Homeowners: Where is the OUTRAGE?

Homeowners have been brainwashed into thinking that there was never anything wrong with their “loan” transction at the beginning, in the middle or in the end when they lose their house. So the collective homeowner action requried to break the grip of Wall Street never materializes. In this article I reveal what you are missing.

The benefit of refinancing for Wall Street is simple. They sell $2 Billion worth of “certificates” on the data from the origination of the first transaction with the homeowner. Then without disturbing the first securitization structure the offer to refinance which means new data. The new data is then the subject of a new sale for $2 Billion in “certificates”. If the securitization had been on the debt none of what is described below could ever have occurred and the normal attributes of a loan transaction would have been maintained with the balancing of risks and rewards.

[PRACTICE NOTE: the law in all US jurisdictions is contrary to the current practices, forms and procedures used in most foreclosure attempts today. Those laws were derived from centuries of consideration and experimentation. Even cursory research reveals that no enforcement of a lien is permitted without the claimant having paid value for the underlying obligation. The courts are inclined to presume that the added protection contained in Article 9 § 203 of the Uniform Commercial Code has been satisfied. Most homeowners and their lawyers are afraid to ask. But if you do ask, you will find that there is no secondary or corroborative evidence that value was paid for the underlying obligation. The absence of evidence does not prove that no value was paid. But the unwillingness of the foreclosure mill to respond, servers as a basis for evidentiary sanctions that bar the foreclosure mill from introducing evidence of the existence, ownership or a right to administer, collect or enforce the alleged debt, note or mortgage.]

On the original transaction, the investment bank is taking in $2 billion but only paying out, at most, around $1.4 billion they made an immediate “trading profit” of $600 million on the first securities deal — and then another $2 billion on the second securities deal. The second securities deal required no payment to the homeowner because that payment had already been made.

If there is a third, fourth and fifth round of securitization based upon data that is based upon the first deal only, the profits of the investment bank rise to many multiples of the first deal, which is the only deal in which money is paid out to homeowners. And in some cases that is exactly what happened — after paying out $1.4 billion to homeowners, the investment bank ended up with direct profits of more than $10 billion — all without ever becoming the lender in a regulated loan transaction.
Then you have the derivatives sold whose value is based upon the “value” or “performance” of the certificates that were sold. You can easily see why some brokerage houses were ensnared by leveraging since they were, for the first time, leveraging revenue. By borrowing 42 times the net worth of Bear Stearns, management thought they would be making hundreds of billions of dollars. And they would have if the fake trading market for certificates had not come to a grinding halt in 2008. Instead, the selling of new certificates and derivatives topped, and like any Ponzi scheme so did the “Business.”
And who made all of this possible? Gullible investors that included homeowners and pension funds. At least the managers of pension funds and other stable managed funds knew they were investors. Homeowners were kept in the dark.  They never knew that their role was critical and essential to starting any securitization scheme and so they never asked for anything in return. How much revenue did the investors ever see or receive from this scheme? Zero. Investment banks had inverted their role from being a broker to becoming the de facto principal without any of the liability of being a principal.
Explaining this to the normal average homeowner is a virtually impossible task and that is why there is no collective outrage from homeowners except the self-destructive outrage against themselves. They’re left paralyzed by the deceit, the shame, the guilt and the moral belief that anything they do against the “enforcement” of their “debt” is wrong. It also explains why homeowners see no benefit in spending money on lawyers and defenses. they are convinced, despite evidence to the contrary, that they have no defense.

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.



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)
  • 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. Government: Where is the OUTRAGE??? Where is your control????

    Courts: Where is the OUTRAGE? Where is the Constitution?

    Homeowners cannot make any outrage – they do not know how Big Banks defraud and rob them.

    But the Government and Courts do know and cover for Wall Street crimes

  2. WOW — went through – with a lot of editing.

  3. Okay – editing and trying again — what I tried to post to Neil’s last article.
    Taking out a lot – including any names. The massive problem is the financial crisis “loans” and shadow bank system. Most of these PLMBS foreclosure cases claim the “trustee” to the “trust” is the legal holder/owner of the loan and note. A Servicer cannot enforce without the authority from whom they claim to service for. However, if pressured, servicers can never state that they act on any authority from the “trustee” as required by law. See Paloian v. LaSalle Bank (7th Cir. 2010) — stating : “In American law, the trustee is the legal owner of the trust’s assets.” Other cases cite the same but Paloian puts in most bluntly. Thus, “servicers’ are supposed to act at the direction of the trustee to the claimed trust. THERE IS NO OTHER AVENUE. All prospectus and PSA stay this. But the trustee is always missing in action. This is a number one issue to address in courts – representation. Also, the “trustee” is NOT a legal entity. They are a department or division of a bank. You will never see the “bank” represented in actual foreclosure cases – although the “mills” will try to make it appear that they are there by just plugging the trustee name onto the trust name.
    DON”T GET FOOLED AGAIN. Posted The Who song last time – not going to even try that again.

  4. Testing again. Not working.

  5. Okay – still not posting. Will limit words. And, try again.

  6. Testing for post.

Contribute to the discussion!