DO WE REALLY WANT TO LOSE CREDITORS IN CONSUMER TRANSACTIONS?

ALL EXISTING LAW AGREES WITH MY MAIN POINT: There is no basis for claiming you are a creditor unless you own the debt or represent someone who owns the debt. Since 2000 and maybe before that we have abandoned real creditors and steadily transformed administration, collection, and enforcement of alleged debts to include virtual creditors who neither own the debt nor receive the proceeds of collection. And there is no basis for claiming you are a servicer if you (a) maintain no custodial accounts and (b) you are not paying the money you collect to a creditor.

I HAVE WON NEARLY ALL CASES ON THE BASIS OF CHALLENGING THE EXISTENCE, OWNERSHIP, AND ENFORCEMENT OF THE ALLEGED DEBT. It’s a matter of court record.

AND YET — CFPB, FTC, AND SEC, ALONG WITH STATE AND FEDERAL COURTS, HAVE ALLOWED FOR THE “INSITUTIONALIZATION” OF VIRTUAL CREDITORS INSTEAD OF REAL ONES. Complaints to CFPB based upon challenges to the existence, ownership, and right to enforce the alleged debt result in gibberish answered from companies who have no knowledge and say nothing about the identity of the alleged creditor or the date of the transaction where value was paid one exchange for a conveyance of ownership of the alleged underlying obligation as required by Article 9§203 of the UCC adopted in all 50 states.

THE RESULT IS THAT ADMINISTRATION, COLLECTION, AND ENFORCEMENT OF THE ALLEGED DEBT RESULTS IN BONUSES, COMMISSIONS, AND OTHER COMPENSATION INSTEAD OF PAYING DOWN (REDUCING) THE PRESUMED LOAN ACCOUNT RECEIVABLE ON THE ACCOUNTING LEDGERS OF SOME COMPANY OR PERSON. Is this what we really want? Do we really want to ignore laws established over centuries?

BOTTOM LINE: THE BASICS OF ALL LENDING TRANSACTIONS HAVE BEEN CHANGED BEYOND RECOGNITION:

  • There is no lending anymore.
  • There are consumers who wish to be borrowers but there is nobody who wants to be a lender.
  • There are inducements to issue a note, a mortgage or a security instrument in an auto loan — even though no loan account is ever established.
  • Money paid to consumers is ephemeral — like a magic trick. The money paid to consumers is the inducement to sign the papers. But the virtual or pretender lender wants that money back.
  • The consumer thinks he/she is buying a loan product but the “lender” is neither lending nor does it have any lending intent. The “lender” neither funds the loan nor does it have any risk of loss.
*
Neil F Garfield, MBA, JD, 73, is a Florida licensed trial and appellate attorney since 1977. He has received multiple academic and achievement awards in business and law. He is a former investment banker, securities broker, securities analyst, and financial analyst.
*

FREE REVIEW: Don’t wait, Act NOW!

CLICK HERE FOR REGISTRATION FORM. It is free, with no obligation and we keep all information private. The information you provide is not used for any purpose except for providing services you order or request from us. In the meanwhile you can order any of the following:
*
CLICK HERE ORDER ADMINISTRATIVE STRATEGY, ANALYSIS, AND NARRATIVE. This could be all you need to preserve your objections and defenses to administration, collection or enforcement of your obligation. Suggestions for discovery demands are included.
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER TERA – not necessary if you order PDR PREMIUM.
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER CONSULT (not necessary if you order PDR)
*
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER PRELIMINARY DOCUMENT REVIEW (PDR) (PDR PLUS or BASIC includes 30 minute recorded CONSULT)
*
FORECLOSURE DEFENSE IS NOT SIMPLE. THERE IS NO GUARANTEE OF A FAVORABLE RESULT. THE FORECLOSURE MILLS WILL DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO WEAR YOU DOWN AND UNDERMINE YOUR CONFIDENCE. ALL EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT NO MEANINGFUL SETTLEMENT OCCURS UNTIL THE 11TH HOUR OF LITIGATION.
  • But challenging the “servicers” and other claimants before they seek enforcement can delay action by them for as much as 12 years or more.
  • Yes you DO need a lawyer.
  • If you wish to retain me as a legal consultant please write to me at neilfgarfield@hotmail.com.
*
Please visit www.lendinglies.com for more information.

6 Responses

  1. Legi — I agree about the original contract, but you will go up against a big wig law firm and be shut down in court before you get to speak. And, discovery? Don’t count on it. . SOL? By the time anyone figures anything out – SOL is over.
    I am only referring to crisis loans here, but the spill over after crisis securitization was exposed went on for years and, in some form, continues today. The borrower was falsely recorded as not making payments BEFORE he/she signed the “original contract.” That is why the borrower IMMEDIATELY got a non-friendly debt collector.
    While you may be correct as to importance of original contract, because disclosure would make the original contract VOID, an investigation into the balance sheets of crisis securitization will show there was no accounting – hence no securitization, hence no valid original contract. And, why? Nothing was paid off by the borrower by the “original” contract. Thus, I agree with both you and Neil. Neither of you should discredit the other. You are both correct, The problem is that this was all done to the tune of trillions of dollars, and Obama “settled” without investigation with no benefit to the true victims – the homeowners. This was done under the guise of saving the economy as a whole. Without a full investigation, the massive fraud remains undercover. Saving one homeowner at time — helps that homeowner only — while the rest battle judges who have no interest in justice. Most victims do not even go to court – they know the battle is lost before it is fought. To make it worse, minorities were the first to be targeted by this grand scheme, and they don’t even know they were targeted (I am not a minority). Infuriating.

  2. Do we really want to ignore laws established over centuries?

    The Government and Courts ALREADY DID IT.

    They went farther – they destroyed them.

    And the Government and Courts are so deep in this fraud that they have no choice but to continue cover for it and create other bogus excuses to promote Big Banks crimes.

    Because Big Banks own The Government.

  3. ANON, the ONLY wins are by those that attack the mortgage transaction (contract).

    How many times do I have to explain the fact, when the homeowner failed to make timely payments they breached the contract, and contractually agreed the bank or its assigns could take the property. In order to prevail the homeowner must show problems with the transaction, not what follows it. Furthermore, ownership has nothing to do with the legality to foreclose–PERIOD!!

    TROTTER V. BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, 275 P.3d 857 (Idaho 2012). (“a trustee may initiate nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings on a deed of trust without first proving ownership of the underlying note….”); BROWN V. DEP’T OF COMMERCE, 184 Wn.2d 509, 514, 359 P .3d 771 (2015); BAIN V. METRO. MORTG. GRP., INC.. 175 Wn.2d 83, 104, 285 P.3d 34 (2012); TRUIILLOV. NW. TR. SERVS., INC., 181 Wn. App. 484, 502, 326 P.3d 768 (2014), rev’d on other grounds, 183 Wn.2d 820, 355 P.3d 1100 (2015); (“Ownership of a note is irrelevant to the power to enforce that note.”); U.S. BANK, N.A. V. KNIGHT, 90 So. 3d 824 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (“to have standing, an owner OR holder of a note, indorsed in blank, need only show that he possessed the note at the institution of a foreclosure suit; the mortgage necessarily and equitable follows the note.”); DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST CO. V. VALERIE J. SLOTKE (Wash. Ct. App. 2016) (“it is the holder of a note who is entitled to enforce it. It is not necessary for the holder to establish that it is also the owner of the note secured by the deed of trust.).

  4. Legi – don’t worry about other wins. Learn about the “securitization” by the financial crisis cover-up. Start with Obama/Biden/Harris. Then put in your two cents. Clearly you have not studied the financial crisis. And, crisis it was – and is.

  5. It seems that wall street placed the cart before the horse when it came to securitization of loans. Failure to state a claim. For years we have been told that only the person or party who had in fact suffered a injury could be able to come before the court to state a claim. How is that possible when you can not identified who that person or party is? Common sense would tell you that any person or party that made a loan to another would have copies of the paperwork showing where&how his/her money went from their bank account into the account of the people receiving the money. If they are not the original makers of the loan then it should be a very simple process of showing by paperwork how you did in fact become the new owner of that loan. Who did you buy it from and what price did you pay for it?? A copy of a check, a receipt showing dates, amounts and names. All very simple and a daily activities of the business world. It was not the homeowners/consumers who came up with the idea of securitization. They should not have to pay the price for some wall street attorney who didn’t know all he should have known. The courts should not give wall street a free pass for their own mistakes. What would Able Lincoln think of our court system if he could see it today?

  6. You claim you have won cases “CHALLENGING THE EXISTENCE, OWNERSHIP, AND ENFORCEMENT OF THE ALLEGED DEBT.”

    Please provide the courts with case #’s. I’m sure everyone would like to read your pleadings, since you would be the only one, anywhere in the country, that’s won based on those arguments.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: