WELCOME TO LIVINGLIES

KEEP YOUR HOME!!! – Over 16,000,000 Visitors

ABOUT LIVINGLIES AND LENDINGLIES

HOW DO I GET HELP?

SUBMIT FREE REGISTRATION STATEMENT WITHOUT OBLIGATION

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

CLICK HERE TO

LEARN HOW TO FIGHT WITH HONOR AND WIN!

WEBINAR 9/29/21 3PM EDT : LEARN FORECLOSURE DEFENSE

Listen to The Neil Garfield Show

or prior episodes

Or call in at (347) 850-1260, 6pm Eastern Thursdays

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

About Neil F Garfield

Schedule Private Consultation

Purchase Services

Submit Case Interview Form – Receive Customized Recommended Services

Q & A – What can you do for me?

Contact Information:

GTC Honors, Inc., approved CLE course provider

Phone: 954-451-1230

Email: neilfgarfield@hotmail.com

 

PRO BONO SERVICES include online chats, comments, and suggestions on the registration form, The Neil Garfield Show,

PAID Services include: Expert Consultation Services, Strategy, Qualified Written Requests, Case Review and Reports, Forensic Analysis Referrals, Discovery , Motions, Pleadings, Complaints to AF and CFPB, Title and Encumbrance Analysis, and Case Analysis. We coach lawyers and pro se litigants. ALL 50 STATES.

MISSION STATEMENT: I want to convince enough homeowners to fight illegal foreclosures and win — not merely delay a negative outcome. 

The LivingLies Blog is the vehicle for a collaborative movement to provide homeowners with the tools needed to confront illegal foreclosures.

Free forms, articles and discussion of statutes, case precedent and policy on this site.

On www.lendinglies.com we provide paid crucial analytic and presentation services that enable lawyers and homeowners to confront the lies in illegal foreclosures.

Educate Yourself and Your Lawyer: Read this Blog and Purchase Books & Services from www.lendinglies.com

Watch Out for ” Freedom-Financial” — another enterprise that says they will get you out of debt when they make money by getting you deeper in debt.

You get an email soliciting you to call or submit information. If you don’t look at the return email address you might think it was coming from a licensed company. It even has a “Disclosure box” at the bottom name-dropping various banks and financial entities to make it look good.

First of all, this is probably a fishing expedition to steal your financial reputation and identity.

Second, even in cases where they provide “credit counseling” they might make money from such services (paid by the banks) but in all probability they are looking to originate a new loan that “consolidates your arrearages on other “loans” (whether they exist or not).

Third, they will lure you into asking for extra money and thus increasing your debt. This sometimes includes presenting you with a settlement statement that includes far more than they thought you owed including creditors you never heard of. If you sign the papers, here is what happens:

  1. The old creditors might or might not ever get paid. If you do not get proof that the company offering these “services” is authorized by a bona fide creditor (see below for definition) then the entire deal is irrelevant and you still owe the old creditor in addition to having issued paper that is at least enforceable on its face to the new “entity.”
  2. The new creditors you neer heard of will get some fee or might not get paid either. It could be the use of sham entities that get paid just for the purpose of creating multiple layers and fields of inquiry.
  3. The party offering you this deal will get paid an absurdly high fee for selling this financial product. Payment will be indirectly from an investment bank operating through more sham intermediaries. The investment bank will issue securities that are bets or hedges on the performance of the deal without ever selling the debt — just like mortgages.

BOTTOM LINE: Consumers are food. Government agencies charged with protecting consumers are not doing their job. They’re looking for low-hanging fruit so that can announce meaningless settlements, get promoted, and then join the people against whom they brought regulatory action. And we the people, are letting it happen either because we don’t take note until it affects us personally or because we have some “ideology” that causes us to invoke “no government” when it is about our behavior and “more government” when it provides an opportunity to exercise power over people we never meant. The answer is to focus on real issues that cost us trillions of dollars as taxpayers and to vote for people that pledge to look out for the consumer and then vote them out of office when they breach their promise.

It’s fraud when people do it but not when banks do it.

In a land supposedly subject to equal protection under the laws, the reality is far different. The use of fraudulent documents to defraud banks lands the perpetrator in prison and all his assets seized.

*

But when banks and their self-appointed servicers do it, they promise not to do it again, keep doing and then pay a fine equal to around 0.1% of their illegal windfall profits.

*******

Want that to stop? Go the next webinar!

*******

GTC Honors, Inc. presents Foreclosure Defense Webinar
Wednesday, September 29, 2021 at 3 PM EDT (2 hours)
*
“Examination and Challenge of Assignments of Mortgage”
*
Presenter Neil F Garfield, MBA JD
Florida BAR CLE Approved Webinar 2.5 credits
(Credits for Garfield Seminars are usually accepted by other states)
Homeowners may attend without CLE credit
*
Live and On-Demand

 

Tonight! Homeowners Take Warning! Foreclosures Are Coming to Your Door or Your Neighbor! 3PM PDT

Thursdays LIVE! Click into the WEST COAST Neil Garfield Show

with Charles Marshall and Bill Paatalo

Or call in at (347) 850-1260, 3pm Pacific Thursdays

Despite the unrelenting press releases often carried by print and digital media, foreclosures are spiking. Wall Street is in the midst of an all-hands-on-deck PR offensive to convince everyone there is no problem.

Homeowners, like in 2008, will be caught in the crossfire of well-organized illegal enterprises if they don’t get ready for action. Some are lulled into complacency by moratoriums (expired), forbearance (a cruel trick), or even modifications that contain unenforceable provisions to waive homeowner rights and the requirements of law. Those agreements are lures to get homeowners to agree to a virtual creditor instead of a real one, thus enhancing profits and doing nothing to reduce debt.

Bill Paatalo joins Host Charles Marshall to discuss the coming foreclosure tsunami, which looks to finally start landing in a big way in October or November. The major solution for homeowners and those whose houses have gone to sale, is to seek safe ground now or shortly, rather than waiting for the inevitable. In both judicial and non-judicial foreclosure states,  homeowners can retain foreclosure defense attorneys–defendant’s attorneys against judicial foreclosures in judicial foreclosure states, plaintiff’s attorneys in non judicial foreclosure states like California.

Today on the Show we will discuss strategies to deal with this latest situation, where the national foreclosure and eviction moratoriums expire in days. The key for homeowners and other impacted is to start early and play hard. Even as the prep period for early is going down quickly, getting an attorney in place, and a financial, forensic investigator like Bill Paatalo, is key to potentially winning the long war with the banks.

Bill will discuss in part an unlawful detainer case he is handling where per usual well crafted and imposed discovery is pinning the opposition down, in this case, Chase Bank.

Preview of Foreclosure Defense Course Materials for “Examination and Challenge of Assignments of Mortgage”

This is an overview (not a transcript or complete PowerPoint Presentation that will be presented at the 2 hour CLE WEBINAR scheduled for September 29, 2021 at 3 PM EDT

Register today for $100 early bird discount! Click here:

Examination and Challenge of Assignments of Mortgage

 

Webinar: Why Start with Assignments of Mortgage? Because that is where the fake transaction is made to appear real. Beat that and you beat the case against the homeowner

Register today for $100 early bird discount! Click here:

Examination and Challenge of Assignments of Mortgage

96% of all fake foreclosure claims are not challenged! Maybe it is time to start!

ASSIGNMENTS OF MORTGAGE ARE THE KEY AND SOMETIMES THE ONLY FAKE DOCUMENTS USED TO RECONSTITUTE THE VIRTUAL TRANSACTION INTO THE ILLUSION OF A REAL ONE FOR PURPOSES OF ENFORCEMENT OF THE NOTE AND MORTGAGE WITHOUT OWNERSHIP OF THE UNDERLYING OBLIGATION.

AND THERE SHOULD BE NO DOUBT THEY’RE FAKE — THE MAJOR PLAYERS ADMITTED AS MUCH WHEN THEY PROMISED IN SETTLEMENTS WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT NOT TO DO IT ANYMORE BUT CONTINUED ANYWAY.

Courts are not inclined to refuse the application of presumptions arising from “facially valid” documentation even though the sources are demonstrably not credible and are given to lying, deceit and misleading argument by lawyers who are protected by litigation immunity. So it is up to the defense lawyer to do as much as possible to perform the three tasks of every litigation defense attorney:
  1. Keep the evidence out
  2. Get the evidence out once admitted
  3. Knock down the evidence down in importance or credibility once it is admitted and efforts to remove it have failed. 

The CLE approved Webinar next Wednesday teaches lawyers how to perform all three functions with successful results and provides a proven business plan, under which some lawyers have become millionaires. Homeowners are also welcome to attend at a discount to teach them what lawyers do to defeat fake foreclosrue claims and to convince them not to try to do it themselves. 

When you go searching for information on your “loan” you will ordinarily be brought to a website that has a URL like http://www.SPSservicing.com and a dashboard that reports various things about your loan. But neither SPS nor you have any source data for making or accepting such reports. That is all done through a web of technology servers that perform a variety of tricks using companies that have the sole mission of coordinating between various computers without regard to who owns them, who maintains them, and whose data is being used. Through automated routines that spit out correspondence without any human being involved or signing. And they spit out fake notices and fake assignments of mortgage.

If  “mistake” is discovered or revealed, the players can claim plausible deniability because it was a machine that performed the task of fabricating the documents and that sent them for signature to yet another third party who neither knew nor had any authority to speak for any creditor who owned the underlying obligation, the legal debt, the note or the mortgage.

*

Just imagine if you could make any claim you wanted in court using machine-generated documents that were signed by machines using the names and signatures of people who you did not know and did not employ. You could claim anything if the court accepted the facial validity of such documents. And if the opposition was sufficiently ignorant to believe that they were in breach of some duty owed to you, in most cases, they would not even challenge your claim. 96% of all fake foreclosure claims are not challenged!

*
By looking at the source code on the apparent website of a company claiming to be a servicer you are immediately faced with the issue of facial validity. And you make assumptions that this”servicer” site is run by and based upon internal data and accounting by the supposed servicer arising out of receipts and disbursements by that company.
*
But when you dig, you will find hyperlinks to platforms outside of the alleged servicer. Investigation shows that the website of the company claiming to be a servicer is neither maintained or owned by that “servicer.”
*
I think homeowners should retain technology experts to race this behavior and show incontrovertible proof of misrepresentation and deceit.
*
I just reviewed another case involving these questions. It looks to me that the reference is contained in the source data and coding strongly suggests the presence of at least a third party — https://www.dynatrace.com/company/trust-center/customers/reports/ — and routines that literally pick out the images that will be used in the production of a report. Those images probably include the letterhead on which notices are sent or other correspondence is sent.
*
Dynatrace appears to be a company that monitors the inter-activity of multiple servers and coordinates reports. Based upon their website, it appears likely that the automated routines performed by this company result in the production of correspondence, notices and probably other documents without any human intervention (or authority). In response, the foreclosure players claim that Dynatrace works for SPS and that outsourcing is no crime. They’re right. But if the data constitutes a misrepresentation of SPS activities, then that is an entirely different matter — if SPS was not really involved in receipts and disbursements then their records of the payment history are worthless hearsay that can be barred from evidence. 
*
So what that means is that, as I have been saying for years, the company that is claiming to be the servicer is merely a figurehead and is not performing any functions that you would ordinarily associate with a true servicer. To get more specific, the company claiming to be the servicer neither receives nor disburses any money. As such, it maintains no records of any financial transaction with homeowners or with investors.
*
Steering you toward the claimed servicer is the material misrepresentation that interferes in your business relationship with whoever might be the creditor if there is one. My analysis indicates that this is part of a larger process in which
*
(1) the homeowner is lured into a transaction that appears to be a loan, but without a lender or even a loan account surviving the deal
*
(2) the transaction is treated by all concerned on the financial side as a virtual one in which there is no lender or debt, but there is a note and mortgage and
*
(3) through completely automated processes involving no human hands or approval, documents are fabricated for the sole purpose of creating the illusion of a reconstituted or actual debt with a designated and real creditor. ASSIGNMENT OF MORTGAGE ARE THE KEY AND SOMETIMES THE ONLY FAKE DOCUMENTS USED TO RECONSTITUTE THE VIRTUAL TRANSACTION INTO THE ILLUSION OF A REAL ONE FOR PURPOSES OF ENFORCEMENT OF THE NOTE AND MORTGAGE WITHOUT OWNERSHIP OF THE UNDERLYING OBLIGATION. AND THERE SHOULD BE NO DOUBT THEY’RE FAKE — THEY ADMITTED AS MUCH WHEN THEY PROMISED IN SETTLEMENTS WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT NOT TO DO IT ANYMORE BUT CONTINUED ANYWAY.

*
If you really want to win these cases then you better know what I am teaching in EXAMINATION AND CHALLENGE OF ASSIGNMENTS OF MORTGAGE. If you are just looking to delay the “inevitable”, you are contributed to the wealth of Wall Street and the illegal, immoral and unethical ruination of American consumers.
*
THE $100 EARLY BIRD DISCOUNT ENDS TODAY! LAWYERS EARN 2.5 CREDITS IN FLORIDA AND GENERALLY BETWEEN 2.0 AND 2.5 CREDITS IN MOST OTHER STATES. Click here to register! 

Holy Crap! This COURT OPINION (IN RE DAVIS) is everything I have been saying about rescission, procedure, pleading, proof, the burden of proof and the intent of the financial community to commit fraud upon homeowners and the courts.

SIGN UP FOR FORECLOSURE DEFENSE WEBINAR FOR LAWYERS (HOMEOWNERS ALLOWED)

“BOA also submitted satisfactions of mortgage listing the face amount of loans to the Debtor that were satisfied, but these documents do NOT demonstrate the balance owed or WHO satisfied them.” (e.s.)

And you can’t get much more recent than last Wednesday!

Lawyers purportedly representing Bank of America were arguing that the documents reciting the loan deal should be enforced as a virtual loan even if the actual loan was not present. Homeowners and their lawyers should take note that neither the “loan” nor the “transfer” of the loan is what it appears to be. As I have been saying since 2006, neither law nor common sense allows for enforcement of virtual claims. 

Kudos to Attorney Michael Faro of Faro and Crowder, P.A. in Melbourne, Florida. They understand how to litigate. It’s obvious from the case. 

Hat tip to Elle

Bankers! Read this and weep! (problems with uploading this decision. See In Re Davis, 2021 Bankr. Lexis 2518 (search term “Ocwen”)

*

IMPORTANT CAVEAT: THIS DECISION IS NOT FINAL AND NOT BINDING ON ANY OTHER JUDGE IN ANY OTHER COURT. BUT THE LEGAL ANALYSIS USED BY THE JUDGE TO ARRIVE AT HER DECISION GIVES HOMEOWNERS AND LAWYERS A TEMPLATE FOR ARGUMENT, PLEADINGS, AND PROCEDURE ON A WIDE VARIETY OF ISSUES.

This decision should be distributed to as many people as possible before it disappears. An examination of most transactions that are labeled as “refinancing” will reveal all of the same deficiencies as were revealed in this case. And while the banks will try to distinguish this case because it was in bankruptcy court, the answer is simple: the Judge was applying State and Federal Law as it was written. When that happens, the foreclosure mill loses and the homeowner wins.

And the court throws out the “free house” argument. The question is not the benefit the homeowner might receive by winning. the real question is whether the claimant has produced any evidence at all that they are the owner of a valid claim — without relying upon presumptions of fact arising from incomplete or fabricated documents.

The “free house” argument is rejected as being irrelevant — unless the foreclosure mill can produce proof of funding. But note that this is not a magic bullet. The homeowner must mount a serious and consistent challenge for the court to move in the same direction as this bankruptcy judge. This Judge is not saying that that foreclosure mills must produce evidence of payment for the underlying debt when it makes a claim. It is saying that if the debtor challenges the claim, then they must produce such evidence. 

Nearly all foreclosures are based upon a supposed refinancing or a disguised refinancing in the form of a modification or forbearance agreement. It is highly probable, that in many (if not most) cases in which the homeowner believed they were refinancing a loan,  the underlying investment banker did not fund and instead merely changed the paperwork. This case stands for the proposition that if the foreclosure mill cannot prove they funded the loan, then they have no loan to enforce — something I have used for years with considerable success on a case-by-case basis.

*
TILA Rescission revived: Apparently abandoning the political orthodoxy that has emerged from the bench, this Judge simply did her job — applying the law as it was written. Contrary to practically every other judge in the country, she has found that rescission under the Federal Truth in Lending Act is to be applied when the homeowner has taken the action required to trigger the changes in the relationship required by 15 US C 1635. But that is only one part of the decision. And, as I have said since 2007, as soon as the rescission is triggered, the mortgage and note are legally gone as if they never existed. Neither the homeowner nor any claimant can change that.
*
I note that the primary underlying theme of the judge’s opinion arises from the fact that Bank of America made no effort whatsoever to produce a witness or any document that established the funding of the loan. As with nearly all other cases, Bank of America was essentially asking the judge to enforce loan documents on a loan that might have occurred, and which they wanted the court to presume had occurred without any proof. This judge rejected that. Recognizing that the burden of proof starts with the claimant, shifts to the homeowner, and then shifts back, the Judge makes it clear that she wants no part of enforcing a loan that might have occurred — only loans that did occur.
*
The legal presumption that the loan DID occur arises from the filing of facially valid documents, even if the documents are false. That presumption completely disappears when the presumed facts are (1) challenged effectively and (2) the claimant fails to provide concrete proof of payment that establishes the existence of the transaction recited on the face of the documents.
*
This case is also a model for using the same procedure that banks use against homeowners. In this case, the lawyers stayed with the case and used their knowledge of how the burden of proof shifts to successfully argue that the burden shifted back to Bank of America to actually establish the existence of a funded loan rather than presume that it existed.
*
If the lawyers had failed to do that, Bank of America would have won regardless of whether or not they ever funded the loan. This is what drives homeowners crazy because of all the technical details. But that is why I keep saying that going cheap will get you nowhere. HIre competent counsel.
*
Litigators and litigants should take heart from this decision, and read it more than once to capture every word of the reasoning of the judge. There is nothing she got wrong. But it is also true that bankruptcy judges look more closely at the claims than state court judges in foreclosure actions. The discussion regarding the shifting of the burden of proof surrounding the filing or non-filing of a proof of claim in a bankruptcy action is particularly interesting and on point.
*
This case decision represents a threat to the entire illusory securitization infrastructure and reveals the vulnerable underbelly of the players acting in that space. I am quite certain they won’t let this decision remain on the books without casting as much doubt or covering it over with as much paper as possible.
*

I have no doubt that they will either be an appeal or they will resort to a confidential settlement of this case. Most likely there will be a settlement and the case will disappear, possibly with an order expunging or pleadings from the court record.

***
WARNING TO U.S. TRUSTEES IN BANKRUPTCY COURT: There is also a hidden warning to U.S Trustees in bankruptcy court. In hundreds of thousands of cases, they failed to require proof of payment for a creditor’s claim —despite clear evidence in the public domain that fake documents were being forged to pursue false foreclosure claims
*
That failure falsely reduced the assets of the debtor’s bankruptcy estate by the value of the home. In most cases, the reduction was below zero in terms of assets reported. But if the claim was unenforceable as to the lien then the claimants were simply unsecured creditors who could not force the sale of the home except as provided by state law governing judgments for debts.
*
And if the debt was not enforceable because nobody was present in the bankruptcy court showing that they had paid value, then the debt did not exist and would have been discharged completely without any credit or payment to other creditors. This would also mean that the bankruptcy petition would be subject to dismissal since assets would exceed liabilities.
*
Like foreclosure cases in general the courts (and in particular U.S. Trustees in bankruptcy) have missed significant opportunities to eliminate the need to process such claims. In most cases, the claims, when litigated as in this case, vanish because the claim was based on a bet that the presumption of facts recited on facially valid documents would be sufficient to carry the day without providing anything.
*
This is one more reason why attempts to require more from lawyers and so-called servicers have been ineffective. the question is simple: if you can provide proof of payment and an accounting ledger showing all debts and credits to a real loan account, you may proceed. If not, you are out of court. That is the way it was until securitization came along and that is what we need to return to so we are not litigating fictitious claims and ruin the lives of millions of Americans.
*
Securitization should not be used as a license to pursue false claims on nonexistent debt. If there has been no funding, there is no debt.
DID YOU LIKE THIS ARTICLE?

Nobody paid me to write this. I am self-funded, supported only by donations. My mission is to stop foreclosures and other collection efforts against homeowners and consumers without proof of loss. If you want to support this effort please click on this link and donate as much as you feel you can afford.
Please Donate to Support Neil Garfield’s Efforts to Stop Foreclosure Fraud.

CLICK TO DONATE

Click

Neil F Garfield, MBA, JD, 74, is a Florida licensed trial and appellate attorney since 1977. He has received multiple academic and achievement awards in business and law. He is a former investment banker, securities broker, securities analyst, and financial analyst.
*

FREE REVIEW: Don’t wait, Act NOW!

CLICK HERE FOR REGISTRATION FORM. It is free, with no obligation and we keep all information private. The information you provide is not used for any purpose except for providing services you order or request from us. In  the meanwhile you can order any of the following:
CLICK HERE ORDER ADMINISTRATIVE STRATEGY, ANALYSIS AND NARRATIVE. This could be all you need to preserve your objections and defenses to administration, collection or enforcement of your obligation. Suggestions for discovery demands are included.
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER TERA – not necessary if you order PDR PREMIUM.
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER CONSULT (not necessary if you order PDR)
*
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER PRELIMINARY DOCUMENT REVIEW (PDR) (PDR PLUS or BASIC includes 30 minute recorded CONSULT)
FORECLOSURE DEFENSE IS NOT SIMPLE. THERE IS NO GUARANTEE OF A FAVORABLE RESULT. THE FORECLOSURE MILLS WILL DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO WEAR YOU DOWN AND UNDERMINE YOUR CONFIDENCE. ALL EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT NO MEANINGFUL SETTLEMENT OCCURS UNTIL THE 11TH HOUR OF LITIGATION.
  • But challenging the “servicers” and other claimants before they seek enforcement can delay action by them for as much as 12 years or more.
  • Yes you DO need a lawyer.
  • If you wish to retain me as a legal consultant please write to me at neilfgarfield@hotmail.com.
Please visit www.lendinglies.com for more information.

Who gets a QWR or DVL and When?

LEARN HOW TO FIGHT WITH HONOR AND WIN!

After some reflection, legal research and analysis I have come to the conclusion that a very good way for homeowners to put tracks in the sand that they can use later with success is to use the following protocol — subject to the opinion of local counsel:

  1. Send QWR and DVL to “servicer” and nobody else. Under statutes, service to one is service to all anyway.
  2. In cases where the creditor is either asserted or implied to be a bank as trustee for a REMIC trust, send a second QWR and DVL to the trustee expressly demanding that they acknowledge that they are in fact the creditor who purchased the alleged underlying obligation and that they have a record of such purchase.
  3. After receiving an evasive answer, file an FDCPA suit against the trustee only alleging that it is renting its name to third parties who are using it to collect money on the fake premise that money is owed to them.
    1. As an alleged debtor, if there is a change in who is allowed to collect the debt, the debtor is entitled to receive direct notice from the old creditor that they are not the creditor anymore and that the new creditor has been identified. You never received that notice from the old creditor. You went the extra step of asking for it. You still didn’t get the answer.
    2. For transactions in which the homeowner is treated as current, you want to deposit the money into the court registry until they comply with the statute. ANd you want fees, costs and statutory damages.
  4. In judicial states, file a motion for summary judgment (not an affirmative defense) along with an affidavit that asserts that the bank trustee and the trust have failed to produce any proof of payment for the underlying obligation and an affidavit from the homeowner stating failure to receive notice of change of creditor and failure to receive notice of appointment of the servicer from the old creditor or the new creditor. An unsigned notice that comes from the servicer is not notice from the old creditor — by definition. It is a company proclaiming itself to be the servicer without identifying its authority to make that announcement.
  5. In all cases after a Notice of Default is issued, litigation should include declaratory and injunctive relief to declare the notice invalid and enjoin the would-be servicer from issuing such notices absent acknowledgment from an officer of the bank that serves as a trustee of the REMIC trust that the bank maintains a trust accounting ledger on which the debt from the homeowner is reported as an asset of the REMIC trust —- and in which the Trustee has appointed the “servicer” to act as servicer and that the servicer does, in fact, handle money receipts and disbursements of payments from homeowners such that the servicer is the actual recipient of such funds and is the actual disbursement agent of such funds.
  6. In nonjudicial cases, the same protocol would be appropriate in my opinion.

The object of this protocol is to undermine the premise that the proceeds of foreclosure sales go to creditors who are reducing an asset that they paid for and to offset the loss from failure to receive scheduled payments. You don’t have to believe it or understand it. Just use it!

PRACTICE HINT: Do not attempt to prove an allegation that the debt does not exist or that the parties seeking to enforce have no authority to do so. Limit the attack to the ability of the foreclosure mill to produce required proof of payment that is required when a debtor makes the challenge. Do nothing that puts the burden of proof on the homeowner. Make no allegation of fact except that you asked and failed to receive the notices you were supposed to get.

SIGN UP FOR FORECLOSURE DEFENSE WEBINAR FOR LAWYERS (HOMEOWNERS ALLOWED)

DID YOU LIKE THIS ARTICLE?

Nobody paid me to write this. I am self-funded, supported only by donations. My mission is to stop foreclosures and other collection efforts against homeowners and consumers without proof of loss. If you want to support this effort please click on this link and donate as much as you feel you can afford.
Please Donate to Support Neil Garfield’s Efforts to Stop Foreclosure Fraud.

CLICK TO DONATE

Click

Neil F Garfield, MBA, JD, 74, is a Florida licensed trial and appellate attorney since 1977. He has received multiple academic and achievement awards in business and law. He is a former investment banker, securities broker, securities analyst, and financial analyst.
*

FREE REVIEW: Don’t wait, Act NOW!

CLICK HERE FOR REGISTRATION FORM. It is free, with no obligation and we keep all information private. The information you provide is not used for any purpose except for providing services you order or request from us. In  the meanwhile you can order any of the following:
CLICK HERE ORDER ADMINISTRATIVE STRATEGY, ANALYSIS AND NARRATIVE. This could be all you need to preserve your objections and defenses to administration, collection or enforcement of your obligation. Suggestions for discovery demands are included.
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER TERA – not necessary if you order PDR PREMIUM.
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER CONSULT (not necessary if you order PDR)
*
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER PRELIMINARY DOCUMENT REVIEW (PDR) (PDR PLUS or BASIC includes 30 minute recorded CONSULT)
FORECLOSURE DEFENSE IS NOT SIMPLE. THERE IS NO GUARANTEE OF A FAVORABLE RESULT. THE FORECLOSURE MILLS WILL DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO WEAR YOU DOWN AND UNDERMINE YOUR CONFIDENCE. ALL EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT NO MEANINGFUL SETTLEMENT OCCURS UNTIL THE 11TH HOUR OF LITIGATION.
  • But challenging the “servicers” and other claimants before they seek enforcement can delay action by them for as much as 12 years or more.
  • Yes you DO need a lawyer.
  • If you wish to retain me as a legal consultant please write to me at neilfgarfield@hotmail.com.
Please visit www.lendinglies.com for more information.

Lawlessness in Courts Inspires Lawlessness on the Streets

A society without rules is not a society. As Americans we agree, at birth or naturalization, to follow the rules. And between the executive branch of government that enforces the rules and the judicial branch of government that applies the rules to decide controversies, we know we live in a country people and businesses will be governed by the rules.
*
*
If the country’s founding document states that the new nation shall be a democratic republic, then the people don’t make the rules. They elect the people who will make the rules.
*
The rules are applied even if one of us disagrees because if disagreement was allowed as an excuse for violating rules, there would be no rules in which we could repose trust and confidence. If we evolve into something where individual grievances, ideologies, and provocative circumstances are used as a basis for “considering” the enforcement of the rules, then we live in a nation of “men” and not a nation of laws. Yes it IS that simple.
*
Some rules are specifically designed to protect most of society. They are supposedly strictly applied, but experience says otherwise.
*
The First rules are contained within the national and state constitutions. And more rules are allowed to the legislative branch in statutes as long as they comply with the constitutions. That is our system. That is not an opinion. It is a simple fact.
*
Among them, there are the rules we follow as interpretations, but those interpretations are empowered by the founding document (constitution) as to the law — not the issue. As you will see in this article, the courts have wandered into a space where they have proclaimed themselves to be the arbiters of issues — and the law. And that explains why so many people distrust the government in general and are willing to vote for anyone promising to drain the swamp. The judiciary, I argue, is leading this erosion of public confidence.
*
In 2016, Justice Scalia penned the opinion of the highest court in the land and ruled that rescission under the Federal Truth in Lending Act was constitutional, removing all doubt that the statute was the law of the land — even if some people disagreed with it and even if the people who disagreed were “important people.” The unanimous opinion of the Supreme Court held that the statute was clear, explicit, and unambiguous.
*
That decision explicitly asserted that the statute applied to all instances in which a homeowner exercised their timely right of rescission — which means that all mortgage liens and notes were rendered void by operation of law and replaced with a statutory scheme and procedure for repayment of the “lender.” And that meant that all the foreclosures that preceded the Jesinoski decision were, as the homeowners, insisted, void because they were acting on the authority of two void documents that had been rendered void by operation of law, namely the note and mortgage.
*
Classically trained lawyers and most consumers assumed that the crisis would be over as the government was forced to restructure the recorded title records, most of which was based on fake documentation, and even if the documents had not been fake they would still have been void by virtue of the homeowner properly exercising his/her right of rescission.
*
There were two statutes of limitations that applied to the statute that contained the only enforcement mechanism in the ACT. One year for any monetary claim from the lender and 3 years for any other claim from the homeowner — like demanding the “lender” or “Successor” file the mandated satisfaction of mortgage required by the statute. If neither one did anything, neither one would ever collect anything despite direct explicit provisions for the “lender” to pay the homeowner and then the homeowner to pay the “lender” on the principal due.
*
The investment banks did nothing because in order to file a claim for repayment they would need to show things in evidence that they could not show. For one thing, they would need to establish the bona fides of whoever they were appointed to be “creditor” or “lender.” For another, they had to comply with conditions precedent (more on that later) before they could seek repayment of the “loan,” assuming it still existed.
*
If they did that, there was an entire superstructure of derivatives in multiple layers the sales of which had produced many times that amount of the “loan” in revenue. Canceling the transaction out of existence or admitting to the fact that it was canceled would probably result in millions of dollars in liability for each “loan” that was misrepresented as securitized.
*
So they tried the bully’s way out and it worked. the courts did not enforce the statute even though the Supreme Court said they had to do so.
*
Homeowners and their lawyers did not know what to file. Even though they knew they had rights, they were at a loss for figuring out a way to enforce them, and hundreds of thousands of illegal foreclosure sales ensued — this producing facially valid deeds that conveyed nonexistent title.
*
The track record of all courts including the Supreme Court in following their own precedent reveals an intent to subvert the most basic premise of our constitutions: the rule of law. If they don’t like it, the judges rebel and refuse to apply it even if they said they would.
*
When courts adopted an attitude of nearly uniform rejection of TILA rescission, they were applying the personal bias of judges in lieu of the obvious rule of law. SCOTUS, the same court that had removed all doubt as to the application of the law, reinforced this use of personal prejudice by rejecting all subsequent appeals from decisions in which trial and appellate courts refused to apply the Federal Statute and the final Jesinoski decision.
*
If we don’t have agreed procedures in settling disputes then we have no rule of law. We are left to the whim of individual judges and appellate panels. There is no dispute what this means: it means that the effort of the founders to apply uniform laws is being rejected at a whim. And this anti-doctrine is being led by the current Supreme Court of the United States. And I don’t see this development as anything less than anti-American by definition.
*
This trend toward imposing personal bias in politics in lieu of law is now on steroids, with the recent procedure employed by SCOTUS in allowing an absurd law whose effect is expressly intense to deprive citizens of rights that are well established. I speak not of the meat of the legal issue but of the procedure which is the most important thing in our Constitution which was based upon the articles of the Magna Carta signed by King John in 1215. That document, read aloud twice per year for centuries, is the foundation for all common law in the U.S. and U.K.
*
Instead of using due process requiring a hearing, argument, opportunity to allow Amicus briefs etc., the court simply decided, 5-4, that they would not enjoin a facially invalid law. The Texas law delegates law enforcement to citizens instead of the executive branch. Somehow they are arguing that this is not state action and that enforcement in Texas court is not state action. That too has already been previously decided by the Supreme Court in 1982. Such a delegation of power is unconstitutional and antithetical to our system of government.
*
This is different from the enforcement mechanism in TILA. All things in TILA rescission happen by operation of legislative law regardless of what the homeowner or the financial institutions want to happen. They can come to a new agreement but neither one can reverse a legal event that occurs by operation of law. That is not delegation. that is a right that acts as an enforcement mechanism to make sure that the “lenders” are lenders and that they have disclosed the realities of the transaction — something that hasn’t happened since the 1990s.
*
We have now a trend toward thinking of the provisions of the National and State Constitutions as mere guides that can be varied at will. It is reaching a dangerous culmination point. The system was designed to allow for change. If you don’t like a rule you can seek to amend it or even abolish it. But the system as drafted and accepted by anyone calling themselves a citizen of the United States, does not allow anyone, even a judge, to ignore the rules.
*
Thus we are seeing a strong tendency of a minority of the population to reject the rule of law (rather than oppose it). And because SCOTUS is at the center of it, there is no other solution the American citizen can turn to force compliance with the rule of law — except using political strength at the polls and the power of the majority to pass new laws that make SCOTUS more likely to act within the bounds of the rule of law — an iffy proposition.
*
The national constitution gave Congress the right to regulate interstate commerce. As to homeowner transactions with financial institutions, congress specifically identified what needed to be regulated and how it should be regulated. Thus in the 1960’s they passed the Truth in Lending Act requiring “lenders” to state with certainty who they were and how much money they were making on the deal. And Congress decided to allow regulation by empowering any individual homeowner to cancel the deal if the “lender” did not comply with the rules. Once the homeowner exercised this right, the mortgage lien was void and so was the note.
*
A new statutory scheme was put in place to assure compensation to the “lender,” although not in the way it had intended. Hundreds of thousands of homeowners exercised their rescission rights. By “operation of law” the mortgages and notes were void. And still, the courts proceeded to enter foreclosure judgments and allow foreclosure sales based upon void mortgages and void notes. And since then there have been many resales or refinancing of property that was acquired solely by force of law instead of the application of the law.
*
If the “lenders” wanted to contest the exercise of the rescission rights, they could have sued within the period of time in which compliance was required — i.e., filing the satisfaction for county records, returning the canceled note, and returning all money that had been paid thus far.
*
But the lenders did not do that. they decided instead to use their influence on governmental powers to avoid the rules and the TILA rescission statute. And unfortunately for all of us, they were right. They got the title by force of law even though it was an illegal act according to the Federal statute and the U.S. Constitution. A triumph of might over right.
*
TILA rescission was intended to prevent the very catastrophe that happened to American homeowners and which nearly destroyed the American economy and society — and which is still sucking the life out of the U.S. economy. It is the only enforcement mechanism of TILA. It is the law of the land, and yet it is not applied. And as a result, millions of people were forced out of their homes by actors looking for profit rather than the satisfaction of a loan account receivable. The shift in wealth caused by the whimsical decision to avoid the application of TILA rescission remains a huge drag on the American economy. Worse, it decreases confidence and trust in our institutions and in our laws.
*
Millions of homeowners lost their homes and lives and lifestyles as a result of the judicial attitude toward enforcement of the rules which the bench has largely determined to not apply if they would produce a result that the judge does not like. Acceptance of such behavior means that no title nor any law is established as the boundaries in our society in any situation unless a judge in that particular situation decides that he or she will apply it. Of course, that means the rule of “man” rather than the rule of law, which is merely a potential “guide” to use in deciding whether someone will lose the largest investment of their lives.
*
Looking at it from that perspective we can see that the current political attempts to reject legal conclusions created by legal process in elections is solidly based on the nonexistent right to reject laws when their application produces an uncomfortable result to the objector.  Looking at history we might have missed the main point — that this chaos in which the rule of law versus the rule of man is still a matter of debate — is not the source of judicial arrogance but rather the other way around. And it will continue until the courts start applying the law instead of inventing it.
*
Virtually all foreclosures would be forced into settlement without great costs to either the homeowner or the claimants if the courts insisted on applying another law that has been repeatedly declared as constitutional and in full effect — that contained in UCC 9-203 requiring the claimant to have paid value for the underlying obligation. The wink and nod judicial attitude allows for all sorts of presumptions to be applied based on the apparent transfer of the note — without one stick of evidence that the payment of value has ever actually occurred.
*
If the courts were to require that proof with the filing of the claim, the claims would vanish — but would still be subject to reformation and other remedies to arrive at a settlement — agreed or ordered. But the courts, terrified of the threat of Armageddon promised by investment banks, have arrested the natural development and evolution required to be undertaken as a result of the erratic application of theories of securitization.
*
BOTTOM LINE: ANYONE WHO THINKS THEY HAVE TITLE TO PROPERTY ACQUIRED FROM SOME FINANCIAL INSTITUTION OR INTERMEDIARY AFTER A NOTICE OF RESCISSION WAS MAILED (NOT NECESSARILY RECORDED) DOES NOT HAVE CLEAR TITLE IN MY OPINION AND IN THE OPINION OF EVERY TITLE EXPERT I HAVE EVER INTERVIEWED. OF COURSE, THE COURTS HAVE REJECTED CLAIMS TO  QUIET TITLE BECAUSE THE HOMEOWNERS DO NOT HAVE THE STANDING TO CHALLENGE ANYTHING ABOUT SECURITIZATION EVEN IF THE LOAN WAS NOT SECURITIZED.
*
BUT THERE IS NO STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ON TITLE. ONCE THE MORTGAGE LIEN WAS RENDERED VOID BY OPERATION OF LAW TITLE WAS VESTED IN FEE SIMPLE ABSOLUTE IN THE NAME OF THE HOMEOWNER AND STILL IS. THE COURTS CAN RULE WHATEVER THEY WANT — THEY HAVE SHOWN AN UNNERVING WILLINGNESS TO DO SO — BUT THOSE RULINGS DO NOT CHANGE THE LAW OR THE FACTS THAT UNDER OUR LAWS THE HOMEOWNER STILL HAS TITLE..

WEBINAR 9/29/21 3PM EDT : LEARN FORECLOSURE DEFENSE

APPROVED FOR 2.5 CLE CREDITS APPROVED BY THE FLORIDA BAR

HOMEOWNER ATTENDANCE PERMITTED

Live and On-Demand Available

EARLY BIRD DISCOUNT ENDS 9/22/21

INCLUDES EXTENSIVE COURSE MATERIALS

  • What to Look for in Examining an Assignment

  • How to Successfully Litigate the Issues

  • How lawyers can make money in this niche

APON and GTC Honors, Inc. an approved host provider for CLE (for lawyers) credits in Florida and 26 other states that allow reciprocal credits for licensed attorneys announce that they are producing a seminar presented by Neil F Garfield, MBA, JD , trial lawyer for nearly 45 years and investment banker for 50 years.

Only lawyers will be able to ask questions. It will be followed up with a conference call 2 weeks after the presentation. The presentation will be live on 9/29/21 at 3 PM EDT or on-demand.

Included in the curriculum will be business plan tips for lawyers entering what will be an exciting opportunity to win cases and profit. 

Examination and Challenge

of Assignments of Mortgage

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 2021

3PM EDT

2.5 CLE CREDITS

Click here to register

for Live Attendance or

On-Demand After Live Presentation is Completed

Curriculum:

  • The Coming Challenge to Lawyers: Another Foreclosure Tidal Wave
  • The Ethics of Foreclosure Defense and Foreclosure Advice.
  • Why Make the Challenge?
  • How to Examine the Assignment of Assets Like Mortgage Liens.
  • How to prevent evidence from coming in
  • How to get admitted evidence out
  • How to undermine the admitted evidence 
  • What to Look for in Examining an Assignment:
    • Timing
    • Complete names
    • Verified names
    • Direct signatures
    • Indirect/derivative signatures
    • Robosigning
    • Dates
    • MERS
    • Recital of consideration
    • Identified subject (asset) of transfer
    • Warranty of title to asset
    • Notices from creditor
    • Derivative notices from creditor
    • Notices from “servicer”
  • How to Successfully Litigate the Issues:
    • Admissions Against Interests
    • Motion to Dismiss
    • Discovery and Definitions
    • Motion for Summary Judgment
    • BUSINESS RECORD EXCEPTION TO HEARSAY RULE
    • Motion to Compel Discovery
    • Motion for Sanctions
    • Motion in Limine
    • Objections at Trial and Cross-examination
  • How lawyers can make money in this niche
  • Q&A for lawyers only
  • Follow up conference call 2 weeks later 

Virtually all foreclosures today are based on written recorded instruments purporting to transfer title to the mortgage lien from one legal person to another.

The questions for today are different from the questions that were present when the forms, rules and procedures were developed before present claims of securitization of debt.

Neil F Garfield, a Florida attorney and investment banker, presents the results of 16 years of research, analysis, trial appearances, expert witness presentations, and CLE presentations. In this modified course presentation, he focuses on the duties of lawyers who use or oppose assignments of mortgage, and the methods that can be used to perform expert analysis.

  • Sponsor: APON
  • Host/Provider: GTC Honors, Inc.
  • Course Number 2106918N
  • Provider # 1030277
  • 2.5 Credits for Continuing Legal Education
  • Level: Intermediate
  • Approval Period: 09/22/2021 – 03/31/2023
  • Presenter: Neil F Garfield
  • Florida Bar Number 229318

GTC Honors, Inc. the Florida approved course provider, is a Florida Corporation, Publisher of the Livinglies.me blog and thousands of articles, treatises and guides to successfully defend foreclosure cases in the era of self-serving declarations about the securitization of debt.

CLICK HERE TO REGISTER FOR APON SPONSORED WEBINAR: Assignments of Mortgage!

Challenging Mortgage Assignments: Webinar 9/29/21 3PM EDT NEIL GARFIELD PRESENTER

APPROVED FOR 2.5 CLE CREDITS APPROVED BY THE FLORIDA BAR

HOMEOWNER ATTENDANCE PERMITTED

Live and On-Demand Available

EARLY BIRD DISCOUNT ENDS 9/22/21

INCLUDES EXTENSIVE COURSE MATERIALS

  • What to Look for in Examining an Assignment

  • How to Successfully Litigate the Issues

  • How lawyers can make money in this niche

APON and GTC Honors, Inc. an approved host provider for CLE (for lawyers) credits in Florida and 26 other states that allow reciprocal credits for licensed attorneys announce that they are producing a seminar presented by Neil F Garfield, MBA, JD , trial lawyer for nearly 45 years and investment banker for 50 years.

Only lawyers will be able to ask questions. It will be followed up with a conference call 2 weeks after the presentation. The presentation will be live on 9/29/21 at 3 PM EDT or on-demand.

Included in the curriculum will be business plan tips for lawyers entering what will be an exciting opportunity to win cases and profit. 

Examination and Challenge

of Assignments of Mortgage

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 2021

3PM EDT

2.5 CLE CREDITS

Click here to register

for Live Attendance or

On-Demand After Live Presentation is Completed

Curriculum:

  • The Coming Challenge to Lawyers: Another Foreclosure Tidal Wave
  • The Ethics of Foreclosure Defense and Foreclosure Advice.
  • Why Make the Challenge?
  • How to Examine the Assignment of Assets Like Mortgage Liens.
  • How to prevent evidence from coming in
  • How to get admitted evidence out
  • How to undermine the admitted evidence 
  • What to Look for in Examining an Assignment:
    • Timing
    • Complete names
    • Verified names
    • Direct signatures
    • Indirect/derivative signatures
    • Robosigning
    • Dates
    • MERS
    • Recital of consideration
    • Identified subject (asset) of transfer
    • Warranty of title to asset
    • Notices from creditor
    • Derivative notices from creditor
    • Notices from “servicer”
  • How to Successfully Litigate the Issues:
    • Admissions Against Interests
    • Motion to Dismiss
    • Discovery and Definitions
    • Motion for Summary Judgment
    • BUSINESS RECORD EXCEPTION TO HEARSAY RULE
    • Motion to Compel Discovery
    • Motion for Sanctions
    • Motion in Limine
    • Objections at Trial and Cross-examination
  • How lawyers can make money in this niche
  • Q&A for lawyers only
  • Follow up conference call 2 weeks later 

Virtually all foreclosures today are based on written recorded instruments purporting to transfer title to the mortgage lien from one legal person to another.

The questions for today are different from the questions that were present when the forms, rules and procedures were developed before present claims of securitization of debt.

Neil F Garfield, a Florida attorney and investment banker, presents the results of 16 years of research, analysis, trial appearances, expert witness presentations, and CLE presentations. In this modified course presentation, he focuses on the duties of lawyers who use or oppose assignments of mortgage, and the methods that can be used to perform expert analysis.

  • Sponsor: APON
  • Host/Provider: GTC Honors, Inc.
  • Course Number 2106918N
  • Provider # 1030277
  • 2.5 Credits for Continuing Legal Education
  • Level: Intermediate
  • Approval Period: 09/22/2021 – 03/31/2023
  • Presenter: Neil F Garfield
  • Florida Bar Number 229318

GTC Honors, Inc. the Florida approved course provider, is a Florida Corporation, Publisher of the Livinglies.me blog and thousands of articles, treatises and guides to successfully defend foreclosure cases in the era of self-serving declarations about the securitization of debt.

CLICK HERE TO REGISTER FOR APON SPONSORED WEBINAR: Assignments of Mortgage!

Where is government when you need it?

In practice, the current foreclosure practices, which violate substantive, procedural, and evidentiary law at every turn represent a form of extortion upon the American homeowner. Government agencies continue to ignore the obvious and outright deceit and trickery involved in the sale of securities that do not sell loans, and the foreclosure of loans that no longer exist.

Why must consumers, with the least resources and the least access to relevant information, be required to litigate for months or years before the court acknowledges that the suit should never have been brought in the first instance? 

SIGN UP FOR FORECLOSURE DEFENSE WEBINAR FOR LAWYERS (HOMEOWNERS ALLOWED)

The law in all U.S. jurisdictions is that a condition precedent to filing any enforcement of any mortgage lien is that the claimant must be a creditor who has paid value for the underlying obligation. In virtually all of the thousands of cases in which homeowners have prevailed in court, it was because the claimant could not introduce credible evidence that this had occurred.

*
Why must consumers, with the least resources and the least access to relevant information, be required to litigate for months or years before the court acknowledges that the suit should never have been brought in the first instance?
*
The government is tasked with the distribution of accurate information. It has previously entered into settlements with companies who admitted to using fake documents and who promised to stop using fake documents. The accurate information is that these companies have been using fake documents with forged signatures for two decades and that those documents are not entitled to legal evidentiary presumptions. Such an announcement of policy from government agencies would end most foreclosures and force the parties into a settlement.
*
If claimants have not paid value for the alleged underlying obligation then their receipt of foreclosure proceeds is a windfall — possibly subject to other contractual obligations and possibly not. Most investigations post-sale revealed that the claimant never received any part of the sales proceeds from foreclosure sales.
*
In the mythology propagated by Wall Street banks, the bending and breaking of the laws that are explicit and express (UCC 9-203 and Federal TILA Rescission) is excused under the erroneous assumption that someone who paid value for the debt will get paid through foreclosure. Nobody has ever presented evidence to that effect.
*
The current policy unfairly delegates the burden of challenging illegal behavior entirely to homeowners who lack the resources and knowledge to do so and who are presently coerced into giving up the largest investment of their lives and their lifestyle to players who enjoy outsize profits in the process of foreclosure.
*
In practice, the current foreclosure practices, which violate substantive, procedural, and evidentiary law at every turn represent a form of extortion upon the American homeowner. Government agencies continue to ignore the obvious and outright deceit and trickery involved in the sale of securities that do not sell loans, and the foreclosure of loans that no longer exist.

EARLY BIRD DISCOUNT ON WEBINAR ENDS 9/22/21

APPROVED FOR 2.5 CLE CREDITS APPROVED BY THE FLORIDA BAR

HOMEOWNER ATTENDANCE PERMITTED

Live and On-Demand Available

EARLY BIRD DISCOUNT ENDS 9/22/21

  • What to Look for in Examining an Assignment

  • How to Successfully Litigate the Issues

  • How lawyers can make money in this niche

APON and GTC Honors, Inc. an approved host provider for CLE (for lawyers) credits in Florida and 26 other states that allow reciprocal credits for licensed attorneys announce that they are producing a seminar presented by Neil F Garfield, MBA, JD , trial lawyer for nearly 45 years and investment banker for 50 years.

Only lawyers will be able to ask questions. It will be followed up with a conference call 2 weeks after the presentation. The presentation will be live on 9/29/21 at 3 PM EDT or on-demand.

Included in the curriculum will be business plan tips for lawyers entering what will be an exciting opportunity to win cases and profit. 

Examination and Challenge

of Assignments of Mortgage

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 2021

3PM EDT

2.5 CLE CREDITS

Click here to register

for Live Attendance or

On-Demand After Live Presentation is Completed

Curriculum:

  • The Coming Challenge to Lawyers: Another Foreclosure Tidal Wave
  • The Ethics of Foreclosure Defense and Foreclosure Advice.
  • Why Make the Challenge?
  • How to Examine the Assignment of Assets Like Mortgage Liens.
  • How to prevent evidence from coming in
  • How to get admitted evidence out
  • How to undermine the admitted evidence 
  • What to Look for in Examining an Assignment:
    • Timing
    • Complete names
    • Verified names
    • Direct signatures
    • Indirect/derivative signatures
    • Robosigning
    • Dates
    • MERS
    • Recital of consideration
    • Identified subject (asset) of transfer
    • Warranty of title to asset
    • Notices from creditor
    • Derivative notices from creditor
    • Notices from “servicer”
  • How to Successfully Litigate the Issues:
    • Admissions Against Interests
    • Motion to Dismiss
    • Discovery and Definitions
    • Motion for Summary Judgment
    • BUSINESS RECORD EXCEPTION TO HEARSAY RULE
    • Motion to Compel Discovery
    • Motion for Sanctions
    • Motion in Limine
    • Objections at Trial and Cross-examination
  • How lawyers can make money in this niche
  • Q&A for lawyers only
  • Follow up conference call 2 weeks later 

Virtually all foreclosures today are based on written recorded instruments purporting to transfer title to the mortgage lien from one legal person to another.

The questions for today are different from the questions that were present when the forms, rules and procedures were developed before present claims of securitization of debt.

Neil F Garfield, a Florida attorney and investment banker, presents the results of 16 years of research, analysis, trial appearances, expert witness presentations, and CLE presentations. In this modified course presentation, he focuses on the duties of lawyers who use or oppose assignments of mortgage, and the methods that can be used to perform expert analysis.

  • Sponsor: APON
  • Host/Provider: GTC Honors, Inc.
  • Course Number 2106918N
  • Provider # 1030277
  • 2.5 Credits for Continuing Legal Education
  • Level: Intermediate
  • Approval Period: 09/22/2021 – 03/31/2023
  • Presenter: Neil F Garfield
  • Florida Bar Number 229318

GTC Honors, Inc. the Florida approved course provider, is a Florida Corporation, Publisher of the Livinglies.me blog and thousands of articles, treatises and guides to successfully defend foreclosure cases in the era of self-serving declarations about the securitization of debt.

CLICK HERE TO REGISTER FOR APON SPONSORED WEBINAR: Assignments of Mortgage!

Tonight! How a CPA could upend the case against the homeowner! 6PM EDT 3PM PDT

This might be the closest thing to a magic bullet!

Thursdays LIVE! Click into the Neil Garfield Show

Tonight’s Show Hosted by Neil Garfield, Esq.

Call in at (347) 850-1260, 6pm Eastern Thursdays

The typical case against the homeowner involves the participation of a company claiming to be the servicer. While the company might perform certain functions of the statutory definitions in the regulation of “servicers,” it is actually rare that it is the recipient of money paid by homeowners and even more rare that it is the disburser of payments to “creditors.”

But even if the payment history produced by a representative of the servicer is authentic, it might be barred or struck from evidence, based upon the expert opinion of a certified public accountant.

The opinion of the CPA would simply be that it is impossible to determine the balance of the loan account from the payment history.

Without looking at the accounting ledger of the creditor, the payment history is merely a recitation of activity during the time that the alleged loan was serviced.

The balance of the alleged loan account as claimed by the company claiming to be the servicer is only an estimate. And typically there is no representative of the company claiming to be a servicer that can say that they have seen the accounting ledger of the creditor — or even that they know who the creditor is.

PRACTICE HINT: If the payment history is attached to any filing with the court, including the initial complaint in judicial states, then a motion to strike might be a proper response. As with all motions remember to get a hearing and a court reporter. And file a memorandum.

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

Here is a plug for my new webinar coming up on Wednesday, September 29 at 3PM EDT and Noon PDT. You can attend the live presentation or ordering the on demand version.

Examination and Challenge of Assignments of Mortgage

It is called Examination and Challenge of Assignments of Mortgage. This is an opportunity for lawyers to earn CLE credits that have already been approved (Florida lawyers 2.5 credits) and homeowners to gain knowledge of the real issues facing lawyers and what knowledge and skills are required to actually win these cases. Lawyers from other states will probably be approved for 2.0-2.5 credits.
CLICK HERE TO look for more information about the webinar, the curriculum and how to sign up.

 

Bill Paatalo Explains His Findings in Common “Rent-A-Charter” Scheme Employed by Banks

LEARN HOW TO FIGHT WITH HONOR AND WIN!

Anyone who has participated in or investigated Organized Crime knows that the key ingredient for success of the enterprise is paying people to take the heat if the situation gets sticky. You just need to pay them enough to do your bidding.

Investment Banks have institutionalized this concept with their use of an illegal “Rent-A-Charter” scheme. It’s entirely illegal but it works because it looks legal (facially valid).

Bill Paatalo has been investigating this phenomenon for many years particularly as it is used in (a) securitization schemes and (b) foreclosure schemes (please notice the separation — they are NOT the same).

See New Residential Investment Corp Explains Why Trusts Are Utilized; To Evade State Laws | BP Investigative Agency

  • No evidence in, no judgment out. (Homeowner wins).

Let’s take a few easy examples:

  • If you wanted to practice law, you might find an unscrupulous lawyer willing to take cash in exchange for you pretending to be him or have his license to practice law.
  • If you wanted to do brain surgery because last night you slept at a Holiday Inn Express, you could find an unscrupulous doctor willing to take cash in exchange for you pretending to be him or have his license to practice medicine.
  • If you wanted to go into law enforcement, you might find a police officer who is willing to take money in exchange for staying at home while you wore his uniform and acted under his name, making arrests and even testifying in court against the defendant. That’s because if you look like a police officer, walk like a police officer and sound like a police officer everyone will think you are a police officer, even though you are not and your testimony is worthless. But if nobody thinks to ask the question, there is never an answer and everything becomes legally final.

In each of those cases, it is highly probable that eventually there will be a great revelation in which it is discovered that you have no right to be doing anything — and that the person who had rented you their charter to act under the authority of the state, would lose their license to do anything and probably be blocked from ever getting any kind of license ever again. They might also go to jail.

For more than two decades the investment banks have used this scheme and they have achieved considerable success in both securitization sales to investors and foreclosures conducted under the false flag of securitization of debt. Here is a list of the examples of Rent-A-Charter currently in use:

  • Mortgage brokers
  • Trustees under deeds of trust
  • Servicers
  • Trustees under the false flag of a REMIC trust
  • Lawyers
  • Witnesses
  • Technology companies

In each case, these entities perform some of the functions that are attributed to them but not the key functions that are customarily associated with their title. In each case, the investment banks are hidden far in the background even though they are in complete control over all functions of all players.

PRACTICE HINT: If their lips are moving they are lying from the start. “I represent U.S. Bank” is a false statement, but you won’t get there unless you dig deep in discovery and cross-examination.

  • Opposition to motions for attorney fees might reveal the absence of a retainer agreement between the lawyer and U.S. Bank.
  • Timely and proper discovery demands will no doubt reveal that the servicer neither collects nor disburses any money and takes its instructions not from U.S. Bank but from some investment bank — who in turn merely pay the servicer for use of their name on notices and correspondence.
  • The ABSENCE of any response is sufficient to get an order to compel, then an order for monetary sanctions and finally an order for evidentiary sanctions. Game over. No evidence in, no judgment out. (Homeowner wins).

SIGN UP FOR FORECLOSURE DEFENSE WEBINAR FOR LAWYERS (HOMEOWNERS ALLOWED)

DID YOU LIKE THIS ARTICLE?

Nobody paid me to write this. I am self-funded, supported only by donations. My mission is to stop foreclosures and other collection efforts against homeowners and consumers without proof of loss. If you want to support this effort please click on this link and donate as much as you feel you can afford.
Please Donate to Support Neil Garfield’s Efforts to Stop Foreclosure Fraud.

CLICK TO DONATE

Click

Neil F Garfield, MBA, JD, 74, is a Florida licensed trial and appellate attorney since 1977. He has received multiple academic and achievement awards in business and law. He is a former investment banker, securities broker, securities analyst, and financial analyst.
*

FREE REVIEW: Don’t wait, Act NOW!

CLICK HERE FOR REGISTRATION FORM. It is free, with no obligation and we keep all information private. The information you provide is not used for any purpose except for providing services you order or request from us. In  the meanwhile you can order any of the following:
CLICK HERE ORDER ADMINISTRATIVE STRATEGY, ANALYSIS AND NARRATIVE. This could be all you need to preserve your objections and defenses to administration, collection or enforcement of your obligation. Suggestions for discovery demands are included.
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER TERA – not necessary if you order PDR PREMIUM.
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER CONSULT (not necessary if you order PDR)
*
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER PRELIMINARY DOCUMENT REVIEW (PDR) (PDR PLUS or BASIC includes 30 minute recorded CONSULT)
FORECLOSURE DEFENSE IS NOT SIMPLE. THERE IS NO GUARANTEE OF A FAVORABLE RESULT. THE FORECLOSURE MILLS WILL DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO WEAR YOU DOWN AND UNDERMINE YOUR CONFIDENCE. ALL EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT NO MEANINGFUL SETTLEMENT OCCURS UNTIL THE 11TH HOUR OF LITIGATION.
  • But challenging the “servicers” and other claimants before they seek enforcement can delay action by them for as much as 12 years or more.
  • Yes you DO need a lawyer.
  • If you wish to retain me as a legal consultant please write to me at neilfgarfield@hotmail.com.
Please visit www.lendinglies.com for more information.

The “argument” over evidence

LEARN HOW TO FIGHT WITH HONOR AND WIN!

The argument between well intentioned people over “evidence” stems mostly from an erroneous understanding of the legal definition of the word “evidence.” Evidence is not simply information. Evidence is any document, exhibit or testimony that is admitted by a judge into the court record as being probative of the truth of a fact that is asserted or implied.

When you dig up some fact or inconsistency that is information. It doesn’t become evidence unless you can successfully argue to the judge that it should be admitted into evidence as the truth of a fact you are asserting.

But once you have done that you have assumed the resposibility of disproving the facts that are alleged against the homeowner — a futile task since the homeowner will never get access to the information that only investment banks possess.

*
*
To be clear, evidence means information that the court rules is acceptable to weigh as a foundation to awarding judgment to a party in the litigation. It is not just information. It is information that is accepted by the court basically because it has some credibility and it does point to the truth of some fact that is asserted or implied.
*
Most foreclosure mills present evidence that ought to be excluded from the evidence accepted into the court record. But nearly all such evidence is admitted because the rules state that unless you make a proper and timely objection, the testimony, affidavit, declaration, or document is allowed and with that, everything contained therein is presumed to be evidence of the truth of the fact asserted.
*
That’s why we have all learned lessons from submitting factual reports and expert conclusions. Mostly such reports are not admitted into evidence and opinions of people who lack impressive credentials are not even considered. But even with credentials, opinions are mostly discarded in foreclosure litigation — unless they are presented by an extremely strong witness who can point to specific facts that are not and cannot be disputed — and I remind everyone that a fact includes the absence of something that ordinarily should be there.
*
Foreclosure defense does not mean proving an alternative theory of fact. Any such effort is entirely futile and will always fail. Foreclosure defense means preventing or undermining the foreclosure mill from getting their documents and testimony into evidence and failing that, getting those documents and testimony out of evidence, and failing that, undermining the credibility of the evidence admitted against the homeowner.
*

If you simply look at how the banks are doing it is painfully obvious that evidence is not what determines the outcome in foreclosure litigation. Nobody from a REMIC trustee comes to court, the robowitness does not have accounting records or ledgers from the REMIC trustee, and the list goes on. The banks have no hard evidence of compliance with the law. They have fabricated documents to make it appear that they have complied. And that appearance of compliance is all that is necessary to win absent an effective challenge from the homeowner.

*
The homeowners that win do so mostly because they successfully prevented evidence from being admitted. And even if it was admitted into evidence they got it back out of evidence. Many other homeowners win even after they failed to convince a judge to exclude the evidence, by simply undermining the credibility of the evidence.
*
Undermining the credibility does not mean proving an alternative narrative.
*
Knowing the alternative narrative allows the lawyer to argue the points raised more effectively because he or she must answer somewhat nonsensical questions like “if the debt is not owed to U.S. Bank, then who is it owed to?”
*
The correct answer is
*
“Your honor, we are defending the claims of this claimant not just any possible claimant. Your Honor, we do not admit the existence or enforceability of this alleged debt, especially as to this claimant. It is this claimant’s job to prove their entitlement to receive the proceeds of a foreclosure sale because that is the only assurance the court can get that the proceeds from the foreclosure sale will be applied to reduce the alleged debt if it exists. Asking us to explain the complexity of whatever was done here is an unfair burden. Most precedent bars homeowners from even making such an inquiry. The law requires that before foreclosure can be initiated the claimant at bar has paid value for the ownership of the underlying obligation to a party who legally owned the debt, note and mortgage. If it has paid the debt is theirs. If it hasn’t, the debt either doesn’t exist or belongs to someone else.”
*
Knowing is extremely important to having confidence in your arguments. And those who dig up such information are performing valuable service in providing context and foundation for the defense attack. Winning, however, depends upon outmaneuvering the foreclosure mill — something that leaves facts and evidence in the dust. It can be done and it is done every day.
*
Cooperation and coordination between people with extensive experience in court procedure, investigation and analysis is extremely helpful as I have demonstrated with my associations with Charles Marshall, William Paatalo, Daniel Edstrom, Patrick Giunta, and others. But for such cooperation to work, there needs to be a common mission: winning the case for the homeowner. People with well-intentioned agendas that diverge from applying common sense trial strategy and tactics, unfortunately, undermine the effort without any intention of doing so.
*
Nonetheless, I am always open to new ideas, new people, and new work. When I encounter such work I publish it with attribution to the source.
*
DID YOU LIKE THIS ARTICLE?

Nobody paid me to write this. I am self-funded, supported only by donations. My mission is to stop foreclosures and other collection efforts against homeowners and consumers without proof of loss. If you want to support this effort please click on this link and donate as much as you feel you can afford.
Please Donate to Support Neil Garfield’s Efforts to Stop Foreclosure Fraud.

CLICK TO DONATE

Click

Neil F Garfield, MBA, JD, 74, is a Florida licensed trial and appellate attorney since 1977. He has received multiple academic and achievement awards in business and law. He is a former investment banker, securities broker, securities analyst, and financial analyst.
*

FREE REVIEW: Don’t wait, Act NOW!

CLICK HERE FOR REGISTRATION FORM. It is free, with no obligation and we keep all information private. The information you provide is not used for any purpose except for providing services you order or request from us. In  the meanwhile you can order any of the following:
CLICK HERE ORDER ADMINISTRATIVE STRATEGY, ANALYSIS AND NARRATIVE. This could be all you need to preserve your objections and defenses to administration, collection or enforcement of your obligation. Suggestions for discovery demands are included.
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER TERA – not necessary if you order PDR PREMIUM.
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER CONSULT (not necessary if you order PDR)
*
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER PRELIMINARY DOCUMENT REVIEW (PDR) (PDR PLUS or BASIC includes 30 minute recorded CONSULT)
FORECLOSURE DEFENSE IS NOT SIMPLE. THERE IS NO GUARANTEE OF A FAVORABLE RESULT. THE FORECLOSURE MILLS WILL DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO WEAR YOU DOWN AND UNDERMINE YOUR CONFIDENCE. ALL EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT NO MEANINGFUL SETTLEMENT OCCURS UNTIL THE 11TH HOUR OF LITIGATION.
  • But challenging the “servicers” and other claimants before they seek enforcement can delay action by them for as much as 12 years or more.
  • Yes you DO need a lawyer.
  • If you wish to retain me as a legal consultant please write to me at neilfgarfield@hotmail.com.
Please visit www.lendinglies.com for more information.

Long Island Man Pleads Guilty to Mortgage Fraud Scheme

LEARN HOW TO FIGHT WITH HONOR AND WIN!

Stop assuming there was any loan account receivable to pay off.

see https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/pr/long-island-man-pleads-guilty-mortgage-fraud-scheme

Dear SDNY: You probably got the wrong guy. He can’t be guilty of stealing anything if there was no victim. You portray the victims as homeowners. They indeed were victims but not the victims of this defendant. They were the victims of fraudulent foreclosures on behalf of entities that had no right, title, or interest in the underlying debt and who therefore could claim no injury from non-payment.

He was getting paid too much and he should have disclosed that and he might be liable for doing that. But it wasn’t theft. He was only using the same business model as is currently in use by the banks. They create illusions, sell securities and generate revenues far in excess of any transaction with any homeowner. But they neither give credit to the homeowner, without whom the scheme could not work, nor any disclosure that would enable a homeowner to bargain for different terms.

Such prosecutions merely enhance the viability of these fraudulent schemes at the macro level — a level that you should investigate much more closely. it isn’t hard. See 9-203 UCC adopted by New York State legislature verbatim. Stop assuming there was any loan account receivable to pay off.

 

CLE CONTEST RESULTS: 2 WINNERS ONE PRIZE! KELLY E (AGAIN) AND FSF

For review, here were the questions:

#2 CHALLENGE: Free Attendance at 9/29/21 CLE Lawyers Webinar to the First Lawyer or Homeowner Who Correctly Answers the Question

QUESTIONS:

  1. How many different entities named in the assignment could claim ownership of the mortgage lien?
  2. Which one has the highest likelihood of establishing the right to foreclose?
  3. In a foreclosure, which of the entities named in the assignment, if any, will likely receive the cash proceeds from the final liquidation (sale to third party) of the foreclosed property?

All 3 must be answered. Essay answers will not be accepted.

FSF posted the following:

1 none , because the trust agreement says so

2 none
3 none , it becomes revenue for the servicer

This wasn’t the answer I was looking for but on reflection it was correct. No entity COULD make a claim if there was a document in existence that said they could not and which governed the actions of the referenced entities.

The trust agreement in REMIC trusts states explicitly that the named  Trustee gets nothing except temporary bare naked title without any rights as to any payment, underlying obligation, debt, note or mortgage. All claims of entitled or authority derived from the presumed ownership of a “loan” are therefore without foundation and could not be made, except in the procedural sense anyone can claim anything until challenged.

So the answer from FSF is better actually than mine or Kelly E (see below)

FSF will get a free pass to the seminar on 9/29/21 at 3 PM EDT. Upon request, FSF may pick a licensed practicing attorney to attend also for no admission fee. The attending attorney will receive 2.5 credits in Florida and probably 2.0-2.5 in any of 26 other states that previously approved my presentation for CLE credit.

Kelly E also posted a correct result:

1) 4 possible names, perhaps more if you dissect the trust and trustee name further than I already did in my mind, which they like to do.
2) I don’t believe any would have the right to foreclose.
3) None. It will go to pay self-proclaimed servicer(s), attorneys, etc.
Kelly gave the answer I had in mind. If you look at the referenced entities they ar provide a list of entities that might or could make claim (based on the face of the instrument:
  • U.S. Bank N.A.
  • CWABS, Inc.
  • CWABS Inc. Trust
  • Holders of certificates, even though both the holders and the certificates are unidentified.

So the answer to my question as I meant it is 4. But FSF got it right because of the way I wrote it. I asked the question using the word “Could.”

Neither FSF nor Kelly got the answer to the second question entirely correct although they both have the right idea. The one with the highest likelihood of “establishing” the right to foreclose, given the current climate, is U.S. Bank even though it a claim without foundation or merit. But they are both right because the claim is false.

Both FSF and Kelly E hit the answer to the third question dead on right. It was a trick question. Both of them recognized it. The proceeds of foreclosure based on a claim derived from an asserted or implied securitization of an alleged debt goes only to the bookrunner investment bank who pays the servicer (and others) for their good work in obtaining the money. The question was which entity named in the assignment will get the money? The answer is NONE.

Deuteronomy: Securitization for those who read scripture

It seems like from the beginning of time most people understood that there was something intrinsically wrong with borrowing and lending, especially if it extended for more than seven years. There is complete agreement on that in both the Old Testament and the New Testament.
*
 It is obvious that writers from thousands of years ago were concerned about the enslavement of people through the use of debt. The point was to give help or lend help without expecting anything in return — except in transitions with “foreigners.” Whether you believe the bible was a transcription from God or was just written by humans, the result is the same.
*
Any current casual surfing of consumer offerings on the internet will reveal almost 100% of such offerings are based on either direct offers and encouragement to borrow money or indirect offers of “payments” (as though they bear no relation to price).
*
The result is both obvious and inevitable. Each increment of new payment seems affordable until collectively they exceed the ability to pay them all. This in turn requires consolidation loans, mortgage loans, and even outrageous terms on payday loans, fast cash, or loan sharks, most of which we have made at least partially legal. Thus we have loans on top of loans on top of more loans.
*
This structure did not exist until the 1970’s credit crunch where the prime rate jumped to over 20%. Banks and credit card companies jumped at the chance to relax restrictions on usury — interest rates that were deemed too high to be conscionable.
*
The argument was that credit cards would become extinct if the issuers had to pay three times the interest rate that they could charge. It should be noted that America’s addiction to debt was emerging alongside of opioids and other similar addictions. So the argument was further enhanced by the argument that the destruction of the credit card business would reduce consumer purchases and thereby depress the national economy.
*
It seemed to make sense at the time and so legislatures across the country either changed their usury laws or virtually eliminated them. This opened the door for practically anyone to lend money at rates that were, for thousands of years, deemed poisonous to any orderly society.
*
When prime rates fell back to normal, the credit card rates remained at levels that would have previously placed the issuers in prison in many jurisdictions. By opposing a return to the old legislation, the banks and credit card issuers solidified their place in the national economy. It was a place where consumers were encouraged or even driven to take on ever-increasing amounts of debt — and where the sole hope of most “borrowers” was the ability to get more debt later to pay the old debt.
*
This influx of debt was not matched by increasing wages such that eventual repayment could be the reasonable goal of a “lender.” Quite the contrary, the availability of cash on credit essentially replaced the demand for higher wages, which then remained stagnant for more than 4 decades.
*
The economy thus became a virtual economy in which debt replaced the ordinary flow of income and expenses. And that is what emboldened the major Wall Street players to launch a scheme that had been imagined in the early 1970’s: the entry of Wall Street securities as a replacement for actually funding loans. Sounds like a contradiction in terms? That is exactly what appealed to those who first proposed the scheme in 1971.
*
Successful Wall Street players learned centuries ago that the more complex the offering the more the buyer will rely on the seller to tell the buyer what the investment is about. What they were imagining back then was something that was all smoke and mirrors and so complex that it could never completely succumb to management or accounting since there was no real activity other than collecting money from investors and paying money to some homeowners (the rest of the homeowners would merely get some settlement statement indicating that payment had been made).
*
By separating the loan account from reality, many layers of securities could be sold that paid off any initial funding and provided intoxicating profits to investment banks who retained control without risking anything — as long as they were at the top of the scheme. Keep in mind that any alleged payoff to a prior “lender” that was in fact standing in for the same base investment bank required no cash at all. But each such set of new paperwork gave rise to a whole new round of selling multiple layers of securities based on reports of the new virtual transaction.
*
By secretly retiring the loan account, it was no longer necessary to pay it off. So each new round of debt to pay off the old round of debt was pure profit. This led some mid-range well-known brands on Wall Street to go extremes in leverage. Bear Stearns was leveraged 42 times before its collapse and eventual absorption into Chase who then claimed to own all “loans” ever originated by feeders for Bear Stearns. It was the ultimate in free money. Washington Mutual presented an even larger opportunity.  Rinse, repeat and so on. Most takeover deals produced the same or better results. OneWest claimed ownership of billions in nonexistent loan accounts and received 80% of claimed nonexistent losses.
*
All that was needed was a credible myth that would cast any opposition to this scheme as seeking a “free house.” It was as old a political ploy as any that ever existed. Anyone seeking something for nothing should be punished, not rewarded.  And whoever was shouting that the loudest was clearly not the one looking for something for nothing. Except that is exactly what has been happening for more than 2 decades.
*
The desired PR event happened when the news networks all carried a short segment from the floor of the stock exchange in which a trader (Rick Santelli) passionately said he wasn’t going to support a free house for homeowners. Whether he believed what he was saying or not, it worked. Now he has receded into history. But his coining of the phrase “free house” lives on in the hearts and minds of virtually everyone including homeowners and investors.
*
Someone else from the world of finance had a different view that for a short while propelled him onto TV stardom. (Dylan Ratigan). But like all critics of public policy that starts with “how do we give more money to banks” he was squashed. Ratigan
*
AND keep in mind that Santelli was a ground-level trader with very little expertise in finance — i.e., he knew nothing about the derivatives he was trading, what they were doing or how they were being used. He only knew he was making money trading securities based on the latest customer instructions or hot tips. This wasn’t Warren  Buffet. But Wall Street got all worried that if the truth came out they would not be trading anything and would earn no commissions. That is how our national dialogue was shaped.
*
That dialogue morphed into a threat of financial armageddon issued by the same people that brought us the 2008 crisis. By pretending that the lending markets were not made by them and controlled by them, the banks created the illusion that the market was somehow independent.
*
And they said that with the freeze on investors buying junk “REMIC” certificates, there was no market. And with no market, there could be no lending. And with no lending, the entire economy would crash. This was unadulterated hogwash but people bought the argument that the 2008 crisis was somehow the fault of homeowners — as if tens of millions of Americans woke up one morning and said “let’s defraud Wall Street.”*
*
Hence virtually all consumers are now seen as prospective borrowers. And this remains true even though they are not given loans. Nonetheless, because the transaction resembles a loan, everyone thinks it should be enforceable as a loan even if there is nobody who can claim injury from nonpayment — contrary to the most basic rules contained in the U.S. Constitution and the constitutions of most states.
*
It is therefore easy to see and understand why Wall Street began looking for ways in which it could manifest such deals — especially since they could sell the deals multiple times without any accountability. So students who know virtually nothing about finance are encouraged to take on debt they will never be able to repay. the “loan adviser” always reminds them to take on more debt for expenses and anything else that can be packed into the “loan.” The investment banks don’t really care whether the loan is repaid, as long as they continue selling certificates.
*
And the answer to your question is yes, this is entirely a PONZI scheme even though it incorporates attributes of lending and the old system of sharing lending risks. Few, if any loans are originated without the concurrent sale of unregulated securities that have no attributes of owning any debt, note or mortgage from borrowers. No investment bank would even suggest it would make quarterly or monthly payments to investors if they were held to merely to passing on payments illegally collected from homeowners. There is no profit in that.
*
It is only if certificates continue to be sold that lending continues under this scheme. And each new step is a new layer. And each new layer brings us further and further from economic reality. To value investors like me this means only one thing: at some point, there will be a crash in which fundamental economic values are used to form the basis for the valuation of assets. Houses will reflect median income. Stocks will reflect medium-range net income. Bonds will reflect the likelihood of repayment without refinancing.
*
For value investors, we see companies whose stocks are trading at vast multiples of earnings (or no earnings at all) as unsustainable and even silly in many cases. Lest you need reminding all such predictions were uniformly rejected before each crash. I think it is because people are irrational and crave excitement. I could be wrong about that.
*
For the investment banks, It is not only ok but actually preferable for large swaths of people labeled as borrowers to stop making scheduled payments — since the investment banks are placing bets on that happening. It is OK since nobody will get hurt when they don’t pay, and that is OK since anyone can enforce the debt despite the absence of anyone who got hurt — other than the student or homeowner who is saddled for life with debts that their parents and grandparents would think are unthinkable.  A very small group of people are transferring the wealth that would have been accumulated by each student from the students (and their families) to themselves without any corresponding spending in a consumer-driven economy.
*
As Ross Perot once remarked, that sucking sound is getting louder and louder. Wall Street has sucked tens of trillions of dollars out of the U.S. economy without any corresponding long-term benefit to anyone other than themselves. It has been at the expense of everyone.
*
All human beings or at least partly driven by primitive tendencies. If there is a pile of money on the table, most people would at least have the impulse to take it without regard to the consequences. And if the situation is one in which taking the money did not involve theft, the inhibitions against removing the money would be substantially reduced.
*
In both the Old Testament and the New Testament the concept of borrowing and lending arises from the order of God to help thy neighbor. And to the extent that one helps the neighbor and expects something in return, the deal should not include the payment of interest and is subject to cancellation after seven years. Most of our laws concerning bankruptcy are derived from both the Old Testament and the New Testament.
*
The Scriptures are somewhat ambiguous as it relates to lending to “foreigners.” But the general attitude that has been accepted, memorialized into laws since laws were first written, is that lending should not be a business and that lending should be the result of some plan that benefits society as a whole and not a vehicle for concentrating wealth away from society as a whole. Personally, I don’t completely agree with that viewpoint. But the current movement into virtual loans with virtual creditors and virtual servicers has opened the largest risk of moral hazard ever encountered by any human civilization.
*
We don’t need to shut that door. The new innovative scheme has merits if it is fair. It is only fair if all affected parties have sufficient information and opportunity to consent to a bargain in which the risks and rewards are known and shared. That can only be accomplished through disclosure and competition. Right now, we have neither — and that is not the capitalist system. It is a monopolistic system whose primary drive is deceit and theft. And until the “securitized” transactions are reformed by court order into truly securitized transactions foreclosures and enforcement must stop — if we are ever able to stop the wholesale plunder of the American consumer and evisceration of the foundation of our real economy.
*
Corrections in this article to prior publication. Dylan Ratigan was not the person that delivered that famous rant on the floor of the exchange. It was Rick Santelli. 

Tonight! Evading State Laws: The Purpose of Using Trusts Years Past the Mortgage Meltdown 3pm PDT 6pm EDT

Thursdays LIVE!

Click into the WEST COAST Neil Garfield Show

with Charles Marshall and Bill Paatalo

Or call in at (347) 850-1260, 6pm Eastern Thursdays

Licensed Private Investigator Bill Paatalo in a Blog post from just yesterday Sep. 8, highlights the case of mortgage servicer New Residential Investment Corp (New Rez), using trusts to enforce their mortgage servicing rights — since so many states otherwise require mortgage-related entities who purchase, hold, enforce or sell residential mortgage loans, to maintain licenses to do so within their jurisdictions.

So servicers like New Rez get around these licensing requirements by continually maintaining the appearance or illusion of ownership (through assignments of rights or interest) by presenting homeowner transactions as being individual mortgage loans in a trust. And in particular, they use one named but not necessarily controlled by a national bank.

Since most banks are not subject to state licensing requirements of the sort at issue here they are evading the requirements of state regulation. Consumers suffer because judges presume that the parties involved have all complied with conditions precedent and estate statutes governing administration, collection and enforcement of alleged debts.

As always, Bill is getting much of his intel through investigation and the discovery process in the cases in which he serves as expert forensic investigator — more proof that discovery is the key to advancing homeowner rights in foreclosure.

Attorney Charles Marshall will recount the latest developments in the mess of the Covid world, from the status of various foreclosure and eviction moratoriums to the latest in court practice, particularly in California.

EARLY BIRD EXTENDED for 9/29/21 Webinar. Early Registration ends 9/22/21!!

LEARN HOW TO FIGHT WITH HONOR AND WIN!

Despite any suggestion of a cutoff date of September 8, 2021, the early bird registration extends to 9/22/21. Pick that option even if you are on some landing page that says that the discount for early registration ends earlier. The payment system will accept your early registration anyway.

%d bloggers like this: