More Alameda County Spin….

The question is how low past or present Alameda County Politicians will go to avoid responsibility for their actions? The answer; there is no limit!

As is the case with a majority of scandalous disclosures associated with past or present politicians, there is the spin and blame game, deflection, denial, transference, projection….and as of recently….the brain tumor defense. Well, many thought Ms. Hayashi’s transference of responsibility was sick (pun intended)…not so quick! Bob Knox and his daughter (Kathleen Knox) appear to be taking the bar another step lower.

It has come to The Back Story’s attention via a respected Alameda County Political Blogger that Mr. Knox and his daughter are attempting to spin and blame their personal back-story, as written about here, on another family member.

As we researched what appears to be another far reaching attempt at transference in Alameda County, we could find no evidence the family member Mr. Knox or Ms. Knox were attempting to blame had a single role in any of the companies owned by either Bob Knox or Kathleen Knox that were mentioned in earlier installments.

The family member in question did not want to be identified or comment publicly due to concerns of retaliation and harassment. After review of an email written by Bob Knox to this particular family member, the concerns of retaliation were clearly merited.

In addition, this family member was also the subject of an anonymous death threat and harassing emails, which are very disturbing in their content. The timing and content of these anonymous communications does not appear to be coincidental.

It should also be noted that as reported earlier in The Back Story, Nadia Lockyer’s Chief of Staff seemed strangely focused on those whom were involved with The Back Story, and not on answering questions relating to Nadia’s and Bill Lockyer’s connection to Bob Knox. This would appear to further support the concerns of retaliation.

We would enjoy hearing Bob Knox’s and/or Kathleen Knox’s explanation. The Blog is open to public comment, and has been from day one.

As we dug deeper and looked back at Bill Lockyer’s history, if there is one thing Mr. Lockyer has a reputation for, is his ability to encourage his cronies to take on the pit bull role of the political battlegrounds.

We do wonder if Bill Lockyer is fully aware of what his cronies, (pit bulls) might be doing….on the other hand; he probably does not want to know….planned deniability is a valuable political asset.

California Foreclosure Scandal - Tip of the Iceberg

As California Attorney General Kamala Harris debates her next move on the 50 State settlement proposal surrounding the nation-wide foreclosure scandal, we want to impart information from a recent court case that sheds further light on the problem facing Kamala Harris. We imagine this particular court case is just the tip of the Iceberg as it relates to the foreclosure scandal as a whole within California.

As referenced in prior installments, Ms. Knox and a co-tenant investor procured a residential investment property located in Alameda County. Court records specify Ms. Knox’s co-tenant investor demanded termination of their business relationship and the prompt sale of the co-owned property. The co-investors demands were based on the uncovering of unauthorized use by Ms. Knox of the property in question as collateral for a loan. (See prior installment)

In spite of Ms. Knox agreeing to sell the co-tenant property as requested by her co-investor, Ms. Knox concealed the fact she had no intention of signing a listing agreement therefore rendering a sale impossible. Court records and an independent source confirmed this. Both co-tenants must sign a listing agreement per California Law to allow for active marketing and sale of a property.

Court records and Ms. Knox’s own testimony reflect that while concealing her intentions not to sell the property, Ms. Knox sold a real estate option and non-compete agreement to a neighboring property owner. This option and agreement were sold without the approval or knowledge of the co-tenant investor or Bank of America, the Bank holding the mortgage on the property. The option was a right of first refusal. Ms. Knox was paid a substantial amount of money for the option and non-compete agreement.

A non-compete agreement is such that a property can no longer be operated for its intended purpose for a certain period of time. The right of first refusal option makes listing and marketing a property nearly impossible. Such an option must be disclosed, therefore telling any prospective buyer a third party holds a right to match your offer. Therefore, no interested party would waste their time or money with due diligence, knowing a third party would have the contracted right to match his offer.

As a result of the above events, the co-tenant property was foreclosed on by Bank of America without any attempt on their part to seek an understanding of the problems that lead to foreclosure. There is no evidence Bank of America was aware of Ms. Knox’s activities. However, in light of the fact, Bank of America was aware of Ms, Knox’s unauthorized use of the property to collateralize a loan, Bank of America was on notice.

The co-investor’s entire investment was lost, and no funds from either the non-compete agreement or option for right of first refusal were distributed by Ms. Knox to her co-investor.

The Back Story has been informed the Alameda County District Attorney, the State Attorney General, Bank of America and the FTC have been notified of this matter.

Rosegate Assisted Living - KMJ Associates

In an earlier installment it was noted that Ms. Knox (Kati L Knox) and her San Leandro based business were the subject of a civil court proceeding in Alameda County. Though court records reflect alleged claims of real estate fraud, two specific mortgage related loan claims caught our attention.  In light of the mortgage crisis and on-going nation-wide investigations by local District Attorneys and State Attorney Generals, we felt reporting on this matter was in the public's best interest.

Here’s what we know: Court records reflect that Ms. Knox personally acquired a $100,000 Equity Line of Credit (ELOC) using a co-tenant (two or more owners of a property) investment property as collateral, for a down payment on her (new) personal residence in Danville. Court and public records reflect Ms. Knox neither asked nor received approval from her co-tenant investor to use the co-tenant property as collateral. Furthermore, as supported by public records, Ms. Knox did not inform Bank of America (the source of the ELOC) when acquiring the loan that there was a co-tenant on the collateralized property. Moreover, court records indicate Ms. Knox does not recall filling out a loan application. We asked Bank of America about Ms. Knox’s claims. They made it clear every loan of any amount requires a loan application, and co-tenant (co-owner) disclosure is a key part of any real estate loan application. Most, if not all, loan applications do have truth in fact clauses (aka perjury clauses).

Sources and records indicate that when Ms. Knox’s co-tenant investor uncovered the unauthorized loan, Bank of America was contacted via the co-tenants attorney seeking an explanation. Bank of America replied almost immediately indicating the loan would be promptly repaid and closed, which it was. 

The second matter relates to a loan from a current employee of Rosegate Assisted Living. After reviewing court records and determining this employee testified under oath and is currently listed on Rosegate’s website, we will refer to him by name; Darryl Chin (Mr. Chin).

Both Mr. Chin and Ms. Knox admitted Mr. Chin contributed money towards the “project”, in the amount of $30,000. Mr. Chin also admitted under oath that he and Ms. Knox were dating at some point.

Now where this transaction seemingly goes wrong is in who or how it was repaid. While under oath Mr. Chin and Ms. Knox had completely different answers on how the funds were repaid. Ms. Knox indicated that Mr. Chin’s employer; KMJ Associates (Rosegate Assisted Living) repaid the $30,000 in funds. However, Mr. Chin stated the funds were repaid via “Kati Knox’s personal check”. Clearly one of these parties is misleading the courts for reasons that are yet not clear.

According to court records Ms. Knox also admitted concealing from Mr. Chin the $100,000 ELOC she acquired.  Ms. Knox stated, “It wasn’t something I talked about”. It appears Ms. Knox intentionally concealed the $100,000 ELOC from both her co-tenant investor and Mr. Chin, as well apparently concealed from Bank of America the fact she had investors other then herself.  Ms. Knox also admitted she did not notify Bank of America she was using the funds from the ELOC as a down payment on a personal residence. Such information is required on loan applications, per Bank of America policy.

We found no evidence to indicate how Mr. Chin’s $30,000 contribution was used, or if it was even used towards the real estate transaction, as there is a key disagreement on an important part of that arrangement…the repayment of the funds. However, such a transaction between an employer and employee whereby a personal relationship has or does exist between a superior and subordinate has the potential for a very interesting sexual harassment claim.

We attempted to reach Mr. Chin regarding this matter. He failed to respond.

Rose Gate Assisted Living - San Leandro

This installment of The Back Story will focus on Rosegate Assisted Living, the San Leandro California elder care facility owned by Kati (Kathleen) Knox (Ms. Knox) and KMJ Associates. Rosegate has been discussed in prior installments, so we felt it a fitting time to look deeper into this company.

In our review of Rosegate, we spoke to multiple sources, surfed through the internet, and researched public records. Our efforts resulted in a surprising and very unpleasant discovery.

Apparently, Ms. Knox’s grandmother was a resident of Rosegate and under the care and direction of Ms. Knox’s staff. For reasons that appear driven by gluttony for financial gain, Ms. Knox asked her staff to substantially reduce the level of care and service provided her own grandmother, while continuing to charge for the higher (contracted) level of care and service. The substantial reduction in the level of care and service was not authorized by any party holding the power to act on behalf of Ms. Knox’s grandmother.

The breached contract was discovered and Ms. Knox and the Rosegate staff were queried regarding their actions. Multiple sources indicate Ms. Knox’s justification for Rosegate’s breach of contract was based on Ms. Knox’s belief Rosegate has the right to run a “social experiment” on a resident without consent or authorization of the patients family or a doctor. Sources indicated Ms. Knox’s grandmother was quickly removed from the Rosegate facility by the authorized representative of the family.

Public records and multiple sources reflect when Rosegate’s staff and Ms. Knox were asked to hand over files related to this matter, as required by law, Rosegate refused to do so. The Department of Social Services(DSS) demanded Rosegate honor the legal rights of the patient’s family (in this case Ms. Knox’s own family) to obtain the files. Rosegate refused the demands of DSS and Rosegate was subsequently cited under California Code of Title 22. With the threat of further citations and potential loss of their license, Rosegate provided what they claimed to be a patient’s file as required. In fact, what apparently was provided was completely void of the legally required medical records and documents as required under California Title 22. The DSS subsequently cited Rosegate for a second time. We at The Back Story would be of the opinion that Rosegate’s violations of Title 22 were an attempt to cover-up more serious violations of possible (financial) elder abuse in conjunction with breach of contract.

The DSS was very coy and evasive when we sought further information on any ongoing investigation in to this matter.

We found on Rosegate’s website a tag line that states “We treat our seniors like family.” If for any reason this tag line defines Rosegate’s mission statement, or any part of their mission statement, then there would be a pressing concern for current and future residents.

We made attempts to discuss this matter with Ms. Knox, however, no reply or comment was provided. 

Kati Knox (Kathleen L Knox)

This installment of The Back Story returns to the comings and goings and questions surrounding the daughter of former Alameda County Treasurer and Supervisor, Bob Knox. Bob’s daughter is herself active in local politics, having sat on the San Leandro Human Services Commission, as well visibly supporting many local politicians.

We have been provided access to documents that clearly reflect Ms. Kati Knox (true legal maiden name: Kathleen Louise Knox) apparently committed perjury when recently submitting a request for a marriage license in Alameda County. It also appears that both the Alameda County DA and Recorders Office have been made aware of this information. It is unknown at this point the status of any potential investigation into the evidence of perjury.

Here is what we know; Ms. Knox was initially married approximately 20 years ago and consequently divorced less then 10 years ago. Subsequently, Ms. Knox filed a request to marry for the second time less then five years ago. On her application for her second marriage, she failed to indicate, despite the requirement by law to do so, that she had been married prior, or was she a party to any prior divorce proceedings. There are at least two separate sections of a California Marriage Application that address prior marriages and/or divorces.

Now you may want to declare her missteps a simple slip or desire to forget the past. That assessment might have bought Ms. Knox a “Get Out of Jail Free Card”, if it had not been for the fact her second marriage was to the same man she had divorced approximately 10 years prior. Moreover, both parties signed and agreed (under the penalty of perjury) that neither party had been married prior. Further, it appears the witness to Ms. Knox’s second marriage, who signed as such, was a long-time employee at Ms. Knox’s San Leandro based business. We believe, though we have not yet confirmed such, that this employee was also aware of the fact these two parties had been previously married.

Not only would the above appear to support perjury, it would also appear to support a conspiracy to commit a sham marriage.

In researching this matter, we contacted the Alameda County DA and the Recorders Office to get their opinion on this matter (we did not mention any party names). They surmised that if true, these types of perjury cases underlay some form of financial fraud. Primarily they find these cases relate to medical benefit fraud, however, tax fraud, real estate fraud, citizenship fraud, etc can also be motivating factors for perjury on marriage license applications.

Please keep in mind as noted in a previous installment of The Back Story, Ms. Knox and her San Leandro business were defendants in a civil fraud proceeding in Alameda County. The proceeding was related to real estate. Nevertheless, perjury is a criminal matter and handled separately by law enforcement and the District Attorney’s Office.

In preparation for this installment, we contacted a few sources and found that ostensibly Ms. Knox and her husband have been living in separate residence since their initial divorce. We could find NO evidence they cohabitated shortly before or anytime after their second marriage.

The obvious sham nature of Ms. Knox’s second marriage is further supported by information we reported in our “welcome” post, where Ms. Knox has been romantically linked to a San Leandro businessmen and a Police Officer. Sources have indicated Ms. Knox has been extremely open with sources about her personal life style, all the while supposedly being married and a mother of twins. Sources also indicate her high school age twins have until recently also been living apart (each with a respective parent) and going to schools nearly 40 miles apart.

I will be seeking clarification from the Alameda County Recorder and District Attorney on how this matter is being handled. I will up-date you when we acquire new information.

Cover-up? Fraud? Domestic Spying?

My second installment was previously to be a continuation of my initial post; however, my “welcome” posting produced some fascinating information that has the prospective to bring Alameda County, Bob Knox, and his daughter (Kati Knox) into the investigation and national debate on illegal domestic spying on United States citizens.

In a recent Alameda County Court matter where-by Kati Knox was defending herself and her San Leandro based firm against fraud claims, court records reflect Ms. Knox invoked her Fifth Amendment rights against self incrimination when asked (under oath) to answer questions related to employment as a health care consultant in Washington DC.

Court records reflect an extended battle and exchange between Ms. Knox’s counsel and the Court regarding the sufficiency of invoking her Fifth Amendment rights in this proceeding. Despite the Court’s direct request for Ms. Knox to answer the questions related to her Washington DC employer, Ms. Knox did not answer and stood by her Fifth Amendment rights.

The Court made numerous additional request, and in doing so explained the seriousness of invoking her Fifth Amendment rights, and stated “even James Bond” or any employee of the “CIA” or “National Security…would have to say” under oath who their employer was. Ms. Knox’s counsel did not allow her to answer.

After further pressure from the Court to answer the question, things go from strange to memories of Watergate and Oliver North, as Ms. Knox’s counsel implies that even if Ms. Knox were to answer the question, “you wouldn’t get the company that she really worked for.” Ms. Knox’s counsel goes further and states there would be “criminal sanctions for disclosing the contents of that work that she (Ms. Knox) did.”

Personally, I am no legal expert; nevertheless implying to the Court’s of this Country your client (Ms. Knox) might commit perjury to cover-up her employers identity, as well be under threat of criminal sanctions for disclosing such raises very serious legal questions of what Ms. Knox and the Washington DC based company who employs her is actually doing, and why an apparent cover-up would be necessary.

In a closing exchange between Ms. Knox’s counsel and the Court, Ms. Knox’s counsel admits her client holds “a government job where she” (Ms. Knox) receives payment via a “shell company” for which “she’s not allowed to discuss, especially in open court.”

The information I have reviewed also indicates Ms. Knox admitted to purchasing a home in the Washington DC area and relocating her family. Despite the relocation and the stresses of a new job, her employer allowed her a great deal of freedom to regularly return to the Bay Area for business reasons that are extremely vague. Further, in what may have been a serious slip of the tongue, Ms. Knox’s counsel made reference during later questioning to a company or entity by the name of “Virginia Health Care Systems.”

I have gathered additional information that may further shore up Ms. Knox (Kati Knox) possible involvement in domestic spying activity. Ms. Knox has in the past used various last names including her maiden name as well versions of her married name Wrobel, Knox-Wrobel, and Granville. The latter name is the most intriguing, as Granville is Bob Knox’s middle name (Robert Granville Knox III). Ms. Knox has also used various versions of her first name such as Kathleen, Katie, and Kati.

Ms. Knox also has the following email addresses katik007@yahoo.com & kathleenlkw@yahoo.com. These addresses implore the question of arrogance and/or hiding in plain sight?

As I prepare to close my second installment, I will circle back to past Alameda County politicians and make in my opinion a simple connection between Kati Knox’s activities as noted above and her father, Bob Knox. This connection is supported with information available in World Wide Web that appears to claim Ms. Knox shared confidential and legally protected (Hipaa/Hippa) private patient medical information with her father. What is apparent from the information available is it looks as if both parties may have gone to great lengths in an attempt to cover-up this inadvertent, but apparently grave slip-up.

Please keep in mind Ms. Knox currently owns and operates a Residential Care Facility for the Elderly, which provides her access to confidential medical records of her patients. The US and California Department of Justice and the California Department of Social Services oversees and enforces very strict laws on the release and disclosure of medical data. Sharing such information in violation of the law has serious legal consequences on both a Federal and State level.

For reference, I spent a few minutes reviewing the history of Valerie Plame. I found it very interesting in that it appears once Valerie Plame’s identity was revealed and confirmed as an employee of the CIA, the CIA “lifted” and “rolled back her cover.” The CIA determined that “public interest outweighed” any “damage” from “disclosure” of “employment and cover status.” The apparent truth of Valerie Plame was out and her employer was making no further attempt to cover-up her employment or role with the CIA.

I believe it would be reasonable for a person to venture, that in light of Ms. Knox’s use of her Fifth Amendment rights, and her counsel’s aggressive defense of such, as well her counsel’s surprising admissions to the Court, Ms. Knox is likely, to this day, working in a covert manner for an unnamed government shell company.

(A great deal of additional data on this particular subject is being vetted and verified and will be shared at an appropriate time)