To: Frank Clark, Criminal Investigator, Pierce County Prosecutor's Office
From: Douglas A. Schafer, Attorney
Subject: Judge Grant L. Anderson Matter
Date: March 6, 1996
This memo is to memorialize two suggestions that I made to you recently. [Webmaster's note of 4/2/00: Investigator Clark had demonstrated so little interest in this case that I sent this memo to him by name in order to memorialize what I had told him. I also sent it to each of the other "Appropriate Public Officials" to whom I had provided information about Anderson's conduct.]

Possible Criminal Violations of the Timeshare Act. When we met on 2/28/96, I suggest that both the late Chuck Hoffman (while advised by Anderson and Fisher), and Anderson (following Hoffman's death) may have intentionally violated RCW 64.36.210, which would be a class C felony under RCW 64.36.230, by filing false or misleading statements with the Timeshare Section of the Department of Licensing. Of course, since the regulatory files in that state agency have mysteriously disappeared, I have been unable to deliver you documented proof of such violations.

I do have reasonable suspicions about the truth of the purported ownership of the 10 condos by the 8 different parties who all sold to Trendwest upon the same terms after Anderson apparently requested them to do so in late 1991. Bill Peare, president of Trendwest, had told me by phone that his firm bought 25 condos from Anderson (not 15 from Anderson and 10 from other parties). If Hoffman/Anderson/Fisher represented in their annual Timeshare Act registration materials that those 10 condo had been sold to genuine owners, but actually had not been, then they committed serious criminal acts.

Possible Commission of Perjury by Signing REET Affidavits. When we met on 3/1/96, I suggested to you that Anderson may have committed perjury, a felony. Attached to the copies of the time share unit ("TSU") deeds from Anderson (for Hoffman-Stevenson, Inc., "HSI") to Anderson's law partners, office staff, friends, and other insiders are copies of the Real Estate Excise Tax ("REET") Affidavits. A REET Affidavit is required before the county auditor will publicly record most real estate documents. It must report the sale price paid by the buyer, and be signed under penalty of perjury by a party to the transaction. Anderson signed many, if not most, of the affidavits concerning the transfers to insiders. Affidavits are readily available from the county auditors or county treasurers.

I have strong doubts that Pagni, Livingston, or Leary (or the other insiders, probably) paid the $1,000 per TSU in Condo #132 that Anderson reported, under penalty of perjury, that they did. Pagni, for example, already was 100% owner (since 1978) of Condo #320 (that she sold to Trendwest in October, 1992), so I doubt she would have paid $4,000 in November, 1991, for 4 TSUs in Condo #132; which she then reportedly sold for $4,000 in December, 1992, to Anderson.

If Anderson or Fisher are found to have committed these or other felony crimes, they would almost certainly be disbarred. See, e.g., In re Pence, 91 Wn. 2d 1 (1978).