Tonight! How the Logic of the Courtroom Gives Judgments and Sells Property for Nonexistent Claimants with Nonexistent Claims Represented by Unscrupulous Attorneys 6PM EDT 3PM PDT

Thursdays LIVE! Click into the Neil Garfield Show

Tonight’s Show Hosted by Neil Garfield, Esq.

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

There is a logic to the laws governing litigation and trial procedure, which is often based on fact. But those who really know how to apply those protocols also understand how they can be twisted away from the facts. And that is the problem for the homeowner.
Ignorance of these protocols is no excuse, and those protocols can kill your chances of winning in court. If the initial cut by the surgeon severs an artery supplying blood, nutrients, and oxygen to the brain, there are only a few minutes to correct the problem — if it can be corrected.
An initial error by the trial lawyer can sever the chances of ever winning the case. In foreclosures, the trial lawyer is often the homeowner without a lawyer because few lawyers can be found to take these cases.
So the defense narrative is never fully developed under such circumstances. that means that at the outset, the artery is cut. The litigation plan is never considered must less decided upon, with various alternative plans based upon obstacles that appear during litigation.
And the most common mistake is referring to a servicer simply because that is how it was presented.

2 Responses

  1. Agree with Java here. They won’t take cases because it will destroy their reputation. And, there is no money in defending Suzie and Joe. NONE. That is a legal career that will go nowhere. So they abandon principle – and go for the MONEY. That is why we have a problem. Lawyers do not go to law school to make no money. They want to make money. Suzie and Joe in foreclosure — have no money. Suzie and Joe were defrauded. Answer is – “OH, we are sympathetic, but nothing we can do.” And, there is no “Contract” when the “Contract” did not do what it was supposed to do – as presented to Suzy and Joe who relied upon. What you are looking at — is “Debt Collection” – with a Capital “DC” from Washington. All one got is “reinstatement” with a non-friendly debt collector “service”. That is so obvious. Trace the “contract” to prior “contracts.” Get the accounting. Until that is done — in the dark. So when you say “contract” — that is an agreement between parties, if the prior loan not paid off — and only DC stands — we have a problem – with capital letters “BIG.” THAT IS WHAT OCCURRED. I see no one here tracing prior to last – I will call it – “TRANSACTION” – thus no “CONTRACT” occurred. It was breached by “OTHERS” before one even signed. That, my friend, is a problem. And try to tell a judge this. They have their own interest at the PULP.
    Now, do I blame the people? To a degree – yes. There are few of us to stand up for what is right. I advocated joining together over a decade ago. But everyone that does challenge thinks their case is unique. It is not unique. And the only way we will battle is by joining forces. SPEAK OUT. Too risky to think you will get a judge that cares. Simply put – they don’t.

  2. Finally. Neil admits in his blog. So FEW lawyers will take these fraudclosure defense cases. No matter how strong they are.

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: