APPROVED FOR 2.5 CLE CREDITS APPROVED BY THE FLORIDA BAR
HOMEOWNER ATTENDANCE PERMITTED
Live and On-Demand Available
-
What to Look for in Examining an Assignment
-
How to Successfully Litigate the Issues
-
How lawyers can make money in this niche
APON and GTC Honors, Inc. an approved host provider for CLE (for lawyers) credits in Florida and 26 other states that allow reciprocal credits for licensed attorneys announce that they are producing a seminar presented by Neil F Garfield, MBA, JD , trial lawyer for nearly 45 years and investment banker for 50 years.
Only lawyers will be able to ask questions. It will be followed up with a conference call 2 weeks after the presentation. The presentation will be live on 9/29/21 at 3 PM EDT or on-demand.
Included in the curriculum will be business plan tips for lawyers entering what will be an exciting opportunity to win cases and profit.
Examination and Challenge
of Assignments of Mortgage
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 2021
3PM EDT
2.5 CLE CREDITS
Click here to register
for Live Attendance or
On-Demand After Live Presentation is Completed
Curriculum:
- The Coming Challenge to Lawyers: Another Foreclosure Tidal Wave
- The Ethics of Foreclosure Defense and Foreclosure Advice.
- Why Make the Challenge?
- How to Examine the Assignment of Assets Like Mortgage Liens.
- What to Look for in Examining an Assignment:
- Timing
- Complete names
- Verified names
- Direct signatures
- Indirect/derivative signatures
- Robosigning
- Dates
- MERS
- Recital of consideration
- Identified subject (asset) of transfer
- Warranty of title to asset
- Notices from creditor
- Derivative notices from creditor
- Notices from “servicer”
- How to Successfully Litigate the Issues:
- Admissions Against Interests
- Motion to Dismiss
- Discovery and Definitions
- Motion for Summary Judgment
- BUSINESS RECORD EXCEPTION TO HEARSAY RULE
- Motion to Compel Discovery
- Motion for Sanctions
- Motion in Limine
- Objections at Trial and Cross-examination
- How lawyers can make money in this niche
- Q&A for lawyers only
- Follow up conference all 2 weeks later
Virtually all foreclosures today are based on written recorded instruments purporting to transfer title to the mortgage lien from one legal person to another.
The questions for today are different from the questions that were present when the forms, rules and procedures were developed before present claims of securitization of debt.
Neil F Garfield, a Florida attorney and investment banker, presents the results of 16 years of research, analysis, trial appearances, expert witness presentations, and CLE presentations. In this modified course presentation, he focuses on the duties of lawyers who use or oppose assignments of mortgage, and the methods that can be used to perform expert analysis.
- Sponsor: APON
- Host/Provider: GTC Honors, Inc.
- Course Number 2106918N
- Provider # 1030277
- 2.5 Credits for Continuing Legal Education
- Level: Intermediate
- Approval Period: 09/22/2021 – 03/31/2023
- Presenter: Neil F Garfield
- Florida Bar Number 229318
GTC Honors, Inc. the Florida approved course provider, is a Florida Corporation, Publisher of the Livinglies.me blog and thousands of articles, treatises and guides to successfully defend foreclosure cases in the era of self-serving declarations about the securitization of debt.
CLICK HERE TO REGISTER FOR APON SPONSORED WEBINAR: Assignments of Mortgage!
Filed under: foreclosure |
Correct Poppy. But get nowhere when the “real” client is concealed. Thanks.
Yup, Java…without me there is no contract to sell my payment stream.
Article III Standing is a threshold requirement. The case and controversy doctrine relies on the plaintiff – defendant relationship. The elements are present to rely on this doctrine.
I) “First, the plaintiff must have suffered an ‘injury in fact’–an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) ‘actual or imminent, not “conjectural or hypothetical.” ‘ Second, there must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of–the injury has to be ‘fairly . . . trace[able] to the challenged action of the defendant, and not . . . th[e] result [of] the independent action of some third party not before the court.’ Third, it must be ‘likely,’ as opposed to merely ‘speculative,’ that the injury will be ‘redressed by a favorable decision.’ ” Lujan, supra, at 560-561 (footnote and citations omitted). Injury in fact, which means an invasion of a legally protected interest that is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.
II) A causal relationship between the injury and the challenged conduct, which means that the injury can be traced to the challenged action of the defendant and has not resulted from the independent action of some third party not before the court.
III) A likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision, which means the prospect of obtaining relief from the injury as a result of a favorable ruling is not too speculative.
When an individual seeks to avail himself of the federal courts to determine the validity of a legislative action, he must show that he “is immediately in danger of sustaining a direct injury.” Ex parte Levitt, 302 U.S. 633, 634 (1937)
“The party who invokes the [judicial] power must be able to show not only that the statute is invalid but that he has sustained or is immediately in danger of sustaining some direct injury as the result of its enforcement, and not merely that he suffers in some indefinite way in common with people generally.” Id., at 488.
IV) Standing is the legal right to initiate a lawsuit. To do so, a person must be sufficiently affected by the matter at hand, and there must be a case or controversy that can be resolved by legal action
The party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing each of these elements.
The Plaintiff-Defendant relationship has been modified by using the UCC Rules…Promissory note vs. Trust ownership. Non lawyer here…
Won’t fix without government intervention.
Judges are exempt from the Law of the Country.
They only fool-low Rules of Wall Street men and money of course stolen from the People
Judge: You are a 3rd party & cannot Object. Do not bring up AOM argument again !!