Note to Readers: The attacks are against me, not on what I am saying.

So here is the central point: Article 9 203 UCC adopted in all states verbatim requires any claimant in foreclosure to have purchased the underlying obligation for value. In any case remotely related to some securitization structure that doesn’t happen. Homeowners tend to win when they test that proposition and lose when they don’t. 

Since I began this effort 16 years ago I have been attacked in a variety of ways all designed to diminish my personal or professional credibility. And now once again I have people encouraging me to respond. Since I have sharpened my writing and rhetoric the attacks are coming at and furious which is good. It means that I again have the same banks worried — i.e. the same 16 banks and 16 law firms that in 2008 took my deposition as an expert witness for 6 straight days, 9am-5PM (and never had it transcribed)

First I am attaching my resume which anyone can read and confirm. You can see that I am a published author, an Approved CLE lecturer for legal education credits and the recipient of multiple awards for outstanding academic excellence. None of my detractors posts any resume but I have not found one licensed attorney who knows anything about trial law or securitization among the people who post negative remarks. I have found many who are directly paid by Chase, Wells Fargo, and Citi to undermine articles that oppose the current practice of securitization insofar as it promotes false claims. RESUME NFG December 2020 version

Second, I have begun the process of barring such individuals from commenting on my blog as though it was their own to spew out false reports about me, the law and the process of foreclosure. The basic message is either “give up!” or “Neil Garfield is not a lawyer!” My message is to fight on and not necessarily with me. I have stated that in more than 2.3 of cases that have been contested and properly litigated to the end, the homeowner either won the case, flat out with a finding of fact from a judge that the claimant had failed to produce evidence of the debt or its ownership

And third is my renewed invitation for ANY licensed attorney with knowledge of foreclosure and securitization to come forward and debate my central points about the prospects for homeowners in foreclosure litigation. They can do so either in writing or in an appearance attended by anyone who wants to see it on Zoom. So far that invitation has been spurned despite my obvious impact on the willingness and success of homeowners to defend their homes. 

The reason nobody with credentials will come forward is that doing so gives my work oxygen. For 16 years they have been trying to shut me up and I won’t go. I might add that lawyers who have attempted to defeat me in court have mostly lost. Note the word “mostly” — nothing is guaranteed when you go to court.

So here is the central point: Article 9 203 UCC adopted in all states verbatim requires any claimant in foreclosure to have purchased the underlying obligation for value. In any case remotely related to some securitization structure that doesn’t happen. Homeowners tend to win when they test that proposition and lose when they don’t.

5 Responses

  1. PS. We received basically the same respond in about three months apart – GSEs have NO IDEA about “loans” they guarantee or “own” or that ever. If you have FHA “loans” – ask HUD who is the owner of your alleged obligation – and they will fold.

    ALL GSEs use Black Knight MSP to receive information which Big Banks want them to see.

    And don’t forget – between Sept 2019 to present time GSEs massively dumped their so-called “MBS” on Federal Reserve – where ALL this data was located from the beginning with Central Depository (Cede and Co. )

    Nobody sold any “loans” Wall Street Banks sell DATA about information which is always located in the same place – DTC/Cede.

    Read Ginnie Mae’s March 2021 Pulp Fiction for investors (aka Offering [of fraud] Circular

  2. I just got an official letter from HUD that they have NO RECORDS of my 2016 alleged “Ginnie Mae Loan”. NOTHING, from “origination. Even though all documents from faux “Lender” Perl Mortgage look very natural. Except they are fake.

    Deed Recorders do not tell me who send them Assignments for recording. Insurance company does not tell me who is “third party payment services provider” who purportedly used my escrow money and why my official “Servicer” PennyMac has nothing to do with ANY servicing functions

    Two other person whom I know received similar letters re Freddie “loans” In one Freddie said they are not investors in this transaction since 2006 (the home was “purchased in 2007 and “loan” was “sold” in 2020 by Freddie)

    Second said Freddie does not know who sold them this person’s “loan.

    You figure. This is just three people me and 2 others who received the same respond from GSE who have NO IDEA about “their loans”

  3. The Law Firms won’t come forward and debate you, because that will bring them out of the shadows, where they do their deeds and participate in the fraud on the Courts and the homeowners.

  4. 1.3 million loans that could not be foreclose, sold or refinanced because the WAMU could not transfer the debt and Ginnie Mae owned the Blank Endorsed Notes! Get on it Neil!

  5. So for years I present my take on UCC9 and how Wells Fargo Bank foreclosed on Washington Mutual Bank’s Ginnie Mae pooled loans after the bank stop existing. Neil this is the case as it was not possible to for anyone to purchase these Fed Gov backed loans once they were attached to the Ginnie Mae MBS as all the loan were done so using the mandatory UCC3 procedure to transfer ownership of the Notes to Ginnie Mae!

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: