EVENTS COMING UP FOR GARFIELD CONTINUUM AND GARFIELD HANDBOOKS

What Lawyers Are Saying About Neil Garfield’s Seminars

Download Registration Form for Florida Workshops Nov 1-2, 2009 Click link below

Homeowners Workshop Registration Form – November 1, 2009

Lawyers Workshop Registration Form – November 2, 2009

PLEASE SUPPORT THIS SITE !!! donation-form-1108

PURCHASE  WORKBOOKS: Request to Purchase Garfield Lawyers Workshop Handbook-v4

Request to Purchase Garfield Homeowners Workshop Handbook- v2

appraisal-fraud-description-and-new-rules

Note: If you are planning to attend it would be wise to book now. Experience has shown us that sometimes a large number of lawyers show up at these workshops intending to register at the door. We don’t want you driving two hours only to find out we don’t have a seat for you.

CLE CREDITS APPROVED BY FLORIDA, CALIFORNIA, OHIO BAR and Other Jurisdictions

Lawyers Workshop – Sneak Preview

EXCELLENT ALABAMA COMPLAINT ANALYZING SEQUENCE OF INDORSEMENTS AND ASSIGNMENTS:

lombard-v-us-bank

annoted-example-of-asignment-and-assumption-agreement

fordham-and-creighton-law-reviews-on-securitization-and-holders-in-due-course

necessary-and-indispensable-parties

standard-and-poor_s-classification-of-home-loans-and-predatory-rating

california-statutes-foreclosure

ten-reality-questions-answers-sb_1137_faq_rev_3

The lenders already got their money from sale of the mortgage and note, they want now the property and a deficiency judgment, attorneys fees and costs too. Such unfairness was addressed thousands of years ago.

predatory-lending-practices-cardozo-law-review-ssrn-id929118

title-company-sues-countrywide-exposing-deep-flaw-in-loan-closings

From the Scriptures: Respect and Ownership

predators-bill-from-newsweek

CONFLICT OF LAWS:

Most states have adopted the Uniform Commercial Code without making any revisions. The UCC is an outgrowth of the Uniform Code arising from the Hague conventions. Thus the laws concerning indorsement, transfer, accommodation and assignment date back hundreds of years from common law from over 30 countries. Variance in application of these laws carries with it the probability of undermining the confidence that people will have in knowing that contractual obligations will be enforced and that they are protected by legal conventions that are accepted all over the world. In the context of the mortgage meltdown, the ONLY defensive positions that can be taken by those who would enforce securitized notes and mortgages, given the predatory practices employed and the failure to disclose the inflated pricing and valuation on both sides of the transaction — the investor who put up the money for the loan, and the borrower who signed the papers — is to run contrary to established law. An indorsement in blank generally means nothing without more. It does not convert the instrument to a bearer instrument. An accommodation indorsement fails to provide “cover” which is necessary for one to claim being a holder in due course. The following is an old treatise comparing laws from various jurisdictions. The inescapable conclusions are that the laws that were taught in law schools 100 years ago, 50 years ago and even 25 years ago are all the same. The only party capable of claiming the status of holder in due course is the investor who purchased certificates that gave him/her/it a share of a pool of assets which consisted of, in its purest form, a pool of notes and mortgages that were corrupted by the promise (unknown to the borrower or the investor) to apply payments to parties OTHER THAN the holder in due course. This has the obvious effect of separating the stream of revenue from the original obligor (and co-obligors acquired along the way) from the security instrument (the mortgage) which is a recorded document, as should be any assignment thereof. The parties holding the mortgage and the parties to whom the revenue stream is pledged are different, diverse, and in most cases unknown as they are dependent upon conditions subsequent that were undisclosed to either the borrower or the investor (overcollateralization of the asset backed securities, cross guarantees between tranches, insurance against loss, credit default swaps etc.). Hence the obligation was converted from a secured credit transaction to an unsecured unliquidated contingent contract obligation, subject to affirmative defenses and counterclaims, including the quieting of title, from the borrower. Conflict of Laws as to Bills and Notes

 

19 Responses

  1. need a lawyer in missouri that gets it!

  2. I need to Know if I have to send the TILA rescicion letter to the original lender .Today is the 3 year aniversary of the loan . Isendt the letter to the current bank’s attorneys ,who are suing me. Urgent Please !!!! I hae not found any other way of communicating with you to contract consulting services Ican still get to the Post office !

  3. I meant for my last post to be put in a different forum to which I’ve already copied it. Please remove it from this forum when you get a chance.

    Thx,
    Walter Hackett, Esq.

  4. A request for CA non-attorneys. Those of you providing some sort of review or audit service to California homeowners please do NOT provide legal advice (if you’re unsure what constitutes legal advice please talk with a friend who’s an attorney). There is NO PRIVILEGE associated with a homeowner’s communications with you. We are starting to receive discovery requests for the 3 dozen or so lawsuits we’ve filed to date. One of those requests is generally in the following format: “Identify EACH and EVERY person with knowledge of the facts upon which you base the allegation set forth in Paragraph #XX of the Complaint that “Defendants and/or their agents misrepresented to Plaintiff that he/she could afford the loan based on the actual terms set forth in the loan documents.”

    If you tell your clients that they “do not owe the money” or that they are “victims of predatory lending” or “fraud” then YOU are one of the parties who must be identified in response to an interrogatory such as this one. ALL of your conversations with such a homeowner are discoverable and your deposition can be, and very likely will be, taken if a defendant lender deems you to be someone whose testimony will assist them in their defense. Statements such as “in my personal opinion it appears there is some evidence of irregularities in your loan and you should seek the advice of a licensed attorney” are fine. Saying “you don’t owe the money” or “you’re a victim of predatory lending” will NOT put you in a good light in deposition or on the witness stand. If you have ANY questions about whether a particular statement could be construed as practicing law you can always call the State Bar or, at a minimum, make SURE your clients know that you are NOT giving them a legal opinion and anything you say is strictly a matter of your personal opinion.

    I’ve had huge holes blown in two cases because my clients absolutely refused to negotiate with lenders who were attempting to comply with CA Civil Code section 2923.5 BECAUSE an “auditor” told them they should NEVER negotiate with their lenders because they are “victims of predatory lending.” Unfortunately, it is my belief offers tendered by these lenders will be admissible as proof of the lenders’ attempt to comply with the statute. A reasonable offer that includes no waivers of any substantive rights that is refused out of hand will NOT prove helpful to a consumer’s case against a lender.

    Walter Hackett, Esq.

  5. To Neil and those that work closely with:

    Is there a possibility of putting on a workshop in Phoenix, Arizona for a group of people that I will round up. I thought I saw mention of one coming up here but can’t find it now. These people are already actively involved in mortgage mod negotiation every day. The company principals did not seem to know [maybe they were playing their cards close to their chest] about what I had to tell them which most of which I learned here on LivingLies. They are starting to ramp up their services due to an effective prospecting model and could really do a lot of good. I’m to be working with them and we could do a lot of good with a teacher as knowledgeable as Neil.

    Thanks,
    Patrick

  6. ogspot.com.
    Monday, November 24, 2008
    Thousands Of Foreclosures Are Void, Says Massachusetts Class Action Demanding Lenders & Their Lawyers Prove Note Ownership

    In Boston, Massachusetts, the Boston Herald reports:

    * A class action lawsuit has been filed that could stop hundreds of foreclosures and reverse thousands of others. “The rush to foreclose has turned the process into a circus,” said Gary Klein, an attorney representing two Boston homeowners facing foreclosure. “We’re asking these lenders to prove they hold the mortgage.”

    * The suit filed in Suffolk Superior Court alleges that since 2004 GMAC Mortgage, Deutsche Bank National Trust, Harmon Law Offices and Ablitt Law Offices foreclosed on properties despite the fact that they do not own or were not assigned the mortgages.

    * Klein estimates that as many as 1,000 homes in Massachusetts could be affected and thousands more going forward. If the lawsuit is successful, foreclosures in the pipeline would be placed on hold until lenders can prove they own the mortgage. If a foreclosure sale has taken place without the proper authority, it could be set aside.

    For more, see Lawyer to lenders: Prove you own mortgages.

    See also, The Boston Globe: Lenders’ right to foreclose is challenged:

    * “Massachusetts’ foreclosure process has become an undisciplined and lawless rush to seize homes,” the suit alleged. “Many thousands of foreclosures are plainly void under statute and settled Massachusetts case law.”

    For posts that reference the failure of some mortgage lenders and their attorneys to prove ownership of the promissory note when starting foreclosure actions, Go Here, Go Here, Go Here, and Go Here. missing mortgage foreclosure docs gamma

    Posted by Home Equity Theft Reporter at 12:05 AM

  7. I would like information about the Foreclosure Defense workshop for attorneys in Florida that was supposed to take place on February 16, 2009 in Orlando. Are you still planning to conduct this workshop? Please let me know as soon as possible because I have an interest in attending this workshop. If you do not plan on having a workshop on February 16th, please let me know when you plan to have your next workshop.

    Freddie Vega, Esq.
    909-984-5555

  8. […] August 22, 2008 · No Comments events-coming-up-for-garfield-continuum-and-garfield-handbooks […]

  9. Is the Securitization and Mortgage Defense/Offense workshop applicable to California law, or if I were to attend, could it be utilized in my Florida practice?

  10. […] August 20, 2008 · No Comments events-coming-up-for-garfield-continuum-and-garfield-handbooks […]

  11. […] August 19, 2008 · No Comments CLICK HERE TO COME TO SANTA MONICA WORKSHOPS 9/3-9/4 […]

  12. […] August 19, 2008 · No Comments SUPPORT OUR EFFORTS; COME TO THE WORKSHOPS IN SANTA MONICA 9/3-9/4 […]

  13. […] August 18, 2008 · No Comments COME TO OUR SANTA MONICA SEMINARS 9/3-9/4 […]

  14. […] August 17, 2008 · No Comments CLICK HERE TO COME TO SANTA MONICA WORKSHOPS 9/3-9/4 […]

  15. […] Regulatory Agencies ← EVENTS COMING UP FOR GARFIELD CONTINUUM AND GARFIELD HANDBOOKS […]

  16. […] May 7, 2008 · 7 Comments Seminars for Layman (Pro Se Litigants) and For Lawyers […]

  17. […] August 14, 2008 · 2 Comments events-coming-up-for-garfield-continuum-and-garfield-handbooks […]

  18. […] August 8, 2008 · 1 Comment events-coming-up-for-garfield-continuum-and-garfield-handbooks […]

  19. […] May 29, 2008 · 5 Comments events-coming-up-for-garfield-continuum-and-garfield-handbooks […]

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: