Partial transcript of Neil Garfield Show on Administrative Strategies

Hello, Neil Garfield here and this is Thursday April 25, 2019. Tonight I am going to tell you why we do what we do and introduce you to the use of administrative law processes to reveal the bare essentials about the foreclosure against you.
 *
And by that I mean that the case does not exist in substance even if it appears to be a real case in form, procedure and even common sense. Every con man will tell you that they use your own common sense against you. That is what leads you into defrauding yourself.
*
So let’s start by saying that there is a very simple explanation for who is in control in almost all cases involving foreclosure today. It is an investment banker at an investment bank. And there are only two people essential to your transaction. You and the investor group that funded it. Everyone else is an intermediary or sham conduit who either belongs there or doesn’t belong there. That’s it. That’s the whole story.
*
In the real world it is the investment banker who funds the origination or acquisition of your loan. But they sell it within 30 days of the origination or acquisition. Sometimes they even sell it forward which means they sell it before the loan is originated or acquired. In those cases they never had ownership of the debt because to have ownership of the debt for purposes of foreclosure you must have paid value for it under UCC Article 9–203.
*
But even though they sell it they control everything that happens from cradle to grave. This is accomplished through either secret written agreements or like the mob, through winks and nods so that action can’t be traced back to the investment banker at the investment bank.
*
Even though all that is true, you never see the name of the investment banker in any foreclosure, or any foreclosure sale or liquidation of the property. Yet it is the investment bank that is getting the money from the proceeds of the liquidation of your property. Yes your house has been sold to line the pockets of an investment bank who has no stake in your loan.
*
It’s the investment banker who does not have one dime invested in your loan. Just the opposite, by trading on your name, your signature and your reputation, the investment banker has made tons of money usually far in excess of any amount of money loaned to you. All without your knowledge or consent. Kind of makes Facebook inquiries look like child’s play.
*
And you the borrower never get access, communication or even acknowledgment that the investment banker is involved. If this is starting sound like the infrastructure of an organized crime family that is because the playbook for the investment banks ever since they started the securitization scheme in 1983, has been straight out of the godfather.
*
Every act taken is the act of the investment banker in substance but it appears as though it is the act of others who loaned you money, who purchased the loan and who serviced the loan and who foreclosed on the loan.
*
You don’t need to prove that the investment banker is corrupt or criminal or that it even exists. As a defense and as part of your claims you can include the investment bank but you don’t need to do so. I think it is time for the investment banks to be included in affirmative defenses and claims in lawsuits. But reasonable people can differ on that. It is a tactical decision.
*
All you need to do is to show that instead of there being normal business practices in which every transfer of a major asset is well documented and recorded in the books and records of the transacting parties, instead of all that there is nothing.
There is no payment because the investment bank already paid. You simply show that there was no payment between the parties on the note, indorsement, mortgage, deed of trust or assignment of mortgage.
*
A transfer of the mortgage without the debt is a nullity. And there is no transfer of the debt without payment., See UCC Article 9-203. And as long as you can defeat the mortgage enforcement you can stay in the game even though it might be still possible for the lawyers to enforce the note which does not require payment.
So how do you get there?
*
Remember you can always come back and listen to the show again or send it to a friend by going to blogtalkradio.com and looking up the Neil Garfield Show
*
  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.
*
Remember in the movie “The Firm” with Tom Cruise when he said “it’s not sexy but it has teeth”? That is administrative law. combined with civil law and litigation. The character Cruise played was talking about mail fraud. It worked. It referred to a combination of admin and civil law and, in the film, criminal law.
*
A well-documented complaint to the U.S. Postal Inspector could result in administrative action and other government action against servicers or banks. Playing your administrative cards right you could end up with a mail fraud case to be brought against the servicers and pretender lenders, but you will almost certainly end up with more and better defined defenses than you otherwise would have.
*
But in order to create a well-documented complaint you need well-documented evidence to show that the lawyers, servicers and the claimant are stonewalling simple requests for identity of the claimant and the description of the claim in real life — i.e., does the claimant have a risk of loss. Does the claimant  have ownership of the debt. Was transfer of the note with or without consideration.
*
So you are going to need help. A recent Press Release from the CFPB says they are going to require more information about facts and law the  they did before. The banks think this will protect them. But it won’t if homeowners get help when they file their complaints which are called Civil Investigative Demands (CIDs).
*
Because while analyses of notes, indorsements, assignments and allonges are all subject to legal presumptions they are also all rebuttable. But rebutting the facial validity of fabricated instruments can get expensive in time and money.
Government regulators should be doing this but they don’t — unless you make them.
*
But even if they don’t, their processes for assembling data can be invoked by anyone. So yes you need a lawyer even if you are going to use the administrative procedures I am about to describe but it is much easier to navigate administrative procedures than court procedures.
*
In 42 years of practicing trial law, I practiced in admin law for many years. And believe me it has teeth. Ask any lawyer or doctor who has a complaint to which they must respond. Government agencies are scary. That is why consumers should use some of the easier processes available. You get to smoke out the servicers and pretenders “on the cheap.”
*
In administrative procedures and proceedings, people save or lose business and professional licenses, get fined, pay restitution and all sorts of things. And administrative decisions are required to be given deference in courts of law. It’s far less expensive than litigation and could greatly reduce the cost of litigation so why wouldn’t you use the administrative strategy first?
*
The error I made was in thinking that people knew this. But that isn’t so. Few people send a QWR under RESPA or a DVL under FDCPA. And among those who do, about 10% know what they’re doing. And out of that 10% only 1 % follow up with complaints to the CFPB or state AG. And out of that 1% only half follow up with additional complaints about the responses. And then only half those use the responses in court, even though they provide the foundation for arguing inconsistent statements, fabricated documents etc. — i.e., proven winning strategies.
*
So this is sort of an advertisement but also a push to lawyers and pro se litigants who have consistently overlooked this set of tools. Do it right and you won’t be sorry. We fulfill the orders in the order in which they arrive. Just be aware that there will be a slight delay for any orders received after April 28 until May 13.
The usual rules apply. get a lawyer. Don’t make any decision based upon this content without consulting local counsel.
*
This is the ADMINISTRATIVE STRATEGY: First the questions, then the complaint and finally the follow up complaint. We also give you without charge a copy of the title report and a 30 minute CONSULT with Neil.
*
Administrative complaints are more likely than litigation to produce early settlements although litigation strategies will often produce better settlements and modifications. Questions are posed via QWR and DVL. Complaints are made to the CFPB and State AG.
*
The Qualified Written Request (QWR) under the Real Estate Settlement and Procedures Act (RESPA) together with the Debt Validation Letter (DVL) under the Federal Debt Collectors Procedures Act (FDCPA) is the starting point, asking pointed questions relating to the debt.
*
When correctly written they require response from servicers and parties claiming to lenders or successors. Usually after sending the QWR and DVL you send complaints to your State AG -Attorney General and the CFPB -Consumer Financial Protection Board. Again they just respond.
*
These responses often form the basis for follow up complaints alleging non compliance by the responder. The responses also provide grist for arguing inconsistent statements when and if you go to court. And failure to respond or responding with misrepresentations are probably good grounds for claims or defenses in court.
*
After analyzing your case, the Lending Lies team will request specific information that the servicer can’t provide without fabrication of documents and misrepresentation. The benefit of this service is having Neil Garfield and his paralegal tailor the letters specifically to the findings in your Chain of Title assessment so the servicer is accountable and must answer the questions in your request.
*
The more information you can receive from your loan servicer, the more apt they are to make errors and provide conflicting information that can help you demonstrate the servicer’s lack of authority and the named claimant’s standing.  Typically the left hand doesn’t know what the right hand is doing at most servicer’s organizations. The servicer’s failure to properly respond sets up the servicer or other responder for fines and damages.
*

10 Responses

  1. Thanks Kali — super smart guy!! Thank you.

  2. @ ANON

    For him:

    bob1365@gmail.com

  3. Deadly Clear, — absolutely correct — and those purchased private bank “trust” MBS tranches (mostly top tranches but other tranches too, were placed in GSE REMICs, along with Ginnie Mae too.

    Ummm– where did those loans originally come from FHFA?? And, they had the nerve to file lawsuits? Got repurchases -out of it – MAYBE. And, by WHO?? Defunct entities? Security underwriters?

    BOB G — will try to email, not sure I still have address.

    Thanks.
    .

  4. ANON…contact me off site re getting GSE info.

  5. Check out those 17 FHFA lawsuits (key word “purchased”):

    “Between September 30, 2005 and January 23, 2008, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac purchased over $30.4 billion in residential mortgage-backed securities (the “GSE Certificates”) issued in connection with 68 RBS-sponsored and/or RBS-underwritten securitizations.”

    Check to see if your trust is listed in any of those lawsuits. It’s maybe just more leverage if it is. Here is just one of them:

    The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc, et al. (D. Conn., Case No. 3:11-CV-01383 (AWT) and may be found at: https://www.fhfa.gov/SupervisionRegulation/LegalDocuments/Documents/Litigation/FHFA_v_Royal_Bank_of_Scotland_Complaint.pdf.

  6. As long as the Government and Judges protect and support banks’ fraud upon the Court and obstruction of justice – nothing will change

  7. JohnR, – I hope so!!!! A decade later, and myths about the financial crisis are still there — and fraud still ongoing.

    There are data bases that are much more extensive then the ones that foreclosure mills get their info from. The government has access — and, believe me, those extensive data bases make zero sense.

    What I hope Neil and others do, which I have said for years, is go back to before the last “origination” (whatever that claimed transaction may be) to prior loan transactions. The problem for borrower access is that most likely the prior loan, or loan prior to prior loan, or loan prior to even that, was a GSE loan. But, one cannot get that information themselves from the GSEs. GSE sends you to prior servicer — who likely has no record. In addition, GSE will not tell you how they were investor — either by direct securitization, or by tranche investment in the private label bank trusts. They will not say. All is dependent on servicer input to data bases — whether GSEs were direct or indirect (by private tranche trust) investment.

    And, if lucky to GET the info, they will claim statute of limitations under consumer protection laws. So, again, this is task for our representatives to FIX.

    There was a legislative bill, sometime ago, to force GSE to provide information under FOIA. I don’t know what happened to that bill.

    Thanks!!! — I hope you are right!!!!

  8. Thanks Neil

  9. Anon… I’m not so sure it’s too late. I’ve been watching the Legal A.I. Industry grow… in more than just leaps and bounds. Computers have the ability to do massive tasks… in a very, very short time and the fraud, lack of standing and specifics of the massive thefts is beyond res judicata. Settlements can be clawed back or made into payments made to those who were damaged. That Fat Lady hasn’t even been called to the Party yet.

  10. Thank you Neil for this. Good summary that points to investment bank. May I add that the investment bank is not found in the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, but, rather, in the Prospectus. I would also like to add that before the investment bank was security underwriter, they were the servicers to GSEs/FHA/VA/Ginnie Mae loans – the very same loans that they then falsely securitized. For this reason, nothing was funded — only assignments of default debt to the investment banks.

    I believe what has harmed the people (borrowers) is the government settlements that claimed the investment bank sold securities that were poorly underwritten. That is a huge understatement. What the investment banks securitized were the collection rights to the loans they were already servicer for, and, were aware of the default status that they — not the borrowers – created.

    Too late to undo the settlements, and get a real investigation.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: