way, actually. I’m in it for the long run and invest as such. I know that most of the people we rescue, like Terry, won’t pay as agreed AND I DON’T CARE. It has NO IMPACT on my deal with the seller because I AM UNWILLING TO LET HIM SCREW IT UP.

      You see, I have a track record I am quite proud of, and no seller is going to ding it.

      So when they don’t pay I say “do your best,” and leave it at that. I can do that because I’ve invested wisely and have “room” that gives me the latitude to allow for this very situation.

      By the time the State sued me, a handful, like Terry, had bought us out. So, the “no one” story they know isn’t actually true, but they tell it anyway and here’s why.

      My partner bought me out of the business a year prior to us getting sued. And it was only about that time when these deals, again like Terry’s, reached the point where it made sense for someone to do a buyback.

      So, even though my former partner routinely allows anyone to buy back their interests and allows them to do so with nothing out of pocket (100% financing if they desire), anyone who takes him up on it and buys back their interest DOESN’T COUNT as buying back from me.

      The reason they can say, “no one has ever bought their property back from Kaiser” is because Kaiser sold out a year earlier. What they’re not saying is everyone wanting to buy back their property has, and most if not all did so simply by showing up at closing and signing their name.

      In reality, everyone we rescued is either a fractional owner today, has bought out my former partner, or has been paid in full for their interests. That includes EVERYONE LAST ONE OF THEM.

      One fellow abandoned his home and we were required to board it up because the city demanded we do something to prevent vagrants from breaking in. In order to do that, we had to first evict him but since he’d long since left, it’s hard to say he fits your scenario.

      Had he ever contacted us during that time, we would have done whatever was required to make it work. Unfortunately, he passed away a couple years ago and we made arrangements with his estate to sell the property and split the proceeds as we’d originally agreed. I have no idea of the current status or if the house ever sold, but it was never a question about who gets what.

      One other fellow and his wife moved (it’s the Frank & Gloria Martinez story Jillayne referenced in her original article), and likewise, we reached a similar agreement with them.

      So, on the surface, is the statement true?

      “Kaiser entered transactions with more than 300 property owners. No one has ever successfully regained their home from Kaiser.

  10. This quote from the press release answers my questions most forcefully….

    “Kaiser entered transactions with more than 300 property owners. No one has ever successfully regained their home from Kaiser.”

    The essential promise of “foreclosure rescue” is that the “investor” will bring the home current, stop the foreclosure and subsequent eviction, and allow the borrower to take certain steps to regain ownership of their home.

    While those steps may be difficult to accomplish, or unlikely to occur, one would have to think if they occurred occassionally, there could be some merit to the program.

    Since none of the 300+ transactions resulted in the advertised outcome, we can conclude it has no mutual benefit or societal merit, and is only a predatory and parasitical ruse to enrich the parasite.

    Another vote for sociopath.

    • Let me see if I can change your mind, Roger.

      We did 300 or more transactions with people in foreclosure, that part is true.

      What the state has done though is twist the truth to make it unrecognizable, and that’s easy for them to do when they’re on a mission to demonize me.

      So yes, we did 300 transactions, but… only 3 dozen “rescues.”

      That means nearly 90 percent of our deals were properties (mostly junk lots with title problems or wetland problems or access problems) the seller wanted to be rid of.

      Which means 90 percent of the time sellers had no desire or expectation of ever buying back the property. They were simple buy/sell deals.

      If you’re an agent who’s sold 300 properties and I issued a press release saying you’re a scam artist because “no one in those 300 transactions was able to buy the property back,” I might be technically correct, but the story would be a lie.

      And their story is a lie.

      But, “no one in 300” sounds a lot better than “no one in three dozen,” and so they tell the lie.

      About three dozen of those 300 were transaction where sellers did have an expectation of buying back their properties…

      I promise everyone, up front, that no matter what happens down the road, I will never foreclosure or evict you, and I NEVER have. It’s simply not possible for me to do so and I don’t.

      http://www.pushedtoshove.com/636/zook-mann/

      The suggestion you posted (that investors buy with the expectation of evicting) may be true for others, but not for me.

      I work it the other way, actually. I’m in it for the long run and invest as such. I know that most of the people we rescue, like Terry, won’t pay as agreed AND I DON’T CARE. It has NO IMPACT on my deal with the seller because I AM UNWILLING TO LET HIM SCREW IT UP.

      You see, I have a track record I am quite proud of, and no seller is going to ding it.

      So when they don’t pay I say “do your best,” and leave it at that. I can do that because I’ve invested wisely and have “room” that gives me the latitude to allow for this very situation.

      By the time the State sued me, a handful, like Terry, had bought us out. So, the “no one” story they know isn’t actually true, but they tell it anyway and here’s why.

      My partner bought me out of the business a year prior to us getting sued. And it was only about that time when these deals, again like Terry’s, reached the point where it made sense for someone to do a buyback.

      So, even though my former partner routinely allows anyone to buy back their interests and allows them to do so with nothing out of pocket (100% financing if they desire), anyone who takes him up on it and buys back their interest DOESN’T COUNT as buying back from me.

      The reason they can say, “no one has ever bought their property back from Kaiser” is because Kaiser sold out a year earlier. What they’re not saying is everyone wanting to buy back their property has, and most if not all did so simply by showing up at closing and signing their name.

      In reality, everyone we rescued is either a fractional owner today, has bought out my former partner, or has been paid in full for their interests. That includes EVERYONE LAST ONE OF THEM.

      One fellow abandoned his home and we were required to board it up because the city demanded we do something to prevent vagrants from breaking in. In order to do that, we had to first evict him but since he’d long since left, it’s hard to say he fits your scenario.

      Had he ever contacted us during that time, we would have done whatever was required to make it work. Unfortunately, he passed away a couple years ago and we made arrangements with his estate to sell the property and split the proceeds as we’d originally agreed. I have no idea of the current status or if the house ever sold, but it was never a question about who gets what.

      One other fellow and his wife moved (it’s the Frank & Gloria Martinez story Jillayne referenced in her original article), and likewise, we reached a similar agreement with them.

      So, on the surface, is the statement true?

      “Kaiser entered transactions with more than 300 property owners. No one has ever successfully regained their home from Kaiser.

  11. More story at Seattle PI.com, as well as comments.

    http://www.seattlepi.com/local/405975_foreclosure07.html

    Joe defends himself here. There may be more to this story, NOT reported by the AG’s office. Makes you wish there were more investigative reporters out there.

    The defense seems to be that there were more positive outcomes than the AG’s office claims, with people able to stay in their homes, that could not have, without Bobo’s help.

  12. Hi Roger,

    Remember that in Joe Kaiser’s eye’s it’s all good. Yes, people were able to stay in their homes….as renters. Kaiser testified that all have broken the terms of their lease which means Kaier is able to claim all equity for himself.

    The AG’s office found the terms of Kaiser’s agreements with these homeowners to be unfair, deceptive, and a violation of the Consumer Protection Act.

    • Again, Jillayne, you are in error.

      This time, however, you are 100% in error.

      The people we rescue aren’t merely renters. They have as much if not more ownership in the properties than we do.

      Yes, I testified they have all broken their leases. However, that does not mean “Kaiser is able to claim all equity for himself.”

      Certainly, we had the right to declare the seller in breach and require he correct that breach or lose his interest. That’s a standard clause in every similar trust arrangement.

      But the part you’ve missed entirely is that although we had the right to do so, we NEVER did. Not even once.

      I respect the people we rescue and treat them with compassion because I have been in their shoes. I promise every one of them that no matter what, you will never lose your interest and no one ever has.

      I promise them I will never foreclosure or evict or declare you in breach, and I never have.

      Instead, I’ve overlooked and forgiven every possible breach. I’ve bailed them out of jail, bought them groceries, paid for the dental bills, bought them cars and computers and any else. I’ve battled counties on their behalf and cleaned up their properties when they faced fines. I’ve put on new roofs and built new porches and loaned them money for their kids Christmas presents.

      Excuse me if I don’t fit into your perceived foreclosure investor notions.

      The AG’s also said that I should be fined for my deceptive acts, btw.

      And that means that even though they received exactly zero complaints about me, and that even though no one every lost any property once I agreed I’d help, and even though 300+ sellers were paid in full as promised, and even though no one was ever foreclosure on or evicted or anything else, they claimed I should be compelled to pay $132.4 million dollars in fines.

      So, yeah, Jillayne, I sometimes have to remind myself I’m not the victim here.

      Joe

  13. Hi Roger,

    Remember that in Joe Kaiser’s eye’s it’s all good. Yes, people were able to stay in their homes….as renters. Kaiser testified that all have broken the terms of their lease which means Kaier is able to claim all equity for himself.

    The AG’s office found the terms of Kaiser’s agreements with these homeowners to be unfair, deceptive, and a violation of the Consumer Protection Act.

    • Again, Jillayne, you are in error.

      This time, however, you are 100% in error.

      The people we rescue aren’t merely renters. They have as much if not more ownership in the properties than we do.

      Yes, I testified they have all broken their leases. However, that does not mean “Kaiser is able to claim all equity for himself.”

      Certainly, we had the right to declare the seller in breach and require he correct that breach or lose his interest. That’s a standard clause in every similar trust arrangement.

      But the part you’ve missed entirely is that although we had the right to do so, we NEVER did. Not even once.

      I respect the people we rescue and treat them with compassion because I have been in their shoes. I promise every one of them that no matter what, you will never lose your interest and no one ever has.

      I promise them I will never foreclosure or evict or declare you in breach, and I never have.

      Instead, I’ve overlooked and forgiven every possible breach. I’ve bailed them out of jail, bought them groceries, paid for the dental bills, bought them cars and computers and any else. I’ve battled counties on their behalf and cleaned up their properties when they faced fines. I’ve put on new roofs and built new porches and loaned them money for their kids Christmas presents.

      Excuse me if I don’t fit into your perceived foreclosure investor notions.

      The AG’s also said that I should be fined for my deceptive acts, btw.

      And that means that even though they received exactly zero complaints about me, and that even though no one every lost any property once I agreed I’d help, and even though 300+ sellers were paid in full as promised, and even though no one was ever foreclosure on or evicted or anything else, they claimed I should be compelled to pay $132.4 million dollars in fines.

      So, yeah, Jillayne, I sometimes have to remind myself I’m not the victim here.

      Joe

  14. Pingback: Longer Waiting Period to Evict Tenants After Foreclosure in WA State Effective July 26, 2009 and Free Legal Aid for WA Homeowners Facing Foreclosure | Seattle Real Estate | Rain City Guide

  15. Pingback: Everyone Does Not Qualify for a Loan Mod | Seattle Real Estate | Rain City Guide

  16. Joe is most definately a social parasite. It runs in their family. Joe’s younger brother, Jim Kaiser , kidnapped his son from the mother last summer and hid in Florida for 3 1/2 months. He claims it was to keep his son off of ADD medication that the child had been taking for 2 1/2 years. Interestingly enough Jim Kaiser kept the boy from the mother on numerous occasions long before the boy started taking medication. Jim Kaiser had Joint custody until the courts finally got fed up with James Kaiser not following the court’s orders, and too his custody away and gave him only every other weekend parenting time. So he screwed that up by refusing to go to court ordered counseling, and his time was deminished to 4 supervised hours per week, so he took his son and hid.

    Just like Joe Kaiser cries victim, James Kaiser created a website to gain support for a cause that he is not really involved in. He chastises the judges, the Mother, everyone else is at fault except him. He claims his rights were violated when the judge ordered him to obey the wishes of the custodial parent, the mother, who took her son to the doctor and made the decision SHE felt was best for the boy, because she had been ordered by the court to do so.

    James skews the definition of the laws to suit him and court orders creates confusion just like his brother. They are truly a family of social parasites. James can no longer see his son, because of his refusal to go by the rules. He is approximately $10 thousand behind in his child support and has been ordered to go to a child support court for dead beat Dad’s in Arizona every month until he is caught up. The mother was awareded her attorney fees adding up to close to $30 thousand over 2 years ago and Jim Kaiser has not paid a cent toward that judgement. His first attorney Rose and Rose sued him for the $8 thousand that he didn’t pay them to represent him.

    The nut doesn’t fall far from the tree.

  17. Joe is most definately a social parasite. It runs in their family. Joe’s younger brother, Jim Kaiser , kidnapped his son from the mother last summer and hid in Florida for 3 1/2 months. He claims it was to keep his son off of ADD medication that the child had been taking for 2 1/2 years. Interestingly enough Jim Kaiser kept the boy from the mother on numerous occasions long before the boy started taking medication. Jim Kaiser had Joint custody until the courts finally got fed up with James Kaiser not following the court’s orders, and too his custody away and gave him only every other weekend parenting time. So he screwed that up by refusing to go to court ordered counseling, and his time was deminished to 4 supervised hours per week, so he took his son and hid.

    Just like Joe Kaiser cries victim, James Kaiser created a website to gain support for a cause that he is not really involved in. He chastises the judges, the Mother, everyone else is at fault except him. He claims his rights were violated when the judge ordered him to obey the wishes of the custodial parent, the mother, who took her son to the doctor and made the decision SHE felt was best for the boy, because she had been ordered by the court to do so.

    James skews the definition of the laws to suit him and court orders creates confusion just like his brother. They are truly a family of social parasites. James can no longer see his son, because of his refusal to go by the rules. He is approximately $10 thousand behind in his child support and has been ordered to go to a child support court for dead beat Dad’s in Arizona every month until he is caught up. The mother was awareded her attorney fees adding up to close to $30 thousand over 2 years ago and Jim Kaiser has not paid a cent toward that judgement. His first attorney Rose and Rose sued him for the $8 thousand that he didn’t pay them to represent him.

    The nut doesn’t fall far from the tree.

  18. Hi Jillayne,

    I’ve just now discovered your post and decided to respond.

    There is no foreclosure rescue scam, and there never was. You and anyone believing the AG’s story has been hoodwinked. It really is just that simple.

    I’ve come to learn (the hard way) that “findings of fact” are not the same a “the truth.” And the truth is I did 400 transactions with people in foreclosure and delivered on every promise I made.

    In case you’re counting, that’s 10 years of transactions with hundreds of sellers paid in full as agreed, without as much as a single complaint to the AG or BBB or anyone else.

    You don’t see any red flags there? You don’t think one of those 400 sellers would have said something in 10 years had they actually been victimized?

    Nobody lost as much as a nickel of their equity to me. And nobody we rescued was declared in default or foreclosed on or evicted. Certainly, nobody ever lost their home.

    And no, they are not merely renters today. They likely have more equity now than when I rescued them.

    Your quote regarding the Frank and Gloria Martinez transaction is a perfect example of how easy it was to distort reality beyond recognition. I am extremely proud of that transaction and the results we were able to achieve for the Martinez family.

    Here’s the reality…

    Tax sale “overages” escheat to the counties if not claimed.

    The State investigated me because county treasurers were upset we were doing deals that limited their profits from unclaimed foreclosure overages.

    They said we were violating RCW 84.64.080, which addresses overages, and demanded hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages from us.

    We said they’d completely misinterpreted the statute, and the appeals court has since agreed with us, confirming the State’s interpretation was 100% in error.

    You’d think that would have ended things right there, but it did not.

    Rather than admit their investigation wasted $100k of taxpayer funds, the State concocted a foreclosure rescue scam and would subsequently spend a MILLION DOLLARS of taxpayer funds to cover up their mistake.

    Who spends $1,000,000.00 on a consumer protection case have zero consumer complaints? I guess now we know. And you can be sure that million bucks buys a lot of smoke and mirrors.

    I am not a scammer and I have no victims.

    What I do have is a track record that includes everyone paid as agreed, and everyone rescued in their homes today with more equity than I first rescued them.

    You may want to check your facts.

  19. Hi Jillayne,

    I’ve just now discovered your post and decided to respond.

    There is no foreclosure rescue scam, and there never was. You and anyone believing the AG’s story has been hoodwinked. It really is just that simple.

    I’ve come to learn (the hard way) that “findings of fact” are not the same a “the truth.” And the truth is I did 400 transactions with people in foreclosure and delivered on every promise I made.

    In case you’re counting, that’s 10 years of transactions with hundreds of sellers paid in full as agreed, without as much as a single complaint to the AG or BBB or anyone else.

    You don’t see any red flags there? You don’t think one of those 400 sellers would have said something in 10 years had they actually been victimized?

    Nobody lost as much as a nickel of their equity to me. And nobody we rescued was declared in default or foreclosed on or evicted. Certainly, nobody ever lost their home.

    And no, they are not merely renters today. They likely have more equity now than when I rescued them.

    Your quote regarding the Frank and Gloria Martinez transaction is a perfect example of how easy it was to distort reality beyond recognition. I am extremely proud of that transaction and the results we were able to achieve for the Martinez family.

    Here’s the reality…

    Tax sale “overages” escheat to the counties if not claimed.

    The State investigated me because county treasurers were upset we were doing deals that limited their profits from unclaimed foreclosure overages.

    They said we were violating RCW 84.64.080, which addresses overages, and demanded hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages from us.

    We said they’d completely misinterpreted the statute, and the appeals court has since agreed with us, confirming the State’s interpretation was 100% in error.

    You’d think that would have ended things right there, but it did not.

    Rather than admit their investigation wasted $100k of taxpayer funds, the State concocted a foreclosure rescue scam and would subsequently spend a MILLION DOLLARS of taxpayer funds to cover up their mistake.

    Who spends $1,000,000.00 on a consumer protection case have zero consumer complaints? I guess now we know. And you can be sure that million bucks buys a lot of smoke and mirrors.

    I am not a scammer and I have no victims.

    What I do have is a track record that includes everyone paid as agreed, and everyone rescued in their homes today with more equity than I first rescued them.

    You may want to check your facts.

  20. We were sued exactly one time. I suggest one in 300-400 transactions is a pretty decent average.

    So, if you want to pretend I am some sort of scoundrel because I got in over my head decades ago when I lost everything my wife and I owned, sure… you win.

    I’ve made plenty of mistakes along the way, and I’ve never claimed otherwise. That does not make me a foreclosure rescue scam artist today.

    Perhaps you simply have a great internal need to believe that what you are doing is honorable. And because of this great need, you continue to look for and find evidence that backs up your beliefs and you make an unconcsious decision to ignore evidence to the contrary.

    In an case, implying I’ve been sued 85 times is shameful at best.

  21. We were sued exactly one time. I suggest one in 300-400 transactions is a pretty decent average.

    So, if you want to pretend I am some sort of scoundrel because I got in over my head decades ago when I lost everything my wife and I owned, sure… you win.

    I’ve made plenty of mistakes along the way, and I’ve never claimed otherwise. That does not make me a foreclosure rescue scam artist today.

    Perhaps you simply have a great internal need to believe that what you are doing is honorable. And because of this great need, you continue to look for and find evidence that backs up your beliefs and you make an unconcsious decision to ignore evidence to the contrary.

    In an case, implying I’ve been sued 85 times is shameful at best.

  22. I made no such implication but thanks for not answering the question. That will make readers want to go look up the name “Joe Kaiser” and try to figure out which ones are against you and which are against some other Joe.

    How did your appeal go?

  23. And your point is what, Schlicke?

    We expected to lose the appeal. I’ve said that all along. The State was able to dupe the lower court, it seemed highly likely they’d be able to do the same with the Appeals court.

    That changes none of the facts.

    So, again, what is your point? All this does is confirm exactly what I’ve said all along, and here’s the actual link…

    http://www.pushedtoshove.com/2011/03/scam-i-am/

  24. And your point is what, Schlicke?

    We expected to lose the appeal. I’ve said that all along. The State was able to dupe the lower court, it seemed highly likely they’d be able to do the same with the Appeals court.

    That changes none of the facts.

    So, again, what is your point? All this does is confirm exactly what I’ve said all along, and here’s the actual link…

    http://www.pushedtoshove.com/2011/03/scam-i-am/

  25. Hi Joe,

    My point is to give RCG readers a link to the appelate court ruling so they can read the document for themselves and make up their own mind if they’d like to do business with you in the future.

    From your own blog you say:

    “I am permanently banned from transacting with owners in any type of foreclosure.
    I am permanently banned from transacting with former owners to recover overages from properties sold at tax sales.”

    What are your future business plans?

  26. Hi Greg,

    No I do not work for the AG’s office. I have been self-employed since 2005 as an independent educator in the real estate and mortgage lending industries. This article was written in 2009. Today it’s 2013 and Joe Kaiser doesn’t seem to be around anymore…his website looks like it hasn’t been touched in several years. My guess is he changed his name and is still doing what scammers do.

Leave a Reply