What does the homeowner really know?

WE HAVE REVAMPED OUR SERVICE OFFERINGS TO MEET THE REQUESTS OF LAWYERS AND HOMEOWNERS. This is not an offer for legal representation. In order for us to keep track of our volume and the types of questions that might be asked, it will make it easier and better for you if you fill out the form at https://fs20.formsite.com/ngarfield/form271773666/index.html?1453992450583

Our services consist mainly of the following:

  1. 30 minute Consult — expert for lay people, legal for attorneys
  2. 60 minute Consult — expert for lay people, legal for attorneys
  3. Case review and analysis
  4. Rescission review and drafting of documents for notice and recording
  5. COMBO Title and Securitization Review
  6. Expert witness declarations and testimony
  7. Consultant to attorneys representing homeowners
  8. Books and Manuals authored by Neil Garfield are also available, plus video seminars on DVD.
For further information please call 954-495-9867 or 520-405-1688. You also may fill out our Registration form which, upon submission, will automatically be sent to us. That form can be found at https://fs20.formsite.com/ngarfield/form271773666/index.html?1452614114632. By filling out this form you will be allowing us to see your current status. If you call or email us at neilfgarfield@hotmail.com your question or request for service can then be answered more easily.


Since 2007, when I started this blog I have been frustrated by  the cases decided against borrowers — because they had to be decided that way. And the reason they had to be decided that way is that the homeowner, pro se or through counsel, either outright admitted or failed to take issue with the basic presumptions and presumptions about the alleged origination and alleged transfers of the loan. My suggestion to all attorneys has always been to admit nothing, because none of it is real. But even the lawyers for homeowners are having difficulty accepting the idea that the whole mortgage run-up was one giant exercise in multiple layers of fraud.
*Once the debt, note, mortgage and loan contract are admitted the court has no choice but to allow foreclosure — assuming the homeowner stopped making payments. It isn’t a failure of the justice system that it has allowed so many foreclosures while regulatory agencies and law enforcement are busy fining the same parties for filing fraudulent documents, forgery, robo-signing and fabricating false documentation. The Judge’s job is to rule on what is accepted into the record as evidence or undisputed fact.
*If you admit the allegations of the pretender lenders, there is no “but.”
*It is hard for anyone to wrap their heads around the fraud that the banks committed. Virtually everyone knows that the banks did something wrong but they are still willing to admit things that make the facts undisputed when they come before the Judge, giving him or her no choice but to rule for the banks.

*What does the homeowner know? Only that he was offered a loan and that he or she signed papers. How much was paid out as loan and by whom is a complete mystery to the homeowner. The homeowner THINKS he knows that the loan was made, and thinks he knows that the paperwork is the same as what he signed but he doesn’t know.

*Judges often regard this answer as too cute by half because the assumption is made that money went to the closing agent, which might be true but we have no record of it, and that the money came from the “lender” designated on the note and DOT, which is almost certainly not true. But that is why we have lawyers — to take the difficult positions that are right and to convince a court that the pretender lenders are just that. You can’t do that if you have already admitted that they loaned you the money and that you signed the documents they are showing the court.

*The homeowner knows now that it was custom and practice in the industry to destroy the original documents, and then to fabricate them using technology to look like the the papers he signed. The homeowner cannot identify with certainty whether the documents presented to him in court are actually the same as what he signed at closing — but the homeowner admits it anyway completely undermining his arguments about standing, jurisdiction and fraud.

*Nobody likes looking like the fool, but unless you are willing to call out the banks on what they did to you and the country, things are not going to change. When you are voting in November, at least one factor should be identifying those candidates that are running against the Wall Street banks.

*The homeowner knows that LPS (Black Knight now) posted a menu of services and prices for fabrication of documents including the signatures. Thus the homeowner upon information and belief can assert that the “lender” was following custom and practice in the industry and that it was customary practice in the industry to violate Federal and state lending laws as part of a larger scheme to defraud investors who bought certificates issued by a Trust created and controlled by the investment bank.

*The fact that almost none of these “Trusts” ever had any business, assets, liability, income or expenses coupled with the failure of the banks to assert HDC status (where they would only need to allege payment in order to avoid borrower’s defenses) corroborates the homeowner’s belief that the Trust is a paper placeholder for other third parties who are probably being defrauded by this scheme.

From my interviews with hundreds of lawyers and thousands of homeowners here is what I think the average homeowner does NOT know:

  1. His alleged “loan” was table funded. That means that the party on the note and mortgage or deed of trust never loaned him any money. And it means that there was NO CONSUMMATION of any loan contract between the homeowner and those who are seeking to enforce the nonexistent loan contract. AND THAT means that rescission isn’t necessary since the absence of a valid, enforceable loan contract renders the other signed documents (including the note and mortgage or DOT) void.
  2. RESCISSION has only become necessary because of the damage that homeowners did to themselves — admitting in words or conduct that the servicer was the servicer and that the “investor” is whoever the servicer says it is. Having admitted that, for purposes of each individual case, the reality in that case is that there is a loan contract even though we know there wasn’t a loan contract. Rescission is just another strategy of attacking the same issues of standing. Why do you think the banks NEVER file that lawsuit disputing the rescission within the 20 days provided by the TILA Rescission Statute? ANSWER: Because they can’t.
  3. The absence of any payment history starting with the alleged “lender” explains fully why there were no payments for the alleged transfers of the loan papers. They were transferring paper, not loans.
  4. The money that went to the homeowner as a purported “loan” was never reflected on any valid document. The documents, on the other hand, recite terms of a loan contract that was never consummated. Basic contract law is two people, one offer, one acceptance of the terms of the offer and consideration from each party to THAT agreement. That “Closing” money came from an account holding stolen or diverted money that everyone thought went into the trusts. The REMIC Trusts were supposed to fund the origination and acquisition of loans. Trust received neither cash nor loans — only paper that was worthless. And THAT means that the Trust never was activated, never had any business, assets, liabilities, income or expenses or even a bank account. And THAT is corroborated by one simple fact — if the Trust did pay for it they would be able claim the status of holder in due course in which case the defenses of the borrower would be irrelevant. If the Trust could prove that it paid for the loan, there would be no effective defenses. But notice that it virtually no case is the allegation made that the Trust is claimed to be a Holder in Due Course. That is because there is no proof that the Trust ever paid. Admitting that the trust can be treated as a holder in course is just as bad as admitting that the original loan came from the identified “lender.”

*Dan Edstrom, senior forensic analyst for LivingLies, comments further on the role of the “closing agent” —

*In California, the “agent” is a dual capacity agent and is the agent for both parties simultaneously.  Once the escrow instructions are met 100% (substantial performance does not apply), the dual agency splits and the “agent” becomes an agent for the homeowner and an agent for the lender.  At that point the documents are transferred from the homeowners agent to the lenders agent, and probably the same thing happens with the money from the source of funds. However, it would appear that the agency is never split because the instructions are never followed.  So even though the documents are signed (in anticipation of the loan closing and receiving money from the “lender”), the instructions are never completed, the deed of trust is not authorized to be delivered and is never constructively delivered.

It was never the homeowners intent to give the documents to a party that did not lend the money, nor to give a security interest to a party that had not paid money, nor to give a security interest to an unknown/undisclosed party that did provide money but that was not included in the note, security instrument or TILA disclosures.  And it was never the homeowners intent to give a security interest to MERS, who was never disclosed until the homeowner sat down to sign the papers (no TILA disclosures to MERS were ever given, nor was MERS disclosed prior to the time the homeowner sat down to sign the documents).
But the “agency” held by the escrow company is interesting because the escrow company will not disclose some information it receives and knows…


46 Responses

  1. In Rhode Island, where MERS is considered as a beneficiary of the note, defective assignments are alright as evidence, shady affidavits are acceptable, people are beginning to loose faith in the justice system. What could we do?

  2. This Judge doesn’t get but at least the Judge left it without prejudice Neil we need help


    TILA Rescission hot off the press.

  3. A not so easy read because it is nauseating, Senator Warren just released,’Rigged Justice’. But an important one.

  4. Deb,

    It is my hope everyone will read this, an easy read, but these men want the truth and they are going to push beyond the bankers, ‘you can’t handle the truth’. Fear is out of the equation and he makes it crystal clear he is not afraid of retribution which is at the core of too many cases…foreclosure defense attorney’s are operating out of fear of the judges as well as their peers.

    Get behind this movement. I think as many homeowners should try to contact them. Mr. Black and his fellow whistle blowers are prepared for battle. Show his initial initiative to everyone you know.

    Anonymous, Shari and Elaine…try to reach them.

    Not only can we handle the truth…as Neil so eloquently points out…we know the truth.

  5. BLD saw that Bill Black went quiet for a while so that is so encouraging. Readers might also read his old book

    ” BEST WAY TO ROB A BANK IS TO OWN ONE ” then see the movie

    and you will SEE Bill Black got it down a long time ago, shame on our government its time for a change the big banks need reigning in at the very least. as a tax payer im sick of it and nothing has changed, yet.

  6. See William K. Black | Announcing the Bank Whistleblowers United Initial Initiatives.

  7. Keep a close eye on Deutsche bank…another Lehman brothers waiting to happen as we speak. This will definitely affect banks.Emergency Stabilization Fund with its domino effect on all 6 major banks.

  8. The Piggy Banks claims are for a transferred asset the Plaintiffs Loan, sold for value.
    Piggy Bank knew at the time of making the transfer that the mortgage was not enforceable .BUT THE PIGGY BANK DID NOT DISCLOSE THIS TO THE GRANTOR AND PLAINTIFF.
    Grantor Plaintiff.

  9. IrIrrevocable foriegn asset protection bucket trusts.
    Tax advantages
    Protection from creditors
    If set up properly it would be kept out of the marital estate

    Planning while married has the effect of dividing assets without the other spouses cconsent is Fraudulent Transfer, Immoral, Illeagel Wrong & Malpractice.

    Void where prohibited by law
    & its not in Delaware!) HMMM?

    Untested issues ….
    States where the benificaries are nestled.

    Seised of Estate

    One half of the Estate

  10. When you have a U.S. Senate confirm a lifetime appointment as a federal circuit judge to a person who openly professes that land ownership is racist, it sets the tone for the rest of the nation. The push by the NWO to topple America’s middle class is in full onslaught mode. And I fear there are too many stupid people who will continue to vote for more of the same.


  11. David Dayen has a book coming out that I feel will be useful.

    David Dayen – The American Prospect

    David Dayen is a contributing writer to Salon.com who also writes for The Intercept, The New Republic, and The Fiscal Times. His first book, Chain of Title, about …

    Although I haven’t read it yet. I spoke to him on an email and he told me it is about “Lynn Szymoniak”.

    It is available for Pre-order:

    The book is called Chain of Title. And you can write about it wherever and whenever! It’s available for pre-order, here’s the Amazon link.



    For the “Investment Class”, I suggest you take a look at “Gene Burnett” and his song “Jump you F*ckers”. Basically sums up what the entire US thinks about people from Wall Street that have robbed the rest of US for far too long.


  12. David Dayen has a book coming out that I feel will be useful.

    David Dayen – The American Prospect

    David Dayen is a contributing writer to Salon.com who also writes for The Intercept, The New Republic, and The Fiscal Times. His first book, Chain of Title, about …

    Although I haven’t read it yet. I spoke to him on an email and he told me it is about “Lynn Szymoniak”.

    It is available for Pre-order:

    The book is called Chain of Title. And you can write about it wherever and whenever! It’s available for pre-order, here’s the Amazon link.



    For the “Investment Class”, I suggest you take a look at “Gene Burnett” and his song “Jump you F*ckers”. Basically sums up what the entire US thinks about people from Wall Street that have robbed the rest of US for far too long.


    That is all. For now.

  13. We are in Rhode Island. A Legal Service here is saying that judges are not giving favorable orders to homeowners no matter whether the servicer doesn’t have original of the note or the assignment is defective. and, therefore, it is futile to fight against servicers based on these grounds. What could we do !

  14. Sunday 31 January 2015

    re the Rogers Law Group link below, the actual case:


  15. Magic is creating two wires from one loan as well as the estate using the stripped title as a transfer and sale into trust….

    AND by substitution of the original agreements with a. ,.,.
    Purchaser Seller “installment sale contract”.


    Illegal Reverse Purchase and Sale Scheme,

    The investment Scheme having accelerated to a Call provision expected to surface as a Due on Date as early as the 5th year.

  16. Yes Deb…Exactly!
    The Big Short to be continued .. 1 & 2


    I was a Vendor for LPS … & All the Major Title Companies & Insurers!

    They to this day create and forge documents with my signature.

    Black Knight Out!

  17. They can say and do and fabricate to create confusion and do anything they like
    But what happens when what they have already put on record is brought under further scrutiny showing that the facts were incomplete and after they insisted on taking the home as opposed to allowing the borrower to negotiate with the entity that might lose something – well that’s the kicker isn’t it,
    There’s only the pretenders who worked together to achieve the goal by design who would lose the bet

  18. D..
    12 U.S. Code 5102

  19. Such harsh words from someone who lost ….
    But if your convinced your way is the right way then the Label suits you!
    Loser turned Bully!

    Can you say Reconveyance or does the Cat have your Tongue ?

  20. SC, you spout all that crap as if it’s going to help you in court. Guess again.

    “But your honor, they wrote down the outstanding balance against the purchaser! You see, it was a reverse purchase & sale into trust! The agent remains a duel agent!

    Bucket Trust!
    Bucket Trust!
    Bucket Trust!”

    All you’ll hear is the sound of crickets – then the sound of a banging gavel and the judge grimacing as he/she says, “One more word out of you, you blithering idiot, and I’ll have you in leg irons!”

    And that would be the best outcome for LL, by far.

  21. Neil, do you suspect my statement below is what those escrow agents are withholding?

    No Trusts

  22. The defendants lost its investment by congressional enactment under the Troubled Asset Relief Program “TARP” for charging off and writing down the outstanding balance against the purchaser and all other defendants and or other indispensable parties to claims that include the purchasers and registrant against The Title Holder and Consumer Household.

    Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989
    12 U.S. C. 12 1833a 2

  23. Reverse amortization … “Shakes Head” & sees a currency reset.

    Illicit Illegal Reverse Transactions
    Where the original contract was swapped out with an installment sale contract.

    Reverse Purchase & Sale into Trust.
    Can you say Tax Accountant?

    Bucket Trusts

  24. I kept telling them…I am Not a borrower.
    And try they might, try they may….the denial remains the same.

    2016 is a game changer with the new disclosures.
    Many Blessings to All

  25. I & You enter into a consumer transaction .

  26. I means the borrower
    The borrower is your name & property address (the property address)

    You means the lender

  27. So if the documents are signed (IN ANTICIPATION OF CLOSING AND RECIEVING MONEY FROM THE “LENDER”)..the instructions are NEVER completed.
    The DOT is not authorized to be delivered and is NEVER constructively delivered,

    The “agent” remains a duel agent.

    Administrative Duties

  28. If you are before them and tell them you have no business with the one stealing your home and that they are acting in fraud, no judge can sit there an assume/presume a contract dispute.

    That’s the time to prove it up, but that’s not what happened, the opposing people said they were with Fannie Mae, and oh, well that name is more important than our own, and so paperwork doesn’t matter, it was an issue of who was trusted in a place where trust was important, trustee, deed of trust, etc.

    So don’t act like judges didn’t know or are not culpable. If judges didn’t know the administrative sides of contracts, regardless of the name presented, then they had no business helping businesses steal property.

    On another note,
    Going Back to 2011? CFPB Asserts No SOL for Administrative UDAAP Actions

    no Statute of Limitations on Unfair Deceptive Acts And Practices as long as the investigation’s enforcement administrative.

    I’m reminded of people who wait for someone to tell them ‘its okay to do a thing’ and when they don’t hear it from someone they gave power to tell them; they are inactive.

    Then later on, when they find out they could have done the thing and benefited from the results; the people whine that they were told something different.

    Look if someone tells you, you can’t do something, go find out for yourself first hand. Stop giving your power away and claiming victim status.

    If you are one of those that go to that building every Sunday to do that wore ship, then you know the command ment (command the mind) that says you should not put another before you.

    Trespass Unwanted, Creator, Corporeal, Life, Free, People, Independent, State, In Jure Proprio, Jure Divino

  29. I know all that Mr Garfield pointed out and:

    My true lender/source of funds was identified in 2014 when they lost a lawsuit brought by AIG where AIG brought evidence that BAC was my underwriter and not the named party on any document… I have a $650,000,000.00 judgement against BAC that they can’t deny… Now I need to get my piece of the action against BAC (and AHMSI and…. and…. and…. )

  30. Bucket Trust
    Bucket Trust
    Bucket Trust

    Yep, I can say ” BUCKET TRUSTS”!
    Irrevocable Bucket Trust

    Taxing the Bucket, ..see a qualified accountant.

  31. So, 4-5 days ago, UBS in France was found concealing 38,000 private accounts from the TAXMAN (can you say “Bucket Trusts”… I knew you could), valued at 24 Billion US.

    So, yesterday, HSBC and Wells Fargo were denied the ability to take on any further “Servicing” of “loans”.

    Today, Judge Gleeson has determined he will release the “internal monitor’s report” that details HSBC’s dealings with terrorist and drug Cartels.


    These PIGS are on the way out. Good Riddance.

    It is no surprise to me drug money was used, as, according to Mr. Garfield, “Pension Funds” were also used by “unknown” third parties to these bogus “Trusts”.

    No half measures.

    No phony pantomimes of “Corporate Doppleganger Strawmen”.

    End These Criminal Filth. Yesterday.

    In a word: “ACCOUNTABILITY”.

  32. In doing the PPM securities holders who are the registrations securities issuers were allowed to construct a New York endenture holding Fractional shares of the Estate TRANSFERRED AND CONVEYED IRREVOCABLY INTO TRUST.

  33. What about using the bankruptcy court to force immediate discovery wherein the creditor cannot object to the request for production of instruments and evidence of complete chain-of-title?

    It appears to me that other court jurisdictions have rules that favor the alleged creditor to postpone or even deny discovery altogether and drag the case out for years on end with silly objections, claims of privileged information and redundant motions..

    The federal bankruptcy court is the only way to go, I believe.

  34. IAN agreed!
    Offer and Acceptance without DELIVERY HAS NO EFFECT!
    And you sure in tarnations can NOT assign transfer or otherwise convey what you don’t have. Slandering the Title does not make it effective!
    Prove Up!

    Yes…my title insurer of choice for my lender of choice needed a few issues cleared up prior to any contract. Starting the Missing Deeds and Trustee Agreement, And accounting to show that MERs had indeed been paid off …

    Who is the Original Creditor?
    Show me the accounting that the Original creditors were paid off,

    Selling securities using reverse amortization schedule ….
    Do you suppose that’s why the notes were not recorded?
    Held off record.

    You can not have a closed end fixed rate on one end and an opened ended arm LOC on the flip side.

    The original contracts were replaced with an installment sale contracts.

    Compound & Compounded indefinably.

  35. When I allegedly closed on my alleged loan, there were actually two satisfaction of mortgages that had never been done, so they “sold??” me a property that did not have clear title. When I tried to refi, I could not, and they went BACK and put the alleged satisfactions in place. Amazing!

  36. Shadowcat- interesting point about MERS- are you saying that MERS should have been on the HUD-1? No payment to them, at least from the hapless borrower, but shouldn’t they have been listed somewhere as having a security interest in the mortgage? Because they did and they do.

  37. Louise, re title cos: i have documents from one of the big 4-5 title cos, in the border of the doc there is an arrow pointing to the amt owing on my “mortgage”, and someone wrote in “pay this”.
    When I called them 5 years ago, the woman who answered was pleasant until i had her turn to the page in question, i asked “Does that mean you paid the lender’s title policy?”
    She replied nastily “if you want that information your atty will have to subpoena it”.
    I still have it. Didnt do anything w it. But there you are.

  38. Kc- can u elaborate to us non-title savvy people? Thx

  39. Neil if you could take another step and give us your take on what happened when the loan was a refi, with compelling reason in my case to have been a “refi” on a first ( and only) note which had been paid off without my knowmedge. So apart from a pathetic cash back at closing, the “lender” didnt pay off an existing mortgage because there wasnt one. Whaddya say to this, and to others similarly situated?

  40. Neil states. .”
    It was never the homeowners intent to give MERS security Interests to MERS. And MERS was not disclosed until closing.”

    KC asks.
    . Are you referring to the Irrevocable Conveyance?
    The bare legal title we Warranted Free and Clear of liens & encumbrances except those of record ?

  41. Yes, the title companies are up to their eyeballs in the fraud, too. If discovery had been allowed since day one, all of this would be blown out of the water. Lack of due process.

  42. I have a case that that is exactly on point here. Deutsche Bank of Americas acting as Trustee for Residential Accredit 2006 QS-14 Trust.
    Deutsche Bank is suing for foreclosure as Trustee for Rali 2006 QS-14
    The problem here is that you can’t take the word of any bankers.
    This Rali 2006 QS-14 trust was Liquidated back on Dec. of 2013.
    So they are trying to foreclose as trustee for a liquidated Trust.

  43. @Ima53 Good luck with that. I had physical evidence AND an affidavit from a certified forensic loan auditor here in Maryland that what I had and the TWO copies they had – presented at different times as ‘true test’ copies – were not the same. Not one judge all the way up to the Appeals court here gave my documents a second look. The already sanctioned foreclosure mill of Shapiro & Burson were given full rein in court and my house.

  44. The homeowner cannot identify with certainty whether the documents presented to him in court are actually the same as what he signed at closing — but the homeowner admits it anyway completely undermining his arguments about standing,

    Oh but Neil. I have to object there because in my case I can say with complete certainty that what they filed in court is definitely not the same as what I signed as the court will soon find out. Wouldn’t u love to be a fly on the wall??

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: