Nuclear Option in Foreclosure Defense: The Neil Garfield Show Tonite!

Tune in. I’ll be answering questions tonight. Remember this is not legal advice on any particular case and is NEVER to be taken as a substitute for advice from a lawyer licensed in the jurisdiction in which your property is located.

Click in to tune in at The Neil Garfield Show

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

Tonight we are going to be talking about the scores of cases around the country where the homeowner has made a real offer to pay off the full amount demanded if the “lender” provides real evidence of real transactions supporting their claims of ownership of the loan and the balance still owed. Take a look at Florida Statute 704.01 for starters. each state has their own version.

7 Responses

  1. @ James Smith:

    This sounds like a standard ROBOSIGNED paper. Doesn’t it?

  2. Max Gardner has a list of items that you should look for which would probably indicate fraud. One of them is “The assignment is executed by a party who claims to be an “attorney in fact” for the signor.” One of my recently created bogus assignments has the exact same thing. Can someone explain to me the significance of this and what would make this fraudulent? or 443 677 2799.

  3. Thank you Mr. Garfield.

    “First, lets begin with dropping my A-Bomb to destroy 5 million plus mortgages Wachovia bought with drug money.”
    My above titled NOTICE is linked at bottom of this post on your website:

    “Notice of Demand to Wachovia Drug Cartel to Destroy Drug-Funded Loans By Laws Cited In:”

  4. Hello,
    I just filed complaint at
    against Bank Of America for Wire Fraud. Any Idea what I may expect,
    next ? My case is very clear of Abuse and Manipulation.
    Predatory Lending, Mortgage Fraud, Racketeering and Wire Fraud.
    It is disgusting that someone earning 60k per year is involved in a transaction that puts my total cash losses right now at 460k
    just in Mortgage Payments, and the Down Payment, including additional payments towards the principle and all of the bogus late fees and invented charges.

  5. Critique on Neil’s show tonight. Please stop talking about what you’re going to do, and spend that time on doing it instead. With the understanding that this blog and the show is part of your business, you can address more issues by limiting yourself to 1 statement of your summary of theories. When the caller asking about motivating a retiring, recalcitrant judge to make a decision was on you spent enough time to answer another call in presenting your follow the trail of money, etc. (all of which the caller had already done). Again, I understand, it’s your business. But what would have been more useful to your listeners is a recognition that a pro se doesn’t have to deal with a reputation with the BAR associations, and can cross lines attorneys who need to face the judge again don’t want to approach. For example, you might have mentioned the possibility of a motion to dismiss on grounds of mistrial by the judge’s conduct, a motion to compel findings, the name of the body who disciplines judges, and maybe a couple of things an attorney knows about that this pro se doesn’t.

    BTW, had I been more cognizant of the time difference and been in the chat today, you would have seen my comment about the request for a beneficiary statement, your FL rule 7.???. I used the same thing here in CA (Civ Code 2943) and the lenders came at me with a issue of standing of subject matter due to preemption of federal law of HOLA and RESPA statutes. Given the recent Circuit Appellate decision that the issue of diversity of state citizenship allows banksters to remand cases from state courts to federal, I might suggest you spend more time ‘scripting’ your show, with less pauses for thought so you can be more thoughtful with your live responses.

    I’ve been where you are on your show, and live calls are a rush, and you do get better over time. And I really appreciate your efforts in providing this blog and the guts it takes to do the radio show.

  6. woooohoo! petition for rehearing at Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied to banks—-in Helen Galope’s LIBOR case!!

  7. Do hope discussions will include the statutory bases for these offers which are responded to with “We don’t need no stinking badges.” I have that basis for Washington and case law should anyone desire it. Am busy at the moment or would provide here.

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: