WELCOME TO LIVINGLIES

KEEP YOUR HOME!!! – Over 17,000,000 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!

CLE WEBINAR SERIES: LIVE AND ON DEMAND

 2 HOUR CLE WEBINAR ON DEMAND 9/29/21 — EXAMINATION AND CHALLENGE OF ASSIGNMENTS OF MORTGAGE

1 HOUR CLE WEBINAR LIVE STREAMING FRIDAY 11/19/21 4PM EDT — Prelitigation Advice and Proactive Legal Actions
in Foreclosure Cases

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

HOW THEY DID IT: CONVENTIONAL LOAN TRANSACTION EXPLAINED

The following link leads to an oversimplified chart of a conventional loan transaction, leaving out the actual people at each step and leaving out several of the computer servers:

CHART: Conventional Loan Transaction

Most people don’t have any idea about the number of steps and the number of people in the number of vendors that are involved with a single loan transaction or a single loan payment. But if it was as simple as most people think it is, we would have no need for banks or computers.

In a small bank or credit union many of the steps and procedures that are contained in the outline shown in the above chart are consolidated into a single loan officer combined with a Board of Directors that approves each transaction. The representation of the number of computer servers may seem overly dramatic to some. But the truth is that even the smallest conventional loan transaction, this chart only shows the first layer of computers that are involved and which are located in various geographical locations, owned by various outside vendors with whom the borrower has never done business.

The failure to disclose the existence of the outside vendors, and the function of the outside servicer, along with compensation received by them is generally considered to be permitted under the disclosure rules for the federal truth in lending act.

The reason is simple: the party who is named as the lender is in fact the lender and is responsible for compliance with all of the technical requirements contained within TILA. Anybody who claims to be a successor of the original lender becomes a successor lender and subject to the same claims and defenses as the predecessor for any violations of lending or servicing statutes.

It is also legal to insert mortgage bankers or mortgage brokers who intern employee sales people to make calls on prospective borrowers either in person or through some direct or electronic media. But the small bank making a conventional loan ordinarily not employ such intermediaries simply because they have no control over what is being said to the prospective borrower. Fewer intermediaries means greater accountability, which is what the ordinary lender requires. And that is the opposite of what Wall Street wants.

Anyone who studies this chart will come to the conclusion that the lending marketplace is currently dominated by players who have no desire to play by the rules described above.

Servicer Advances Are an Illusion Too

Like everything else, “servicer advances” is a false label. There is no money being advanced. But there is money received by institutional investors who bought certificates under the mistaken belief that they were mortgage-backed securities. They receive that money regardless of whether or not payments are made by homeowners. The test for whether or not they will actually receive the money is whether or not the investment bank is continuing to sell new securities. Like any Ponzi scheme, a basic component is the continual payment of prior investors.

*
So you might ask, where does the money come from? And the answer is it comes from the investors. A portion of the proceeds of the sales of certificates is set aside in a reserve fund that is disclosed in the prospectus. It is also disclosed that they may be receiving their scheduled payments from that reserve fund.
*
The ability to create the reserve fund comes from the yield spread premium between the sales of certificates to institutional investors and the sales of Financial products to homeowners. I have previously written about how this works. But in summary, here it is.
*
Investors pay money to the investment bank for certificates lead promise scheduled payments, without a maturity date. This is based on a formula designed to produce a specific percentage return on investment. Since most of the institutional investors are stable managed funds, they were only seeking an increase in the current rate of return of 10 to 15%. That meant that if they were earning 4%, they only wanted 4 1/2% from the investment bank. The illusion is created by converting the percentages to dollars. That’s where the yield spread premium emerges.
*
An institutional investor who pays $1 million for a 4 1/2% return is seeking scheduled payments of $45,000 per year. The investment bank, through intermediaries, is closing deals with homeowners at rates varying from 5% to as much as 10%.
*
The yield spread premium results from a question: how much money does the investment bank need to “loan” in order to produce $45,000 per year. The answer, if they are creating the illusion of a loan at 10%, is that they only need to “lend” $450,000. The rest of the money — $550,000 — is a yield spread premium that goes into the pocket of the investment bank.
*
Yes, that means they made more money on the transaction than the entire amount received by the homeowner. It also gives them money to establish the reserve account from which to pay the institutional investors from their own funds.
*
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, accounting 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 TO 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.

Optical Illusions and Cognitive Delusions Are the Foundations For Erroneous Decisions by Homeowners, Their Lawyers, and Judges

By the time most lawyers are retained to represent a homeowner, the homeowner has already created damage. The lawyer’s task is magnified by the need to first perform damage control before asserting claims and defenses. The bottom line is that homeowners lack credibility when they assert defenses that conflict with their own behavior and their own prior statements.

It was back in 2006 when I decided to do something about what the investment banks were doing in the lending marketplace. The biggest mistake I made was grossly underestimating the power of groupthink. Running a close second to that mistake, I grossly overestimated the ability and willingness of the public to overcome their ignorance of the methods and results of securitization.

My message was simple. There was no securitization of debt. Any claims regarding the right to administer, collect or enforce any debt in the context of securitization claims were false. By definition, securitization of debt requires sale of the debt. By definition, sale of the debt requires purchase of the debt, which is then reflected on accounting ledgers.

This simple scenario simply was not happening. But Wall Street was saying that it was happening because they needed to say that in order to claim a foundation for their claims of securitization of debt (false) and their ability to enforce.

None of it was true. [Not even for transactions that were initially conventional loans]. There has been no truth to this since the investment banks entered the lending marketplace for homeowners around 1995. But the investment banks were smart enough to employ the main tactics of every successful scheme: (1) develop a national narrative, (2) use false labels that are promoted into common usage and (3) get everyone involved addicted to the flow of money. Compare with OxyContin and Madoff.

It seems that the biggest obstacle to changing the trajectory of enforcement and Foreclosure had already been studied repeatedly by psychologists and sociologists around the world. We humans have an irrational belief in our own choices. The more ignorant we are, the more confident we tend to be in our abilities to handle a situation.

This phenomenon actually has a name: the Dunning-Kruger effect. Wall Street banks have actually weaponized this effect. It results in optical illusions and cognitive delusions in which the observer has complete confidence.

Both homeowners and institutional investors came to believe that transactions with homeowners could be described as mortgage loans, simply because the intent of the homeowners was to obtain a loan and the homeowners executed documents that are normally associated with the origination of a mortgage loan. One could say that this is an optical illusion that result in a cognitive delusion.

It is an illusion in most cases because the transaction was not intended to produce a business case for earning revenue or profit from the receipt of interest from homeowners. The business case for the apparent “lender” (false label) was strictly limited to the sale of securities. Without the sale of securities that simply would have been no transactions at all with homeowners.

Yes, they might have secured a conventional loan from someone else but a real lender would have had a stake in the viability of the loan, the payment of interest and the return of principal. A real lender would have an interest in using the lowest possible appraisal from the highest quality appraisers.

A real lender would not have offered money without any assertion or proof of income, assets, job, or any other possibility of making payments. A real lender would not have offered low payments just to close the deal followed by crushing payments that could never be paid.

And a real lender would not have accepted the skyrocketing prices of assets that were far above any standard metric for the valuation of assets. Home values reflect median income. Wall Street changed that metric to home values reflecting the availability of cash in transactions that were immediately damaging to homeowners.

Wall Street is not stupid. They have always understood that they could increase, pressure for a bubble and make money trading securities based upon rising prices. And they have always known that they could bet against the market, knowing it would crash.

And since the attributes of a loan transaction were irrelevant to the investment banks, they eliminated the essential role of a loan account or any account receivable that was due from the homeowner. This one feature enabled them to sell a virtual debt dozens of times without liability for the fraudulent sale of an actual debt more than once.

Continual use of labels has produced a level of groupthink that should be compared to concrete. Almost everyone except the labels of “trustee” “trust,” “servicer,” etc. as if those labels could be trusted as a description of a company that is claimed to be acting in a certain role. None of that is true either. Even the claim is an illusion because when you dig down you find that the company on the letterhead never made the claim — someone else produced the document or pleading.

And the biggest obstacle for homeowners, therefore, is their understandable lack of motivation into wading into a pool of terms and business models about which they know nothing.

It’s a problem because in the period between the origination of their false transaction and time of enforcement they have accepted, admitted and even used the same terms that were asserted by machines and remote persons who have only one goal in mind — make more money through foreclosure for profit rather than a foreclosure to reduce a nonexistent loan account.

It’s a missed opportunity because if there had been compliance with law, the investment banks would have been required to disclose their presence, indeed their dominance, in the origination of the homeowner transaction and to disclose the estimated revenue and profits that would be generated from the sale of securities. This is already the law, since the 1960s.

In turn, that would have resulted in homeowners bargaining for better terms including a bigger piece of the pie in exchange for accepting a virtual creditor instead of a real one. Homeowners were entitled to share in the revenue generated from the sale of securities because they were accepting a brand new risk — a virtual creditor with no risk of loss, whose interest was in selling securities (not a viable loan as required by the Federal Truth In Lending Act).

Early action by homeowners can create the foundation for both defenses and claims that are completely meritorious. But most homeowners are not motivated to even inquire into their rights or the status of the transaction that they called a “loan.”

By the time most lawyers are retained to represent a homeowner, the homeowner has already created damage. The lawyer’s task is magnified by the need to first perform damage control before asserting claims and defenses. The bottom line is that homeowners lack credibility when they assert defenses that conflict with their own behavior and their own prior statements.

PRACTICE NOTE SUPPLIED BY BILL PAATALO:

Excellent post!
This is why a great target for subpoena and deposition is the “label’s” assigned “Risk Manager.” This party is often named in the PSA and is really the PMK, not the robo-witness who shows up on behalf of both the label and the trustee. It is the “Risk Manager” that instructs all parties to do what they do. The Risk Manager knows where the bodies are buried, and if not, the label will have a hard time explaining its rights to enforce anything and the harm it has suffered.
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, accounting 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 TO 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.

 

 

 

CLICK ON THIS LINK TO ACCESS CLE WEBINAR ON PRELITIGATION STRATEGIES AND TACTICS

https://us02web.zoom.us/rec/share/OvaYrSuhI_f7vcWjlyyV5Xb9h7oM0eMFKvavHk5t8TivojJ-DWsoUqq15QgDdc3g.SRzwbv8GE4yhbqwV Passcode: ykp4RD+8

 

Are Foreclosure Lawyers Lying?

The simple answer is maybe. But even the act of avoiding information that would inform the lawyer that his assertion or argument in court is false, does not make a case for accusing the Lawyer of lying. This is very frustrating for most people.

Lying is an intentional act. In order to legally accuse someone of lying they must know for a fact that the words coming out of their mouth are untrue. It is definitely not enough that you know that what they said or argued was false. And it is not sufficient that they have reasons to suspect that those words are not true. The reason for this splitting of hairs is that everyone is entitled to have an attorney advocate for their position and interest, regardless of whatever they have done. That means, by definition, that the lawyer is required to advocate and argue the best possible interpretation of the facts that have been presented to the court.

*
Therefore such argument is protected by litigation immunity unless the attorney can be proven to have actually known that what they were saying, in court, was false. The fact that the attorney’s behavior was part of an overall scheme with an illegal purpose, is not necessarily sufficient to allow the attorney to be held liable on the basis of lying to the court. And because of the broad interpretation of litigation immunity, even the participation in the illegal scheme appears to be protected by litigation immunity — an interpretation that I strongly oppose but which is the consensus view in the courts. This often leads to some anomalous results. But it is the only way that the system can work.
*
Like every other institution in a democratic republic, it is far from perfect and requires constant adjustment and correction. None of the institutions ever get it right. But in our form of government, it is the tension between the various stakeholders, institutions, and parties that gradually forms a body of law in which most members of society have confidence. The way the courts have handled foreclosures for the past 25 years has undermined confidence in our judicial institutions. The way the executive branch has handled enforcement of existing laws in connection with the fake claims of securitization of debt also undermines confidence in our institutions.
*
And the failure or refusal of any institution to actually conduct a penetrating inquiry into the fake claims of securitization is especially aggravating to citizens across the land who have been affected, directly or indirectly, by what is, in essence, a Ponzi scheme. That failure has been grossly unfair to consumers and homeowners. Instead of the government doing its job in protecting consumers, the entire burden of doing that is on the consumers themselves, none of whom have the resources of the federal or state governments that are supposed to be protecting them.
*
Efforts to mobilize consumers have largely failed because most consumers don’t realize the trouble that is affecting them and that will produce negative consequences in the future. So the period of time in which consumers could be very effective in threatening the so-called securitization scheme often passes without any action at all from the consumer. The consumer only wakes up when the bullets start flying and they find themselves in court denying allegations that they have previously admitted and correspondence and by behavior.
*

THERE IS NO CONFLICT BETWEEN ARTICLE 3 AND ARTICLE 9 OF UCC: THE COURTS ARE JUST PLAIN WRONG

CLICK HERE FOR FREE WEBINAR ON FRIDAY 4PM

 

CASE DECISIONS ARE NOT SCRIPTURE. But they are precedent and you can expect that once a decision is rendered by an appellate court in a specific jurisdiction all the lower courts in that jurisdiction will most likely follow the reasoning and application of the law in that appellate decision. This fact, though, does not make the original decision correct. Dredd Scott was a famously wrong decision by the Supreme Court of the United States. And a correct decision does not automatically mean that lower courts will apply — see the Jesinoski decision on TILA rescission.

If you read my blog article on the subject it will clear up my view. APPLYING THE UCC IN FORECLOSURES

There’s a difference between what the courts are doing and what they should be doing.
  • In a nutshell, the law in every jurisdiction says that it is possible to obtain a judgment on a note without owning the underlying obligation and therefore without alleging financial injury to the claimant.
  • This is a huge exception to the rules governing every civil case. It might be unconstitutional but it is universally accepted as the exception to the rule.
  • I agree that the courts have extended this exception to the enforcement of security instruments like mortgages. But in every jurisdiction, that exception is actually banned by their own statute.
  • There is an age-old expression that you can pick up one end of the stick without picking up the other.
  • They are using the exception based upon the state legislature adopting the uniform commercial code.
    • Article 3 of the uniform commercial code provides the exception.
    • Article 9 specifically bars the use of that exception in the enforcement of security instruments. §203.
  • This is not the first time the courts of general jurisdiction have gotten things wrong and it won’t be the last. That is why we have higher courts and legislatures to overrule what the general courts are doing.

The plain fact is that the loan account is eliminated at or near the time of creation of the homeowner transction. This is true in all securitization schemes and let me remind you that nobody anywhere has ever contradicted this statement. The reason is that money came in but was labeled as something otehr than repayment of loan or return of capital. But the indisputable fact is that money came in covering not only the cost of doing business with the homeowner but in geometrically larger ums as revenue.

The fact that investment banks did not record it as payment of a loan account does not mean that they didn’t get the money. The entire point of securitization for the investment banks was for them to enter the lending marketplace without ever making a loan  — i.e., without ever disclosing their presence and without any risk of loss. The fact taht hoemwoenrs inteded to get a loan does not mean that is what theyr eceived. At some point — contemprneous with the “cliosing” the transction was in substance strictly converted from what it appeared to be — a loan —- to a payment to homeowners for launching the sale of securities.

A loan without a lender is not a loan. A loan without any risk of loss is not a loan transction.

 

Tonight! How I came to Know About Securitization Up Close and Why I Recognized the Danger in 2005: Sneak Preview for Tomorrow’s Free Webinar 6PM EST, 3 PM PST

Thursdays LIVE! Click into the Neil Garfield Show

Tonight’s Show Hosted by Neil Garfield, Esq.

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

It was pure serendipity. There are three areas of expertise required to understand the current developments in the lending marketplace:

  1. Investment banking and the sale of securities
  2. Accounting and auditing
  3. Trial Law

That has been my life since 1964 when I was just graduating high school. As I moved through careers, I was creating the perfect resume to understand the events that gave rise to the current infrastructure we call securitization. I have found that by recounting the short story of my life in that context, people better understand how and why we are in the third decade of the largest economic crime in human history and why nobody in power wants to do anything about it.

My movement from being an entrepreneur and musician in college, to securities licensing and certification in securities analysis on Wall Street, to institutional sales, mergers, and acquisitions on Wall Street, to training and teaching accounting and auditing, and finally to my law license and academic awards was all basically the trip of someone finding his way through a chaotic world. And as you will see in my show tonight, when I first encountered the new reality in 2004, I instantly recognized that the banks were at it again. They were pressuring the marketplace into a bubble that would burst, and they would make money during the pressure and when the market would burst. They were always betting against the market they created.

And my run-ins with banks, starting around 1980 was equally serendipitous dependent wholly upon clients coming to me seeking to obtain results.

More importantly, people get motivated to do something about it at the grassroots level — in courtrooms. They’re succeeding because behind every lie there is a truth that can be avoided and denied but which nonetheless remains.

In tonight’s show, I will reveal my personal involvement and learning experience in the following steps that resulted in launching the “derivative” scheme that is now erroneously regarded as securitization of loans, despite the essential deficit of having no sale of the underlying obligation, legal debt, note or mortgage. In the words of Reynaldo Reyes, Executive VP at Deutsche, ” it is all very counterintuitive.”

Reyes admitted that Deutsche made no decisions, had no information, and gave no instructions to anyone concerning any homeowner transaction. Shortly after that, Deutsche would issue an instruction to all law firms and “servicers” that were not to mention Deutsch in their foreclosure claims. And then a few months later new arrangements allowed the use of the Deutsche name again. But there was no change in any right, title, interest, or authority of Deutsche to have any communication or knowledge about any homeowner transaction.

So tonight I answer the essential question of how and why the current infrastructure came into being. to do that I will take you back to the paper crisis of the 1960s and my role in that, the ascent of the sue of “street name,” the creation of a fake regulatory entity for handling certificates, the onset of junk bonds, the Goldman Sachs laddering scheme that I used for real estate transactions in the 1980s and how that scheme gave rise to the current structures that are used to eliminate and then create the illusion of a loan account receivable.

Spoiler Alert: For Wall Street, it was NEVER about revenue or profit from loan accounts. It was always about the sales of securities. And on Wall Street the Holy Grail of investment banking was achieved when someone figured out how to separate securitization from the asset that was publicized as being securitized.

CLICK HERE to Come to Free Webinar Friday, November 19, 2021 at 4PM EST!

REVERSE “MORTGAGES” ARE SUBJECT TO SAME DEFENSES AS ANY OTHER HOMEOWNER TRANSACTION

CLICK HERE FOR FREE WEBINAR ON FRIDAY 4PM

*

I am getting a lot more inquiries about reverse mortgages in which Foreclosure is threatened. That’s far, there appears to be no difference in the challenges and offenses available to homeowner homeowners between what is ordinarily falsely described as a “conventional Loan” and a “reverse mortgage loan.” The goal of the finance side of these transactions is the same: the sale of securities.

*

So here is a common response that I am giving to people to make inquiries:

*

The only players you have mentioned or companies that are claiming to be servicers. Based upon my research and analysis in other cases, I think it is highly unlikely that PHH, Ocwen, or Celink ever performed any services that are ordinarily associated with the use of the term “servicer.” I don’t think they are even authorized to perform those services. They are placeholders whose names are used to deflect attention from a real players, none of whom on or maintain a loan account receivable. In all probability, this transaction was subject to false claims of securitization, which means that securities were issued, but they did not represent any interest in any debt, note or mortgage.
*
The procedures that are being offered to you or merely devices for you to waive rights to challenge their claim. I think there’s a high probability that the apparent debt has been extinguished through the process of securitization. At securitization, many layers of securities are issued and sold that re-pay the players and produce outsized profits that are not disclosed to the homeowners. On the finance side, nobody treats the transaction with the homeowner as though it was a loan except for purposes of “enforcement.”  In order to achieve their goal, it is necessary to fabricate false documentation and present them as valid and authentic memorialization of transactions. But the transactions never occurred.
*
This is very confusing to anyone who is not fairly knowledgeable about investment banking, accounting and law. So that includes homeowners, lawyers and judges. Using the label of a “loan” the players are able to use the label of “lender” and “servicer.” None of these labels are true in the sense that they describe the actual function of the company is described as performing some role in connection with the loan.
*
What all of that means is that if you are going to challenge them, you have an uphill battle to convince a skeptical judge that you were not simply trying to wiggle out of a legitimate debt. I’ve been litigating these specific cases for nearly 16 years. While I have been either instrumental or the actual lead attorney defending homeowners from these false claims, I can say that without any doubt, the process is a lot easier if the homeowner starts early and does not wait to assert challenges until they are actually in court. I have won cases in both categories, but it is a lot easier if the attorney can state and show that there were previous statutory attempts to obtain knowledge of the identity alleged creditor, and the existence and status of the alleged loan account.
*
*

FREE WEBINAR: PRELITIGATION STRATEGIES AND TACTICS IN FORECLOSURE CASES 1.0 CLE FLORIDA BAR APPROVED.

What to do before the shooting starts

APPROVED FOR 1.0 CLE CREDITS

APPROVED BY THE FLORIDA BAR

HOMEOWNER ATTENDANCE PERMITTED

I invite ALL READERS to attend the following Webinar this Friday at 4PM EST.
I am doing it without charge although as always I invite donations to livinglies.me.
TECH Problem: If you want the seminar materials please write to us at neilfgarfield@hotmail.com and we’ll send them out individually to you. 

Hi there,

You are invited to a Zoom webinar.
When: Nov 19, 2021 04:00 PM Eastern Time (US and Canada)
Topic: Prelitigation Advice, Strategy and Tactics in Foreclosures

Please click the link below to join the webinar ON FRIDAY AT 4PM EST:

https://us02web.zoom.us/j/83682295097?pwd=SXMvck4zOVFRZE9pRm5aQ21tZ3NDUT09
Passcode: 139359
Or One tap mobile :
US: +13126266799,,83682295097#,,,,*139359#  or +19292056099,,83682295097#,,,,*139359#
Or Telephone:
Dial(for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location):
US: +1 312 626 6799  or +1 929 205 6099  or +1 301 715 8592  or +1 346 248 7799  or +1 669 900 6833  or +1 253 215 8782
Webinar ID: 836 8229 5097
Passcode: 139359
International numbers available: https://us02web.zoom.us/u/keac1JaZV2

Course Materials and Follow up conference call included.

LIVE Streaming Presentation 4pm EST 11/19/21)

(Q&A 12/3/21 at 4PM EST). 

HOMEOWNER ATTENDANCE PERMITTED

Prelitigation Advice and Proactive Legal Actions

in Foreclosure Cases

Neil F Garfield, MBA JD: describes the issues presented to the general practitioner, bankruptcy lawyer and trial counsel when first presented with a client who fears Foreclosure on their Homestead. The client intake process is described in detail along with the responsibilities of the attorney to render advice based upon research and investigation. This course takes the viewer through various options for passive and proactive strategies and tactics that are likely to save home ownership.

Enforcement starts with claims of authority to administer, collect and enforce the alleged debt. It follows, therefore that if those claims are false, the time to confront them is at the earliest possible time.

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.

    • Host/Provider: GTC Honors, Inc.
    • Course Number 2108872N
    • Provider # 1030277
    • 1.0 Credits for Continuing Legal Education
    • Level: Intermediate
    • Presenter: Neil F Garfield
    • Florida Bar Number 229318

Since 2008, GTC Honors, Inc. has been an approved host provider for CLE (for lawyers) credits in Florida and 26 other states that allow reciprocal credits for licensed attorneys.

A short Q&A session is included — but it is not an opportunity to seek legal opinions on specific cases. It will be followed up with a conference call 2 weeks after the presentation. The presentation will be live on 11/19/21 at 4 PM EDT or on-demand. On-demand sessions will be available after the live presentations at the price of $95.

1.0 CLE CREDITS

Curriculum:

    • Client Intake:
      • As important as Medical History going back two owners
      • Deadlines: Extensions and Pitfalls
      • Goals:  Engagement and Expectations
    • Experts:
      • Selection Criteria
      • Selecting Forensic Examiners
      • Private Investigators,
      • Forensic Document Examiners
      • CPA
      • Securitization expert: The art of preparation and persuasion.
    • Understanding the Current Situation
      • Understanding Opposing Counsel
      • Get Up to Speed: Doing the required research
      • Analyzing the case and making preliminary conclusions
      • What to look for on notices and correspondence from the other side
    • Demand, Notice, and Rejection letters
      • to the company claiming to be the “servicer”
      • to the company claiming to be the “REMIC Trustee”
    • Statutory Demands: the foundation for future defenses
      • Qualified Written Request -RESPA — What is it and how should it be used
      • Debt Validation Letter -FDCPA — What is it and how should it be used.
      • Key question: Status of the alleged debt and owner
    • FDCPA and related lawsuits — effects on discovery demands, scope and enforcement
    • Defense starts immediately and no later than
      • Notice of Substitution of trustee on non-judicial states
      • Receipt of summons and complaint in judicial states
    • Be prepared for the Long Haul: The Strategy of Claimants with Weak Claims
    • How and when to charge money, contingency fees and treatment of recovery of attorney fees.
  • How lawyers can make money in this niche
  • Q&A 
  • Follow up conference call 2 weeks later 

The questions for today are different from the questions that were present only 2 decades ago when the forms, rules and procedures were developed — before present claims of securitization of debt.

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.

Presenter: Neil F Garfield, MBA JD:

Over a 44 year legal career, he has appeared in over 2000 final hearings and trials in Federal, State, Bankruptcy, and Administrative courts covering various areas of criminal, civil, and administrative trial practice. He has been presented with numerous academic awards and a Gold Medal for academic excellence and contribution, authored the update for Florida Real Property Law for Harrison Publications when in his Sophomore Year in law school, and was the recipient of multiple community action and contribution awards in Florida, California, Arizona, and other states. He has appeared on more than 300 media broadcasts as a guest or host and has published approximately 10,000 articles on his blog, which are currently used by legal and financial researchers in 26 countries.

In 2006 he correctly predicted the 2008 financial crisis. He is a former advisor to the Arizona legislature, law enforcement and regulators. He is a recognized expert witness on securities issues including securitization of debt.

Spread the word

Regards,
Neil F Garfield, Esq. M.B.A., J.D.

Black Knight fka Lender Processing Systems — Short memories can hurt you

Frankly, I am frequently bewildered by the astonishment of people who should know better. Everything that I report on my blog is derived from actual concrete reliable data and information and previous legal proceedings in which there were administrative findings of fact and legal consequences. Some followers of my blog are well-intentioned but are married to the view that the system is so corrupt, nobody can do anything about it. But I have been doing “something about it” (i.e., winning cases) for 15 years — along with several dozen other lawyers and even many pro se homeowners. Even people in other countries have had success.

This blog and my radio show and webinars are devoted to one thing: getting homeowners to wake up as early as possible to the fact that they have been duped into a transaction about which they know nothing but which they think they know everything.

I don’t deny that the results are corrupt. But I do think that the consequences of entering the legal system without knowledge of legal procedure will produce a fatal result in most cases. Being right is not enough

Black Knight is a financial technology (FINTECH) company that played a pivotal role in the creation and promotion of false fabricated documents. In turn, this resulted in the fake national narrative that the loan account receivables still existed when in fact those accounts were extinguished during the process of securitization. And that is because securitization was not and never was intended to securitize any obligation owed by any homeowner who was falsely labeled as a borrower.

Without that false narrative, judges would have refused to allow foreclosure judgments to be entered or foreclosure sales to be conducted. But just like any other court action, the judge is restricted to consider only what is presented — not what should’ve been presented or what could’ve been presented. Before the era of false claims of securitization of debt, judges regularly refused to allow foreclosure even when they were uncontested — if the paperwork was not properly presented in the correct form. The only thing that has changed is that the investment banking community has entered the lending marketplace with the paperwork that is properly presented in the correct form, but which is false.

Black Knight, Inc. went public in 2017, underwritten by Goldman Sachs. This is a closely related company to Black Knight Financial Services LLC. Black Knight has branded itself as an authority for data on real estate and in particular mortgage lending. But it continues, through its direct operations and its relations with closely related companies to provide “gap” documents that are completely fabricated, false, backdated, and forged by automated processes.

In other words, it is directly or indirectly involved in the creation of false data that it then reports. Black Knight has an indemnification agreement in which it protects Servicelink (another closely related Black Knight company) from any claims. That is because the “services” performed by Servicelink and other companies is the man behind the curtain — i.e., the actual company that provides automated processing of receipts from homeowners, records of those receipts, and deposit of those funds into accounts controlled by the investment banking company who has no ownership interest in any payments, obligation legal debt, note or mortgage from any homeowner.

In plain language, this means that homeowner payments are revenue to the investment banks and not a reduction in any loan account receivable. And THAT is because there is no loan account receivable —- a fact that is nearly universally rejected by anyone who does not have years or decades of experience in investment banking and accounting.

But just because it is rejected by people who are ignorant of the facts, does not mean it is wrong or in any way misleading.

Had tip to summer chic.

There were several other press releases across the country just like this one. The one thing missing from all of these suits, settlements and orders is the connection of the dots. If we know that the industry was using fraudulent, forged, false, backdated, robosigned documents then two questions emerge:

  • Why were the related foreclosures not reversed?
  • More fundamentally, why were fake documents needed? In an industry in which lenders literally wrote the laws, the template documents, and the procedures by which loans were originated and enforced, why was it so easy to originate the loans in extreme volume and not so easy to enforce them without falsifying documents?

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Jennifer López
DATE: December 16, 2011 702-486-3782

NEVADA ATTORNEY GENERAL SUES LENDER PROCESSING
SERVICES FOR CONSUMER FRAUD

Carson City, NV – Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto announced today a lawsuit against Lender Processing Services, Inc., DOCX, LLC, LPS Default Solutions,
Inc. and other subsidiaries of LPS (collectively known “LPS”) for engaging in deceptive practices against Nevada consumers.

The lawsuit, filed on December 15, 2011, in the 8th Judicial District of Nevada, follows an extensive investigation into LPS’ default servicing of residential mortgages in
Nevada, specifically loans in foreclosure. The lawsuit includes allegations of widespread document execution fraud, deceptive statements made by LPS about efforts to correct document fraud, improper control over foreclosure attorneys and the foreclosure process, misrepresentations about LPS’ fees and services, and evidence of an overall press for speed and volume that prevented the necessary and proper focus on accuracy and integrity in the foreclosure process.

The robo-signing crisis in Nevada has been fueled by two main problems: chaos and speed,” said Attorney General Masto. “We will protect the integrity of the foreclosure process. This lawsuit is the next, logical step in holding the key players in the foreclosure fraud crisis accountable.”

The lawsuit alleges that LPS:

1) Engaged in a pattern and practice of falsifying, forging and/or fraudulently executing foreclosure-related documents, resulting in countless foreclosures that were predicated upon deficient documentation;

2) Required employees to execute and/or notarize up to 4,000 foreclosure-related documents every day;

3) Fraudulently notarized documents without ensuring that the notary did so in the presence of the person signing the document;

4) Implemented a widespread scheme to forge signatures on key documents, to ensure that volume and speed quotas were met;

5) Concealed the scope and severity of the document execution fraud by misrepresenting that the problems were limited to clerical errors;

6) Improperly directed and/or controlled the work of foreclosure attorneys by imposing inappropriate and arbitrary deadlines that forced attorneys to churn through foreclosures at a rate that sacrificed accuracy for speed;

7) Improperly obstructed communication between foreclosure attorneys and their clients; and

8 ) Demanded a kickback/referral fee from foreclosure firms for each case referred to the firm by LPS and allowed this fee to be misrepresented as “attorney’s fees” on invoices passed on to Nevada consumers and/or submitted to Nevada courts.

LPS’ misconduct was confirmed through testimony of former employees, interviews of servicers and other industry players, and extensive review of more than 1 million pages of relevant documents. Former employees and industry players describe LPS as an assembly-line sweatshop, churning out documents and foreclosures as fast as new requests came in and punishing network attorneys who failed to keep up the pace.

LPS is the nation’s largest provider of default mortgage services, processing more than fifty percent of all foreclosures annually.

The Office of the Nevada Attorney General recently indicted Gary Trafford and Gerri Sheppard as part of a separate, criminal investigation into the conduct of robo-signing scheme which resulted in the filing of tens of thousands of fraudulent documents with the Clark County Recorder’s Office between 2005 and 2008.

Nevada homeowners who are in foreclosure or are facing foreclosure are advised to seek assistance as soon as possible. Homeowners can find information for a counseling agency approved by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) by calling 800-569-4287 or by visiting http://1.usa.gov/NVCounselingAgencies.

Additional information on foreclosure resources can be found at www.foreclosurehelp.nv.gov.

Anyone who has information regarding this case should contact the Attorney General’s Office hotline at 702-486-3132 (when promoted select “0”) to obtain information on how to submit a written complaint. Nevada consumers can file a complaint with the Nevada Attorney General’s Office about LPS by sending a letter with copies of any supporting documentation to the Nevada Office of the Attorney General, Bureau of Consumer Protection: 555 E. Washington Ave Suite 3900, Las Vegas, Nevada 89101

EDITOR’S NOTE: Contrary to what has been written or implied by people who are either misinformed or who are being directly paid by intermediaries for the investment banks on Wall Street, the simple answer to the direct question that I have posed above is that the reason for the fake documentation is that there was no real documentation that could be used. There was no real documentation because there were no real transactions supporting the documents that were used in foreclosure.
Every long-term illegal scheme has three main attributes:
  1. A false national narrative created by advertising and government complicity.
  2. False labels that comply with the false national narrative, combined with government acceptance of those labels.
  3. Addiction to the revenue produced by the scheme. This applies to all players, high and low.

When you look at the Madoff Ponzi scheme (40 years), the Purdue pharma scheme (30 years) on OxyContin, or the securitization Ponzi scheme (30 years), the elements are the same. And the results are interesting from an academic point of view: despite the catastrophic results of those schemes, there remain many people (Including those in government) who still subscribe to the narrative and use the labels. It’s very challenging to let go of a belief even when there is ample evidence and even knowledge of the falsity of the presumptions.

 

STOP BLAMING JUDGES: Their position is wrong but NOT unreasonable

Anyone with enough money to do it can establish a false national narrative that is universally believed. It is done through false advertising and the heavy implementation of false labels that eventually are assumed by everyone to be true. The success of the venture depends on the ability to addict the players to the money flow, while the founders of the scheme stay in the background. Everyone else is disposable. When the financial reward is high enough, most people are willing to suspend any skepticism they have about a scheme and are willing to participate in it with maximum time, effort and money.

I have often been confronted with a situation in which there are reports of a judge that is bullying the lawyers or litigants. The result is that homeowners are blaming judges for entering rulings or judgments and cutting arguments short. And the perception is that the judges are part of some vast conspiracy to deny due process to homeowners.

There are very few judges on the bench in any state or federal court that hold malice in their heart toward homeowners or who have some personal interest in making sure that the homeowner loses their Homestead. That statement by me continually gets me into trouble with those who embrace conspiratorial thinking. I don’t blame them for their thinking. But I do think that adopting that perception and acting on it is probably the surest way for a homeowner to lose their homestead.

I think you are only half right. It’s definitely true that judges will bully the attorneys and litigants. And sometimes when a judge asserts his or her authority, it can appear like bullying if you don’t like the result. And you’re probably right that they know that most of the time they can do what they want without any accountability or consequences.

But it is also true that very few judges proceed with malice. Yes they are biased because they are human beings, but most judges are trying to get it right. The fact that they get it wrong so many times in foreclosure cases is a product of a combination of bias of the individual and bias of the system.

It is nearly universally assumed that these transactions are loans which means that there is a creditor and a debtor and the homeowner is the debtor. This leads to the nearly universal assumption that the promissory note is the principal source of evidence on the terms of the debt.

Because of the unique advantages given to holders of promissory notes, a judgment for monetary damages can be awarded to the holder, even if the holder has no economic damages. But because of a nearly universal erroneous perception, this has oddly led to the adoption of court precedent that disregards the essential protections and requirements for enforcement of any security instrument.

*
The bottom line is that all of this leads to the very natural and organic assumption is that the only issue in foreclosure is whether or not the homeowner has made a scheduled payment. There is no inquiry in the mind of most judges as to whether or not the payment was actually due. So judgments are entered against the homeowner in favor of a party who has no economic damages despite the statutory requirement and the constitutional requirement for real economic damages in order to be able to file any civil suit other than seeking judgment on a promissory note as a holder.
*
In this context, it is only human nature for the judge to become impatient with litigants or lawyers who are raising technical points that, in the mind of the judge, do not change the outcome. Judges are trained and instructed to move their docket along once they believe that they understand the trajectory of the case.
*

So you get judges that are impatient because of their own ignorance of the realities of transactions that are falsely labeled as having been securitized. Since they are not investment bankers, and since most litigants and lawyers do not even address the issue of whether the securitization process actually eliminated the loan account, they can scarcely be blamed for arriving at the conclusion that the origination of the transaction was valid and enforceable.

*
The real problem is that there is a national narrative that is believed by nearly everyone including the homeowners who also bitterly complain about the foreclosure process. Even they think they have a debt that they were required to pay but somehow think that they are excused from paying it. In that context, it is easy to see how judges have not been confronted with the issue of whether or not the debt is due.
*
Neither lawyers nor most homeowners have any experience in investment banking. Therefore they have no way of knowing how securitization works. Most homeowners and lawyers feel either guilty or foolish for even considering the notion that securitization removes the loan account receivable from the equation. Don’t blame the judges for not considering that idea when nobody brought it up.
*
In the final analysis, most cases that are decided in favor of homeowners are decided on the basis of insufficiency of evidence against the homeowner.
*
Virtually none of those cases include a ruling or finding of fact or conclusion of law stating that the debt does not exist. This contributes to the national narrative and reinforces the erroneous belief that investment banks are seeking to recover on an unpaid loan. And because of confusion, as pointed out in my earlier article that republished the Florida Bar Journal article by Thomas Ice, the fact that the named plaintive may not even exist or has not paid value for the underlying obligation is not disturbing to the judges — but it is also not disturbing to most lawyers.
*
Anyone with enough money to do it can establish a false national narrative that is believed. It is done through false advertising and the heavy implementation of false labels that eventually are assumed to be true. The success of the venture depends on the ability to addict the players to the money flow, while the founders of the scheme stay in the background. Everyone else is disposable. When the reward is high enough, most people are willing to suspend any skepticism they have about a scheme and are willing to participate in it with maximum time, effort and money.
*
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, accounting 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 TO 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.

If you don’t understand the job of being a judge, then you can’t possibly win

The bottom line is that if you start off with a hostile attitude toward the judge, the possibility of a successful result for anyone defending a case diminishes to practically zero. Likewise for the litigant who expects the judge to carry water for one party or the other. Judges don’t carry water. They merely watch it and weigh it. That is their job.
*

**** Sign Up for 1 Hour 1 CLE Prelitigation Webinar 11/19/21 4PM Friday****

*
I am frankly disappointed in the number of people who continue to blame judges for the failings of the system and the failings of presentation caused by both consumer homeowners and their lawyers.
*
No matter what anyone says (including me) it seems that in our polarized world, people would rather believe in corrupt judges than win their cases fair and square. Letting go of the “corrupt judge” meme is just a bridge too far for most of the people who are willing to fight. And letting go of the myth that they knew what they were doing when they signed those papers at “closing” is apparently equally too far. And so Wall Street continues to profit while consumers are blindsided again and again.
*
Let’s start with what a judge is and what a judge is not. The authority of every judge is strictly limited by constitutional, statutory, and other restrictions contained in court rules a d regulations passed by the Supreme Court of each state (or the Federal government in Federal Court cases). While there is some interpretation allowed in case precedent basically the judge is supposed to operate ONLY within the confines of his or her job.
*
In criminal law, you would not expect the judge to do the investigation and you wouldn’t expect law enforcement to decide on guilt or innocence. It’s not up to the judge to figure out the true facts. It is the job of the judge ONLY to rule on admissibility and weight of facts and law presented by the parties in both criminal and civil cases, like foreclosure.
*
In criminal cases, if the prosecution fails to introduce the weapon, neither the judge nor the jury may rule on the case based upon the presumed existence of the weapon.
Likewise, once the weapon is admitted into evidence, the weapon and the testimony about the use of that weapon stands as uncontested and therefore presumptively true until or unless the defense mounts a credible and persuasive challenge to the weapon and the testimony.
*
Defense counsel does not suggest that maybe the weapon was planted or that the witnesses were lying or that the exhibits were manufactured for trial — unless the defense counsel intends to put on real evidence that something happened, when it happened, and who did it.
*
In most cases, defense counsel has no such evidence. Therefore defense counsel will not mention his opinion or the opinion of his client that the weapon was planted or that the testimony or exhibits were false. Defense counsel will refrain from doing that because anything else would destroy the credibility of the defense narrative.
*
This logic appears to be absent in most foreclosure cases. If you can’t prove it, don’t allege it. But that doesn’t mean you have to abandon your defense narrative. And if you do make those charges, don’t be surprised if the judge considers you and your whole defense as lacking in credibility.
*
The criminal defense lawyer will generally focus on the exclusion of evidence wherever possible followed by (and possibly accompanied by) an attack that undermines the credibility of the foundation on which the evidence was admitted. After that, the defense attorney will continue to attack the credibility or relevance of the evidence that was admitted so that it is given the least possible weight against the interests of his or her client.
*
The job of the judge is to allow or disallow evidence, testimony, and exhibits based upon the rules of court, the rules of evidence, statutes, and case law. Generally speaking, nearly all evidence that is proffered into evidence is excepted into evidence if it is not effectively challenged. And that is the problem in foreclosure cases.
*
It seems that people are so focused on getting revenge that they forget to win their cases. Whether the judge believes or not that there is a legitimate loan and that the current claimant is or is not owed any money from the current homeowner is irrelevant. And after seeing thousands of cases all end in the same way it is hard to blame a judge for having some bias in the direction of the plaintiff or beneficiary named in a foreclosure.
*
The job of keeping evidence out, or getting evidence out after it has been admitted, or diminishing the weight of the evidence is not nearly as exciting and fun as proving that the other side consists of a bunch of thieves. It is not the fault of a judge if he enters a ruling in favor of the thieves unless someone has proven by clear and convincing evidence that they are thieves and that they committed theft in the case at Bar. It is not the job of a judge to ruminate about whether or not the claim is a sham claim, considering the fact that nearly all litigants either lie outright or “stretch the truth.”
*
A lot of people are angry about the justice system and the financial system for a good reason. They have been victimized by both. But it is the system and not the individual players who have committed the grievance. It is the system that has not yet caught up to the realities of securitization and that securitization does not mean the sale of any debt, note or mortgage. Judges are not oracles. They are just people trying to do their jobs.
*
So I would say that people should redirect their anger towards the institutions that control the system. Since nearly all homeowner victories are decided on the basis of a lack of any claim against the homeowner, it follows that the current requirements that attempt to address this deficiency are not good enough. They need to be tightened.
*
That usually means the rules committee that reports to the Supreme Court of each state, which publishes rules for filing lawsuits and claims. It also means lobbying the legislature for changes which means that you’re going up against the banks’ huge lobbying efforts. It’s tempting to throw up your hands and say that’s impossible.
*
But with tens of millions of people that have been negatively affected by the false assertion of securitization of debt, It would not be hard to overcome the lobbying of the banks if homeowners adopted a concerted and cooperative approach that made it extremely dangerous for any politician to vote against the interest of the homeowners. Yes, they have the money. But homeowners have the votes, and politicians need votes in order to stay in office.
*
PRACTICE NOTE: As described in countless blog articles, radio shows, Webinars, and seminars, consumer homeowners can bar any evidence from admission if they follow the rules and use them in an aggressive and persistent fashion. The entire case presented against homeowners in foreclosure is based on presumptions rather than facts. Homeowners lose by directly or tacitly admitting facts that support the presumptions or by failing to test the presumptions by failing to ask for the supporting facts.
There are statutory inquiry letters (QWR and DVL) that require a direct answer to a direct question about the existence of the loan account receivable and its current status, ownership, and authority to administer, collect tor enforce. And there are plenty of discovery options in litigation. The plain simple truth is that regardless of what piece of paper the opposition can produce if they can’t provide confirmable evidence that something happened at a certain time between specific parties, they can’t use the paper.

Homeowners and their lawyers need to use the prelitigation procedures available to counter the tracks in the sand each time a company claiming to be a servicer sends a letter or notice. I cover this in the upcoming webinar on 11/19 at 4 PM. In the absence of such activities of the homeowners, the court will presume, like any human being, that there was no issue until the homeowner was actually faced with the loss of title and possession. The failure to act and create tracks in the sand for the homeowner will be seen by any experienced judge (and lawyer) to be tacit acceptance of the deal even if the deal is bad. 

*
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, accounting 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 TO 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 REAL DEAL: REQUIRED READING FOR FREE WEBINAR NEXT FRIDAY 11/19 4PM EST

For some unknown tech reason the Tom Ice article from the Florida Bar Journal will not post. See end of article for quotes from article.

This article explains why the banks are unlocking a door they really don’t want to see opened when lawyers argue that the homeowner has received some value by not paying rent or mortgage payments. 

If you calculate everything that the homeowner and the banks should have received out of what was in reality a securities deal in which the homeowner was an investor, the cost-benefit analysis runs strongly in favor of the homeowner being owed money from the banks and not the other way around. 

 

As Tom Ice, Florida Bar Journal December, 2012,  has expressed his opinion that the courts are getting it backwards, I say the same. The failure to disclose essential facts about a transaction is not a foundation for excluding that which has not been disclosed and which was required to be disclosed by statutory law, common law, and common sense.

I think that homeowners have a right to receive disgorgement of all monies they have ever paid to anyone in connection with the satisfaction of a loan account receivable that does not exist — unless the deal is reformed to include disclosure and to impose or impute compensation to the homeowner for accepting a nontraditional financial arrangement that does not comply with existing law — but one in which they (homeowners) agree or covenant not to take advantage of the legal violations. 

 

I also think that homeowners could petition the court for reformation and damages relating to the amount of compensation they should have received as an incentive to become an investor in the security scheme, and for (1) their continuing cooperation and (2) pretending that the transaction had been a loan, without which no securities could have been issued or sold. If the statute of limitations has run on such claims then it could be framed as recoupment in affirmative defenses which are not subject to the statute of limitations. 

 

Around 15 years ago I filed just such a claim in federal court and Maricopa county Arizona on behalf of a family member. The banks went nuts. Confidentially I received information about memoranda in which they had decided that I was entirely correct but they were instructed to oppose it with all strategy, tactics, and means possible.

*

They filed a motion to dismiss and I had a AAA quality attorney who had previously worked in a white glove law firm. She was amazing. It was clear that opposing counsel could not produce any credible argument against the claim. It was equally clear that the judge understood that. And unfortunately, it was also clear that the judge didn’t like that. There was no ruling for 14 months. The order simply said that the motion to dismiss was granted, without any opinion or any recitation of fact or law. There were insufficient resources to take this up on appeal since it was extremely likely it would only be decided at the highest levels.

 

The argument that homeowners are getting some sort of value by virtue of not having to pay anything towards a mortgage or rent must fail in the light of their offsetting entitlement to reasonable compensation for becoming participants and investors in a new business deal— i.e., for there to be mutual or reciprocal consideration and a meeting of the minds.

 

Let me give you an example: in the Smith case in Florida which has already been won once, I’m told that it is highly probable that the original securitization scheme exists only as a legacy name at the present time. It is highly probable that the transaction has been subject to several securitization schemes each producing revenue equivalent to around 12 to 15 times the original transaction. I have not told the client this, but my source is very knowledgeable and has been entirely trustworthy and credible. If true, this would mean that the $200,000 loan produced at least $7.2 million in revenue or as much as $9 million in revenue.

 

On Wall Street, the typical finder’s fee is based on a commonly used formula 5-4-3-2-1. 5% of the first million, 4% of the second, 3% of the third, 2% of the 4th, and 1% of everything over that. So as a finder, homeowner Smith would have been entitled to receive payment in cash upfront of at least $50k+$40k+$30K+$20k+$10k = $150,000. Since he did not receive that, he would be entitled to interest at some statutory rate which I will arbitrarily set at 6%. From 2006 to 2021 is 15 years. 6% of $150k is $9k. So accumulated interest would be 15 x $9k = $135k. So at this point, the liability for a finder in the Smith deal would be at least $285,000 on the $200k “loan.”

 

But Homeowner Smith was not just a finder. He was a participant without whom the deal could never have been done by anyone. He was also an investor. Scenarios differ on Wall Street but such persons, adequately represented, typically get a range of 5% – 25% which would be at least $350,000 plus interest to $450,000 plus interest up to a high of $1.75 million to $2.25 million, plus interest. Since the investment is literally at the ground floor with the most risk the actual figure would tend to be higher rather than lower. The status of the homeowner as an investor, if the homeowner had proper information and representation, would be ignored on Wall Street.

 

And just to be fair there is a plausible argument for limiting the finder’s fee to the first round of sale of securities. But that argument doesn’t hold any water for a participant and ground floor investor.

 

So if the rental value of the home was $1500 per month, that would be $18,000 per year. Over 15 years that would $270,000 plus declining interest. Given that analysis, how could anyone say that Smith got anything but the opportunity to mitigate much higher damages for the 13 years he has been litigating and why would anyone exclude the cost of that litigation? THAT is how investment bankers think and work. Show this email to anyone who actually knows what is going on in the CDO factories and they will confirm every word of this.

Quotes from Tom Ice Article in 2012 Florida Bar Journal:

Despite the shift toward article 9 as the real world mechanism for transferring loans, article 3 negotiability has become the dominant legal theory argued by plaintiffs in support of their standing to bring for closure actions. In the quart room, article 3 serves as the basis for arguing and evidentiary shortcut which not only discards ownership of the loan as an element of proof, but which circumvents basic foundational evidence for the authenticity of the note itself, claiming that promissory notes are “self authenticating” under the UCC, standing is now routinely, albeit incorrectly, established on a single unsworn representation by plaintiffs counsel that the document presented is the original note. [Editor’s Note: Attempts at correcting this defect have been unsuccessful thus far]

The key to this evidentiary shortcut, this in difference to who actually owns the loan, is the idea that, under article 3, mere possession, even wrongful possession, of a bearer instrument confers an unassailable right of enforcement. This argument holds that the court need not inquire into the true ownership of the note because, even if the banks possession is shown to be illegitimate, the matter does not concern the borrower (or of the Court), but rather concerns only the true owner. [Editor’s Note: Keep in mind that that all existing law requries that the debt be purchased by anyone who wants to enforce it through foreclosure]

UCC §3-501(b)(2) provides that, upon demand for payment, the borrower may ask that the person seeking payment give “reasonable identification” and if the demand is made on behalf of someone else, “reasonable evidence of authority to do so.” [Editor’s Note: This is the basic missing element to all claims for administration, colelction and alleged enforcemnt of alleged obligations. The entire focus is on assuming things about the obligor without any inquiry as to whether an obligee even exists.]

EDITOR NOTES: in all civil actions in any court, it is a constitutional basic requirement that the claimant or plaintiff who is bringing the claim or lawsuit for any breach of any statutory, common law or contractual duty, must have suffered some sort of legally recognizable injury that arises from a breach by the party against whom they have filed the claim. That is simply logically and legally impossible if the claimant has not purchased the underlying obligation in a foreclosure. 

Ice’s point is that Article 3 does in fact, traverse or avoid that requirement in favor of transferability of instruments — but my position is that such a waiver of constitutional requirements may in and of itself be unconstitutional. But it is a long-standing practice redating the constitution, so there is little doubt that such practices and laws will remain unchanged as to at least pleading enforcement of the note. But as Ice points out, that only entitles the successful pleader to a monetary judgment — not the forced sale of the homestead. 

In any event, it is the exception and not the rule for pleading and litigating civil actions. And the banks themselves made transfers and enforcement of security instruments like mortgages and deeds of trust strictly subject to the requirements of Article 9 which by its title alone signifies that it is intended to regulate all such transactions and actions. 

The idea that someone could force the sale of homestead property without owning the underlying obligation simply because of the public policy in favor of transferability of promissory notes is absurd. And it is not simply absurd. It is illegal by all standards under current statutes, rules, and regulations as well as common law precedent. There is nothing in the law (or common sense) to support what is currently going on in the courts and for that matter, the last 20 years. 

The issue that was missed by Mr. Ice and which is missed and ignored by almost everyone else, is whether there was ever a loan, and even if there was, is there currently an enforceable transaction that could be reasonably defined as a loan?

The answer to that question does not come from legal research. It comes from a knowledge of investment banking in addition to custom and practice in the lending marketplace. No transaction qualifies for definition as a loan if it is lacking a loan account receivable, a lender, a creditor, or any other parties who might suffer a financial loss as a result of some breach by the party who executed a promissory note.

The fact that Wall Street has been successful at obscuring the transaction from any meaningful scrutiny by government or lawyers is not a good reason to call it anything, much less a loan. 

No party qualifies under the definition of a debt collector in the absence of those elements that define a “loan.” Any party who seeks collection against the maker of the note in that scenario is engaged in an illegal scheme. They are not debt collectors because there is no debt.

I fully realize that the national narrative that has been developed by Wall Street — in carefully orchestrated releases and lobbying — stands for the proposition that the transaction with homeowners is and always will be a loan.

And being a lawyer for nearly 45 years, I understand full well why Wall Street would not take the obvious legal steps that could support or at least tend to support their legal thesis — reformation of the transaction to create a contract in which a virtual creditor with a virtual debt is created, admitted, acknowledged and accepted by the homeowner who is now falsely labeled as a borrower.

That contract would contain the covenant that the homeowner would agree not to raise such defenses and specifically and expressly, for convenience of the parties, to be labeled as a borrower while the transaction is labeled (for convenience) as a loan that can be enforced — without which the entire securitization infrastructure would fail. 

Despite the availability — I would argue necessity — of bringing an action in reformation Wall Street doesn’t want to do that because it would require Wall Street to acknowledge that the homeowner is the party who launches the sale of securities and who is actually paying for that launch without any current consideration for having done so. That in turn would require payment to the homeowner as stated above in this article. That payment would not cause any loss to anyone but it would reduce the profitability of the current securitization superstructures. 

It would also reveal the need to enforce consumer protections and rights by government agencies who would step in and take another look at those “certificates” that appear to be unregulated securities. 

But most of all it would reveal the basic fallacy behind the “free house” mythology and free use of the property for which the homeowner “has not paid.” The homeowner DID pay for the property out of the incentive paid, thus far, for starting the securities scheme.

The homeowner DID pay for an investment in that scheme without ever meaning to do so. Homeowners are most probably due more than what they received at closing and probably a lot more. This is not a question of how much the homeowner owes but rather how much the homeowner is still due — from the investment banks who were never disclosed as part of the transaction that produced out-sized revenue. 

Blaming homeowners for the financial crisis brought on by the improper and illegal use of securitization strategies on Wall Street is like blaming OxyContin addicts for using the drugs as prescribed and dying.

There are three elements to the scam that created this crisis:

  1. The development of a national narrative that was carefully promoted over years to everyone who would be part of the scheme. 
  2. The improper and illegal use of labeling sanctioned by the government. 
  3. Addiction to the money generated to all the players — which includes the courts who in many cases were actually paid by the banks to use rocket dockets to grease the skids for an illegal scheme.

Unilateral Mistake: Equitable Defenses Explained — How homeowners can get the upper hand and defend against enforcement of contract that is different from the one they knew or intended

Homeowners are missing out on a huge opportunity for economic gain that balances the power between Wall Street and consumers. 

Courts of equity are courts of conscience, which should not be shackled by rigid rules of procedure,[51] and inherent in a court’s equitable powers is the authority to prevent injustice engendered by fraud, accident, or mistake.[52] Florida Bar Journal Novembert/December 2021 “Two, Three or Four Prongs? The Contractual Defense of Unilateral mistake in Florida”

Second, there is a distinction between the equitable remedies of rescission and reformation that may further blur the lines. The Florida Supreme Court and a few others have ruled that reformation is not appropriate except for mutual mistake,[53] but other Florida courts have extended it in the case of unilateral mistake where there is some form of inequitable conduct or inducement by the party seeking to avoid the defense.[54

Rescission should return the parties to status quo ante; reformation calls for a court, looking at the parties’ intent, to “rewrite” the agreement. The latter is more extreme and against the longstanding principle of court hesitancy to rewrite contracts. The Florida courts have long endeavored to refrain from the rewriting of terms in contracts.[55] Apparently, some bad act by the party seeking to enforce an agreement could under more extenuating circumstances, however, convince a court to rewrite a portion of an agreement.[56]

the courts must take their arguments as presented. Our system is adversarial,[58] and even in equity (with perhaps a bit more flexibility), courts are constrained to consider what parties present. It is not the courts’ role to re-craft a party’s arguments. Whether by choice of the parties or steerage by the courts, assertion of fraud in contracts cases is not undertaken lightly; other arguments devoid of accusations of fraud are more palatable. Additionally, to avoid having to address the fraud question, courts may entertain contractual defense arguments based on mutual mistake, unconscionability and possibly even undue influence (which has an inducement feature balanced with the level of susceptibility, but it is not outright “fraud”). Why find a party guilty of fraud, in a civil case, when a court could reach the same result based on a defense other than fraud? [e.s.]

*

**** Sign Up for 1 Hour 1 CLE Prelitigation Webinar 11/19/21 4PM Friday****

*

THIS ARTICLE APPLIES ONLY TO HOMEOWNER TRANSACTIONS IN WHICH THE SCHEDULED PAYMENTS ARE SUBJECT TO CLAIMS OF SECURITIZATION OF DEBT.

Matthew Marin and Paul Carrier wrote an important article featured in the recent Florida Bar Journal that provides a coherent explanation of contractual defenses that can be applied to contracts claimed to be loans and defenses against enforcement of the note or mortgage. In so doing they remind us of basic principles of what a court can and cannot do — including, I emphasize, the fact that a judge COULD think to himself or herself that an argument or claim or defense could be presented better does not establish the authority to do so. Judges are charged with considering the arguments presented — not the ones that could be presented. And the omission of the ones that could have been presented waives any later attempt to assert them.

This is not up for discussion or debate. It is a basic fact in litigation — one which homeowners have learned (or not) the hard way. Blaming a judge for not doing it is like blaming a dog for failure to fly. Homeowners in my opinion SHOULD be attacking most claims of authority to administer, collect or enforce scheduled payments, and there are plenty of grounds for doing so. In fact, there are good grounds for asking for money in addition to avoiding liability for issuing a promissory note without consideration — and If more homeowners did it the landscape would look totally different. The bottom line is hard for most to accept: the deal was not what it appeared to be.

The grounds for the attack should be largely equitable, but also include legal defenses —- they should be directed at authority (even if the contract was not rescinded, reformed, or set aside in whole or in part) and also on equitable grounds like a unilateral mistake, no meeting of the minds, etc. And as the article points out, validating what I have been saying, alleging fraud makes it far more difficult to plead or prove your point.

So here is the hardest part for homeowners and lawyers for homeowners to understand or even admit.

Nearly all notes and mortgages are issued because of unilateral mistake(s) on the part of the homeowner, induced by investment banks who continue to hide facts that are statutorily required to be disclosed, including but not limited to:

  • They do not know that they are doing business with an undisclosed investment bank doing business through a string of intermediaries.
  • They do not know that the supposed loan transaction is being underwritten for the purpose of justifying sale of unregulated securities and not for purposes of justifying a loan.
  • They do not know that the appraisal is being forced high to justify the contract price and the amount of the “loan”
  •  They do not know that there is an absence of any real party in interest that has a risk of loss — the essential balancing element of all contracts
  • They do not know that the undisclosed revenue for the sale of securities vastly exceeds the amount of their transaction. At the moment they sign, homeowners have triggered revenue that erases all possible risk of loss and eliminates the need to establish a loan account receivable on the books of anyone.
  • They do not know that it is their signature on purported loan documents that creates the illusion of a loan transaction thus triggering the undisclosed sale of securities (without which the “loan” would never have offered, much less occurred.
    • This one fact triggers a series of claims on behalf of homeowners that does not require alleging fraud and keeps the burden of proof manageable (generally preponderance, rather than clear and convincing).
    • Homeowners were not borrowers. They were investors and participants in the sale of unregulated securities. They were entitled to know that and bargain for a fair share of the proceeds. The issuance of the note by the homeowner was based upon a universal error or mistake by all homeowners that they were purchasing a loan product which was not true.
    • In addition, if the transaction was deemed by a court of competent jurisdiction to be a true loan with a “true lender” as set forth in the regulations, then the undisclosed amount of revenue generated from the sale of securities arising from the closing of the transaction with the homeowner is owed back to the homeowner (in full) under the Federal Truth in Lending Act.
      • This element of foreclosure litigation has not been adequately pursued. In judicial states it is an affirmative defense that is not barred by the statute of limitations. In nonjudicial states, the application of the statute of limitations to such claims must be unconstitutional because of unequal treatment based upon choice of procedure. Homeowners should not be barred from using meritorious defenses that are available under the same state’s judicial foreclosure procedure.
  • They do not know that no loan account receivable is created or maintained — thus making modification or workouts rare or impossible
  • They do not know that there is nobody who is legally authorized to administer, collect or enforce the promise they made to make scheduled payments, to wit: the presumed authority to enforce arising from the alleged possession of the alleged original note leads to a false conclusion of fact. Such authority ultimate must come from the party who owns the underlying obligation as contained on their records as a loan account receivable. There is no such loan account receivable.
  • They do not know that the transaction is going to be subject to false claims of servicing
  • They do not know that the “servicing” is not performed by the named “servicer”

The bottom line is that homeowners did not get what they applied for and the investment banks did not pay money to the homeowner or on their behalf because they wanted to loan money. They wanted to sell securities and they needed homeowners to do it. The fact that a homeowner received money and used it to either buy a home or settle a previous financial transaction does NOT make it a loan. A loan is a label for a certain type of contract. There must be a meeting of the minds. In cases where there was no meeting of the minds, there is no contract. And if there was no meeting of the minds because one party to the alleged contract was hiding and did not disclose the real terms as required by laws, rules, and regulations concerning loan contracts make it is imperative that established existing remedies be allowed to homeowners.

PRACTICE NOTE: It seems that a lot of people don’t understand the judicial notice and the insignificance of documents uploaded to the sec.gov site. By filing a registration statement followed by a notice that no further filings are necessary, anyone can upload anything to sec.gov. In effect, it is nothing more than box.com, dropbox, etc.

Lawyers and others involved in false foreclosure claims often upload documents under that cloud and then download those documents from the sec.gov site such that the download shows the sec.gov header.

They then file a motion for judicial notice of the document of a government document even though it was never reviewed accepted, approved nor even a part of a required registration since the sale of “certificates” is not regulated as securities. It is not subject to judicial notice because the document was not an official record of any governmental agency and was never officially registered or recorded.

It does not establish the existence of a trust or the powers of a trustee. Therefore, it cannot serve as the foundation for the claims of the company claiming to be a servicer for that “trust.” It is worthless as to its existence (probably because it is incomplete in the text or exhibits) and it contains only statements of future intent — not a recital of anything that has occurred.

 

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, accounting 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 TO 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.

 

Discovery Aimed at Insurance Accounts Might Yield Beneficial Results for Homeowners Challenging the Rights to Administer, collect or Enforce

if the payment is directed to the company claiming to be a servicer on behalf of a non-existing creditor, the homeowner’s liability for the scheduled payment is not reduced. Like most foreclosure sales, the proceeds from insurance are used as free money or revenue by all of the participants in the fake process of servicing.

*

Update from reader/client:

you may want to advise your readers they can call their insurance carriers and demand they remove any servicer off their policies.  I started challenging servicers regarding insurance fraud years ago.  That’s an issue that makes them very nervous.  I had a claim for fire damage in 2006,  I called BEFORE I made the claim to remove SPS off my policy. The check was issued to me.  Later I get a call from a women from (SPS) she claims, stating I needed to give them the money.   I laughed and said if SPS wants  insurance they should get their own policy, and by trying to claim my policy is insurance fraud.  I never heard another peep.   Farmers has been more than helpful keeping servicers off my policies.. but you need to check periodically because they will reappear.  Nationstar appeared on the policy above when SPS was claimed servicer..SPS couldn’t get on my policy so they just named NS as beneficiary which I promptly removed.   The insurance issue is fun to play with..it’s one topic that makes “them” nervous. (e.s.)

If a natural disaster or other covered event triggers a payment from an insurance company that was paid premiums from the money of a homeowner, you probably want to know who is getting that payment? If the house is a total loss, it is highly probable that the named insured on the policy of insurance includes a payoff to the secured creditor. This is one of the ways that homeowners inadvertently admit that there is a secured creditor who owns a loan account receivable due to that creditor. But if the payment is directed to the company claiming to be a servicer on behalf of a non-existing creditor, the homeowner’s liability for the scheduled payment is not reduced. Like most foreclosure sales, the proceeds from insurance are used as free money or revenue by all of the participants in the fake process of servicing.

*

This is just one of the reasons why you want to challenge the authority, rights and obligations of the company claiming to be a servicer. If you utilize their services to make payments for your insurance you are tacitly admitting that they are a servicer. That admission naturally leads to the assumption that they are acting as a servicer for a creditor who maintains a loan account receivable due from the homeowner. This is just one of the many ways that Wall Street creates a long trail of tracks in the sand all leading to the erroneous conclusion that the “loan” exists and a “Creditor” owns it.

*

That is why I’m doing a webinar on November 19 in which I describe pre-litigation strategies, which should begin as early as possible.

**** Sign Up for 1 Hour 1 CLE Prelitigation Webinar 11/19/21 4PM Friday****

*

So the first question is who is the additional insured on the homeowner’s policy? The answer to that question alone might reveal information that can be used in challenging the administration, collection, and enforcement of scheduled payments

*

And the next question is how did the insurance company arrive at the factual conclusion that the named insured had an insurable interest (required by law)?

*
In order to have an insurable interest, the insured would need to be someone who suffers a risk of loss — or someone who is the authorized representative of a party who had a risk of loss from a covered event. The insurance companies are paid extra premiums for issuing policies without regard to whether or not the named insured has an insurable interest. But somewhere in their underwriting department, there is a box checked or a note inserted as to the nature of the interest that is being insured. In discovery, the homeowner would seek to know the source of information that was used to check that box or make that note.
*
I have occasionally raised a dust cloud with this strategy. If the homeowner finds out that the insured is the named Company claiming to be the servicer, and the homeowner is the owner of the policy, the homeowner can instruct the insurance company to make adjusted payments directly to the homeowner unless and until the insurance company receives information that establishes the insurable interest, and until the insurable interest is matched with the named insured.
*
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, accounting 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 TO 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.

PONZI Operator Sentenced to 3 Life terms: What about Wall Street?

The bottom line is if someone offers you a return higher than the marketplace offers, there is no way for them to pay you except by selling more investments to new victims. You will almost definitely lose your money.

Mr. Gallagher promised a 5 to 8 percent return on his clients’ investments, according to court records. A vast majority of his clients were people in their 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s, and middle-class people who were not looking for enormous returns, but a stable retirement fund, according to court records.

see https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/02/us/william-neil-doc-gallagher-ponzi-scheme-sentenced.html

I note this particular PONZI scheme because of its premise — slightly higher returns than available in the marketplace. Usually, PONZI operators draw victims by offering impossible returns. But like Wall Street, Gallagher set himself up to be a trusted source of financial information and he promoted himself as a spiritual adviser. He relied on the Christian faith and the businesses and networks associated with promoting schemes to older people observing the Christian faith.

Here is the similarity with the Wall Street securitizations scheme.

Like Gallagher, there was no financial product that matched the description of the “investment plan.” There was no securitization occurred of any promise, debt, or obligation issued by homeowners. The “plan” did not exist.

Gallagher marketed to seniors who trusted him on faith and their own carefully cultivated belief that Gallagher was a trusted source of information who know what he was doing. The Wall Street banks depended upon targeted advertising to those who lacked basic knowledge of finance, lending, and mortgage practices. Like Gallagher’s victims, many of these victims operated on faith or trust and the belief that was supported by advertising and targeted campaigns, including personal salespeople who were harvested from the ranks of convicted felons.

Like all Ponzi schemes, the “success” of Gallagher was pure fiction. It depended upon new investments to provide capital to pay previous investors. The success of the Wall Street securitization PONZI scheme depends on the continued sale of certificates to investors seeking higher than normal returns.

Like Gallagher, by advertising the slightly higher return on investment instead of bold returns like Madoff, Wall Street PONZI securitization schemes stayed below the radar. It wasn’t obvious that the promised returns were impossible. Madoff’s investor victims could have been alerted by the promised 16 % return.

The difference between the two is that Gallagher was detected, probably because he saturated the marketplace with his scheme. The Wall Street scheme survives, so far. But you can be sure that if buying of those certificates slows down or stops, the crash will come. I don’t know if the government will again prop up an illegal scheme, but I hope not.

How Wall Street is Committing the Perfect Crime

**** Sign Up for 1 Hour 1 CLE Prelitigation Webinar 11/19/21 4PM Friday****

*

Back in 2006 on TV, I said something like this: “Given the size and scope of this illegal enterprise, there probably are not enough available assets in the world to purchase and hide from public scrutiny. The banks will inevitably expand into fields in which they have no interest, just like lending. The only way they can hide their illicit gains is by laundering them through the purchase, sale, and trading of assets, some of which will be just as fictitious as the alleged loans they are allegedly creating.”

*

At that point, I had just learned of the investment by Goldman Sachs in precious metals distribution centers. It’s like the “free trade zones” where multiple transactions, options, and other hedge products are traded every day without any reported record of the transaction. No income reported, no tax reported as owed, and the ability of the government to pay for basic services is diminished every day by the declining revenue from these companies. The burden of paying for these services is hidden through “privatization” in which the focus shifts from the service to making money by pretending to provide the service.

*
The acts passed in 1998-1999 essentially privatized enforcement of consumer rights that were clearly enunciated in the statute. It shifted the public law enforcement service to private citizens injured by illegal behavior — a burden which few victims could afford to defend with their time, money, and energy. It was close to the perfect crime — so far.
*
As long as people vote for slogan candidates that accept money and even rely upon money from Wall Street (and the rest of the status quo alliance) nothing will change. There is plenty of public money that could be spent on basic and more advanced services sponsored or conducted by the government — but the rule is that the richer you are the more easily you can afford professionals who will legally assist you in avoiding tax liability and probably illegally assist you in evading such liabilities.
*
Hidden beneath the rubble is the incontestable fact that the ordinary citizen pays far more in taxes than any of his or her more financially successful counterparts — as a percentage of income (including “private taxes”). Let me remind you that the tax system was established and approved as a progressive tax system in which increases taxes on those ablest to afford to pay (because of the opportunities that society granted to them through licenses and other perks).
*

Want to allege fraud? Not so fast

Both homeowners and lawyers like to throw around the term “fraud upon the court.” But it actually ends up diminishing the credibility of both. There are several reasons why you should not allege fraud unless you have indisputable sold proof that the documents and/or oral arguments were filled with statements that were known to be false when they were made.

The reality is that homeowners do best when they attack the sufficency of the allegations, exhibits and evidence. 

Due to recovery from some medical issues, I am taking the night off from the radio show. I submit the following in its place:

*

Both homeowners and lawyers like to throw around the term “fraud upon the court.” But it actually ends up diminishing the credibility of both. There are several reasons why you should not allege fraud unless you have indisputable sold proof that the documents and/or oral arguments were filled with statements that were known to be false when they were made.

*

First, it diminishes your credibility if and when you fail. So other grounds that should have been front and center get short shrift. Second, the only people who actually know the truth of the matter asserted are working for an investment bank that does not show up anywhere in the paperwork and which never appears in court. Everyone else claims plausible deniability even though you know that they know that they are committing illegal acts.

*

And third, you lift and shift the burden of proof to the homeowner on a claim that is essentially being made by the other side  — ie., that you owe money to them. The burden of proof shifts because now it’s you making allegations and it increases or rises because on a fraud claim you must now prove your allegations by “clear and convincing evidence” not merely a preponderance. That is something close to beyond a reasonable doubt. You will never get there unless you get testimony or evidence from the investment bank bookrunner, which I doubt if you will ever see.

*

If you are going to allege fraud you need to be very specific. Charges that the documents or oral argument in the court were false do not suffice. You need to reference specific untrue statements on specific dates with reference to whether it was in writing or oral. And you need to state your grounds for charging fraud — and why these grounds were not raised before.

*
And you need to state that the parties knew that the statements made were false and that a specific party made them anyway for their own personal benefit and not to pursue a legal objective. Generally speaking in foreclosure cases this is impossible because the only party who knows with certainty that the statements were false is the bookrunner investment bank and they have not been in direct contact with you or with the court.
*
All other parties rely upon “plausible deniability” — i.e., that they were merely acting on information from a third party who was performing computer work or otherwise providing instructions. In most cases, this involves multiple parties who are channeling documents, data, and instructions from other parties. While there is plenty of room to allege that they should have known or must have known about the falsity of the documents, pleadings, and oral representations in court, there is no indication in court proceedings that such allegations have ever been sustained.
*
Both before and after litigation or judgment — and without having reviewed your case yet — there are some possibilities that you might want to consider with local counsel.
*
  • Appeal: If you still have time left on the calendar under the rules, you can file a notice of appeal and then an appellate brief. In most cases, such appeals are unsuccessful unless the  Appellant narrows the issue down to a very specific violation of due process or other specific error by the trial court — and which is not supported by something in the record that allows for the trial judge’s action. The error must be something that if corrected could result in a different outcome for the case. The problem with this is that most clerks and judges on appellate courts believe that the appropriate outcome is foreclosure and sale. This occurs because the complexity of securitization hides detection of the innate PONZI scheme.
  • Petition for bankruptcy relief probably under Chapter 13 — automatically stops collection activity until the automatic stay is lifted. You will have the opportunity to challenge the motion to lift the stay in bankruptcy court and conduct limited discovery. There are cases in which the foreclosure mill backs off when confronted with a federal bankruptcy court ordering them to comply with discovery demands. Just remember that as infuriating as it is to hear blatant lies from the lawyer from the foreclosure mill, everything he or she says is currently regarded as protected under the doctrine of litigation immunity.
  • Independent action in state or Federal court to enjoin the parties (not the court) from further activities to administer, collect or enforce any alleged obligation from you on the basis that none of them are the owners of a loan account receivable due from you and none of them represent such a creditor. The benefit here is that you can name the investment bank and perhaps other parties. A well-drafted lawsuit will ordinarily survive a motion to dismiss.
  • Administrative process including at least one Qualified Written Request and at least one Debt Validation Letter under RESPA and FDCPA is one thing that the homeowner can do to track the lies. Failure to answer simple questions about the current status and location of the loan account receivable, ownership and rights to administer, enforce or collect on the alleged underlying obligation owed to the purported virtual creditor creates grounds for an independent state or Federal action for statutory damages, mandatory and prohibitory injunctions. 
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, accounting 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 TO 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.

Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. How the “failure” of rating agencies on Wall Street directly impacted homeowners.

I think the article presents some very valuable information, insight and analysis. But it fails to take into account the central weakness.

*

see Credit rating failure 47.full

*
The certificates that are referred to as “mortgage-backed securities” are neither mortgage-backed nor securities. There have been at least dozens of cases in which tax treatment or liability of the trustee for a REMIC trust has been decided and hundreds more where there were settlements without litigation. In every case, it was found that the owners of the certificates had a creditor-debtor relationship with the book runner investment bank that was unsecured. In every case, the court found or the case was settled on the premise that the owners of the certificates had no claim at all against the payments, obligations, notes, or mortgages issued by any homeowner.
*
The failure of the government to regulate the issuance of those certificates is traced back to the deregulation of those instruments as being “private contracts,” not to be regulated as securities.
*
So the whole notion that the rating agencies failed to properly assess the risk elements contained within the purchase of those certificates is correct but manifestly incomplete. Those certificates were promises to pay issued by Book runners doing business under the name of a nonexistent trust. The promise to pay, in most instances, contained no maturity date as to the principal. The promise to pay, in all instances, was subject to the sole discretion of the book runner.
*
The failure of the rating agencies can be traced to corruption. And the specific failure of the rating agencies was the failure to identify the immediate yield spread premium taken by the book runner together with its securitization partners. That premium had a range of 20 to 50% of the amount invested by purchasers of the certificate. A casual review of the “lending” transactions conducted with homeowners reveals that there was no possible way that certificate owners could’ve been paid as stated in the promotional materials and indenture. The payment was ultimately based upon the continued sale of certificates — with more yield spread premiums. So the “failure” of the rating agencies was the failure to call this scheme by its proper name: a PONZI scheme.
*
The intermediate securities brokerage houses were borrowing money from their securitization mega counterparts against the sale of the certificates. The certificates promised, on average, around 5% return to investors. The transactions that were actually funded had a stated average of 7 to 9% return (with very little likelihood that it would ever be paid). So the amount that was claimed as a loan was far less than what had been received from investors. Part of this money went into a reserve account from which the book runner, as master service sir, could make “servicer advances.” Do the math. In many cases, if you allocate the money to a specific “loan” transaction the amount of revenue generated was equal to or greater than the amount of “principal” on the “loan.” On average it was less than that — but far more than what was required to be disclosed to the consumer homeowner.
*
The only way that yield spread premium could exist is by charging a higher interest rate on the “loan.” The only way the higher interest rate could be charged was by structuring transactions with homeowners that had maximum risk instead of minimum risk. And the only way the book runner could keep paying the certificate holders was if more certificates were sold since actual payments from actual homeowners would never materialize in the amount needed to meet the whimsical promise made by the bookrunner. Knowing that, the bookrunner and securitization counterparts were able to create insurance contracts that insured them instead of investors but still promote the certificates as “insured.”
*
To get independent confirmation of what I am saying here, which is above most readers’ understanding, is by tracking the evolution of the definitions used in the TARP program. First, it was to offset losses suffered by the banks from homeowner defaults. Then it was discovered that the banks did not own any loans to homeowners and therefore could not suffer any loss and needed no bailout for such losses. But they were still left with the threat of financial Armageddon that was being pushed by the megabanks — bail us out or else we will freeze all credit markets.
*
So then TARP was changed to bail out the banks for losses on the RMBS certificates. That didn’t work either because the banks were selling those certificates, not buying them. SO there was no loss there either. But the threat remained that as Geithner said “The plane was burning, We had to land it.” The megabanks were insistent on the bailout even though none of them had experienced any losses.
*
The true nature of the bailout was revealed when the bailout of AIG occurred in the open. It turns out Goldman Sachs had been bailed out of losing a windfall profit it had “earned” by having insurance paid to itself instead of investors or homeowners. The taxpayers were coerced into funding profits. No losses were bailed out because no losses were incurred by the recipients of the bailout.
*
So that is why I say the “failure” of the rating agencies is a generous way of portraying what they did. This mess might never have occurred if they were not complicit in the scheme. And that is why I say that the legal doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies —- in the absence of negligence or other tortious behavior, the thing would not have occurred.
*
It is peculiarly irksome for homeowners and their lawyers that there have been so many settlements predicated on the fact that the transactions with homeowners were never conducted, underwritten or executed properly. Those settlements have strictly been with the government or investors. What disturbs homeowners is that those defects are all violations of lending laws for which there are self-executing remedies including rescission. But while the banks are getting paid “bailout” money, the homeowners are being barred by the courts from remedies that were created in order to establish a self-regulation process rather than a gigantic new federal agency that would review, insure and approve all consumer lending transactions.
*
The second irksome issue for homeowners is that they know that the parties seeking enforcement against them are doing it for fun and profit — not to repay an existing loan account receivable. Any real analysis by the rating agencies would have revealed the fact that the enforcement of the homeowner’s scheduled payments was completely dependent upon the satisfaction of the condition precedent stated in Article 9 §203 of the UCC — payment for the underlying obligation. But what the Wall Street banks had created was an oxymoron. Anyone who had paid value did not own the obligation, and anyone who received “title” to the underlying obligation did not pay value. It was precisely this structure that enabled the virtual sale of the debt many times over rather than being limited to a single actual sale.
*
The problem then is that even if the certificates had been properly sold and properly managed, the homeowner transactions were mere points of reference rather than any enforceable contract that served as “mortgage backing” for the certificates. None of this could have occurred without the rating agencies and the homeowners who were unknowingly drafted into a securities scheme without receiving notice nor any incentive payment — despite statutory requirements to the contrary. Hence the sale of financial products to homeowners produced an inchoate liability for the Wall Street banks. This liability, based upon the stated position of owners of the certificates could vicariously be ascribed to the certificate owners who found themselves in the old position of “damned if you do, damned if you don’t.”
*
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, accounting 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 TO 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.

Those letters from the lawyer for the “servicer”: PHH

It is true that someone will execute a release of the lien. What is not true is that they have any authority to do so — nor is it true that PHH has any right to receive any money, whether it is a monthly payment or a payoff.

In fact it is not true that PHH will receive any money. They won’t and they don’t. All payments are  directed through lockbox contracts and FINTECH companies into accounts that may bear the name of a company claiming to be a serrvicer but which are owned by someone else.

This is why I keep successfully annoying opposing counsel about the payment history they wish to introduce as a business record exception to the rule against the use of hearsay evidence.

Since none of the data was entered by anyone employed by the company that is claimed to be the servicer, the payment history is neither a business record that is an exception to the rule against hearsay, nor an acceptable substitute for what has always been required: the accounting ledger showing the history (cradle to grave) of the loan account receivable. In fact, the payment history is not even a partially acceptable substitute for that ledger because it does not reflect payments to creditors.

PHH, Ocwen and Reverse Mortgage Solutions (among others) are all part of the same organization. In a recent dialogue between my client and the lawyer for PHH, he stated that payment to PHH will cause the lien to be released. This got me started thinking about the way he worded that. Normally the lawyer would write something like “Payment to PHH, as agent for XYZ Creditor, will satisfy the debt, note and mortgage. Upon receipt of such payment,m the lien will be released.”

Note that this was a representation from the lawyer not PHH and not any creditor. And the lawyer is protected by a form of immunity as long as he is not intentionally misstating the facts knowing that they’re false. If PHH said that, it could be the basis for a fraud action.  It is true that someone will execute a release of the lien. What is not true is that they have any authority to do so nor is it true that PHH has any right to receive any money, whether it is a monthly payment or a payoff.

It is true that someone will execute a release of the lien. What is not true is that they have any authority to do so nor is it true that PHH has any right to receive any money, whether it is a monthly payment or a payoff.

So this is what I said in a comment to the receipt of an email displaying the comments of the lawyer claiming to represent “somebody” which we presume is a claim to represent PHH which in turn is a claim to represent some company claiming to be a creditor merely because they have some paperwork — and not because they ever entered into any purchase and sale transaction in which they bought the underlying obligation, the legal debt, note or mortgage:

*

Of course, what is interesting is that the lawyer is saying that payment to PHH will cause the lien to be released. But it doesn’t say who will release it. It’s leaving the rest to your imagination. Any lien release under this scenario would be executed by a person working for a company that has no legal authority to sign it.

*

The way it is set up, the person is authorized by the company he works for, but the company lacks the authority to authorize him to sign it. The company, in turn, claims authority by virtue of some contract or document in which the counterparty grants the company the authority. But the grantor also lacks authority.

*
The idea here is to get you to take your eye off the ball. The ball is always the underlying obligation. It is the legal owner of the obligation (i.e., the one who purchased it for value) who has the sole authority to grant powers to anyone else over the administration, collection, and enforcement of the underlying obligation.
*
It is only when you take your eye off the ball that these companies get away with claiming the status of “holder” of the note and owner of the mortgage. The holder of the note is defined as a party who has physical possession of the note (or the right to physical possession of the note) together with the authority to enforce it.
*
These players have been successfully leveraging the idea that physical possession of the promissory note, or the right to physical possession of the promissory note is all that they need in order to establish the legal presumption that they have the authority to enforce it. That has never been true. But in the absence of a persistent and aggressive challenge from the alleged debtor, these parties have been able to steamroll over all weak objections.
*
Further, leveraging one presumption into another, they have been successful in raising the additional presumption that transfer of the note to a “holder” is the legal equivalent of transferring legal title to the underlying obligation, thus satisfying the requirement for enforcement that is contained in Article 9–203 of the Uniform Commercial Code. None of that is true; but all of it seems to be true.
*
The bottom line is that they know there is no loan account receivable and therefore no legal owner of the underlying obligation. They have done that intentionally for the benefit of the investment banks that set up this scheme. But it has not been difficult for Wall Street to convince the rest of the world that all of these transactions are, in substance, just what they appear to be. Getting the courts, law enforcement, regulators, and even homeowners and their lawyers to look beyond the appearance has been the principal impediment to defeating the scheme.
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, accounting 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 TO 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.
%d bloggers like this: