FACT: In the summer of 2009 Bob (Robert) Thoreson made this comment to me:
"If you notice that any of the women in this building are single, or if their husbands or boyfriends leave them, please let me know. I really need to find someone."
Bob smiled conspiratorially. All the single women in the building at that time were either teens or in their twenties. His meaning was clear: He was a 60 or 70 year old creeper and wanted to hit on women who were single in his building or who became single while renting from him. Two tenants at that time told me he made them "uncomfortable". No sh*t.
We should have used that statement as a window into this man's soul and vacated our tenancy immediately. But we didn't. Little did we realize then that this was at the core of this man's morality, and our experiences with him were to be worse and worse and worse until we finally had to sue him.
I'm more than willing to take and pass a polygraph regarding this and all other aspects of this case. I've done it three times before, when dealing with crooks and liars and shysters and thieves and the ilk. I'm more than happy to do it again.
Here's the case against Bob (Robert) Thoreson:
.....owner of many rental properties in the Seattle area (to be named) and owner of HomeRX, a company without an apparent brick and mortar address (the company address traces back to a boat in Lake Union) that purports to do "home energy renovations":
FACT: In April of 2006 we leased an apartment at Chez Cheri Apartments located at 8353 13th Avenue NW, Seattle, Washington. Two weeks later the building was purchased by Bob (Robert J.) Thoreson. Bob Thoreson did not ask us for a new contract and did not inspect the unit.
FACT: Robert Thoreson lamented to me adnauseam that the seller of the building had lied to him about the condition of the building. Bob felt that was so incredibly morally wrong.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
FACT: We paid the exorbitant rent faithfully and on-time, every single month for the next 5 or more years.
FACT: In the summer of 2006 Bob (Robert) Thoreson made this comment to me: "If you notice that any of the women in this building are single, or if their husbands or boyfriends leave them, please let me know. I really need to find someone."
Bob smiled conspiratorially. All the single women in the building at that time were either teens or in their early twenties. His meaning was clear to me: He was a 60 or 70 year old creeper and wanted to hit on young girls who were single in his building or who became single while renting from him. Two tenants at that time (actually three, including Rhonda, my wife) told me he (Bob Thoreson) made them "uncomfortable". After that my wife refused to stay in the apartment if I wasn't home. Apparently she had some instinct about the guy that I didn't experience as strongly.
FACT: In the summer of 09 our unit suffered a broken pipe. Bob showed up to repair the pipe and replace the frozen under-sink shut-off valves.
FACT: As Bob was struggling to replace one of the shut-off valves I was forced to intercede and show him that the parts he was trying to assemble could not possibly fit, but must be put together in a different way, in the proper order. Bob agreed and then assembled the parts as shown. This made me wonder about his qualifications to be doing even the simplest home or apartment repairs. I did not believe he was even marginally competent to be doing this or any other work.
FACT: During this same repair, Bob continually yelped and said he was being shocked by the piping under the sink. I fetched a VOM for Bob and he hooked it up between the piping and the wet wood of the under sink storage area. The voltage passing through was 67 volts (more than half of a full 110/120 AC outlet voltage). This was an extreme and imminent danger to anyone in the building and was an extreme and imminent fire hazard to the building and I voiced this concern. Bob retorted by shrugging and saying that "it probably won't read that high when the wood dries out." This is a verbatim quote. I again tested this a year later and the voltage in the building's short was about the same.
FACT: This unit had always leaked through the roof somewhat when it rained, in a dozen or so places, and it was clear that the building had leaked probably for many years, due to the wall and ceiling damage present when we moved in. In August of 2009 the roof failed utterly. Bob tried to repair it himself and failed utterly. Our unit was flooded to the extent that Bob advised us (in writing) to knock holes in the ceiling to keep the ceiling from collapsing in on us; this we did. The water level in most rooms was above the upper lips of our shoes so that water overflowed into our shoes and filled them on every step. Water in the walls was under such pressure that it blew the wall outlet plates off in some locations, and water squirted from the wall outlet plates that remained for a distance of about 18 inches into the rooms.
We lost a great deal of clothing, much of our furniture, and we suffered $810 damage to a commercial printer. Bob was actually present in our unit when the tech was there repairing this printer. We threw away the damaged clothing and the damaged furniture. We suffered in this flooded condition until 2010, while Bob struggled hamfistedly and haphazardly to repair the roof, always promising to "make it up to us". Stupidly, we took this man at his word, and we paid the price.
FACT: About halfway through the failed-roof nightmare we overheard one of Bob's employees on the phone to an unknown party, telling that person that they needed someone at our building NOW, who knew what they were doing, because Bob clearly had no clue and was actually ruining the building in its entirety by allowing months of rain to flow freely throughout the structure. The following day we did see a new face in the mix who was advising Bob animatedly about the work on the roof.
FACT: To our knowledge the roof was never properly sealed. Every time we thought it was, new leaks appeared. Our unit had become one giant ball of mold. Everything was wet. Everything was ruined. It stank. It was clear to us that Thoreson would never get it right and we moved to the unit across the hall, in another section of the building that was less affected by the leaking. We had no choice. Our old unit was no longer a home; it was a soggy city dump.
FACT: Bob completely and utterly gutted the unit after we left because there was no choice. Walls came out, floors, you name it. The restoration took months.
Bob finally re-rented the brand new unit at hundreds of dollars less than we had been paying for it, because it had been grossly over-priced during the years we lived there..
FACT: Bob did not ask for any contract for the new rental and no walkthrough was ever done except by us, alone, with a video camera.
FACT: Our new unit, we found, had a hole rotted through the deck; the deck was not fastened properly to the building (second story level). All appliances had to be replaced. The unit was one issue after another. In the beginning we asked Bob repeatedly, in writing, to fix the most egregious and safety-oriented of these problems. Not one was ever fixed and we gave up asking.
We continued to expect Bob to make good on his promise to "make it right" concerning our months of living in a flooded unit due to his staggering ineptitude in repairing the roof. Fact: We were naive in the extreme.
FACT: We finally had enough of Bob Thoreson's bad management and vacated our rental unit in 2011 for a move across the country (Rhonda was far more angry at Thoreson than I at that particular time). We would have moved in any case, even if we were to stay in Seattle.
FACT: Upon our vacating the unit, Bob Thoreson wrote the following reference for us:
By 2011 we hated Thoreson with a passion and would not
have rented from him again no matter how much he paid us.
One would think that, given the above glowing reference, the refund of our deposit wouldn't be such a difficult thing to attain, correct?
FACT: Washington law states that a Washington landlord must refund the renter's deposit in full within 14 days of their vacating the unit, or state in writing why said deposit isn't being refunded. Failure to adhere to this law is illegal and is punishable by the forfeiture of twice the deposit amount, plus all attorneys fees used in forcing the refund from the landlord, plus other damages and penalties.
You might think, then, that any landlord would adhere to this law.
Not so, Bob Thoreson.
FACT: After a month without the return of our deposit we finally contacted Thoreson to ask why he had not sent our lousy $300 or so deposit. Of course he didn't respond. So we wrote to him again, this time by registered mail.
FACT: Bob Thoreson responded to that registered letter with a check for the deposit. On this check he had hand-written a long and convoluted "contract" stating that if we cashed the check, we were forfeiting all rights to any damage claims for the months of flooding in our unit.
It was so far beyond outrageous that I do not possess the vocabulary to voice my opinion of it. The logic was quite insane and it mirrored the twisted, stupid logic I had witnessed in most or all heavy pot users I had ever come across in life.
In the first place, we had not mentioned the issue of the flood damage for, probably, years.
In the second place, the deposit refund was expressly and legally due us. This wasn't a gray area or something open to interpretation. To have withheld it at this point for ANY (any) reason was absolutely and documentably illegal. But to now refuse to refund it unless we agreed to drop other potential claims was, in our view, patently fraudulent and an instance of criminal extortion. Please read that carefully: We believe that this was criminally fraudulent and an instance of criminal extortion.
You may NOT agree to pay, say, your legally due and legitimate light bill, only on the condition that the electric company doesn't come after you for chain-sawing down their power poles. They're going to laugh quietly and come after you for both and every single court in the land, criminal and civil, is going to uphold the claim.
Similarly, you may NOT tell the traffic court, for instance, that you agree to pay them the $100 fine for speeding that you got last week, but only on the condition that the court agree not to come after you for the grocery store you robbed the previous year. It's preposterous in the extreme, but that is Bob Thoreson's logic. We do absolutely believe that the man is, to some degree, mentally handicapped.
FACT: In the summer of 2009 Bob Thoreson admitted to me that he used to be an extremely angry drunk. He said he had found a "new substance" which didn't make him as angry as alcohol did. I took that to mean he wasn't an alcoholic any longer, but was now a pot-head, and Bob Thoreson's bizarre, peculiar, semi-retarded logic is exactly indicative of the stupid logic I have witnessed in almost all substance abusers.
FACT: We immediately sent the uncashed check back to Thoreson, via registered mail, and advised him that he (1) legally owed us the deposit (now times 2), and that while we had had probably no intention of going after him for the flood damage, now we intended to come after him for the flooding. We offered to settle the entire amount for $800 if done quickly and painlessly.
FACT: We never heard from Bob Thoreson again, nor did any of our attorneys.
FACT: We tried to hire our old and trusted attorney, Elena Garella, to sue Bob Thoreson in District court in Seattle. Elena refused, saying we should just sue him in small claims. We countered, saying that we had seen too many crazy things happen in small claims, perpetrated by power-crazy amateur "judges" who couldn't have held a clerk's job at 7-11 but were instilled by the state with the power by the courts to actually change lives. Elena convinced us, much against our better judgement, it would be ok and to just use small claims.
FACT: We did file suit against Bob Thoreson in small claims court in Seattle and we had him served. We then immediately petitioned the court to allow us to submit our testimony by telephone, since we now lived 900 miles away and Rhonda was sick with cancer (eventually diagnosed as SCLC). We've seen this method used many, many times in courts all over the country. All that's required is a speakerphone on the judge's desk. It's done all the time.
FACT: Judge Eileen Kato, King County small claims court, explicitly and specifically refused this request. Why? We were stunned. Again, for God's sake why? Judge Eileen Kato has a long and documented history of doing whatever the Hell she wants on the bench, and this appears to us to be just another disgusting instance of this rogue behavior.
FACT: We then petitioned the court a second time to allow us to have a proxy represent us in small claims court. This petition to Judge Kato was not so polite because we were beginning to sense she was "off" and we were sick of that mentality in the courts. Again, Judge Eileen Kato explicitly and specifically disallowed ANY method of presenting our testimony except by personal appearance. Again we were stunned.
We were left to surmise that Judge Kato was adopting this position because, perhaps, she was a landlord herself, and was seeking to "help out" a fellow landlord (wink wink). We could think of no other reason under the sun why any judge would refuse such a simple request. To this day we know of no other reason (more on this later).
FACT: We then subscribed to the services of the King County arbitration system in an effort to avoid court altogether and to simply get our lousy deposit back.
FACT: The King County arbitrator service said it had contacted Bob Thoreson, but that Bob Thoreson had hung up on them. It was only at that particular point that we began to comprehend just how backwards and evil and illogical Bob Thoreson really was.
FACT: We sent a registered letter to Judge Eileen Kato advising to cancel our small claims suit, advising that we now had no choice (thanks to her) but to hire an attorney and take the matter to real court. This letter was sent to the court.
FACT: This letter to cancel the small claims suit was received and signed for by the court.
FACT: We sent a registered letter to Bob Thoreson advising him that the small claims suit had been cancelled and that we would go ahead with a full-on lawsuit in district court.
FACT: Bob Thoreson signed personally for that letter.
FACT: We then retained Elena Garella, an attorney we had used for many years, whom we trusted implicitly, and who had done us a good many good deeds. Elena took the case.
We waited, and waited, and waited. Then Elena said she didn't want the case (it was too small, and, she postulated, Thoreson would just likely lie on the stand anyway). By this time we had waited nearly a year for action and we told Elena that we truly wished she had made that decision long, long ago. Elena immediately emailed back and said we had a point, that she was sorry, and that she would, after all, prosecute the case immediately and without further delay.
FACT: A series of demand letters were finally sent to Thoreson, by registered mail (ours) and by First Class mail (Elena's), offering to settle the matter out of court for about $800 (he legally owed about $600 just for the deposit at this point and we were willing to eat the rest of the damages just to be done with the case and with Bob Thoreson, a man whose very sanity we had come to question, and a man whom we hated about as much as a serial killer or a pedophile), but that if he refused to pay he would, without question, be sued for a much greater amount.
FACT: Bob Thoreson replied to not one single letter.
A moral and honorable man would have.
Bob Thoreson is neither of those.
FACT: We then began pressuring Elena to go ahead and file the suit. Months passed, then more months, then many more months. We finally were asking (demanding) Elena to file the suit about twice per week. Elena continued to trade jokes and funny pictures with us, but conspicuously refused to address the suit.
FACT: My wife was battling lung cancer and on a particular day we were given especially bad news. I chose that time to tell Elena to file the suit or be fired. Elena chose to be fired, and we unfriended her as well. She had never filed the suit.
FACT: We hired a new attorney in Seattle to simply, finally, file the suit. That attorney mailed Thoreson a demand letter. Of course Thoreson refused to reply.
FACT: A full-on district court lawsuit was filed against Thoreson in June of 2013. We never saw the amount this new attorney was asking but we believe it was around $8500, which would be only enough to cover our direct losses and to compensate us for all the months or rent we had continued to pay when we had no safe place to live because Bob couldn't figure out how to fix a roof.
FACT: Filing a "real" lawsuit finally got Thoreson's attention. He hired this attorney:
Scott R. Weaver
Carney Badley Spellman, PS
701 Fifth (5th) Avenue, Suite 3600
Seattle, Wa., 98104
FACT: Within days, Weaver advised our attorneys that Judge Eileen Kato, King County Small Claims court, had NOT cancelled our small claims suit as directed by registered mail two years prior. She had, instead, allowed it to be heard in the court, without ever notifying us that she was refusing to cancel the suit. The court never notified us that the suit was still being heard.
I've raised one hundred and thirty one shipwrecks (and some planes) off the ocean bottom and performed three hundred and twenty one rescues in the northeast Pacific. I have learned that two thirds or more of all judges in this country are pudding-headed academics and that is exactly the wrong character for the job. Thanks, "judge" Kato -- you are quite a piece of work.
Thoreson found out that the suit had NOT been cancelled. How? We doubt that Thoreson was intelligent enough to have contacted the court to inquire. Nothing in this man's background that we've seen indicates that he has the brains God gave a crowbar. So how did Thoreson find out? We think Judge Eileen Kato caused Thoreson to be notified that the trial was still going to proceed, while NOT notifying us of the same thing. Is this FACT? Not......yet. So far it's conjecture. Let's see what time and research can turn up.
FACT: Thoreson did show up for the small claims trial. Since we believed the trial had been cancelled, we didn't show up. Thoreson was awarded a dismissal. But here's the part that tends to, in our minds, implicate Judge Kato even more strongly. Judge Kato had the choice of dismissing the case with prejudice, or without. Without prejudice would mean that the case could be re-filed at some later date. With prejudice meant that the case could never be re-filed in any court.
FACT: Judge Kato took it upon herself to dismiss the case against Thoreson WITH PREDJUDICE. Why?
FACT: That means that Bob Thoreson doesn't have to pay a dime to anyone, not the original deposit that he owed us by law, not any award a judge might have given us for ruined furniture, clothing and equipment, nothing.
So has "attorney" Scott R. Weaver done a service for his client? I'm sure he thinks so, and will continue to think so, (for awhile). But if not for Thoreson's skullduggery and that of countless landlords before him and to come, this website would have no reason to exist. So very often unintelligent and amoral "attorneys" are penny-wise and dollar stupid and they win some tiny victory for their client that turns into a huge and never-ending defeat for that client. Had Weaver convinced his grossly dishonorable client (Thoreson) to do the right and honorable thing, this website would have had no reason to exist. But I can virtually guarantee that Bob's attorney never once brought up the possibility of any moral resolution of this case at all, but simply saw a way to help his client keep money that he had illegally taken two years previously, and I have no doubt this attorney actually believes he did the "right" thing. After all, if it's technically "legal" to take money from a dying woman -- money that never, ever belonged to you in any sense in the first place, then it's also the right and moral and honorable thing to do, right? Of course it is. Just ask any attorney at law. Those of poor character and little or no sense of honor or decency or morality will always think this way, and it could be argued that that very backwards thought process is what is documentably destroying the country.
I have come to realize that people become attorneys because they do not like the basic concepts of honor and morality, and that "the law" allows them tricky, sleazy, dishonest methods for skirting those basics of right and wrong. "The law".......sets them free, and they're in hog heaven.
I think any honorable attorney would have gone to his client and said, "Bob, why don't you just pay the money you owe?" But do honorable attorneys exist? Have YOU ever met one?
Did Scott R. Weaver advise his client to simply do the morally right thing in this case? There's no way to know for sure but my hunch (and I'll stake my life on it) is that he absolutely did not. Attorneys are taught in law school that "the law" IS morality, that as long as it's legal, it's morally defensible. OJ's murder was technically legal, so was it morally right and honorable too? A misguided "attorney" might tell you it is. Certainly OJ's own foolish attorneys felt that way.
Of course Bob's initial actions (taking money that didn't belong to him) were NOT legal. Could Bob actually be criminally prosecuted for fraud? Trust me, we'll exhaust every possibility, but the King County Prosecutor is well known (world known as a matter of fact) to be about as lazy and corrupt as any east coast mob.
FACT: We have a friend who works in an establishment in Seattle that Thoreson frequents. That friend tells us that Thoreson laughs and jokes about how he screwed-over Rhonda.
There is a TV commercial circulating at least on the cable networks in 2013 which features a young basketball player in a huddle with his team and coach. He speaks up and informs his coach that he although no one saw him do it, he "touched the ball" and the ball now technically belongs to the opposing team. The kid wonders if he did the right thing by being honorable until the coach gets his attention and says, "Good call, Alex." Given this same scenario what would Robert Thoreson do? We believe that Bob would never admit to such a thing because, after all, winning, no matter how it's done, is still winning, right Bob? We believe that if everyone saw him touch the ball he'd deny it. We believe that if Bob Thoreson were videotaped touching the ball, he'd deny it. We believe that if Bob Thoreson was carried from the game and dumped into the alley dumpster where he belongs, by his own outraged team and by his own fans, he'd deny ever touching the ball. We believe that is the kind of man Robert Thoreson is in his heart.
FACT: Rhonda is dying of her cancer. She's beaten and sick. Some days she can hardly hold her head up. When she was given the news by our attorney that Bob Thoreson had found a legal way in which to keep her money, she sat here and quietly cried.
It was one of the last kicks in the face I hope she has to endure in this life time. How do you think Bob's dishonor and skullduggery makes a loving husband feel? Think about it. Think about it long and hard. I wonder how I'll feel about this case when Rhonda is gone and I have the time to reflect and realize that hunks of human garbage like Robert Thoreson contributed hugely to Rhonda's weakness and general weariness of life. I expect I'll realize that there really is a point beyond which a moral man cannot be pushed by the scum of the earth. Sometimes you must simply say: No. More.
I've worked in many offshore industries, and in Federal Law enforcement, and I've enjoyed relationships and friendships with polygraph examiners, sociologists, many street cops in the family; I've lived in eleven states and three countries from the Arctic Circle to Mexico. I have a pretty fair idea of what kinds of people make up the world. My estimate of the population of King County is that at any given moment there are between 100 and 200 people who, having been so maliciously screwed and stolen from by the likes of a slimy piece of human garbage like Bob Thoreson, would simply walk up to the man, put three bullets in his face, and walk away and to Hell with the consequences.
Of course that would be highly illegal and we can all pray that nothing like that ever happens to Bob Thoreson. But Bob has a lot of rentals, and this behavior seems to be his normal behavior, and my fear is that if he continues to blatantly screw people over and steal from them, even legally, or maybe especially legally, he will eventually, ultimately, inevitably, screw the wrong person. I think if Bob continues to rent apartments, and continues to take money that doesn't belong to him, this will happen to him sooner or later. I believe it's only a matter of time.
Would I ever do something "illegal" to Bob Thoreson? No. I want this man alive and I value my freedom far too much to lose it over a petty, mentally retarded thief.
Will Bob and I ever meet again.
If Bob Thoreson ever causes me or mine one nanosecond more of grief I'll abandon my manners and handle this matter in a way so different from this polite website that it will be like the difference between darkness and daylight, and I trust that Bob Thoreson has at least learned one thing: I don't bluff.
What does that mean? There are literally hundreds of options but here's one possibility, still probably too polite for my tastes, but it's a possibility nevertheless:
I will travel to every damned jobsite Thoreson goes to for the rest of his life and inform his prospective or past victims/clients and tenants of his putrid character and of what he has done to others. Bob is welcome to try to sue me for that, and I beg him to -- that will give me the gift of subpoena authority and discovery and he cannot begin to imagine what I can do with that.
I don't think Bob Thoreson thinks anything he's done in this case is in any way bad or wrong. I don't think he understands when others think what he has done is immoral and wrong. I think he sees himself as "cute" and "clever" and the smartest man in any room always. I think his smug demeanor in the picture at the top of this page illustrates his core character perfectly. I think Thoreson believes, as so many attorneys believe, that if you can get away with a thing, then that thing is a perfectly fine and socially and morally acceptable thing to do. My hunch is that he has believed this nonsense since childhood (it's always ok if you don't get caught) and that he will never change, as a leopard can never shed its spots. It's in his bloody DNA. I can't help but wonder what kinds of things poor HomeRX clients find after Thoreson has "renovated" their home and is long gone from the scene. Has this jackass been sued before? Trust me, we'll find out. Maybe more importantly, how many times WILL this man and his LLC be sued, now that he has started "HomeRX"? And what happened to the old company he owned called "Laserviews"?
FACT: Neither the court nor Bob Thoreson ever notified us that the small claims case had been dismissed in Thoreson's favor.
Bob could have done this as the moral and honorable thing to do, but I am certain he laughed at Rhonda, in her weakness, having to spend more and more on attorneys to simply get his conceited self to respond, and I am positive that honor and morality are not now and have never have been part of Thoreson's vocabulary. You don't ACT like he does if you have even a modicum of understanding of those concepts. Men who understand and grasp the concepts of honor and decency don't act dishonorably and indecently. Bob could have saved himself the money he spent on this Weaver character, for God's sake, by advising us that the small claims suit had not been cancelled, but the stupid son of a bitch wasn't even smart enough to do it for that reason. This man is an imbecile, and one who doesn't mind taking what doesn't belong to him.
I call that theft and I call Bob Thoreson a thief.
As far as the court not notifying us that it was not going to honor or act upon our instruction to cancel the small claims suit, I don't yet know if it would be standard procedure for them to do so. Certainly common sense would dictate that they do so, but courts and common sense are concepts usually utterly at odds with one another. If it is standard procedure for a court to notify both parties of the outcome of a trial, then we may have yet another instance of skullduggery or even downright corruption by Judge Kato, because Kato didn't bloody do it and once again we would wonder WHY. Time will tell as we sort this out and research it.
With regard to Judge Kato, she appears to us to be just another King County Judge in a long and disgusting litany who feels she has the right to steer outcomes of legal cases by using a sneaky little tweak here, or there, or wherever she wants and feels she can get away with it and her judicial reprimand record shows that she's no prize or princess to the people of King County; she does what she wants. She CHOSE parts of how this case would play out, we believe, for no reason that we can begin to imagine except that she likes to side with landlords. Why? We're checking now to see if she's a landlord herself. Honestly, this is how many King County "judges" act. We have not seen any King County Judge to be, substantively, much more honorable than this. Remember "Judge" Bobbe Bridge? Who could forget her. The judicial system in every state, but perhaps especially in King County, Washington, is rife with this low level of human being. God help us all. We fear the terrorists, on a 1-10 scale, about a "1". We fear judges like this, on a 1-10 scale, about an "8".
Bob has won a few hundred bucks here, or a few thousand depending on your point of view, not because he deserved it, but because he decided to simply TAKE IT and he got lucky and a faulty court allowed him to keep it. He originally took it illegally from a woman who works 55 hours a week in a restaurant, who is now dying of cancer, who could have used her deposit refund to pay for a few of the 100.5 mile trips she must make to the treatment center, or perhaps to buy herself a nice dinner on those days she got good news from the oncologist, or perhaps to buy herself a flower or two on those days she got bad news from the oncologist. But Bob Thoreson simply TOOK her money, HER MONEY!, illegally, and that is a fact, and no matter how hard she fought to get it back or how much money she spent to get it back the "legal way", Bob J. Thoreson was always just one step ahead of her, plotting, scheming, always working to find a way to keep money that wasn't his to keep. Bob Thoreson simply took this money because he wanted this money, and through a comedy of errors and perhaps a crooked judge, the law upheld Bob Thoreson's taking of money that didn't belong to him. He caused Rhonda's belongings, clothing and furniture to be utterly ruined through his incompetence and stupidity and arrogance, and he found a way not to compensate her for that. He simply TOOK her deposit, which he owed and which he was legally bound to refund, because HE wanted the three hundred or so bucks and HE was determined to have it, even if he didn't deserve it and had no legal claim to it at the time. I can't help but wonder what kind of a childhood this little shit had. Were his schoolmates afraid to let him in their houses for fear of what toys would come up missing? I'd bet on it.
I'm going to give this page a rest for a month or so, then I'll clean it up, add to it, do some research on this "judge" and on Thoreson himself. I want to speak with some of his business associates; I want to run his records; I want to find out who else he's fucked throughout his miserable lifetime. Once that's done, I'll send this website to every tenant he has now, and I'll make sure every tenant he ever has in the future, for the rest of his life, sees this and knows to treat the man with the care they'd treat any other slinking snake-in-the-grass. Because that's what Bob Thoreson is. Bob Thoreson and all scummy, dishonest landlords everywhere are the scum of the --damned earth and honest people deserve to know it and to beware of them.
Bob (Robert J.) Thoreson set out to wilfully, consciously and purposefully screw an innocent woman out of money he legally owed her and he succeeded and he's proud of his accomplishment. THAT is the true heart and soul of Robert J. Thoreson, and if he'll do this to a nice woman who never so much as gave him one microsecond of grief, he'll do the same damned thing to any one of you.
Note, any further problem with Robert Thoreson (Home RX, ECP Holdings 740 LLC), any problem at all no matter how small, will cause this case to expand in a very big way; it will then become a National story. Why not go for it, Bob?
Full assessor's results for these properties:
NAME PARCEL NUMBER
THORESON ROBERT J 0475001285
THORESON ROBERT J 2708700550
THORESON ROBERT J 2921700230
THORESON ROBERT J 9468200174
KATO EILEEN A 8121101215