Rescission in NonJudicial States –Tonight on the Neil Garfield Show

Click in to tune in at The Neil Garfield Show

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

More than 33,000 people listen to the Neil Garfield Show. Maybe you should too.

Attorney Charles Marshall, Jim Macklin, and Dan Edstrom sit in for Neil Garfield to discuss the very latest in litigation strategies relating to rescission, enforcement of rescission and dealing with motions from the banks. As the banks try to rewrite the law indirectly, they are coming up against a brick wall: judges are reserving ruling, signaling their dislike for rescission but their acknowledgment that the procedure of TILA rescission cannot be rewritten or interpreted.

8 Responses

  1. wow… things got quiet here all of a sudden…

  2. Despite tonight’s pre-show description, there was no discussion whatsoever about any differences between non-judicial and judicial foreclosure states insofar as TILA Rescission is concerned. What gives?

    Other observations and questions:

    It appears that if “post-Jesinoski,” closing documents like notes, security deeds, mortgages, and associated “assignments” have indeed been voided “as if there was no initial financial real estate transaction” immediately when the TILA Rescission Letters were mailed… then, why are so many folks acting as if the Jesinoski decision never happened?

    It’s as though a dog is returning to his vomit.

    *Any* post-closing action (even if the closing was in 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 or early 2008…. courtcases, foreclosures, eviction actions that have happened, or have been initiated on the basis of documents now voided “from the beginning” *are now a nullity”* !!!

    Therefore, all of these transactions must now be equitably “unwound.” . …Beginning with fraudulent Robo-signed assignments and other fabicated documents, the REMIC Trusts, the Pooling and Servicing Agreements (PSAs), and all the associated derivatives based on the now voided closing documents.

    (This is not a child’s nursery poem! If a gilded Humpty Dumpty is found (to be) at the base of a judicial wall of incompetence, denials, and corruption, this “rotten egg” *must* be put back together again… even if “all the king’s men must be locked up and their ill-gotten gains returned to their original owners.)

    Wealth never simply disappears, it’s just “converted” into different “forms” of money…all of which are recoverable.

    What we are viewing is a “Back to the Future” anomaly in the legal process. The SCOTUS decided in Jesinoski (this year 2015), that a law Congress passed 50 years ago clearly defined a way homeowners’ naive actions completed 7-10 years ago, post-Glass Stegall, could be annulled “after the fact.” What irony!

    SCOTUS afforded homeowners “a legal leg to stand on” (juristic pun intended) because it was “interpreted, determined, adjudicated, litigated,” in January, 2015, that their legal, statutory rights have been ignored by inferior courts since, roughly, 2001 when the TBTF Banks engineered the voiding of another effective, citizen-friendly law, the Glass Stegall Act and began merging banking operations: Specifically when Investment activities were combined with commercial savings and lending activities in preparation for creating financial equity instruments and derivatives that would enrich the “masters of the universe” at the expense of the financially naive common citizens of the US.

    “Oh what a tangled Web we weave, when first we practice to deceive!”

    Some “thrifty bankers” havery much to learn from this old Scottish addage.

  3. I am not an attorney. The judge does not have jurisdiction to undo a rescission.after the 20 days the judge can find him herself in jail. Just like the clerk that did not allow a gay marriage certificate get recorded.

    The attorney general. Or the FBI.
    Again brainstorming.


  4. All of these cases are being handled by the courts the same way , the Judges are defiant and are blatantly disregarding what the unanimous Supreme Court said in Jesinoski.

    The Judges embrace the plaintiffs attempts to dispute the rescission in total disregard for Scalia’s clear instructions not to.

    The Judges embrace the plaintiffs attempts to argue tender in total disregard to Scalia’s clear instructions not to.

    The Judges ignore the plain language of the statute that states the creditor must act within 20 days.

    These are the reasons nobody is prevailing on their TILA rescission cases..because the defiant Judges are not following the rule of law. The defiant Judges are ignoring the highest Court in the land.

    This is a matter of class warfare now … This is an equal protection question where a class of people are being denied equal protection of the laws that are in place.

    This has nothing to do with any of us needing to do more research and finding more caselaw that supports our arguments …there is no caselaw because the Judges are disregarding the law and ruling in favor of the banks.

    How do we deal with this?

  5. Neil Notes 2015-11-05

    admissions of rescission
    operation of law
    courts continue to allow banks to fly in the face of Jesinoski
    recently filed brief in 9th circuit
    merit-less answer briefs by parties without interest in the loan
    page 2 – bank says – reiteration –
    did the court err that the BK court by saying that it did not have the right to rescind
    all alleged creditors MUST begin the process OR file a lawsuit w/i 20 days of rescission – or else
    page 3 – (trying to set the court up for a legal fallacy) on or about x/x/xx failed to quote with the statement of rescission – disputing the rescission (admitted they were late)
    Dan – sounds like the bank lawyers are attempting to steer the court away from the law
    Dan did not respond (no duty) – the property was sold (not)
    10 mos after Jesinoski still stuck in the past… (trying to hold the stomach of the court)
    the claim that the property was sold flies in the face of the TILA rescission – and is patently illegal and

    unlawful – based upon a void note & mortgage
    motion to strike the motion for summary judgment & sale…
    motion to strike or show why claims are illegitimate
    standing? court jurisdiction? if bank uses note & mortgage the after rescission was unanswered, they are

    how to respond to opposition for appeal: their remedy was to respond in 20 days – they did not – your remedy

    was to just mail a rescission… bad faith & perhaps actionable against the lawyers…operative legal affect

  6. You guys should have provided the docs you’re referring to in the show so we could have read in advance – can you attach the docs please – thanks . . .

  7. a gentle reminder that there is a follow up call to Neil tonite…

    Garfield’s Goose & Friends with your host, greg

    (every Thursday night starting 15 minutes right after Neil’s show)

    Call in at (724) 444-7444 (then use Call ID: 139335) then “0” for guest
    and/or use your computer to blog/type at
    6:45 PM Eastern Thursdays (for 60 min)

    please use the phone line to speak and ask questions
    computer access will only allow you to hear and type into the blog…

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: