False Claimants: Partial transcript of last night’s Neil Garfield Show

LISTEN TO THIS EPISODE OF THE NEIL GARFIELD SHOW

Thursdays LIVE! Click in to the Neil Garfield Show

Tonight’s Show Hosted by Neil Garfield, Esq.

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

 
Hi Neil Garfield here and this is Thursday March 7th, 2019.  Bill Paatalo joins me tonight since he has done so much work on this topic as a very capable private investigator. He’ll share his work with you in a moment.
Bill Paatalo and others have been working hard digging deeper and deeper into the trench that the banks have created in which the stench of corruption boils over into the fraudulent taking of homesteads across the country.
They kept pointing me toward a simple conclusion but I resisted because I overlooked that part of the lawyer’s work that means to start at the beginning. If I listened to Bill and others, I would have seen it earlier. I didn’t look, word by word, for the name of the claimant. Once I did, everything became simplified. Everything became clearer to me. AND I’m going to share that with you tonight.
I am broadcasting live from Duval County Florida and this show is brought to you by the livinglies blog, GTC honors, Lendinglies, AMGAR, and the Garfield firm, and this show is specially brought to you because of donations to the livinglies blog from listeners like you. Thank you. And for those of you who are not contributors we ask that you HIT THE DONATE BUTTON ON THE THE BLOG OR call 954-451-1230 or
202-838-6345  and pledge whatever you think you can afford. If this show has value for you, if  our work on the blog and our radio shows, without payment or other support has value to you then chip in. Please make a contribution to help us continue helping you and all consumers. I was just told that the link might not be functioning properly so if you can’t get through online please call 954-451-1230.
Bill was telling me, Dan Edstrom was telling me and even Charles Kopps was telling me but I didn’t hear and that is part of the problem of getting lawyers to represent homeowners who are being wrongfully foreclosed. Neither lawyers nor judges actually hear or believe a defense that is a complete defense to the claim brought in the name of a false claimant. Nearly everyone agrees to a false premise that the debt was not paid, and that the homeowner owes the debt to the claimant who is named in the foreclosure action.
LEGAL STANDING IS ABOUT WHETHER THE NAMED CLAIMANT EXISTS AND WILL, IF SUCCESSFUL, RECEIVE THE BENEFITS OF PREVAILING ON ITS CLAIM. IF THAT IS NOT TRUE, THERE IS NO VALID CLAIM. WE NOW HAVE SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT THIS BASIC PROPOSITION IS NOT TRUE EXCEPT IN CASES WHERE THE ORIGINAL LENDER WAS THE LENDER AND IS STILL THE LENDER.
This simple proposition is what is missing from today’s debate over foreclosures. It turns out that the named claimants are not receiving checks when the property is liquidated and yes that does matter because if they do not receive the money it is because they were never intended to receive the money. And in that case then they had not experienced a default and if they had no default then they had no right to declare a default. And if they had no right to declare a default there is no default as to that name.
So bottom line there is no default as to a claimant who either does not exist or who is not intended to receive the benefits of any remedy for that default.
WHY DO WE HAVE THIS ISSUE? THE ANSWER IS OBVIOUS: MONEY. FOR VERY DOLLAR LOANED THERE ARE 10-20 DOLLARS IN GAIN FOR THE PLAYERS. THOSE PLAYERS, NEVER PRESENT IN YOUR FORECLOSURE CASE, ONLY SEEK TO PREVENT THAT $20 GAIN FROM BECOMING A $20 LIABILITY SO THEY CAN KEEP THEIR ILL-GOTTEN GAINS.
IF YOUR ATTACK ON THEIR PROOF REVEALS GAPS IN THE CHAIN OF OWNERSHIP OF THE DEBT, THAT UNDERMINES THE VALUE OF THE PAPER. IF THE PAPER IS UNDERMINED THEN THE DERIVATIVES, CREDIT DEFAULT SWAPS AND OTHER PAPER CREATED FOR THE SO-CALLED SECURITIZATION ERA MAY BE WORTHLESS OR WORTH MUCH LESS LESS THAN THEY PAID. AND IF THAT HAPPENS THEN THE INVESTMENT BANK THAT STARTED IT ALL HAS A LIABILITY FOR ALL THE MONEY IT MADE — 10X-20X THE AMOUNT OF EACH LOAN.
FORECLOSURE PLAYS A VITAL ROLE IN MAINTAINING THE ILLUSION THAT THE LOANS AND THE DERIVATIVES WRITTEN OFF OF THE LOANS WERE ALL VALID AND LEGAL.  THEY WERE NOT.
After 12 years of thinking and analysis I have boiled everything down to one question: Does the party named by the lawyers ever get anything out of a successful foreclosure? I think the answer is always NO if the loan has been sold into the secondary market and worse yet if it has been subject to securitization claims which are almost always completely false.
If the lawyers have given a name of an implied entity that does not exist, the answer is obvious but sometimes you need to parse their words to even discover that they are naming a party that does not exist. If the lawyers name a legally existing entity then the question is whether that is the entity who will actually receive the benefit of foreclosure. Again the answer if you parse the words used by the lawyers the answer is no, whoever it is they named as claimant will never see the use or proceeds of the foreclosed property.
And then you have the hybrid. Like Deutsch or US Bank or BONY as trustee for a jumble of words that imply but do not identify a trust and refer to certificate holders without identifying the certificates that in all events disclaim any interest in the subject debt, note or mortgage.
The certificates exist but they do not convey to the holders any right to the debt, note or mortgage. They merely receive a promise they will receive a stream of money indefinitely. They are not promised the principal amount of the debt.
They are not promised  the interest paid by the borrower. Because the certificates disclaim the interest the borrower does not owe the investors in so-called mortgage backed securities anything. AND by the way those securities are not securities and they are not mortgage backed.
BOTTOM LINE: If the lawyers know that the name they are using for the claimant is a fictitious entity or is an entity that has never received the proceeds of foreclosure in the past, then they know that the foreclosure is invalid and probably fraudulent but they do it anyway because they can and they get away with it until challenged aggressively by the rare homeowner who says hell no I won’t go.
If a third party is getting the benefit of the foreclosure that is an admission that the named claimant used by the lawyers in the foreclosure mill did not satisfy the requirement of Article 3 legal standing. That claimant does not satisfy the state requirements to be a beneficiary on a  DOT nor a mortgage on a mortgage.
The fact that they received an assignment does not create the ownership of the debt nor the right to enforce it if the debt is not owned buy the claimant whose name is ebbing used to seek the remedy of foreclosure when there is no expectation that the named claimant will actually receive the proceeds of sale when property is foreclosed. .
That named party or claimant does not have a claim and doesn’t expect to receive the benefit of the remedy for which the lawyers have applied in their name — if they even exist.
Welcome to the show Bill Paatalo. Do you think I finally got your message?
BONY CHECK mentioned by BILL. Check was made out to BONY as trustee but negotiated by Bayview on behalf of Chase. BONY was the named claimant.
“I don’t know who gets the proceeds of foreclosure sale.” from depo in Paatalo case
Banks need the foreclosure for Ponzi scheme that they call securitization not for so-called the payment from the proceeds of sale. Often it goes to the so-called Master Servicer under the guise of recovery of Servicer Advances which have themselves been “Securitized.”
Lawyer license issues and civil liability. There are more suits now than ever before brought by homeowners against the foreclosure mills AFTER they have won the primary foreclosure case.

15 Responses

  1. Bob G. I do not have your email address any longer as it’s in my old Javagold email address folder. You can contact me directly at my email address Javagold@comcast.net

  2. JAVAGOLD…contact me offsite. I think that you have my email address. I’ll fill you in on what I did.

  3. ANON:
    The promissory note does not “pay off” any previous notes. IT IS NEW MONEY.

    It’s again, I repeat, treated as a deposit into your account..

    The essence is: THEY, the bank OWES YOU.

    YOU RE THE SOVEREIGN….only you don’t know it…..and they trick you, deceive you, and through a LARGE SCALE SCAM make you sign an adhesion contract that makes you THINK or believe you owe them.

    Call or text my cell phone 203-518-1723 for a discussion

    Be great to hear from you.

    David Snieckus

  4. davidsnieckus2, — Ok — get your point. But here is the problem — what if the “loan” you sign does NOT payoff the prior loan — not by paid off by you as it claims???

    No new money created. Yet it is still played with, and leveraged – in all different places.

    As Paul Volcker says in his biography — “Keeping At It” –” you can’t play with peoples’ money. ”

    But that is what financial engineering does – and did (which Volcker criticizes). .

    Our problem is this: Dems covered up while in control. Now Trump wants to bring back the “Financial engineering.” covered-up by the Dems!!!!???? . There is no one in government to stand up to this. No one. We are going in circles. Just pushing the foreclosures into rentals that defeats American home ownership — and/or pushes the liability onto others who will encounter, eventually, for a large part, the same assumed problems.

    Hate to be critical, but do we have idiots for representatives, or is the greed so out of control that it can never be resolved?

    Probably both.

    .

  5. As an add on…..The famous 19th century numismatic scholar Alexander Del Mar said, ” the right to coin money has always been and still remains the surest mark and announcement of sovereignty.” SO THAT MEANS, when a so-called borrower creates NEW MONEY with their signature at the bank closing, they ARE THE SOVEREIGN.. They actually put new money into circulation for the benefit or detriment of all….and owe no one a monthly mortgage payment.

    David Snieckus 617-964-2951

  6. You know……IF everyone that took out the so-called loan AND KNEW it was their money* that was loaned to them, many more people would/could have a moratorium on the monthly mortgage payments.

    Can we get this information broadcast to EVERY HOMEOWNER?

    * WHEN A so-called borrower SIGNS the contract at the closing, the so-called borrower is putting NEW MONEY in circulation. IN the aggregate this new money is what causes inflation as the new money decreases the value of the existing money. The promissory note is placed in an account, just as if ANYONE deposited money into a bank. the so-called loan or the deposit is a LIABILITY to the bank. The bank OWES YOU.

    ( CAN you see why there is such a cover up?)

    IF ANYONE UNDERSTANDS THIS then there is NEVER a need to pay the so-called loan back.

    Any questions? call me, David, at 617-964-2951

  7. Bob G. When in the fraudclosure process do you suggest sending a small miscellaneous check to the plaintiff ??

  8. What about title?

    interesting read –

    https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/5_kimetal.pdf

  9. Ken Taylor…do what i did. Send the plaintiff a small check, $25 or so, for a “miscellaneous” item. And no, there is no doc evidence on a credit bid. the prop is just listed with a broker, the house gets sold, and then there is a paper trail. but the bankster ttee can just say that they assigned their ownership fee interest to the party that actually gets the sales proceeds when the house is sold to a new buyer. that’s why you send a small check.

  10. Iam– you are right, will not likely get info without subpoena. You are right too – likely in wrong payee name. You are right too — likely unsecured.

    All of this could show why the trusts were not funded. No actual transfer could occur to secondary market via the trustee if the collateral warehouse lender was never paid. So when the foreclosure attorneys come in – they are not giving where the debt really is, but, rather, where it may have been intended to go. If a “record” was recorded to trustee/trust – it is fake and intended to conceal the true status of the loan. Courts accept them without question.

    And, there could be more. Servicers had the incentive and ability to manufacture defaults to avoid paying warehouse lender, manipulate ongoing fees on an ongoing basis to wherever the loan came from (we all know where they came from), and direct the loans to distressed debt buyer including hedge funds. Only foreclosure would allow the warehouse lender to be paid – which is why it is the ultimate goal. .

  11. Sometimes the “Warehouse Lenders” identity can be found within the “MERS Milestone Report.” It shows what transpired to the loan-docs within the MERS system and is quite revealing. The information in the “Milestone Report” shows transfers of “Servicing Rights” and the “Transfer of Beneficial Interest Holders” as well. Also included in the “Milestone Report” I recently received through discovery subpoena, was an entry for “WaMu” providing a “Release of Interim Funder Interests”, even though the originating lender was “Affiliated Funding Corp.?!? That report showed transfers of beneficial interests without any corresponding recorded assignments of the security memorializing those alleged transfers. The final entry showed the loan was “Transferred to Non-MERS Status” in (2011), but, MERS made an assignment the next year, in (2012)?!?
    The copy of the Note has three endorsements without corresponding recorded assignments of the security, and, the “MERS Milestone Report” provides evidence of another three missing recorded assignments of the security for transfers according to the MERS system, that don’t match endorsements on the note.
    The missing recorded assignments may prove the debt is unsecured at best, but, the evidence of an “Interim Funder” or “Warehouse Funder” making the loan means that the original Note and Security both name the wrong-payee, and, may be void all together..
    I don’t think MERS will make their “Milestone Report” available except by subpoena. I am unaware if a “borrower” can request his own copy, but, if a borrower can request a copy, they should do so IMO.

  12. Bob that’s what I’m looking for, but does a credit bid generate a documentary piece of evidence,?

  13. Sounds like similar issue in CA where transfer can be challenged if transferor was unable to foreclose. In NJ looks like u have to lose ur home even if u raise issue of obvious manipulation of trustee cerificateholders FKA

  14. Getting it RIGHT Neil!!! Now ask Bill to look into COLLATERAL HOLDER and warehouse lender. But, remember, nothing was “lent” except cash-out. If never paid — (market collapsed) – then collateral never leaves. Finding the warehouse lender, however, is difficult. For any loan where there was not a actual bank – there is a warehouse lender. Thanks.

  15. OK, so tell us how we get a photocopy of the foreclosure sale check?

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: