Leen on Me

Posted November 9th, 2008 by Joe Kaiser

At Leen & O'Sullivan, PLLC, we will make every effort to help you keep your home and get you back on the track toward financial recovery.

Dear Rob,

Although I’ve never met attorney David Leen, he has been a hero of mine for many years.

Way back in the 80’s, he sued on behalf of an owner in foreclosure who’d been mistreated and forever ensured foreclosure trustees in Washington State play fair.

After Cox v. Helenius, there was no question that foreclosure trustees owed fiduciary duties to both lender and borrower.

Attorney David Leen

David Leen, no doubt, is a good guy and, apparently, a foreclosure rescue scam artist (no, not really).


Misleading Website?

David, it seems, has a website, as do many attorneys in this state.

I’ve reviewed his site and note one damning inequity shines above all: Leen represents himself to the property owners as an expert who will use his superior knowledge of foreclosure and real estate to help the property owner during their ‘difficult time.’

Unconscionability, if not outright fraud, should be presumed in these instances because Leen and his associates so obviously misrepresent their intentions to the property owners by asserting that they are going to help them out while instead helping themselves to enormous profits to the substantial detriment of property owners.


The Help Word

Mr. Leen misleads by mentioning “help” no less than four times on his website, and as you know your office makes it clear you can’t both help and charge for your foreclosure rescue services.

As such, according to AAG David Huey, there can be no other conclusion . . . it’s a scam.

“You gotta help or make money,” Huey says. “If you’re in it to make money, then you shouldn’t be telling people that you’re gonna help them because our experience is they don’t get help in this type of transaction.” — The Seattle Weekly

I’m sure everyone visiting Mr. Leen’s site assumes he stops foreclosure out of the goodness of his heart and his services are provided at no charge, especially since he makes no mention of costs or fees.

Imagine the hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions, he’s taken from deceived homeowners faced with the loss of their homes (again, no, not really).


More “Help” Words

Here’s a couple of the deceptive passages on his site . . .

At Leen & O’Sullivan, PLLC, we will make every effort to help you keep your home and get you back on the track toward financial recovery.

We will clearly explain all of your options and help you find a creative solution to stop foreclosure.

Think of the people who, believing they’d be rescued from foreclosure at no cost, hired Mr. Leen to represent them and were subsequently forced to pay thousands of dollars for his services, becoming victims of his foreclosure rescue scheme in the process (again, no, not really).


Other perps

I was shocked to learn Mr. Leen and his associates aren’t the only Washington attorneys with deceptive websites (again, no, not really). Here are just a few I quickly located who are using the “help” ruse:

At the Law Office of Jason Anderson in Seattle, Washington, we are committed to helping our clients avoid foreclosure and holding mortgage companies accountable. Attorney Jason E. Anderson

Are you worried that the bank might foreclose on your home? . . . Don’t worry, I can help.Attorney David Fuller

Contact a Seattle real estate litigation attorney to learn how we can help protect your interests in any real estate dispute.Barrett & Gilman
Attorneys at Law

If you need expert help with a real estate matter in Seattle, Washington, please contact William Snell for a personal consultation regarding your situation. Attorney William N. Snell


Let’s get ‘em

I’m glad you’re on to them now because they’re doing exactly what your office has been warning us about . . .

david-huey.jpg

AAG David W. Huey

They’re trying to make money off someone’s foreclosure.
AAG David W. Huey

Maybe it’s time we round up these scammers and spend a million dollars suing each and every one of them to end the “outright fraud” in which they are so obviously engaged (again, no, not really).

Help AND get paid . . . sheeez!

In the arena,

Joe Kaiser


12 Responses to: “Leen on Me”

  1. Joe Kaiser responds:
    Posted: November 9th, 2008 at 11:02 pm

    This post, of course, is tongue-in-cheek and laden with sarcasm. The attorneys I’ve mentioned are not scam artists or anything of the sort.

    The post is meant to demonstrate the AG’s claim that offering foreclosure help and charging for it, said to be my “one damning inequity” shining above all others, is absurd.

    It’s okay to help and charge, and you need only ask the good attorneys mentioned above to confirm.

  2. DaveD responds:
    Posted: November 10th, 2008 at 11:10 am

    Shouldn’t Melissa be included in that list?

    Being that she helps folks recover their money (even if only in a rescue-rescue sort of way). Memory serving me, she wasn’t giving her help away for free, either, and was jealous that you were more effective. On second thought, forget about it. She came from the school of thought it is better to let it go to sale, and pick up an overage check. And lose your house in the process.

    Those who bring so-called “consumer protection” lawsuits are either on contingency, or in the case of Rob… on the taxpayers!

  3. Leon responds:
    Posted: November 11th, 2008 at 9:36 pm

    It seems you are only allowed to make money helping people when you have a fiduciary duty to them. I don’t have time to wrestle with this concept and it would probably be a waste of time to do so. It’s obvious that this case has nothing to do with ethics and everything to do with agenda.

    More wasted money. So sad.

  4. SpyBoy responds:
    Posted: November 13th, 2008 at 5:51 pm

    Greetings,

    It appears Mr. Huey is firmly implanted with the zero-sum/win lose capitalist economic model where there can be no win/win; value exchange for all parties, but rather, one has to “lose” if the other
    “wins”.

    He certainly is not alone.

    Possibly he truly cannot comprehend an ethical/benevolent capitalist model, where value is created for all parties by mutually agreed exchange. Or, it could be that his position of power and influence, and an ego-centric, emotion-based mindset will not permit him to see facts nor understand truths.

    Who knows? Oh yeah, Leonard Cohen said Everybody Knows.

    Thank you,

    SpyBoy

  5. Chris responds:
    Posted: November 14th, 2008 at 1:04 pm

    “Type #1 lets you know from the beginning that he is out to get all of your chips and attempts to do just that.

    Type #2 assures you that he’s not interested in getting your chips and implies that he wants to be fair with you. He then follows through and tries to grab all of your chips anyway.

    Type #3 assures you that he is not interested in getting any of your chips, and he sincerely means it. In the end, due to any number of reasons, he, like Type #1 and #2, still ends up trying to grab your chips. His motto is ‘I really didn’t mean to cut off your hand at the wrist, but I had no choice when you reached for your chips.’ ”

    ***************

    Looks like the AG has bought into Rob Ringer’s world view, and assumes that all real estate investors are essentially type 3.

  6. David Alexander responds:
    Posted: November 14th, 2008 at 4:12 pm

    I guess the next time at the grocery store… I shouldn’t buy laundry detergent or any product that helps me…

    Because maybe the makers of Tide should be giving me the product for FREE since it helps….

    Because low and behold the American way…. according to them is that you should get your product and services for free…

    Wow!

    Hate to see them have to run a business…. (that would produce in way that they make a profit to live on)

    good grief.

    David Alexander

  7. Alf London responds:
    Posted: May 13th, 2009 at 7:20 am

    I have been reading your blog and the allegations in the AG’s consumer protection lawsuit. Is it true that none of the 300 people you assisted where able to get their homes back? That is the purpose of stopping a foreclosure isn’t? Also, you imply that if anybody is expecting money for their services that they are frauds. Is that the total extent of the AG’s successful lawsuit against you, that you wanted money to help this people?

  8. Joe Kaiser responds:
    Posted: May 13th, 2009 at 9:22 am

    Alf,

    The AG’s office says things they know are not true and does so for effect. The 300 who didn’t get their houses back is just one example.

    We did 400 deals, not 300, and most of those were simple buy/sell transactions where people sold me their properties (most were undeveloped land and not houses). There was never any expectation of getting their property back and I paid them all, in full.

    It is dishonest to suggest, as the AG has, that 300 people were somehow treated unfairly when in fact we agreed to a price acceptable to everyone and I performed as promised.

    We did rescue some three dozen families and most are in their homes today. Our technique is to buy a fractional interest in those properties, so to suggest no one got their house back is equally dishonest since no one lost their house. They ALL have their fractional interest (50-75%) and any one of them can buy us out at any time if they so choose.

    Since I sold my interest to my partner, about six of them have done so, but since I am no longer involved the AG says “no one” because they bought out my partner and not me. Again, blatant dishonesty.

    Most would rather not buy us out and enjoy the arrangement in place today since having a moneyed partner solves a lot of issues for them. Additionally, when they buy us out, we typically provide them with financing and those payments need to be made (most haven’t been making rent payments).

    These are wonderful transactions where everyone has profited (some properties have more than doubled in value), and no one has lost even a nickel of their equity.

    I’m not implying anything of the sort (expecting to be paid is somehow bad). Providing a good and valuable service is noble. It is the AG who suggests it’s a fraud and that you either help or get paid, but can’t do both. That’s just plain stupid.

    My post is meant to demonstrate that even attorneys provide foreclosure help and get paid . . . and there’s nothing wrong with that.

    Joe Kaiser

  9. Alf London responds:
    Posted: May 13th, 2009 at 1:52 pm

    Did you defend the suit? It is not clear from the summary judgment motion whether you were represented at that hearing. It does not appear as if you were represented at the trial…

  10. Joe Kaiser responds:
    Posted: May 14th, 2009 at 9:06 am

    The AG delivered a 41 page summary judgment motion, along with some 400 pages of documentation, on the very last day possible and just a month prior to the court date.

    Overwhelmed, my attorney asked for an extension, and believing it would be granted failed to prepare any response in opposition.

    The extension was denied on a Friday, our response was due the following Monday, and he was caught flat-footed. When advised he was unprepared and had not even begun the work on my response, I fired him on the spot and prepared my own.

    And though he appeared at the hearing, I stood zero chance as a result of his total failure to prepare anything to oppose the motion.

    I hired another attorney for the trial but having no time to prepare, he was pitiful. I suppose he did his best, but it was not at all helpful.

  11. Lou responds:
    Posted: May 21st, 2009 at 3:33 pm

    Mr. Kaiser, if the facts are as you tell them, one or more of your attorneys may have committed an actionable breach of duties owed to you. Perhaps you would be well-advised to review the facts of your case with a lawyer who sues other lawyers for malpractice.

  12. Lou responds:
    Posted: May 21st, 2009 at 3:39 pm

    PS — David Leen?! Geez. He may be a nice guy, competent as far as attorneys go … but really. Is “competent” all you want? I would never recommend David Leen, having read his sworn statements as an “expert.” The fact he had a hand in Cox v. Helenius doesn’t make him special. At all. In fact, way the opposite. Trust me.


Post a Comment

Enter Your Details:


You may write the following basic XHTML Strict in your comments:
<a href="" title=""></a> · <acronym title=""></acronym> · <abbr title=""></abbr>
<blockquote cite=""></blockquote> · <code></code> · <strong></strong> · <em></em>

  • If you’re a first-time commenter, your response will be moderated.
  • If your response includes a link, it will require moderator approval.
Enter Your Comments:



Note: This is the end of the usable page. The image(s) below are preloaded for performance only.