Hope for Homeowners: Lawyers, Paralegals and Homeowners Signing Up For Garfield Seminars in San Francisco and LA This Month

 “Lawyers who want real traction (instead of delay) in court will get specific narratives on how to use the DENY and DISCOVER strategy, and the information to know they are right. And just as important, these lawyers are going to learn what I have taught to other lawyers who became millionaires — the right business model” — Neil F Garfield

by Nail F Garfield, Esq.August 6, 2012, Chandler Az

We all know the bad news. The economic collapse caused by the housing crisis, the lack of resources and motivation for regulators and law enforcement to figure how the Banks did it, the bailouts to banks who obviously were not entitled to it, and the fiscal stimulus that would never have been necessary if the banks had been required to foreclose the old-fashioned way.

POLITICAL AND LEGAL VIEWS ARE CHANGING: Time is catching up with the Banks and the facts are catching up with the myths and slogans spun out of Wall Street. People in all branches of government in all the states and the federal government are finally getting their act together.

Lawsuits by County recorders are coming fast and furious and declaring that the title system is being corrupted. Judges are viewing the Banks’ position with far more skepticism than we saw even 6 months ago. Sanctions are being levied upon the Banks and their lawyers for misrepresenting facts about the ownership of the loan. And cities are being destroyed by the foreclosure and abandonment of the same house that was foreclosed — after the homeowner made a reasonable offer of payment.

The questions are changing from why should we let the borrower get out of a legitimate debt to why should we let the Banks get away with foreclosing on property where they are using fabricate, falsified, forged documents because they never funded or purchased the loan? People are starting to ask the right questions. How can a credit bid at auction be accepted from a non-creditor? Why did the trustee accept that bid? How could the deed on the foreclosure be valid if is was based on a false “credit bid.”

Administrative agencies like the OCC have issued cease and desist orders, Judges are issuing temporary restraining Orders and denying motions to lift say in bankruptcy.

PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY: Borrowers have been hampered by the feeling deep down that they are in default of their obligation and deserve to get foreclosed. The facts are coming out now that the debt was paid, it was never properly secured with a perfected lien, and the only liability they might have is to the insurance company or counterparty in a credit default swap who paid it. Creditors have already settled on many if not most of the liability or obligations created by the falsified paperwork in the origination of the loan. They want no part of the predatory lending practices and fraudulently inflated appraisals used to justify the loans. And people are starting to ask themselves whether it was really their error in judgment or if in fact they were tricked and deceived into signing papers that named the wrong lender and had different terms than what the lender had agreed to accept. They are still mad at themselves for signing those papers, which eventually got shredded or lost. But they are mad because they listened to the closing agents etc who told them “don’t get a lawyer.”

THERE WERE NO LOSSES ON DEFAULTS BECAUSE CREDITORS RECEIVED PAYMENT: The real creditors, as well now know were the pension funds and other managed retirement and municipal funds that invested in those bogus mortgage bonds that didn’t exist issued by an entity that didn’t exist and in which there was nothing to back up the bonds. The agents of those creditors, the banks, took the money they made by temporarily “owning” the loan, selling it, insuring it and hedging it and now have settled with many investors who were the real lenders in the transactions. As more and more people come to realize this fact, they are coming to realize that they are not asking for amnesty for failing to pay a loan, but rather justice in making sure the creditor doesn’t get paid twice.

It would have been nice if they had grasped the facts back in 2007, before any of the bailouts and other money got printed by the Federal Reserve, debasing our currency. Back then just a few of us were warning that there were several major banks that were going to fail not because of the defaults on mortgage loans but because of bad trades or bets they made based upon layers of paper filled with fraudulent and deceptive facts.

STRATEGIC DEFAULTS INSTEAD OF SURRENDER: Fewer homeowners are leaving their keys on the counter when served with a notice of default because they can’t help noticing the hundreds of people in their area who are living in homes where the payments have not been made sometimes as long as five years. States are passing laws that basically ask whether there is a valid lien or mortgage on the property and who exactly owns that lien?

HUNDREDS OF LAWYERS ARE TAKING FORECLOSURE DEFENSE CASES: In 2007, when I started the blog at www.livinglies.wordpress.com, it was just a little distraction to warn people of the coming wave of foreclosures, bank collapses and the reasons for the problems. Now it has over 7.2 million hits. I never dreamed back then that it would take this long for lawyers and law enforcement to get up to speed. Here I was day after day giving them the information for free on the blog.

Back then, when I was helping people with distressed loans, I couldn’t find a single lawyer that would take a case even where the client was easily able and willing to pay for their services, and only sought to workout the loan, a common practice in the industry when market conditions change.

There is now considerable hope for homeowners coming from many different sources including regulatory agencies, law enforcement, lawyers and the courts. Judges are coming to realize that the allegations made of faked documents were not the ravings of a desperate homeowner but were the truth and the reason for the faked documents is that the loan originations were fundamentally flawed.

INDEPENDENT STUDIES SUPPORT HOMEOWNER AND SHOW THE FORECLOSURES ARE FAKED: Just a few months ago an independent unassailable report was issued by San Francisco County showing that :”Strangers to the transaction” had illegally acquired title through a foreclosure in which they had no right to pursue because they were not the party with whom the borrower had completed a financial transaction, they were not the party who funded the loan and they never purchased the loan. All the loan transfer documents were faked to show a financial transaction where the loan was made and transferred when none of those documents were even close to accurate.

Studies were published in 2007-2008. Law review articles were published describing the problems that were coming and now we have the tools to deal with these problems, as well as the tools, strategies and tactics to level the playing the field with the banks, whether it is a distressed homeowner, a distressed city, county or state government officer, or a legislature seeking to find a way to push the “reset” button.

LEGISLATION REQUIRING MEDIATION AND PROOF OF OWNERSHIP: In states where mediation and proof of ownership of the loan has been passed, foreclosures have dropped like a stone and modifications have been worked out.

HOMEOWNERS REASONABLE DEMANDS FOR MODIFICATION ARE BEING ENFORCED: We all know the drill, you submit the papers for modification, they lose them a few times and then deny the request when in fact they never “considered” them as required under HAMP. Now savvy lawyers and homeowners are challenging the banks and servicers to show proof that they considered the request for modification, with expert analyses showing that any reasonable investor would accept the modification in lieu of getting virtually nothing or actually nothing from the sale of the home at auction.

Homeowners are willing to accept a home that is underwater —but not where the debt is far more than the property will ever be worth. The homeowners, most of them, are honorable people seeking an honorable workout with the banks same as any business does when times change. They are willing to do accept the loans higher than the value of their home even though they know that the original appraisal was faked and they will still be slightly underwater after the modification. The banks, are seeking the foreclosures that have blighted cities and neighborhoods (Cleveland etc.), causing the literal bull-dozing of homes and infrastructure based upon the deceit of Wall Street.

When they used other people’s money, they don’t worry about risk or even legality. The bigger the crime the harder it is for prosecutors to get the resources necessary to prosecute it.

It all comes down to the fact that the people who were pulling the levers of power on Wall Street were pulling the strings in Washington and creating the worst economic crime in the history of the human race. The banks, using the money of investors, went on a trading spree instead of putting those investments to work in properly structured mortgage products.

Later, when it came tumbling down, the banks resorted to false, forged, fabricated paperwork that was fraudulently used to deceive both investor and the homeowner. It turns out the investor never owned the loans until they were in default, and the foreclosure put a state stamp of approval on a non-existent transaction that caused pension funds and other managed funds to lose trillions of dollars.

POLITICIANS AND BANK MONEY COMING UNDER SCRUTINY: Those politicians who align themselves with the banking lobby under the “less regulation” banner are doing so because they are taking money from the banks, who want to let them get away with it. We won’t let them get away with it, and as they are seeing almost daily, the situation is NOT under control for the banks who are carrying assets on their balance sheets that don’t exist. More failures to come on Wall Street but more success and revival on Main Street.

39 Responses

  1. re: foreclosure of disabled housing. Why don’t money-bags in this country step in and stop this? Take hand, stop patting back for gazillion dollar achievement, and frigging DO something. Okay – please?

  2. Is this to say the 26.6 was actual loss incurred? The fund was
    698m. That’s only 3.81%. Surely that’s not the extent of the loss?
    Or maybe the pension suing only had a partial interest in the trust?
    I would really like to know the mechanics of the loss and what accounting is generally given regarding distributions. At face, the notes should generate 3 million, say. Actual income is 2.5 say, so that’s what gets paid out and would make sense, but what happens with foreclosure re-sale funds? Each investor gets 39 cents? Or they get nothing, with the exception of any remaining guarantee (if any)?
    If re-sale proceeds are due the investors, is there any reason the banksters can’t get away with playing the float on the re-sale funds and keep making payments to the investors as if no foreclosure and re-sale occurred until and unless it suits them? I just can’t help feeling this is done. I mean, if I can think of it……
    Oh, yeah. If they do that, keep making the payments on this score (this score = not a matter of some guarantee, but making payments out of re-sale proceeds), the loan is not in default…is it, if the trusts own the loans and not just the right to payment? (nor is it in default if payment made to investor under some guarantee – there would be no homeowner default and no surety default, again IF the trust owns the loans). The loans are held in trust for the benefit of the investors who are entitled to what? The payment streams made?

    But do they actually have recourse for non-payment? Are they actually beneficiaries of the trust AND bens with rights of recourse? If they are both, against whom is their recourse? DOT’s and relevant statutes, long and short, make it so that the dot ben must first (and sometimes if not always – forget) attack the collateral in lieu of going for a money judgement. Is there anything in trust law or contractually which allows for or mandates a claim by the investors on the guarantee before looking to enforce the note and dot against the homeowner?

    Obviously I’m pontificating on paper, so if you are a reader inclined to protest, please hold it down to a dull roar. In fact, maybe a contribution would be in order.
    Oh my. If anyone has guaranteed payment, like say ummm FNMA, they would be motivated to sell the collateral and use those funds to continue the guarantee. The right to do this would have to be contractual IF the investors in fact own the loans. If the right does not exist (assuming arguendo the loans made it into the trusts), then they shouldn’t oughta be doing this if they are. But like I said, if I can think of it……
    Are these good questions: Is FNMA, or anyone, subrogated by its guarantee? Is this, the guarantee, to do with the “net present value” used by FNMA in its modification formula?

  3. DISABLED RESIDENTS FACING EVICTION
    Frost Bank Wants To Sell Property

    HOUSTON, TEXAS – Elderly, disabled and terminally ill men at the Ray Hill Transitional Residence face eviction by Frost Bank.

    New Beginnings Houston, a non profit outreach ministry providing housing and other services to homeless individuals, announced today that residents may be evicted from their southwest Houston facility.

    “We have five community homes,” said Joe Donalson, volunteer director of the ministry. “Due to threats of foreclosure and eviction coming from the Houston law office of Wells & Cuellar, we may have to shut down the Residence Three.”

    “I think its big bank greed, pure and simple,” commented Ray Hill, who the facility was named after. Hill, an advocate for civil rights and free speech, was responsible for the 1987 landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in Houston v. Hill striking down laws prohibiting citizens from verbally opposing police misconduct.

    In 2011, the home in the southwest community of Westbury was the subject of numerous complaints. The owner, afflicted with cancer and AIDS, explained that his declining health had prevented him from doing upkeep. When the city started posting notices and issuing citations, he just walked away, leaving the residence open for vagrants, drug dealers, and rats. After learning the home was facing demolition by the city as a dangerous structure, New Beginnings Houston contacted the owner and obtained a lease agreement. In exchange for repairing and renovating the residence, the ministry would be able to use it as a community home for disabled men.

    “Our volunteers contributed a substantial amount of time and money towards this residence,” Donalson said. “Vagrants had stripped it down, breaking holes in the walls and ceilings to steal fixtures, pipes, and wiring. The value of the materials and labor we put into saving this home exceed $25,000.”

    Although Frost Bank had an old lien on the property, they showed no interest in it until New Beginnings Houston saved it from the bulldozers.

    “The bankers at Frost are greedy,” Donalson commented. “They didn’t care when it was a crack house awaiting demolition. Now that we’ve saved it, and have substantially increased its value, they want to throw disabled residents out on the street and sell it for a profit. That’s not right.”

    On its website, New Beginnings Houston offers a single solution to two major problems plaguing our city – all the homeless people wandering the streets, and all the abandoned derelict homes awaiting demolition.

    “There’s a story behind every abandoned home,” Donalson said. “It could be that someone died with no heirs, or that back taxes or liens on the property are more than the property is worth. Whatever the reason, when a property is abandoned it creates big problems. Scavengers break in, stealing everything of value. Vagrants move in, starting fires to keep warm in the winter. If they don’t end up burning it down, eventually the city comes along and tears it down.”

    “This doesn’t have to happen,” Donalson continued. “Instead of tearing down these structures, with a little time and effort they can be rehabilitated into transitional facilities for the city’s homeless. That is what our outreach is all about. Using donated materials and volunteer labor, we renovate these derelict homes. Afterwards, the homeless men doing the work get live in them while they are helped to defeat substance addiction, eat healthy, find employment, and move on to a productive life.”

    At a March foreclosure hearing, State District Judge Randy Wilson noted that Frost Bank would benefit from the positive publicity that would come from either donating the home to New Beginnings, or offering them a low interest mortgage. Frost, however, wasn’t interested. They continued to pursue foreclosure, and on July 20th obtained a judgment to auction off the property to the highest bidder.

    James Cuellar, a lawyer representing Frost Bank, mailed a certified letter to the home giving its occupants ten days notice to vacate the property.

    “We’re going to fight this,” Donalson said in reference to the notice. “We’re standing on our lease that says our ministry has use of this home.”

    On May 20, 2009, President Obama signed the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act. This law protects tenants from eviction because of a foreclosure on property they occupy.

    “I put a lot of work into saving this place,” said Clifford Clarke, a cancer patient who shares the home with four other residents. “I used my monthly social security check to pay for for repairs and to cover my monthly rental sustenance payments. This is my home, and I intend to be here until I die.”

    Frost Bank, however, is taking the position that lease doesn’t qualify for federal protections. Their attorney has indicated he will sell the house by public auction, and then afterwards ask a Justice of the Peace to order an eviction.

  4. This is from the comment section of today’s Huffington Post article about Geithner and Barofsky:

    In the 1990’s desktop scanners relieved the lenders of the burden of the paperwork.
    This is where the mischief started.
    I have personally destroyed hundreds, possibly thousands of notes after we rendered mortgage paperwork to disc format. We never separated the the note from the lien portion in order to preserve it from the Gods of Fire, Dumpster and Shredder.
    It is naive to suggest that all troubled homeowners are responsible for the situation in which they presently reside. It is criminally negligent to suggest bankers should be rewarded for rampant fraud.
    The banks that may have retained the note are now proving malfeasance in multiples of other ways, through: securitization, bonding, transferral, recording; fraud through conversion, bait-switch, swaps(insurance fraud), forgery, perjury, insider trades…
    In my opinion, the claims of these banks went into the dumpster, along with the pink slips years ago.
    As a society, it is necessary we restore dignity and the rule of law.
    Banks proven in criminal behavior should be forced to underwrite the process (presently denied most) wherein troubled homeowners demonstrate their inclusion within a judicial system that is the birthright to every American and not only the richest among us.
    Failure to provide a voice for the weakest among us will further erode the good judgement of those in the middle, the banks will continue their predation and it will be the ruin of us all.
    Accountability and restoration of the housing market is the key.

  5. @ ET: Which state?

  6. “KingCast & Mortgage Movies Lorayne Souders v. Bank of America et al update: BNY/Mellon files frivolous foreclosure action, then dismisses it!”

    Christopher King
    1:34 PM (0 minutes ago)

    to michael, mharbert, lthomas, sregalbuto, MBarry, asoven, Lorayne
    Well I’m here again Counselors…. any comment?

    http://mortgagemovies.blogspot.com/2012/08/kingcast-mortgage-movies-lorayne.html

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5bywwcVvZc

    I do so hate to be presumptuous so I give you the opportunity to respond each time I post a movie our journal entry. Also I see now that there are distaff attorneys present, so I welcome you ladies to the fold. Enjoy your day.

    Best regards,

  7. @ guest, thanks, but…is there anything besides another statement to show that? Case law?

  8. @ ET: lawyer immunity? is a fabrication itself, for acts or statements…

  9. Would anyone care to chime in on what usedkarguy said here:

    let’s not forget that lawyers’ immunity in court cases does not apply to ACTS, only statements.

    In my case, the mill attorneys created and filed fraudulent assignments. Remember, filing or causing to be filed fraudulent docs at the recorder’s office is a felony. They are hiding behind the stance that, “In acting as foreclosure counsel, they were acting within the scope of their employment as attorneys and, therefore, are immune from liability.”

    Anyone?

  10. This crime was intiated by Phil Grahm and Billy Clinton, Promoted by Bush and the cover continues with Obama. The US is a partner in crime with both Wall Street and the banks

    De recognition of assets and non controlling interests in liabilties , economic conversion, common diluted to preferred and non interest bearing bond …etc it’s all legal . All of it .

  11. Neil – you say “….the questions are changing from why should we let the borrower get out of a legitimate debt to why banks get away with foreclosing where they are using fabricate, falsified, forged documents because they never funded or purchased the loan?

    Yes that’s right – they never purchased the loan, never assigned the loan and never transferred the loan. The courts know this and perhaps the ABA knows this also. If they never purchased the loan, never assigned the loan and never transferred the loan – – then assignments, Hobo Sig’s and MERS CORP are moot.

    Now ask yourself why- 2009, 2010, 2011 now . 2012 another year gone by and Im asking “why” …

    why is this not a crime and perfectly legal? Why?

    (The answer will bury you in affirmative defenses and counter claims in the favor of the title holder …enough to fill an Olympic size pool)

    http://foreclosurealternative.wordpress.com/

  12. POLITICAL AND LEGAL VIEWS ARE CHANGING: Time is catching up with the Banks and the facts are catching up with the myths and slogans spun out of Wall Street. People in all branches of government in all the states and the federal government are finally getting their act together

    The comment above is doubtful, This crime was intiated by Phil Grahm and Billy Clinton, Promoted by Bush and the cover continues with Obama. The US is a partner in crime with both Wall Street and the abnks.

  13. While many citizens favor criminal prosecutions of bankers

    *** This is your worst mistake or hope for in the end. Before you get you feathers ruffled – think…think why you dont want criminal charges…why?

  14. Tuesday, August 7, 2012
    Are Handcuffs Needed for the Libor Scandal to Register With Bank Perps?

    While many citizens favor criminal prosecutions of bankers (I recently had a BSchool classmate of Jamie Dimon ask me when he was going to jail), it’s been remarkable how little mention of it there has been in the mainstream media in connection with the Libor scandal (yes, sports fans, price fixing is criminal per the Sherman Anti-Trust Act). This interview of Dennis Kelleher and Felix Salmon by Eliot Spitzer provides a badly-needed counterpoint.

    Read more at http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/08/are-handcuffs-needed-for-the-libor-scandal-to-register-with-bank-perps.html#FOxDES5fTuyguQyi.99

    Good interview by Eliot Spitzer. When enough people clamor for it, it will have to happen. As one of them says, the problem is that the people who ran the world economy to the ground by mismanaging banks and breaking the law are still the same people who mismanage banks and keep breaking the law…

  15. Enraged
    Jury. I asked I’m in appeal. Blocked every move i tried. That’s it right there our right to a jury trial. Thank you

  16. TANK VIDEO: looks like South Cal chosen as first to implement Libyfication http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WffoscbdJsg

  17. Oh, and one more thing…

    About those tanks in Burbank: No, it is not to “retire” them as is suggested at the end of the video. Check what is taking place in Jackson, Missouri. They too received tanks 3 or 4 weeks ago. People were happy “I feel more secure”, “I feel protected”. They don’t say that anymore.

  18. @Deborah,

    That’s why I also keep telling people over and over: insist on a JURY tri8al. There’s only so much a judge can do. Get your case before a jury.

  19. JG- the judge that ruled on my case is looking at explaining himself, i encourage all to file complaints about judges malpractice, they are a tresspasser of the law by definition, as a result my suffering is extended like many many others he Quieted title befor discovery was closed and gave clouded title to the new “owner” of my former home had a conflict of interest and was wrong as a matter of law. Now while some may think me foolish and nieve for blogging I say this, in truth i stand, and the buck stops in the court room, its not Neils Fault Not Solimans Fault nor in- artful pleadings fault if the judge is going to be Biased, that is that, hence we MUST make our courts serve us, the people,” the most good for the most people, this has to be the deterant- jail time must be served, once Lawyers stop selling out and coming up with statements like “the banks have trillions of dollars to fight you” and stand in truth and know that God Almighty is on their side we may start winning more Cases. and thats all i have to say today.

  20. This is NOT a joke. If you live in Southern CA, get out. There is a reason for the hundreds of tanks suddenly brought to Burbank.

  21. @zurrenarrh – okay, but I want to say here first that no one has to appeal, of course. But it’s unfortunately true imo that the judge who does not fear appeal is more likely to follow his bent. There isn’t a judge in the world that I know of who wants to be overturned on appeal. I don’t know if it’s ego, or what, but they don’t like it one bit. Yes, litigants must face that judge again, but I have to think he is far less likely to employ bench law next time round with you. In fact, the appeals court pretty much tells him to follow the law, jack, you abused your discretion, whatever.

  22. johngault,
    I really would like to speak with you via email and/or phone, if possible. You can email me at leftbehindchild@gmail.com. I can’t remember if we have emailed before or not. Your 5:23 p.m. post below really got me thinking.

    I agree with enraged’s response to your post–basically that you can only do what you can do, and that what you do will ultimately have little to no bearing on what the judge will do. In other words, if you apply ANY of Neil’s arguments to your case or any other case, you will be in the right. You will be right morally, you will be right on the law, and you will have the right strategy. Now whether the judge will let you win based on you being right is another matter entirely, as carie pointed out.

    I say this because in my lawsuit, I applied Neil’s arguments and I was right. In fact, the judge acknowledged that I was right. Don’t want to bore you with the details, but that’s what the judge said. But you know what? He still ruled against me. And quite frankly, that’s why I didn’t appeal–because even though I was right, I still lost. Because even if I HAD appealed and won the appeal, the case would’ve just been sent back to the same judge who acknowledged that I was correct and still ruled against me. What would there have been to stop that judge from doing the same thing again in an appeals-court-mandated trial? Nothing! I learned the hard way that, as Seeking Remedy said below, the courts will get you NOWHERE, even if you’re right. I mean, you’re playing their game by their rules with their equipment in their house. If they don’t want you to win–and they clearly don’t–then you won’t win.

    Like you, I also have a big problem with MERS. MERS was a party to my suit. I got discovery from MERS, and they admitted that when they executed an assignment of both the note and DOT, they actually had no authority to assign the note and that in fact notes are not transferred by assignment in the land records. The judge didn’t TOUCH that one. He didn’t go near that stunning admission, and I trumpeted and highlighted that admission in every subsequent paper I filed with the court. This admission came not from some fake-ass “assistant secretary” or “vice president” of MERS–it came from William Hultman himself.

    There is nothing that any lawyer could have done for me that I didn’t do for myself. Except take my money. Again, even without a lawyer, I was right and the judge admitted it. The judge admitted that the Defendants violated the rules of civil procedure a number of times, but EVERY time he said those violations did not prejudice me, with either no or wafer-thin justifications for why violations of civil procedure on the part of the Defendants didn’t prejudice me. As you well know, this shit is NOT rocket science–I mean, either there are endorsements or there aren’t. Either MERS can assign a note or they can’t (MERS says they can’t).

    So these cases ALL come down to the judge. They hinge on the judge doing the right thing, i.e., finding for the party that produces the best evidence and makes the best argument. That party is NEVER the bank, but the banks almost always win. Why is that? Well, I was told going into this suit that “the judge can and will do what HE wants.” I didn’t believe it at the outset of the case–I mean, I heard the words and trusted the speakers of said words, but I just couldn’t believe that it could actually be that way. Not with a killer, open-shut case like MINE, I thought subconsciously. HA! Now I know better–another reason I didn’t appeal. There are, I’ve heard, a few good judges, but it seems like a hoary old myth that has no application to my existence. I think that by and large what we have in this country is a bought-off, ideologically-driven, law-school-brainwashed judges that have bought the idea that–as usedkarguy said so well a few days ago–that the “system” knows there are some laws which the banks/corporatocracy/elite want in place but that just can’t be passed for political reasons, and so the “system” puts judges in that will do the dirty work in lieu of passing laws that would do said dirty work.

    OK, it’s late and I’m ranting, but there are a couple things I learned though, and that’s what I want to share with you privately. Not that it’s earth-shattering or anything, but might be helpful. I want to share it publicly too, but maybe want to get your take on it.

  23. carie – i followed your link. I don’t know enough about it, especially of course the legalities. But I absolutely applaud the request for input from everyday citizens. I wish they would make them all public at some website.
    Has anyone travelled to, say, Europe lately? I’d be interested in hearing the European citizens’ takes on Ws and its cronies acts and I guess more specifically even, what they think of us these days?

  24. August 6th 2012

    The Path say’s Bank”s could never foreclose on homeowners the conventional way. In these structured deals it’s important to plead the matter correctly with little if any conjecture. (Living Conjecture)

    A trust reciept is subject to deleivery of good title . You see, if everything is reversed, as M. Soliman and other analysts promoted long ago, then his “Lending in a time warp” theory is correct.

    Therefore ….

    (1) the loans origination and closing is extinguishment of debt – a payoff demand
    (2) the payoff demand is a subsequbnet loans orgination and HUD I settllement

    The time distance between the two benchmark dates averages five years and that is the term of the non interest rate bearing “second note” that confuses and convolutes the “bond” from the common stock understanding .

    beatenpath@inbox.com

    The information we have posted on this website includes information created and maintained along with these aforementioned comments that are subject to the privacy, copyright, security, and information quality policies of http:\\foreclosurealternative@wordpress.com website.

  25. “I wanted to know why the bank’s C.E.O. wasn’t on trial,” said jury foreman Beau ….”
    Yes, it is good news. Still, I’d like more info on why Stoker couldn’t be convicted. If anyone has access to any more info, puhlease, link it.

  26. And speaking of guarantees, wish I knew a whole lot more about them.
    What is the status of a guarantee if a home is not foreclosed? Perpetual? I mean, what? Does foreclosure terminate a guarantee? I can only surmise it does – or – the bankster is keeping the money and paying the guarantee, because as I’ve noted, that is a lot of dough to earn on and I wouldn’t put it past them. How is the money from a resale of a f/c’d property distributed? I’m still pondering the sale by a dot trustee of the lien. We look at it from a homeowner’s point of view, but what of the investors? I mean, what the you know what? Will they next purport that the sale of the collateral instrument carries the debt obligation with it?!
    But, really, it is odd to me that we don’t know more of these answers.
    Oh, I know. We are still plodding along, trying to survive mtn’s to dismiss and get some stinking discovery. Well, carry on, I guess!

  27. That’s good advice, enraged. I first became incredulous when I heard some outfit called MERS was routinely foreclosing on homeowners. As I dug deeper (read Boyko for instance), I guess I got more determined to expose them for what I believe they are, having a bit of background in the subject of real estate. They are the supreme enablers and as I have written and believe, they have neither the grace nor conscience to concede their plan is fraught with illegalities. And as I’ve also said, what a legacy, boys.
    Though I know little about it comparatively, I am kept going by the banksters failure to modify loans, whether then can or not legally as a matter of fact. The FACT is, they took those funds for that singular purpose. And another fact is the ignorance of those who gave them those funds. I know enough to believe the failure to modify is tied up with guarantees, insurance, and who actually owns the notes. Another fact is the outrageousness of financial sanction for criminal acts. I hear what you’re saying about cost. I only wish I had the energy of a younger person. I don’t, and that’s another good reason to take your advice and stick to what I know. And yes, many people were tricked, for sure. But I don’t care (much anyway) if anyone used his house for an atm machine or not, tell the truth. Those people’s, as the rest of our, ability to meet their obligations has been negatively impacted by the banksters’ acts, long and short. You can’t even talk comparative fault: there’s IS NO comparison, about which you and I appear to agree. But I’m going to finish reading davies’ article, hoping it is written for dummies.

  28. The courts are corrupt and the judges will not set precedent and rule for justice for the homeowner because they know if they rule for one they will have to rule for all…

    what do y’all think of this:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/06/san-bernardino-principal-reduction-foreclosure_n_1749156.html

  29. let’s not forget that lawyers’ immunity in court cases does not apply to ACTS, only statements.

  30. Seeking Remedy, I totally agree. The courts are corrupt. They rule against you even while admitting you’re right and that the other side has violated rules of civil procedure. That’s literally what happened to me–I made the mistake of re-reading the Judge’s Order in my case and my Motion for Reconsideration today and I almost lost my mind over it all over again.

  31. Well, my opinion now is you will get NOWHERE in court. We had a well plead case, complete with LL Securitization Audit and Title Report (The 1st one they did), and the Judge kicked it to the curb without even hearing oral arguments. Without leave to amend………..

    And I thought my attorney “got it” and I was told by them that I “Had a very strong case”.

    Anyone know where there are any 5 bedroom tents for sale???

  32. JG,

    I’m going to put you at ease.

    There is something called “congruency”. Congruency is when you know something so well, you can feel it, taste it and talk about it over and over with so much conviction that, no matter who is in front of you, your delivery leaves him/her thinking: “That guy doesn’t have a clue but he/she’s got so much conviction, so much passion, so much knowledge of his angle that he/she will convince the jury he/she’s right. Do I want to take that chance?”

    You don’t have to know everything. The worst you can do for yourself is try to adopt someone else’s angle if you don’t feel it in your guts and in every cell of your bones.

    Stick to what you believe in, understand that there are as many angles are homeowners who are about to lose their houses. And what separates the winners from the losers is the conviction that they are right.

    Neil has believed from day one he was right. it is one message but, as far as i know, he hasn’t tried a case in years. he hasn’t tested it. You keep testing your own convictions day in, day out. Stick with what you know to be true and go for it. Half the people who lose are those who go in half-hearted, thinking right off the bat that they will lose because “judges are corrupt, attorneys are sold out and don’t get it and everything is against me”. Or people who got confused and tried to argue every angle and never got anywhere because they ended up confusing.

    It’s not about the totality of the facts: more and more are uncovered every single day. It’s about choosing those you understand and can explain and practicing your delivery of those facts. I lost my JDB case because, deep down, I didn’t feel in my guts that i was capable to win on my own: I still had that guilt about signing a contract and not fulfilling it. It was between me and… me. I lost that case but… they are not getting my money. And of that, i am so convinced that they are not going to get a cent out of me.

    Facts have piled up to such an extent that we are all confused. Get back to basics: what do you believe in your heart of heart? Play everything under that light. Put all your strength in it. Organize yourself around it. Present that and nothing else. For me, it has become a simple idea: I am not and never was a financier. I relied on banks to know what they were selling to me. I refuse to be held to a level of expertise i never pretended to have reached. And i refuse to be held to the level of expertise i was paying a bank to hold and demonstrate on my behalf. i was screwed, betrayed and if courts want me to learn what banks know, I will. but watch out: it will cost money! My forte is elsewhere. my passion is elsewhere. if i must redesign my entire life and career to make up for experts’ failure, it will cost them. A lot.

    And then, you go on the attack.

  33. Judges probably start at a particular position learned in law school.
    It’s a latin phrase, had it and then lost it the other day, but I think it means ‘the debt must be paid’.
    I and many others here and elsewhere have tried to contribute to efforts to fight and win. NG and I have two different attacks. I have concentrated on what I’m familiar with and that I think is helpful
    (shutting down MERS’ bogus assignments, for one) . He probably thinks I attack the symptom and not the problem. Maybe, but just now it has to be done. And I do see MERS as a problem, not merely a symptom.

    But presuming the validity of NG’s arguments, I for one, am handicapped by not actually knowing what one would discover in discovery. Not the bottom line, but the facts that make up the bottom line of NG’s arguments. And it is a handicap because knowing that goes to strategy, I would think, and surely that’s a component of litigation, maybe now more than ever.
    Maybe more attorneys could and would attend if it were accredited
    for continuing education? Is that possible?

  34. This is pretty good. 1) it’s official: people want to see banks’ CEOs in jail. 2) They declared it out loud during a trial. 3) it’s public record and can be used anytime, in any pleadings.

    Sue. Demand a jury trial. Don’t settle out of court unless you really, really make out better than you expected. Juries are ripe.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/06/brian-stoker-jury_n_1747218.html?icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl1|sec3_lnk2%26pLid%3D188884

    Brian Stoker Jury Wants Wall Street CEOs Put On Trial

    Posted: 08/06/2012 1:08 pm Updated: 08/06/2012 1:16 pm

    A New York jury that voted not to convict a former mid-level Citigroup official of financial fraud made clear last week that it thought the real culprits in the nation’s mortgage crisis have yet to be put on trial.

    Jurors issued an unusual statement along with their verdict in the case of former Citi executive Brian Stoker, The New York Times reported.

    “This verdict should not deter the S.E.C. from continuing to investigate the financial industry, review current regulations and modify existing regulations as necessary,” the statement, read out loud by Federal District Court Judge Jed Rakoff, said.

    The jury acquitted Stoker of charges of defrauding clients in a $1 billion mortgage bond deal put together just before the housing market crashed in 2008. Stoker is the former director of Citigroup’s collateralized debt obligation unit.

    But the jury was uneasy that the verdict might send the wrong signal — that those responsible for the financial crisis could get away unscathed — which is why the jurors included the statement.

    “I wanted to know why the bank’s C.E.O. wasn’t on trial,” said jury foreman Beau Brendler, a Patterson, N.Y., freelance writer who hasn’t worked full-time since Consumer Reports laid him off in 2009 and who penned the jury statement. “Citigroup’s behavior was appalling.”

    Calls to prosecute Wall Street banks and dismay over the lack of action by the Obama administration have been numerous. There have been no criminal prosecutions levied against Wall Street banks and executives as a result of the crisis, and the likelihood of a signature case is looking increasingly thin, according to a separate NYT report.

    The statement may mark the first time that a jury has directly urged the government to hold Wall Street accountable.

  35. Word is Georgia is passing laws (as we read and type) the “actual” owner of the note is to be on the papers, we will see. Hopefully this site as well as many other have pulled the curtain back enough to see the small little people (animals) manipulating the world. Time for a change of scenery.

  36. HeHeHe…

    Banks Turn on One Another in Libor Scandal
    By: David Dayen Monday August 6, 2012 8:15 am

    So here come the banks finger-pointing on the Libor scandal.

    Major banks, which often band together when facing government scrutiny, are now turning on one another as an international investigation into the manipulation of interest rates gains momentum.

    With billions of dollars and their reputations on the line, financial institutions have been spreading the blame in recent meetings with authorities, according to government and bank officials with knowledge of the matter. While acknowledging their own wrongdoing, institutions are pointing out actions at other banks that they believe are worse — and in some cases, extend to top executives.

    One official involved in the case said that banks are emphasizing that “we’re not as bad as the next guy.”

    Why would this ever be considered a credible defense? “Not as bad” as the next guy is an irrelevant standard if both of you broke the law. It really doesn’t matter who started the rate-rigging process, what matters is the conclusion.

    This suggests to me that the banks are out of ideas when it comes to evading accountability in the Libor case. It’s too cut and dried, there’s too much documentary information out there. But it is fun to watch these banks turn on one another. UBS has delivered communications showing culpability by Deutsche Bank, HSBC and the Royal Bank of Scotland. HSBC has provided conflicting documents. Barclays called out HSBC, Deutsche Bank, Société Générale and Crédit Agricole. Citigroup is flipping on all of them, distancing themselves from the wrongdoing and pinning it on Barclays. It’s all great theater.

    The good news here is that all this back-biting means that it will probably not be possible to negotiate a common deal, a global settlement among all the banks. And the banks probably know that, which is why they’re trying to limit the damage by turning on each other.

    Deep in the piece we find out that the Justice Department will probably file criminal actions against two banks sometime this year, and will arrest ex-traders implicated in the scheme. This looks exactly like the October surprise for bank accountability about which I speculated last month.

    It is a hoot watching these banks squirm, however.

    [And in the meantime, Jamie boy being a saint, he’s got nothing to worry about.]]

  37. Well, Nail Garfield, once again, you… nailed it!

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: