Tonight! What is my defense narrative in foreclosure? 6PM EDT

If you don’t completely understand your defense narrative, neither will the judge! If you don’t have a defense narrative in mind, you don’t have a defense. 

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

The defense narrative is a blueprint for guiding the strategies and tactics of defense of a foreclosure action. It is not necessarily what you say to the judge or write in a pleading or memorandum. It is your theory of the case. In all court cases the litigants are required to make certain assumptions of fact and law to arrive at a conclusion that is satisfactory. If you don’t have a case narrative then your presentation will be chaotic and will not be persuasive, because it doesn’t make any sense.

This is a program intended to expand your awareness of procedural law which is the basis for all judgments and orders entered by any court. The rules of procedure and the laws of evidence, presumptions and inferences are not well understood by most lawyers much less pro se litigants who have no legal training. But procedure is where the homeowner can win — if you understand your own side of the case. That is the defense narrative.

Homeowners win because of one simple fact: the opposition doesn’t have the goods. The opposition doesn’t own the debt. The opposition isn’t seeking to recover on a debt because they have no intention of turning any money over to anyone who actually owns the debt because they paid for it.

3 Responses

  1. And, I have no affiliation with Neil.

  2. Poppy — you are right again. It all about the money trail. Servicers did by reporting “fake” defaults. No one has a money trail. No one. No one has actual records — including from pre-“transaction” – which is necessary.

    Agree with Neil — and even agree that many pro se cases have done more harm than good. BUT — these people KNOW something is very wrong., They can’t always afford attorneys,. And, when they can, the attorneys, as Neil says, too often do not get it.

    What I am seeing now is outright concealment. One large law firm attorney for these trusts once told me, many years ago, that the trusts are a “shell.” Simply a “vehicle to pass through “collection rights”” to an undisclosed deb buyer. I didn’t understand this at the time. The Courts seem to take the word of the “trustees,” trusts, and servicers. And the data published by inside “tracking” places they use for support is nothing more than “loan” (not trust) reporting and is false.

    Now what really occurred? As Neil and I talked about many years ago – those damn bottom tranches. They were NOT securitized. Pools of loans was were put in those tranches at the onset, and then later upon manufactured default. There is no pass-through for these tranches. There is no securitization. Sold to a third party without a security. There is no trustee, and there is no master servicer as there is nothing to “master service” for any claimed securitization.

    Those bottom tranches were the “caboose” to rid the trust of pools of loans – without ever disclosing to whom and where.

    I agree with Neil, but Poppy is right too. The adversary “goods” are not really goods. They are fake. We need the “people’s” own data base. I don’t know where to get it. Perhaps, Neil does.

    These “trusts” were being shut down before they were ever even deemed compliant. And, it was not for bad “underwriting.” It was for BAD securitizing. Shut down did not occur for bad underwriting. That is is a BIG myth.

    People need Neil. I believe Neil has the “goods.” They are there.

    Thank you.

  3. Neil, I have not seen one receipt for the money. No lawyer here, but a lot of courts, cases, discovery or lack thereof and never anyone showing they paid for anything. Assignments abound. Servicer defaults…showing nothing, other than a payment stream to be collected perhaps from a second debt OR debt that’s been paid and the servicer assigned rights to themselves and collects on the same debt more than once.

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: