Sie sind auf Seite 1von 4

CHRISTOPHER KING, J.D.

12048 Greenwood Avenue North


Seattle, WA 98133
mortgagemovies007@gmail.com
617.543.8085
206.299.9333

15 September 2017

Re: Karen Pooley Complaint vis a vis King County Superior 17-2-05221-3 SEA;
05-1-05753-6 SEA

Dear Attorney Jones and Ms. Pooley:

Two stalwart protectors of homeowner rights in the post 2008 foreclosure onslaught find
themselves at odds in a highly contentious foreclosure matter in Seattles north side.

Attorney Richard L. Jones is a former Pro Tem Judge who has a decorated history in fighting
unlawful foreclosure with what is perhaps the most seminal area case to his credit (Bain v.
Metropolitan Housing Group, Inc.). Karen Pooley is an advocate homeowner who was a
Principal architect in bringing the highly-esteemed Forensic Fraud Specialist Marie
McDonnell to Seattle to conduct the Seattle/King County MERS audit that the City then
proceeded to largely ignore.1

The two came at odds in Attorney Jones representation of Ms. Pooley in Pooley v. Quality
Loan Servicing, Inc. a case that I have followed with several in-Court video sessions and
YouTube videos over the years.

It is chiefly Pooleys argument that she was timely on her payments to Jones and that he was
derelict in his fiduciary duties when he sued her for unpaid fees. She claims that he failed to
argument pivotal hearsay matters, and lost an opportunity to issue a Reply Memorandum
because of his negligence and misdirection. She claims that he billed for preparation and
participation in a Mediation that never occurred. She also claims that he raised his fees
from $280/hr. to $320/hr. after their initial meeting. She further believes that his Alford
plea and eventual expungement for a theft offense at his former home are probative of his
character.

Jones claims that the fee increase was contemplated by the retainer agreement and the fact
that he was acquitted of a similar offense that occurred at the same home of his ex-wife
during the same time period. He has declined to share the portion of the divorce decree that
I sought in order to tie the items he removed from his former house to the items recovered
in the moving truck (see Probable Cause Attachment 1) and noted that the divorce decree is
a matter of public record [I will need to cross reference the decree]

I have not seen any proof that he prepared for, or attended any mediation.

1 Curiously other Counties in Oregon actually agree with McDonnell; several of them sued MERS in
the past year.
CHRISTOPHER KING, J.D.
12048 Greenwood Avenue North
Seattle, WA 98133
mortgagemovies007@gmail.com
617.543.8085
206.299.9333

Pooley lost her underlying case and Jones requested $8,000.00 before he would write her
Appellate Brief.2

Be that as it may, Jones obtained a Default Judgment in his lawsuit against Pooley. However
Ms. Pooley contends that she never was served. She and a third party issued sworn
statements to the Court that point toward her friend being allegedly served as she was
walking Ms. Pooleys dog on a dark evening last winter, wearing a scarf and hat.

The process server identified Pooley from an older Internet picture but described Pooley as
58 medium build. She is however 6 even and a large build. This is all a mystery to me. For
his part, Jones claims that Pooley should have answered the Complaint without waiving
Jurisdiction. Pooley wants to know why it was necessary for him to sue her in the first place
given her payment history.

***********

Be that as it may, Ms. Pooley was then compelled to write her own Appellate brief and
eventually obtain a Motion for Reconsideration. She now contends that any monies obtained
by Jones in the lawsuit are ill-gotten unjust enrichment for him because he put her into an
untenable position by not representing her adequately and suing her.

Lastly, Jones denies urinating in a Folgers can in front of Ms. Pooley and two other female
employees. He concedes that he did have a prostate issue but denies urinating in front of
anyone.

Stay tuned for further updates.

Respectfully submitted,

________________________________________
Christopher King, J.D.9

2 On 14 August 2017 the Division I Court ruled against her, however on ___ September 2017 it
GRANTED her Motion for Reconsideration based on her own filings, including the subheadings seen
on the following page:
CHRISTOPHER KING, J.D.
12048 Greenwood Avenue North
Seattle, WA 98133
mortgagemovies007@gmail.com
617.543.8085
206.299.9333
CHRISTOPHER KING, J.D.
12048 Greenwood Avenue North
Seattle, WA 98133
mortgagemovies007@gmail.com
617.543.8085
206.299.9333

cc: Karen Pooley


blind copies