This Senate Hearing Video should be seen by anyone who defends foreclosures or any consumer “finance” transaction

see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDw6w0r4yZ8

The only names you see are the ones that the Wall Street banks want you to see. They’re all placeholders, brokers, or conduits. None of them do anything. They don’t lend money, they don’t collect money and they don’t own any debt, note or mortgage. And for those in litigation, they don’t create records at or near the time of any transaction because they did not take part in any transaction — whether it be payments to or from the homeowner.

Those business records exceptions are neither business records nor any exception to the hearsay rule. they should never be allowed into evidence. but they will be if the homeowner fails to object and challenge at the right time in the right ways. Failure to object and challenge in a timely and proper way forces the judge to rule against the homeowner despite the absence of a claimant or a claim. That is not bias — thems the rules.

Any law firm that says it represents a client who has received authority to enforce from one of those ghost companies is leaving out the one allegation that should be required, to wit: that the grant of authority came from someone with the legal power to grant such authority — because it ultimately comes from eh owner of the underlying obligation s set forth in Article 9 §203 UCC adopted verbatim in all U.S. jurisdictions.

The infrastructure we accept as being plausibly real is the basis for plausible deniability and nonaccountability. the current infrastructure depends entirely upon designated creditors rather than real creditors. This is moral hazard as its extreme. It allows for violating the most basic laws, rules, customs, and practices of lending and collection.

The bottom line is that in most instances the transaction with homeowners was a concealed investment by the homeowner into a securities scheme in which the homeowner received neither revenue nor profit. The entire infrastructure was the opposite of what we know as lending and the transaction label as “loan” should be rejected.

The truly ingenious thing that Wall Street did was to conceal from the homeowners that they were investing and guaranteeing their own financial doom. To this day, nearly all such homeowners believe that a loan account was created and that someone had paid value in exchange for legal ownership of the underlying obligation.

People who are or were homeowners want to believe that they were right and that they’re still right in looking at the transaction as a loan because they think they will look stupid if they say otherwise. That is exactly what the Wall Street banks are counting on. And it is exactly what will bring financial ruin to the doorstep of most homeowners eventually. It certainly will prevent them from successfully defending unlawful and fraudulent foreclosures.

DID YOU LIKE THIS ARTICLE?

Nobody paid me to write this. I am self-funded, supported only by donations. My mission is to stop foreclosures and other collection efforts against homeowners and consumers without proof of loss. If you want to support this effort please click on this link and donate as much as you feel you can afford.
Please Donate to Support Neil Garfield’s Efforts to Stop Foreclosure Fraud.

Click

Neil F Garfield, MBA, JD, 74, 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.

3 Responses

  1. Judicial concealment of material evidence from case records in many States is NOT a bias. It is a flagrant crime and Fraud Upon the Court.

    Deprivation of civil rights and access to Courts is not a bias. It is a Treason.

    Total disregard to all laws and the Constitution which demands Plaintiffs to be real and suffer damages is not a bias. Its Anarchy.

    In 2013 lawyer Mark Stopa (disbarred of course) said:

    I’m a big believer in the justice system. In fact, that’s part of why I became a lawyer. I believe in every litigant’s right to obtain a fair hearing and trial before a neutral judge and/or impartial jury. It sounds cliché, but that’s what I do – help people navigate the judicial system in their time of need.

    In recent months, though, the judiciary in many parts of Florida (not all, but many) has turned into something I don’t recognize. The change has been so sudden and so extreme that it’s altering the face of the judiciary and hindering that which I hold so dear – the right to fair hearings and due process. Yes, what I consider the “core” of a fully-functioning judicial system is eroding.

    As a foreclosure defense lawyer, I’ve seen pro se homeowners attend hearings in their cases and not be allowed to speak. Not one word. It wasn’t that the judge didn’t hear the homeowner or didn’t realize he/she was present, either – the homeowner asked the judge to speak at a duly-noticed hearing and was not permitted to do so. Homeowner loses, yet couldn’t say one word. Isolated incident, you say? I’ve personally seen it more than once.

    Not being permitted to speak has not been limited to pro se homeowners. I have personally been threatened with criminal contempt – criminal contempt – for moving to disqualify a judge after striking my defenses without letting me say one word about those defenses. Your defenses are stricken, you can’t talk, and if you complain about it, I’ll throw you in jail.

  2. And want to add — 95% of the “crisis” loans were so-called (false) refinances. (As Bernanke pointed out – “refinances” made up 95% of crisis loans). And, something was funded — but that was only “cash-out.” If you got cash – you got cash. NOTHING else was funded. No payoff of prior loan by YOU – even though supposed to be a “refinance” – whereby YOU pay off the prior loan. Did not happen. Call it – a “partial (non-compliant) “security.” Of course for the other “new” purchasers — with non-friendly debt collector – inherited the prior owners’ records, and/or an internal data base permanent record against YOU.
    How can we get to this committee? Not in my state. Won’t happen. Anyone any influence? Let me know. Would make a point of getting there. Have to educate. Thanks.

  3. Ok — listened to almost entire video on “Payday” lending” and “Lender.”, And, I am stressed and busy to hilt. Did I miss the part about the financial crisis loans? Yes, these were “payday” loans in disguise, but they will not state that.
    The government, those on the very committees, promoted the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) to allow lower and middle income families to share in home ownership. Nothing was said about usury rates (as in payday lending). Instead, the banks were told to fund loans to low/middle income and then sell them to the GSEs. The adjustable rate “loan” was usually fixed for two to three years, by which it then increased as tied to LIBOR. Since, the collapse of the crisis, only more recently has LIBOR decreased. An coincidence? No. And, the loans remain adjustable — and increase to very high rates (but not by definition usury) which can all crash as soon as the Fed Res stops manipulation of interest rates by abnormal low rates (with correlation to LIBOR). Do you wonder why they do not stop interest rate manipulation?
    So what happened with CRA? The banks did not like “funding” loans for low/middle income borrowers, and then have to sell them to GSEs. What was in that for them? Nothing – so they complained to Congress, and then they vanished. They figured out a way to get around it. That is, get the loan out of GSE (to which they serviced) by reporting any manipulated default they could possibly do, and then create – VOILA – their own private label MBS. Which, of course, was all in violation. But they sure darn tried, and sold back their top tranches to the very same GSEs that they had reported the “loan” in default to. And, then – BAM — it all collapsed. There was no balance sheet accounting because the loans were already reported in default. But, these “loans” are not considered payday loans. So – maybe I missed reference to crisis scheme discussed? Are crisis loans considered “PAYDAY” – which now the “lender” rule is being discussed? No. But, one thing for sure — they discuss a “Loan.” And, try to get around that with Congress – no go. It is the character of the “loan” that matters. Not whether there was a loan or not. .

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: